GOOD EVENING, COUNCILORS, GOOD EVENING TO THE PUBLIC. THIS IS THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. TODAY IS THE 35th MEETING OF THE 24th CITY COUNCIL. IT WILL COME TO ORDER. THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TODAY. AND ALL OF OUR COUNCILORS ARE PRESENT VIA ZOOM. COUNCILOR BENTON WILL BE RUNNING A LITTLE LATE TODAY. HE WILL JOIN US SHORTLY. TODAY, I WOULD LIKE TO START OUR MEETING WITH A MOMENT OF SILENCE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK COUNCILOR PEÑA IF SHE WOULD LEAD US IN ENGLISH, PLEASE. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. DO WE DO THE MOMENT OF SILENCE FIRST? >>COUN. BORREGO: LET'S TO THE MOMENT OF SILENCE THEN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU. >>ALL: I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR, WOULD YOU ALSO LIKE TO LEAD US IN SPANISH? >>COUN. PEÑA: [RECITING THE PLEDGE IN SPANISH ]. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU SO MUCH COUNCILOR. I JUST WANT TO GO OVER SOME INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC REGARDING OUR MEETING. AS WAS NOTED IN A PRESS RELEASE FROM OUR OFFICE ON FRIDAY, POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AND NOTED ON OUR PUBLISHED COUNCIL AGENDA, THIS MEETING HAS SPECIAL PROCEDURES AND IS BEING HELD VIA ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, CITY STAFF AND MEDIA HAVE THE ABILITY TO VIEW THIS THROUGH FOUR PLATFORMS. GOVTV ON COMCAST CHANNEL 16, THE GOVTV WEBSITE, ZOOM, AND YOU TUBE. THESE LIVE STREAMS CAN BE ACCESSED BY SMART PHONES, TABLETS AND COMPUTERS. THIS MEETING IS CLOSED CAPTIONED AND YOU MAY ENABLE THE CLOSED CAPTIONING SERVICES ON YOUR TELEVISION OR DEVICE AT THIS TIME. FOR THOSE WATCHING ON THE LIVE STREAM, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS AFTERNOON. THE VIDEO RECORDING ON THIS AND ALL PAST COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ON ANY TIME AT THE CITY COUNCIL WEBSITE. COUNCIL STAFF IS AVAILABLE VIA TELEPHONE AT 768-3100, IF YOU NEED ANY ASSISTANCE FINDING THOSE VIDEOS. OR FOR ANY OTHER ASSISTANCE DURING BUSINESS HOURS WHICH ARE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 8 A.M. TO 5 P.M. THE COUNCIL IS ACCEPTING LIVE GENERAL COMMENT TODAY AS WELL AS ANY WRITTEN COMMENT. WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED BY 1 P.M. WERE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL COUNCILORS IN ADVANCE OF TODAY'S MEETING. COUNCILORS, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ITEMS UNDER NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS. UNDER NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ITEM NUMBER TEN TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. BEFORE WE DO THAT, I'M ALSO GOING TO CEASE WITH ITEM FIVE THROUGH THIRTEEN MINUS NUMBER TEN. WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER TEN. FOR THE PUBLIC, I WOULD LIKE TO READ SOME INFORMATION UNDER GENERAL COMMENT. WE HAVE ABOUT 40 PEOPLE THAT ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TODAY. OVER 40 PEOPLE. IF OTHER PEOPLE COME IN, JULIAN WILL ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK. I JUST WANT TO READ SOME INFORMATION REGARDING OUR PUBLIC COMMENT. TO THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE JOINING US REGARDING LIVE PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME. WE ALSO RECEIVED WRITTEN COMMENTS DISTRIBUTED TO ALL COUNCILORS IN ADVANCE OF TODAY'S MEETING. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL IF THEY SIGNED UP FOR LIVE PUBLIC COMMENT PER THE INSTRUCTIONS PUBLISHED ON THE AGENDA AND THE WEBSITE ON FRIDAY. SPEAKERS WILL BE MOVED INTO THE MEETING ROOM AND REMAIN MUTED WITH THEIR CAMERA OFF UNTIL THEY ARE CALLED TO SPEAK. AT WHICH POINT, THEY CAN TURN ON CAMERA, UNMUTE THEMSELVES AND HAVE ONE AND A HALF MINUTES TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COUNSEL. AFTER THAT, THEY WILL AGAIN BE MUTED AND RETURN TO BE AN ATTENDEE COMES OF THE WEBINAR. TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM, 021-60 THE IDO ANNUAL UPDATE CONTAINS QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS, FOR THAT REASON I'LL SWEAR IN ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND STAFF BEFORE THE PUBLIC COMMENT BEGINS. MR. MOYA, PLEASE PERMIT ALL STAFF AND PUBLIC SPEAKERS INTO THE MEETING AT THIS TIME SO I MAY SWEAR THEM IN. GIVE US JUST A MINUTE, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE. WHILE HE DOES THAT, I'M GOING TO READ THE GROUND RULES. HERE ARE THE PUBLIC COMMENT GROUND RULES. EACH PARTICIPANT HAS ONE AND A HALF MINUTES TO PRESENT. COMMENTS ARE TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE COUNCILORS THROUGH THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. ANY DISRUPTIVE CONFLICT WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL FROM THE ZOOM WEBINAR. WERE YOU ABLE TO? THANK YOU. IF I WITH WOULD ASK YOU ALL, INCLUDING THE STAFF THAT ARE GOING TO BE SPEAKING, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. REPEAT AFTER ME. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY? >> [MANY PEOPLE SAYING, "I DO" ]. >>COUN. BORREGO: I THINK WE'VE GOT ALL OF THEM. IF ANYONE JOINS US A LITTLE LATER AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN IN, WE'LL SWEAR THEM IN AS THEY JOIN US LATER. WITH THAT, WOULD YOU CALL THE NAME OF THE FIRST SPEAKER. ALSO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PUBLIC, COULD YOU TAKE YOUR CAMERAS DOWN UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED INTO SPEAK AND ALSO MUTE YOURSELF, IF YOU WOULD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS ERICA DAVIS. YOUR ONE AND A HALF MINUTES WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. AND CALLING FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING. ACCORDING TO THE LAST MEETING I WAS ABLE TO SIT IN ON I REALLY, REALLY JUST WANT TO STRESS THE FACT WE NEED TO WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE BLACK AND BROWN BODIES ON YOUR COUNCIL, ON YOUR PANELS, AND ARE ACTIVE STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS MOVE TO GET CANNABIS WHERE WE NEED IT TO BE. OUR COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN CRIMINALIZED AND OPPRESSED THE MOST BY THIS. AGAIN, JUST OUTSIDE LOOKING IN IN A BLACK BODY ON JUNETEENTH, I FIND IT OFFENSIVE THAT IT'S SO CLOSE THAT INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE CLOSELY FOCUSED ON. UNTIL WE'RE STAKEHOLDERS NOTHING FOR US WITHOUT US. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU'RE BRINGING ACTUAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY INTO THIS SPACE TO BE A PART OF THE LEGALIZATION AND LIBERATION THAT WE ALL DESERVE. THAT'S ALL I GOT. PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME. GO THROUGH THE VOTE. DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, BUT DO IT RIGHT. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS REGINA. TURN YOUR VIDEO ON AND UNMUTE YOURSELF. >> HELLO, I LIVE IN PARKLAND HILLS. I AGREE -- >> HOLD ON ONE SECOND. CAN I HAVE EVERYBODY MUTE THEMSELVES THAT HAS NOT BEEN CALLED TO SPEAK. >> I THINK WE'RE HEARING DR. JOE'S CONVERSATION. THANKS. >> PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I LIVE IN PARKLAND HILLS. I AGREE THERE'S A DESPERATE NEED FOR HELPING THE HOMELESS IN THIS CITY. I'M IN FAVOR OF PUTTING A CAP ON THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WE CAN PLACE THERE AND SUPPORT THE IDEAL AMENDMENT OVERNIGHT RESIDENTS IN SHELTER. THERE'S NO WAY THE CITY CAN EFFECTIVELY PROVIDE SERVICES FOR LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN IN ONE PLACE. SOCIAL WORKERS AND MENTAL HEALTH AND JOB TRAINING. THERE'S A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IT'S LIKE A CLASSROOM SITUATION. I FEEL INSIGNIFICANT WHILE IN A SMALL CLASSROOM I FEEL LIKE A HUMAN BEING. HAVING A LARGE NUMBER OF SHELTER BEDS WILL STOP WAREHOUSING AND I FEEL THE HOMELESS NEED TO BE SERVED BETTER. IF WE HAVE MANY SHELTERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WITH FEWER CLIENTS WE CAN SEND THE SERVICES, SOCIAL WORKERS, AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE TO THEM. THIS ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN SERVICES WITHOUT BEING IN AN OVERWHELMING AND INTIMIDATING SETTING. THIS WILL SATISFY THE NEEDS OF THE HOMELESS AND NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS TOMIAS. PLEASE TURN YOUR VIDEO ON, UNMUTE YOURSELF AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M THE CHAIR OF THE -- COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME BE HERE. I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF COUNCILOR DAVIS'S RESOLUTION TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF GATEWAY SHELTER BEDS TO 30. ALL PROPOSED GATEWAYS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE THAT A GATEWAY AND NOT A LONG-TERM LIVE IN FACILITY. WITH 30 BEDS CENTERS SHOULD INTAKE RESIDENTS, REGISTER PROGRAMS, CONNECT THEM WITH HOUSING SUPPORT THAT THE CITY PROMISES TO PROVIDE. IF 30 CROSS INTO TREATMENT PROGRAMS EVERY THREE WEEKS , EACH GATEWAY CENTER WILL SERVE 520 RESIDENTS PER YEAR. THAT'S ONE THIRD OF ALL HOMELESS ON ALBUQUERQUE STREETS ON ANY GIVEN NIGHT. MANY RESIDENTS SHALL TRANSITION OUT OF THE BEDS IN LESS THAN THREE WEEKS DUE TO THE PARTNERSHIPS WITH ON-SITE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND OTHER SERVICES INCLUDING RESPITE BEDS. THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS A MANAGEABLE SHELTER AND HELPING US SHARE THESE SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, MADAM. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MATTHEW. PLEASE TURN YOUR VIDEO ON AND UNMUTE YOURSELF. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. AT 18 YEARS OLD I WAS ARRESTED FOR FIVE GRAMS OF CANNABIS. THAT EVENT CHANGED MY LIFE. AS A PERSON OF COLOR WHO IS CASUALTY OF THE WAR ON DRUGS. THERE'S AN ONCE IN A GENERATION FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME. THOSE CAN AFFORD WELL-CONNECTED CANNABIS LAWYERS OR CONSULTING FIRMS. SOME OF THE ORDINANCES RED LINE OUT SMALL BUSINESSES PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO DESERVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO BENEFIT FROM A PRODUCT THAT WAS A WEAPON AGAINST THE COMMUNITY. THE NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE CREATED THE CANNABIS MICROBUSINESS LICENSE TO LOWER THEANTRY INTO THE MARKET TO GIVE ALL NEW MEXICANS A CHANCE TO COMPETE. CANNABIS MICROBUSINESSES SHOULD BE REGULATED BREWERIES. AND REVITALIZE NEGLECTED AREAS. YOU CAN CREATE A SIMILAR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR HISTORICALLY DISENFRANCHISED COMMUNITIES IF YOU ZONE THEM LIKE BREWERYS. I'M NOT ASKING FOR A HAND OUT, I'M ASKING FOR A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO CULTIVATE, MANUFACTURE AND SELL A LEGAL PRODUCT THAT DUE TO OLD STIGMAS NEARLY DESTROYED MY FUTURE 20 YEARS AGO. PLEASE DON'T CLOSE MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESSES BEFORE WE GET A CHANCE TO OPEN. THANK YOU FOR THIS TIME TO SPEAK. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RAVEN. PLEASE TURN YOUR VIDEO ON AND UNMUTE YOURSELF. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M HERE TO REQUEST THE PASSING OF COUNCILOR DAVIS'S AMENDMENT TO CAP THE BED COUNTS IN SHELTERS. THE NEW GATEWAY SYSTEM IS UNPROVEN AND YEARS INTO THE PROCESS THE CITY HAS NO PLAN FOR SUCCESS. THIS GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO STOP PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY ARISE. MY RESEARCH SHOWS THE NORTHWEST FACILITY HAS THREE SERVICES WHICH HAVE BEEN NEGLECTED TO THE POINT OF LAWSUIT. THE SOUTHWEST HAS 13 AND NORTHWEST 17. THE SOUTHEAST HAS BEEN RED LINED INTO 28. MOST OF THESE FALL WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE GATEWAY AND ARE IN WORKING CLASS POC NEIGHBORHOODS. HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH FOR ONE SECTION TO TAKE WHILE AFFLUENT NEIGHBORHOODS RECEIVE THEIR FAIR SHARE? THE SHELTERS ARE NOT FULL, THEY'RE UNDERUTILIZED MORE THAN NOT. WISH LISTS, AND REELECTION HOPES ASIDE, IT'S BEST FOR EVERY DISTRICT TO APPROVE COUNCILOR DAVIS'S AMENDMENT UNTIL THE CITY AND THE PARTNERS SHOW THEY'RE ABLE TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS WITHIN THE COMMUNITIES AND WILL CARE FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY THAT DEPEND ON THEM. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SARAH. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, I'M SARAH, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OFT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON THE GREATER ALBUQUERQUE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. AS WE SAID BEFORE WE OPPOSE AMENDMENT B1 BECAUSE IT FAILS TO ADDRESS THE KEY CHALLENGES WE FACE IN THE COMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO HOMELESSNESS. HERE'S WHY. NUMBER ONE OUR COMMUNITY LACKS OVERNIGHT SHELTERING, WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND ESPECIALLY AMONG SINGLE ADULTS. IT'S DIFFICULT TO ACCESS BY THOSE WHO NEED THEM. ANY SUBSEQUENT GATEWAY CENTERS TO JUST 30 OR 60 DAYS WILL PERPETUATE THIS PROBLEM. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LIMIT THIS PROJECT'S ABILITY TO MAKE A LANDMARK DIFFERENCE BEFORE IT LAUNCHES. SECONDLY, WE MUST IMPROVE THE COORDINATION OF SERVICES AND CARE TO TRULY HELP PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS TRANSITION TO HOUSING. IT'S CRITICAL AND THE SERVICES BE LOCATED TO CONNECT PEOPLE TO THE FULL RANGE OF HELP THEY NEED. IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO CREATE THE COORDINATION WITH JUST 30 OR 60 BEDS LET ALONE A DISBURSED SYSTEM ALL OVER THE TOWN. WE OPPOSE AMENDMENT B1 AND URGE YOU TO REJECT IT. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ENRIQUE. PLEASE TURN YOUR VIDEO ON, UNMUTE YOURSELF AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M A RESIDENT OF SOUTH CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE HEALTH EQUITY COUNSEL. I'M COMING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE AMENDMENT CAPPING THE HOUSING SUPPORT FOR FOLKS. AT THE MEETING SATURDAY, THOSE IN OUR GROUP FELT THAT THE SOUTHEAST COULD TAKE ITS SHARE OF THE 1525 PEOPLE THAT SPEND THE NIGHT ON THE STREETS EVERY DAY. THAT'S 382. WE FEEL THAT THESE LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS WOULD MEAN WE'RE LOOKING AT 153 LOCATIONS. IF YOU CAP IT AT 30 IT'S STILL LIMITING US A GREAT DEAL. ARE WE GOING TO SPEND THE FUNDS TO HAVE STAFF HAVE A BUILDING AND SUPPORT SERVICES AT THAT MANY LOCATIONS? I DON'T THINK WE ARE. WE THINK THAT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A PLACE THAT'S BEEN A HOSPITAL AND HAS THE KIND OF RESOURCES AND CAPACITY THAT IT DOES IS IMPORTANT. ONCE AGAIN, I'M AGAINST THE AMENDMENT TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF SPACE FOR SHELTERS. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RACHEL. TURN YOUR VIDEO ON, UNMUTE YOURSELF AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> HELLO, MY NAME IS RACHEL, I'M THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT. ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR THE TIME TO SPEAK. WE ASK THAT YOU APPROVE COUNCILOR DAVIS'S AMENDMENT TO THE IDO. LIMITING BED CAPACITIES DEPENDENT ON THE UNDERLYING ZONING. WE HAVE HAD CONCERNS FROM THE TIME WE FIRST HEARD OF THE DECISION TO LOCATE THE SHELTER SO CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE SOUTHEAST. OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE SHELTER COME FROM REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE IN THE SOUTHEAST. WE HAVE MORE SHELTERS, HALFWAY HOUSES AND INDIJANT SERVICES THAN ANY PART OF THE THE CITY. WE WANT THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE NEED ASSURANCES FROM THE CITY FOR OVER SIGHT, TRANSPARENCY, AND MITIGATION OF IMPACT AT OUR CITY SHELTERS. THIS AMENDMENT WILL HELP US ACHIEVE THIS. I MOVE TO THE NORTHEAST TO THE SOUTHEAST PART OF THE THE CITY A FEW YEARS BACK. THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS MY FAMILY LOVES ABOUT THIS PART OF TOWN. WE NOW ALSO HAVE FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE OF WHAT IT'S LIKE TO LIVE IN A PART OF THE CITY THAT THE REST OF THE CITY FEELS IS A FINE PLACE TO PARK THINGS THAT ARE HARD TO SOLVE, ARE MESSY OR UNDESIRABLE. WE IN THE SOUTHEAST LOVE OUR CITY. WE PAY TAXES, WORK AND VOTE. WE'LL BE HERE WHEN THE SHELTER OPENS AND WE PLAN TO BE YEARS FROM NOW. >> THANK YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, MS. BACA. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LEE. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON, UNMUTE YOURSELF AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANKS FOR LETTING ME SPEAK TODAY. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND THE REAL ESTATE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT COUNCIL HAVE EPC VET THESE AMENDMENTS AND BRING IN MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WORKING. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN WITH THESE AMENDMENTS WHETHER THEY PASS OR NOT THAT HAVE IMPLICATIONS MUCH GREATER THAN WE'RE PREPARED FOR. AND ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR ANYTHING I'VE EVER KNOWN THESE THINGS GET VETTED AT COMMITTEES. THESE LAST MINUTE AMENDMENTS THAT GET PROPOSED TO THE COUNCIL, I KNOW THOSE COUNCILORS ARE WITH WORKING DAY AND NIGHT TO KEEP UP. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS A WHOLE THESE AMENDMENTS BEING VETTED WITH THE COMMUNITY IN COMMITTEES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>COUN. BORREGO: MADAM, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO YOU. BOTH OF THESE -- ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS DID GO TO -- OUR MOST RECENT MEETING WAS ON MAY 12th. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DAN. FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON, UNMUTE YOURSELF, YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, SEVERAL AMENDMENTS ATTEMPT TO BYPASS AND REMOVE COMMUNITY INPUT. THE TWO LARGEST IS D4. BOTH OF THESE CAME THROUGH AN EPC PROCESS WITH AN OPPOSITE RECOMMENDATION THAN CURRENTLY POSED. BOTH CAUSE ME TO QUESTION IF THE COUNCIL IS NOT GOING TO FOLLOW YOUR VERY OWN PROCESSES AND THEIR OUTCOMES WHO ELEPHANT ARE YOU FOLLOWING HOME. THE RECREATIONAL POT STUFF IS UPON US. A SCRAMBLE IS ON TO GET SOMETHING IN PLACE. B14, 15 AND 19 IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO MAKE THINGS WORK SMOOTHLY OR DRASTIC OVERREACHES THAT WILL COME BACK TO BITE ALL OF US. I REMIND YOU OF HUMAN KIND'S HISTORY WITH THE NEWEST TOY. NUCLEAR ENERGY, HELLO NEW MEXICO. COULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED TO PROVIDE SAFE ELECTRICITY FOR THE WHOLE GLOBE. CANNABIS IS A REALITY FOR ALBUQUERQUE. IT WILL HAVE ITS PLUSES AND MINUSES. MY CAUTION, LET'S LIVE WITH IT INTEREST A YEAR BEFORE WE OPEN THE GATES TOO WIDELY WITH THESE TWO AMENDMENTS DO AND IT WILL BE EASIER TO LET OUT MORE TETHER LINE THAN TO BRING IN A BABY INDUSTRY GONE WILD. VIDEOS INCLUDED, I'M SURE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS. I DO NOT ENVY YOU WITH THE TASK AHEAD. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS AARON. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON, UNMUTE YOURSELF AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN YOU START SPEAKING. >> HELLO, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I HAD TWO ISSUES TODAY. I WANTED TO QUICKLY ON THE CANNABIS ISSUE, JUST A CURIOSITY OF HOW WE THINK ABOUT CREATING MORE BENEFITS AND UPLIFTMENTS IN THE PROCESS WHILE LOOKING AT ECONOMIC POLICIES. THIS IS GOING TO BRING HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY INTO THE STATE. HOW CAN WE USE ZONING AND REGULATION TO GUARANTEE BETTER BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURE WILL BE LOCATED. HOW CAN WE GIVE MORE MONEY TO SCHOOLS? IS THAT A PROCESS TO ALLOW WITHIN ZONING REGULATIONS. I HAD ANOTHER COMMENT, SMALL SHELTERS ARE BETTER. IN ALBUQUERQUE WE HAVE A GREAT NEED AT THE MOMENT. LIMITING THE POSSIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM MAY BE PREMATURE IN OUR CASE. IF WE CAN CARRY THE SOLUTION PROBLEM INTO PROVIDING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AFTER THE GATEWAY CENTER AND REDUCE THE HOMELESS POPULATION WE MAY BE AT A POINT TO HAVE SMALLER SHELTERS. LIMITING IN THE FACE OF SUCH GREAT NEED MAY PROVIDE US WITH MORE CONSEQUENCES THAN BENEFITS AT THE MOMENT. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RODRIGO. TURN YOUR VIDEO ON, UNMUTE YOURSELF, YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? >>COUN. BORREGO: YES, WE CAN. >> OKAY. THIS IS CONCERNING THE IDO AMENDMENTS FOR CANNABIS RELATED USES. B9, B10, WE WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE COMPLETELY MOST LOTS, RETAIL CENTERS HAVE RESIDENTIAL AREAS DIRECTLY BEHIND THEM. AND ALSO THERE'S PROBABLY AROUND THE VICINITY OF 500 RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE GREATER ALBUQUERQUE WHICH TAKES UP A LOT OF REAL ESTATE. WE CAN SEE HAVING A SETTLEMENT WHERE IT'S NOT DIRECTLY NEXT TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTES, BUT IT'S TOO EARLY. THIS ADDRESSES B12 AND B13. WE PROPOSE GRANDFATHERING ON EXISTING LEASES PRIOR TO APPLICATION NEED TO BE STATED. WHY? BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THE MEDICAL CANNABIS ALREADY HAS A JUMP ON EVERYONE ELSE. WE DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE FAIR FOR OTHER BUSINESS OWNERS APPLYING FOR RETAIL PERMITS. PLEASE CONSIDER ENACTING THIS AMENDMENT AFTER BOTH AND ALL APPLICATION PROCESSES HAVE OCCURRED. B19, THIS IS MEDICAL CANNABIS FACILITIES. WE FEEL IT'S A LITTLE UNFAIR FOR HEMP AND CBD SHOPS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 2015, WE PROPOSE A CHANGE TO B19 BY ADDING AFTER EXISTING MEDICAL CANNABIS. >> THANK YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID. PLEASE TURN YOUR VIDEO ON UNMUTE YOURSELF AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> WONDERFUL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS FOR TAKING THE TIME AND FORETHOUGHT TO PUT INTO THIS. I JUST WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO DAVIS, JONES, SENA FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THOUGHTFUL AMENDMENTS. I WANT TO SPEAK ON B19. AS FOUNDER OF THE MEDICAL CANNABIS COMPANY, I URGE YOU TO APPROVE THAT AMENDMENT SO THAT THE MEDICAL CANNABIS STATIONS DO NOT SUFFER DISRUPTION OR ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GET CANNABIS AS THEY NEED. I GUIDE YOU THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN REALLY TRYING TO BE VERY CONCISE AND IN SYNCH WITH THE STATE. THEY HAVE NOT FINISHED PUTTING TOGETHER ALL OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS YET. WE'RE STILL WAITING TO HAVE OUR TIME TO GIVE INPUT ON THAT. ANY INCIDENTS WHERE YOU MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT DO NOT COINCIDE WITH THE STATE'S THAT CREATES ALL KINDS OF ROOM FOR PROBLEM. I THINK THESE ARE THE CAUSES OF MANY OF THE STUMBLING BLOCKS IN CALIFORNIA, COLORADO AND MANY OF THE OTHER STATES THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS CONFUSING PROCESS. IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT NEW MEXICO HAS HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAM FOR TEN YEARS. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT NOT HARMED IN ANY WAY. WHEN YOU LOOK AT PROPOSALS FOR RECREATIONAL CANNABIS, YOU MAKE A CLEAR DISTINCTION THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN MEDICAL CANNABIS. MEDICAL CANNABIS PATIENTS ARE SOME OF THE MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS. >> THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: MR. WHITE, BEFORE YOU SIGN OUT, I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO CONTINUE YOUR CONVERSATION BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR OUR STAFF -- BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER ALSO BROUGHT UP MEDICAL, I'D LIKE HER TO COMMENT REALLY QUICKLY. IT MAY SAVE SOME OF THE SPEAKERS FROM SPEAKING ABOUT MEDICAL. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR BORREGO. IN THE FUTURE IS THAT IF A RETAILER WERE TO BE DOING ONLY MEDICAL CANNABIS THAT WOULD JUST BE CONSIDERED GENERAL RETAIL. THAT WOULD NOT FOLLOW UNDER ANY OF THE CANNABIS RESTRICTIONS. THE MOMENT THEY DO ADD RECREATIONAL CANNABIS TO THEIR OFFERING, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROPOSED CANNABIS REGULATIONS. THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT PROPOSING ANY NEW RESTRICTIONS ON THOSE WHO WISH TO SELL ONLY MEDICAL PRODUCT. I'LL ALSO ADD BASED ON SOMETHING THE LAST SPEAKER SPOKE OF, CBD AND HEMP WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THESE CANNABIS REGULATIONS. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. MR. MOYA. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JILL. FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON, UNMUTE YOURSELF AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> I STRONGLY URGE THE COUNCIL NOT TO APPROVE B4 WHICH COMPLETELY STRIKES SECTION 52D ON CLIMATE AND GEOGRAPHIC RESPONSIVENESS. IT SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE. IT STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE OF ENCOURAGING SOME CONSIDERATION OF WHAT AN ARCHITECT SHOULD ASPIRE TO DO IN ORDER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALBUQUERQUE'S TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE. STRIKING THIS AMENDMENT AFTER TEN MONTHS OF WORK TO PAY A CONSULTANT TO REDO THE WORK IS A STEP BACKWARD. ANY CONSULTANT FUNDING THAT COULD BE USED TO CONTINUE REFINING THE IDO WHICH ALREADY HAS CONSENSUS AGREEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY. POINT NUMBER TWO, CONSIDER A BETTER TEMPLATE FOR DELIVERING THE IDO AMENDMENT PROCESS. -- PRESENTING AND REQUESTING AN IDO AMENDMENT EXERCISE FOR THE WEST SIDE COALITION AND EAST SIDE COALITION. WE FOUND THIS EXERCISE EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL AND SOMETHING THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER. IT WOULD BRING MUCH-NEEDED CLARITY TO THE PROCESS. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR THE COUNCIL AND PUBLIC TO GET A ONE-SIDED DESCRIPTION FROM THE STAFF OR SPONSOR BECAUSE SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE COMPLICATED. >> THANK YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRIS. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON AND UNMUTE YOURSELF. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M ON BEHALF OF MEGA FARMS. I MET WITH MANY OF YOU IN PERSON. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND SERVICE. IF YOU DO VOTE TODAY, WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT A 30 TO 90 DAY EXTENSION PERIOD TO ALLOW RETAIL APPLICANTS TO ENTER THE MARKET. THERE IS NO WAY FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW WHETHER A LOCATION IS OR NOT VIABLE PRIOR TO LICENSESURE. THIS WOULD REQUIRE ALL WOULD BE APPLICATIONS AND LEASE OF PROPERTY WHAT THE ABILITY TO KNOW IF THE LOCATION IS ELIGIBLE FOR LICENSING. THIS WOULD IMPOSE HARDSHIP AND WILL RESULT IN COMPLICATIONS THAT I HAVE DISCUSSED WITH SOME OF YOU. THIS INITIAL EXEMPTION COULD SOLVE THE ISSUE BY GIVING FUTURE APPLICANTS BETTER VISIBILITY INTO A LOCATION WHICH CANNOT BE KNOWN BY ANYONE PRIOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AT ANY TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, SIR. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ELIZABETH. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> MY NAME IS ELIZABETH JOHNSON, I'M THE CURRENT OWNER OF DON'S PAPER BACK BOOK EXCHANGE IN THE SOUTHEAST HEIGHTS. I'M GOING TO LET THE COUNCILORS KNOW THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF THE GATEWAY CENTER FOR THE HOMELESS SERVICES OPENING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEW BUSINESS IT'S GOING TO BRING TO US. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THE CENTER DOES NOT BEGIN ACCEPT PATIENTS, RESIDENTS, UNTIL WE CAN SECURE POST-TREATMENT HOUSING FOR THOSE RESIDENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO MAKE SURE IT'S KNOWN THAT I DO SUPPORT COUNCILOR DAVIS'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CAP THE LIMIT OF THE RESIDENTS UNTIL WE DO GET THE HOUSING SITUATION SQUARED AWAY FOR THEM. OTHERWISE, WE WILL BE REPEATING THE SAME CYCLE OF TREATMENT, RELEASE ARREST. HOUSING IS THE KEY. WHERE WELCOME THE FACILITY WITH THE HOPES WE WILL BE HELPING THE HOMELESS TRANSITION TO BETTER CIRCUMSTANCES. I BELIEVE THE 7-11 LOCATED ON SAN MATEO AND CATHERINE WILL BE A NIGHTMARE. THE ATTITUDE FOR THE COMPANY IS LESS SECURITY AND MORE LIQUOR SALES. IT'S ONE PLACE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE WE HAVE DOZENS OF SERVICE CALLS FOR ARMED ROBBERIES, DRUG DEALS GONE WRONG, AND MURDERS WITHIN A STONES THROW OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. ANY GIVEN DAY YOU CAN WITNESS PROSTUTION AND DRUG DEALS. ALL BECAUSE THEY SELL ALCOHOL TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY INTOXICATED AND REFUSE TO PUT SECURITY IN PLACE. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, MADAM. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CATY. >> HELLO COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT GO MORE IN-DEPTH. FIRST OF ALL I ECHO EVERYTHING MATTHEW SAID. I THINK A BIG ISSUE THAT LOCAL RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE ABLE TO GET LICENSES. I KNOW THE STATE IS THE ONE THAT REALLY GIVES OUT THE LICENSES, BUT ANYTHING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CAN DO TO HELP ENSURE THAT THERE ARE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE LICENSES WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO MAKE SURE THIS NEW INDUSTRY BENEFITS NEW MEXICANS AND NOT THE LARGER OUT OF STATE PLAYERS. ON THE TOPIC OF THEM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PASS ZONING NOW. A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO LEASE OR PURCHASE LAND FOR RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS WITHOUT WORRY. SMALLER BUSINESSES SUCH AS MYSELF CANNOT DO SO UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT AREAS WE CAN ACTUALLY LOOK INTO. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BEAR THAT IN MIND THERE ARE PEOPLE FROM OUT OF STATE, THERE ARE MILLIONAIRES ALREADY BUYING AND LEASING AREAS FOR THIS AND TAKING A GAMBLE WHERE SMALLER BUSINESSES CANNOT AFFORD TO MAKE THAT GAMBLE. I THINK CANNABIS SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON MAIN STREETS. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE NO DISTANCE BETWEEN RETAIL STORES. I ASK THE COUNCIL TO REMEMBER THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETAIL AREAS AND CONSUMPTION AREAS -- >> THANK YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JAMES. -- JANE. TURN YOUR VIDEO ON, UNMUTE YOURSELF AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM PRESIDENT. FIRST I WISH TO SUPPORT COUNCIL AMENDMENT B23 THE NORTHWEST MESA VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY. THE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS NOTED IN THIS MOST RECENT PUBLICATION OUTLINE THREE POLICIES. THE 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH ARE ADVANCED BY THIS AMENDMENT. I WOULD NOTE THAT THOSE ECHO ALL OF MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS THAT I MADE IN MULTIPLE MEETINGS REGARDING THIS. I ALSO OPPOSE B24. THE LIST OF AFFECTED AREAS BY THIS AMENDMENT OF THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT FOR THE OVERLAY IS SOMEWHAT INACCURATE AND SUGGESTS THAT A MUCH LARGER AREA IS AFFECTED. VOLCANO HEIGHT IS NOT COVERED IN THE BPO. THAT WAS STATED MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE DOCUMENT. THE AREA AT MONTANO AND UNSER IS ZONED. IN LOOKING AT THE INTERACTIVE MAP FOR THE IDO, IT'S OUTSIDE OF EVEN THE ADDED SUBAREA HEIGHTS LIMIT. THE AREA OF GOLF COURSE BETWEEN PASOE IS ALREADY VIRTUALLY ENTIRELY BUILT OUT. THERE IS ONE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BREE. FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON, UNMUTE YOURSELF, AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> HI, EVERYONE. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. I'M HERE AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEW MEXICO COALITION TO END HOMELESSNESS. FOR SUCCESSFUL RESPONSE TO HOMELESSNESS WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE FURTHER COMPLICATIONS AND BARRIERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BARRIERS. THAT DOES NOT TAKE TRAUMA-INFORMED DESIGNED THAT WILL ADDRESS THE SYSTEMIC ISSUES THAT PERPETUATE HOMELESSNESS. IT IS A GENERAL BEST PRACTICE TO DEVELOP SMALLER SHELTERS, YES. BUT TO HAVE THIS REGULATED THROUGH AUDITIONAL ZONING RESTRICTIONS ADDS BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT. THE TIERED SHELTER CAPACITY LIMITATIONS INDICATE THAT LARGER CAPACITY SHELTERS WILL BE LIMITED TO WAREHOUSE DISTRICTS. FURTHER AWAY FROM TRANSPORTATION, GROCERY STORES AND BASIC SERVICES. THIS DIINFRANCH DAGS ON A FINAL NOTE, MANY OF THE COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT REFERENCE THE GATEWAY CENTER I'M ALSO CURIOUS AND WOULD LIKE TO ASK HOW WOULD THIS ZONING AMENDMENT AFFECT ESTABLISHED SHELTERS? WOULD THEY BE GRANDFATHERED IN? OR WOULD THIS AFFECT THEIR OPERATION AS WELL? THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: CAN YOU RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION? >> ABSOLUTELY. I'D BE HAPPY TO. ANY EXISTING FACILITIES THAT ARE OPERATING IN GOOD STANDING THAT ARE LEGAL PER THEIR ZONING REQUIREMENTS TODAY, IF THE CITY WERE TO CHANGE THE RULES PER HOW THAT AMENDMENT CALLS FOR THEM TO BE CHANGED, THEY WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN. AS LONG AS THEY WERE IN GOOD STANDING AT THE TIME THEIR USE BEGAN, JUST BECAUSE THE CITY CHANGES THE RULES THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO BE LEGAL AND IN GOOD STANDING. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, SHANNA. CONTINUE, MR. MOYA. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MICHAEL. FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON AND UNMUTE YOURSELF. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY FIRST COMMENT WILL BE TO SPEAK ON AMENDMENT B23 AND B24. I WOULD URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON B23 AND FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR B24 TO RESCIND THE AMENDMENT ON THE NORTHWEST MESA. AS WAS STATED, IT'S A VERY SMALL AREA. THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THIS AMENDMENT. IT TARGETS A SELECT GROUP OF PROPERTIES, ONE OF WHICH RECEIVED A ZONE CHANGE RECENTLY TO A MORE INTENSE ZONE DISTRICT. UNDOING THAT WITH THIS SEEMS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. AND THE ANALYSIS SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT IGNORES THE FACT THAT MANY OF THESE LOTS ARE AREAS OF CHANGE. AND IN MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDORS WHERE WE SHOULD SUPPORT MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT. MY SECOND COMMENT IS ON THE CANNABIS REGULATIONS, I WOULD SAY THAT AS PLANNERS I WORK AT CONSENSUS PLANNING, WE OVERREGULATE THINGS. I THINK WE SHOULD NOT IMPOSE ADDITIONAL BUSINESS SEPARATIONS OR PROHIBIT THESE BUSINESSES FROM OPERATING IN THE CORRIDORS. IF YOU ADOPT SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS, I WOULD URGE THE SUPPORT OF COUNCILOR DAVIS'S AMENDMENTS RATHER THAN THE ADMINISTRATION. YOU SHOULD SUPPORT AMENDMENT B20 AND B21 THAT CREATE EXEMPTIONS FOR THE CANNABIS MICROBUSINESS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KEVIN. FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON SKWUN MUTE YOURSELF. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. ARE YOU THERE? >> YES, GOOD AFTERNOON. I WAS TRYING TO TURN ON MY VIDEO, IT'S NOT WORKING. YOU'LL JUST LOOK AT MY PROFILE. THERE IT IS. START MY VIDEO. I LIVE IN -- I SERVED ON THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN TASK FORCE. I'M ACTUALLY WITH THE SIERRA CLUB, CLIMATE COALITION AND THE CHAIR COMMITTEE OF THE STAFF. THE PRESENCE OF A CLIMATE RESPONSIVENESS AGENDA ITEM AS FAR OF THE IDO AMENDMENTS PROVIDED A COMMENT FOR THE NEED OF CLIMATE RESPONSIVENESS. A CLIMATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE. I SPENT TIME LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SEE WHAT'S IN THERE AND WHAT KIND OF A RESPONSE THE CITY HAS PUT TOGETHER IN RESPONSE TO THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S HAPPENED YET. IT WAS ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPTED A CLIMATE EMERGENCY DECLARATION. IT WAS AUGUST OF 2019. WE NOW NEED THAT CLIMATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE. I ENCOURAGE YOU AGAIN, ONE SITE YOU MIGHT LOOK AT IS CALLED CASE. COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY ACTION IN THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY. THAT IS CACE. WE NEED A CLIMATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE IN THIS COMMUNITY. I URGE YOU TO ACT QUICKLY AND DECISIVELY. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, SIR. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MELINDA. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. I LIVE IN PARKLAND HILLS AND CHAIR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S HOMELESSNESS SOLUTIONS COMMITTEE. I'M HERE TO ASK YOU COUNCILOR DAVIS'S PROPOSED IDO AMENDMENT. DEPENDENT ON THE UNDERLYING ZONING. THERE'S NO LANGUAGE IN THE IDO REGARDING BED CAPACITY I FEEL IN THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. IT OUTLINES COMMON SENSE PARAMETERS WHILE ALLOWING BED INCREASE IF TWO COMPONENTS ARE MET. A GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM IS PUT IN PLACE ENSURING A CHECKS AND BALANCES AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ON-SITE INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD OF POSITIVE IMPACTS OF THE POPULATION BEING SERVED. THIS AMENDMENT ENSURES RESPONSIBLE FOR GROWTH THE CITY. IT CREATES A SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE AND PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THESE WILL BE HOUSED. IF THERE ARE REMAINING CONCERNS REGARDING THE EXACT NUMBER OF BEDS THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR CAPACITY LIMITS, I URGE YOU TO DISCUSS AND DETERMINE A REASONABLE, SAFE NUMBER OF BEDS THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS CAN SUSTAIN BECAUSE MORE PARAMETERS AND GUIDELINES NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED INTO THE IDO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CATHY. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON. >> I'M TRYING TO TURN MY VIDEO ON. HERE WE GO. I'LL START TALKING AND I'LL TURN MY VIDEO ON. THERE WE GO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT THAT WE ALL SHARE SOMETHING IN COMMON. WE'RE VOLUNTEERS. WE'RE HERE TO DO THE BEST WE CAN AND ANALYZE EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE OUTCOME, GOOD OR BAD, THAT CAN OCCUR AS A RESULT OF YOUR APPROVING THE AMENDMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO VERY QUICKLY ASK THAT YOU VOTE AGAINST B1. I DO BELIEVE THAT BED LIMITS IS GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF COMMUNITY AGENCIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMELESS IN SHELTERS. I THINK WE NEED TO ASK COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO RELY ON THE EXPERTS TO DO THIS. MY OTHER TWO AREAS OF REAL INTEREST ARE B23. I BELIEVE THAT ALBUQUERQUE, AS VERY CLEARLY STATED IN THE PERSPECTIVE PLAN, HAS A UNIQUE GIFT. WE HAVE A UNIQUE LOCATION AND A UNIQUE GEOGRAPHICAL HERITAGE. THESE DESERVE OUR RESPECT AND PROTECTION. IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS, YOU'RE VOTING TO PROTECT WHAT WE HAVE NOT PROFIT FROM IT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST THOSE TWO THINGS. THE OTHER THING THAT I BELIEVE YOU REALLY NEED TO APPROVE TODAY IS A6. A6 VERY CLEARLY EXPANDS AND BEGINS TO DEVELOP THE GOALS, MISSION STATEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE HAVE NOT IMPLEMENTED ANY ZONING THAT FURTHERS THE MISSION STATEMENT OFFENSE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS -- >> THANK YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS HEATHER. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF, AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN YOU START SPEAKING. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO US. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF -- FOUNDATION. I'M SPEAKING TO NOTE MY CONCERN AROUND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RESTRICT SHELTER BEDS. WE CERTAINLY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCEPT OF SMALLER SHELTERS THAT OFFER MORE STREAMLINED SPECIALIZED SERVICES, I FEAR THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT GO IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. EVEN WITH THE UPDATED PROPOSAL I WORRY ABOUT ANY RULES THAT PROPOSES RESTRICTIONS. PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE ONSLAUGHT OF EVICTIONS WE AHEAD. DATA SUGGESTS WE HAVE 10 TO 40 MILLION AMERICANS FACING EVICTIONS. OUR SHELTERS ARE FULL, AND WE HAVE EVERY EXPECTATIONS FOR REMAINING FULL FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. THE NEED FOR SHELTERS, SERVICES AND HOPE IN OUR COMMUNITY IS HIGH. THIS IS A TIME WHEN WE NEED TO BE LEANING INTO THE STRUGGLES AHEAD INSTEAD OF PLACING RESTRICTIONS FOR THOSE IN NEED. IT'S ANOTHER BARRIER FOR THOSE IN NEED IS NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF THIS COMMUNITY. I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS OF WHAT MESSAGE WE'RE SENDING BY RELEGATING THEM TO DISTANT AREAS WHERE IT'S HARDER TO RECEIVE SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH OR THES. I SUGGEST THAT FURTHER SEGREGATING OUR HOMELESS NEIGHBORS AND PULLING THEM FURTHER AWAY FROM SERVICES -- >> THANK YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARY. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN YOU START SPEAKING. >> THERE I AM. I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY JUST SAY I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HEATHER JUST SAID. IF ANY OF YOU HAVE EVER DRIVEN DOWN CENTRAL AVENUE IN THE WINTER YOU WILL BE HORRIFIED. I STARTED CRYING AFTER I SAW BARE FOOTED SITTING IN THE SNOW WITH NO BLANKET. I'M AGAINST BILL B1. FURTHER, I'M AGAINST A10, DEALING WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGHS. I ALMOST GOT KILLED THE OTHER DAY TURNING LEFT ON PASEO AND GOLF COURSE. THE TRUCK IN FRONT OF ME HAD TO STOP SUDDENLY BECAUSE THERE WERE CARS BLOCKING THE RIGHT LANE COMING OUT OF STARBUCKS. I'M REALLY UPSET ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I WENT AND COUNTED HOW MANY CARS COULD LINE UP AROUND THE STARBUCKS, LIKE AROUND 5 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING. WE TESTIFIED ABOUT HOW DANGEROUS WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HAVING THE DRIVE-THROUGHS NEAR THE CORNERS OF INTERSECTIONS. IT'S TERRIBLE. I'M LUCKY I WAS ABLE TO STOP AFTER THE TRUCK DID AN EMERGENCY STOP. IT WAS VERY FRIGHTENING. I WISH YOU WOULD LISTEN TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE TRYING TO EXPRESS TO YOU. IT'S REALLY FRUSTRATING. THE OTHER THING I'M FOR IS I SUPPORT B23. WE DO WANT SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT ON TOP OF THE MESA. MY FAVORITE VIEW COMING HOME -- >> YOUR TIME IS UP. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RYAN. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF, AND I SEE YOU COMING ON. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> I'M A RESIDENT OF PARKLAND HILLS. I THANK THE CITIZENS OF THEIMATE AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR TIME. LEADING UP TO THE TODAY I ATTENDED THE MEETING FOR THE GIBSON HUB CENTER. I TAKE ISSUE WITH THE APPROVAL PROCESS. I -- ALBUQUERQUE FACED AND CONTINUES TO FACE DARKEST PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS IN THE HISTORY, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE PURCHASE OF THE GIBSON MEDICAL CENTER WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSALTING CITIZENS. THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR APPROVED THE FACILITY LEAVING RESIDENTS LIKE MYSELF QUITE IN THE DARK. I FIND THIS TO BE AN AFRONT ON DEMOCRACY. DURING THE MEETING THIS WEEKEND WHEN I PRESSED ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY SOUGHT EXAMPLES IN OTHER CITIES AND STATES AS TO WEATHER THEIR IDEAS MIGHT BE EFFECTIVE IN ADDRESSING OUR CITY'S ISSUES SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS STATED THEY ARE NOT. QUITE DISAPPOINTING TO ME AND OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE SESSION. IT WOULD SEEM LIKE AN OBVIOUS MEASURE TO GAUGE WHETHER THIS WOULD LESSON THE BURDEN OF THE HOMELESS AND COMMUNITY. I URGE THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT IDO AMENDMENT TO SHOW US PROOF OF CONCEPT THAT THIS WILL LESSON THE HOMELESSNESS ISSUE IN THE COMMUNITY. LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO THANK LOCAL MEDIA FOR THE COVERAGE OF THIS ISSUE. WITHOUT THEM MANY RESIDENTS WOULD BE UNAWARE OF THE COUNCIL DECISIONS ON THIS TOPIC. >> THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS BEN. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF, FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> I'M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NEW MEXICO CANNABIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OFFERING COMMENTS ON THE IDO COMMENTS RELATING TO CANNABIS. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS TO RESPOND ON HOW TO ROLL OUT CANNABIS IN ALBUQUERQUE. AT THE STATE LEVEL THERE WERE SEVERAL YEARS OF DIALOGUE TO GET THE BILL TO LEGALIZE CANNABIS THE MAIN SPONSOR REFERRED TO THE BILL AS A LIVING DOCUMENT. TODAY, CITY LEADERSHIP IS WALKING A FINE LINE MOVING QUICKLY WHILE NOT MOVING TOO QUICKLY. OF COURSE THE ENTIRE STATE IS WATCHING AS THE SILTY MAPS OUT WHAT IS REASONABLE AND NO LOCAL RULES REGARDING CANNABIS. I SAY REASONABLE BECAUSE IT'S THE WORD IN STATUTE IN HOW MUNICIPALITIES CAN WORK AROUND CANNABIS. I ASK YOU TO KEEP REASONABLE IN MIND. ESPECIALLY HOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO CREATE NEW OBSTACLES FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT WANT TO GET INTO THE INDUSTRY. PLEASE CONSIDER WHAT'S REASONABLE IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATING TO FOR PROHIBITIONS ON SIGNAGE, HOURS OF OPERATIONS, AND PROHIBITIONS ON MAIN STREET CORRIDORS AND DISTANCE FROM RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. THE LAST OF WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED IN THE STATE STATUTE. THIS HAS TO BE BY AND FOR NEW MEXICANS. >> THANK YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP. MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WERE SWORN IN AT THE VERY BEGINNING. ALL THE FOLKS AT THE MEETING ROOM NOW NEED TO BE SWORN IN. SWEAR THEM IN AND WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT LIST. >>COUN. BORREGO: MR. MOYA, HOW MANY PEOPLE DO WE HAVE? >> WE HAVE NINE PEOPLE LEFT THAT HAVE SIGNED INTO THE MEETING SO FAR. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THESE NINE INDIVIDUALS TO ENTER OUR VIDEO CONFERENCE ROOM. AND I AM GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN. IF YOU WOULD -- ONCE YOU'RE ALL ON THE SCREEN. PLEASE BEAR WITH US, COUNCILORS AND THE PUBLIC. IT APPEARS WE HAVE EVERYONE IN THERE. I ASK EVERYONE IF YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND WITH ME. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY? >> [MANY PEOPLE SAYING YES ]. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO COMMENCE WITH THESE NINE INDIVIDUALS. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE AT THIS POINT? IF NOT, THESE INDIVIDUALS WILL BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK FOR ONE AND A HALF MINUTES. ONE AND A HALF MINUTES, THEY WILL BE ADDRESSED ONLY THROUGH ME, THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. ANY DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL OF THE ZOOM WEBINAR. MR. MOYA, PLEASE CALL THE FIRST SPEAKER. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. FIRST WILL BE MONET. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF, FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON. IF I CAN GET EVERYONE ELSE TO MUTE THEMSELVES AND TURN THEIR VIDEO OFF UNTIL THEIR NAMES ARE CALLED. PLEASE PROCEED AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >>COUN. BORREGO: ARE YOU THERE? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I DON'T SEE HER IN THERE. >>COUN. BORREGO: IF SHE GETS BACK ON, WE'LL CALL HER. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CAMILA. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO BACK ON AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I'D LIKE TO JUST GIVE SOME NUANCED PUBLIC COMMENT WITH REGARD TO IDO B4. THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED AMENDMENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A FAIRLY COMPLEX ISSUE WITH GOOD PEOPLE HAVING PRETTY DIFFERENT VIEWS. I THINK MY MAIN COMMENT, WHICH I'LL MAKE ON BEHALF OF THE RIO GRANDE CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB THAT OUR TOP PRIORITY IS TO SEE THE CITY APPROACHING DEVELOPMENT WITH AN EYE ON CURBING THE CLIMATE CRISIS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE IDO MAY NOT BE THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT REFERENCE POINT FOR CLIMATE. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE CURRENTLY IS NO DESIGN MANUAL. IF YOU'RE LIKE ME, YOU KNOW IT'S EXTREMELY HOT. YOU KNOW THAT'S DRIVEN BY CLIMATE CHANGE AND THAT WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING URGENTLY. I ENCOURAGE THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNCIL TO GET TOGETHER AND TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHERE AND HOW TO BEST DRIVE OUR -- >> THANK YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP. >>COUN. BENTON: I'D LIKE TO HAD YOU HER TO FINISH. SHE'S MAKING AN IMPORTANT POINT. I'D LIKE TO ALLOW HER TO COMPLETE THAT LAST SENTENCE. >>COUN. BORREGO: YOU CAN FINISH REALLY QUICK. I BELIEVE SHE'S OFF, COUNCILOR BENTON. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS PATRICIA. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> HELLO, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM PRESIDENT, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOU. I'M AN ATTORNEY, AND MY SPECIALTY, MY FOCUS IS NEW MEXICO MEDICAL CANNABIS. I REPRESENTED ONE OF THE VERY FIRST PRODUCERS LICENSED IN 2009. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS. THEY ACTUALLY NAMED THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS. I CAN'T DO THAT. I'M TALKING GENERALLY. I WANT YOU TO KNOW I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS INDUSTRY FROM THE GET-GO. I'M VERY PROUD OF NEW MEXICO. WE WERE THE FIRST STATE IN THE NATION TO REGULATE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL CANNABIS PLEASE DON'T RUIN THIS WITH PROHIBITION ERA LIKE OF ZONING RULES. PLEASE REMEMBER, CANNABIS IS MUCH LESS HARMFUL THAN ALCOHOL. IT'S LESS DAMAGING. NO ONE CAN DIE FROM CANNABIS. IT SHOULD NO LONGER BE STIGMATIZED AND SHUNNED. WE NEED CANNABIS ZONING REGULATIONS TO BE COMPARABLE TO OTHER SIMILAR BUSINESSES LIKE BREWERIES AND COFFEE SHOPS, BOTH OF WHICH SELL PRODUCTS EXCLUSIVELY FOR ADULTS. MEDICAL CANNABIS HAS BEEN LEGAL IN NEW MEXICO SINCE 2007. 14 YEARS, WE HAVE WELL OVER 100,000 PATIENTS. IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, FAR NORTHEAST HEIGHTS THERE'S FOUR DISPENSARIES WITHIN A MILE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP. >> DON'T FIX IT WHEN IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE FIXED. >> OUR SPEAKER IS MICHAEL. I SEE YOU STILL IN ATTENDEES. YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF AND SPEAK IF YOU ARE ABLE. >> YES, I HAD ANTICIPATED AS AN ATTENDEE. THIS IS LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER MICHAEL SANCHEZ HERE IN THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREA ASKING FOR AMENDMENT B12 AND 13 TO BE TABLED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. THE 600 -- DO NOT ALLOW THE MICROBUSINESS OWNER TO ESTABLISH THEMSELVES. THAT'S IT. >> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVE. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE YOURSELF. YOU'RE STILL MUTED. >> PARDON ME, SIR. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, WITH I WOULD LIKE TO THANK COUNCIL FOR THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE CANNABIS REGULATIONS AS YOU ADOPT THEM INTO ALBUQUERQUE. THE COUNCIL WORKS RECEIVED DISTANCE PROJECTIONS BETWEEN STORES. I PROPOSE THAT MEDICAL STORES BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS OF NEW ADULT USE STORES. I COMMEND ALL THE SERVICE IN EXISTING MEDICAL STORES PROVIDED TO NEW MEXICO PATIENTS AND APPRECIATE THE COMMUNITY THEY HAVE BUILT. HOWEVER, INCLUDING MEDICAL STORES IN ADULT USE DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS WILL LIMIT LICENSABLE LOCATIONS AND CREATE BARRIERS AND UNINTENTIONALLY LIMIT INVESTMENT AND JOB CREATION. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, AND COUNCILORS FOR YOUR TIME ON THIS ISSUE. >> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS EDWARD. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR VIDEO ON. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> DID YOU CALL ME? >> YES, MA'AM. PLEASE PROCEED. >> PLEASE VOTE AGAINST B22, INCREASED CAMPGROUNDS, PLEASE VOTE AGAINST A10, AGAINST A14 POST APPLICATION FACILITATED. PLEASE VOTE AGAINST B24. PLEASE VOTE FOR A8, LIQUOR AND RETAIL PROTECTIONS. VOTE FOR B23 AND NORTHWEST ESCARPMENT ORDINANCE. CANNABIS IS NOT A BENIGN SUBSTANCE AND SHOULD BE REGULATED ALONG THE SAME WAY AS ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO. THE SOME THOUGHTS, PNM, THAT SEEMS BACKWARD FOR THE CITY TO CONFORM TO A PRIVATE ENTITY PLAN. PERHAPS REPLACE PNM EVERYWHERE IN THE IDO WITH SOMETHING LIKE THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY PROVIDER. B1, THE OVERNIGHT SHELTER, I THINK THE CAP ON BEDS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS TOO HIGH. ESPECIALLY IF CAN BE DOUBLED BY AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION. SOMEWHAT A SUPPORTIVE SERVICE AND HOW MANY MUST BE PROVIDED TO DOUBLE THE CAP? GEOGRAPHIC RESPONSE ISSUE, THERE'S STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY GOAL IN THE IDO AS AN INTRODUCTION SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE PROTECTION OVERLAY AREA. THERE IS THAT PRECEDENT IN THE IDO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS STEVEN. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS. I'M SPEAKING WITH REGARD TO THE SMALL AMENDMENT FOR THE NORTHWEST MESA ESCARPMENT. I'M A MEMBER OF THE LLC THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY IN THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF PASEO. THAT TRACT OF LAND IS A HALF MILE WEST OF THE NATIONAL MONUMENT. WE REALLY DON'T OPPOSE HAVING CONDITIONS PUT ON THE ESCARPMENT TO PROTECT, PARTICULARLY WITH THE DRAINAGE, WE CAN SEE ADVANTAGE WITH THE DRAINAGE AND ALSO VIEWS FROM DOWN BELOW AND EVEN FROM UP ABOVE. WHAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY IT'S FALLEN IN IMPACT AREA LINE THAT FOLLOWS PASEO FOR 2,000 FEET FROM THE ESCARPMENT. AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT INCORPORATES THE PROPERTY WE HAVE. IT MAKES MORE SENSE IF YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE DRAINAGE AND VIEWS ON THE ESCARPMENT TO FOLLOW THE ESCARPMENT. IT SEVERS THE IMPACT LINE THAT LOOKS LIKE READING THE 1989 NORTHWEST PLAN IT WAS AN ARBITRARY LINE THEY SET. PASOE WASN'T BUILT 20 YEARS LATER. I ASK THE STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT WHERE THEY'RE EXTENDING THOSE EXTENSIONS THAT GO UP. >> THANK YOU, SIR. YOUR TIME IS UP. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LAWRENCE. YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. CAN YOU CHECK YOUR SIDE THERE? IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR SOUND IS NOT COMING THROUGH. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE UNMUTED. >> CAN YOU HEAR HE? >> YES, NOW WE CAN. >> I HAVE A FAULTY MICROPHONE. I'M HERE TO OFFER A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, ON THE MATTER THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY YOUR IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDING SPEAKER. THAT'S THE NORTHWEST MESA ESCARPMENT. IN FEBRUARY OF 2020, MY CLIENT WHO HAS PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF PASOE HAD A ZONE CHANGE FROM MXL TO MXM. THE EPC MADE A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE MXM ZONE WOULD BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE COMMUNITY. THE COUNCIL DID NOT DISTURB THAT FINDING. THE HEIGHT AND USE LIMITATIONS OF B2 WILL REVERSE THAT ZONING DECISION. IT WILL CONSTITUTE A DOWN ZONING, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED, THIS IMPACT WOULD NEED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDO FOR ZONE CHANGE. THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS OR THE DETERMINATION THAT A DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT IS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS. SINCE 16 MONTHS AGO THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE COMMUNITY CONDITIONS. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT SUGGESTING THAT A DIFFERENT USE IS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS NOW THAT IT WAS 16 MONTHS AGO WOULD NOT BE RATIONALLY SUSTAINABLE. WE URGE YOU TO REJECT THE SMALL AREA AMENDMENTS AND ADOPT COUNCILOR JONES AMENDMENT B24. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RENEE. TURN YOUR VIDEO ON, UNMUTE YOURSELF, AND YOUR TIME WILL BEGIN WHEN YOU START SPEAKING. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. I DO WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT AMENDMENT B23. WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF THAT. ALL OUR PRIOR PLANS INCLUDING THIS ONE DOES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ALWAYS PLANNED TO SUPPORT OUR MAJOR LANDMARKS IN ALBUQUERQUE TO BUILD SENSITIVELY IN THIS AREA. AT THE TIME THIS ZONE CHANGE TOOK PLACE, THE PARKS SERVICE AND OPEN SPACE AND THE COMMUNITY HAD A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE BUILDING HEIGHT. I THOUGHT THAT THE APPLICANTS SAID THEY WOULD WORK WITH THE PARK SERVICE TO KEEP THE BUILDING HEIGHT LOW. I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM. I THOUGHT MR. MELENDREZ SAID THE BUILDING HEIGHTS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE. IT'S JUST TO BE SENSITIVE TO THIS AREA. WE'RE ALWAYS PLANNED TO BE SENSITIVE TO OUR UNIQUE FEATURES IN ALBUQUERQUE. B23 MEETS THOSE GUIDELINES IN THE PLAN. I THINK COUNCILOR BORREGO OUTLINED IT VERY WELL. I DO SUPPORT -- WE ALL SUPPORT HERE ON THE WEST SIDE, B23. REAL QUICK, WITH THE GEOGRAPHIC AND CLIMATIC RESPONSIVENESS, WE'RE GETTING APPLICATIONS FOR APARTMENTS. AND THEY'RE USUALLY OUT OF STATE DEVELOPERS. THEY USUALLY USE THEIR DESIGNS THEY'VE USED IN OTHER STATES FOR BUILDING HERE. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. YOUR TIME IS UP. >> CAN I SAY A FEW MORE THINGS? HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU SEEN A BUILDING THAT HAS THE BEST VIEW SITE IN TOWN AND PUT NO WINDOWS. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. I THINK WE HAVE OUR WRITTEN COMMENTS AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO READ SOMETHING INTO THE RECORD. THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS TODAY. I'D LIKE TO READ THIS INTO THE RECORD. THERE WAS A TECHNICAL ISSUE WITH THE YOU TUBE LINK ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA. AN UPDATED LINK HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE CITY COUNCIL WEBSITE AT CABQ.GOV FOR ANYONE WISHING TO OBSERVE THE MEETING VIA YOU TUBE. THE MEETING CAN ALWAYS BE VIEWED ON GOVTV COMCAST CHANNEL 16 AND THE GOV WEBSITE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. COUNCILORS, THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE ALREADY ACTED ON ITEM FIVE THROUGH THIRTEEN. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 14. FINAL ACTIONS BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW WE'LL PROCEED WITH OUR AMENDMENTS. WE WILL BE LOOKING AT OUR NON-CANNABIS AMENDMENTS FIRST. THAT WOULD BE ITEM B1 THROUGH B7. THEN, WE WILL DECIDE THE ACTION WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE REGARDING THOSE PARTICULAR SEVEN AMENDMENTS. AND WE'LL MOVE TO THE CANNABIS AMENDMENTS. I THINK THIS WILL HELP US TO BE MORE EFFICIENT IN TERMS OF HOW WE MOVE FORWARD. WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE TO COUNCILOR BENTON AND COUNCILOR JONES. O-60. >>COUN. JONES: COUNCILOR BENTON, IT'S ALL YOURS. >>COUN. BENTON: I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING MY DOCUMENT UP. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR BENTON, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ IT FOR YOU? >>COUN. BENTON: IF YOU COULD, PLEASE. >>COUN. BORREGO: THIS IS O-60 ADOPTING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, SECTION 14 THROUGH 16 FOR THE 2020IDO ANNUAL UPDATE AND IDO IS INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. INCLUDING TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR SMALL MAPPED AREAS. COUNCILOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE THAT? >>COUN. BENTON: YES, MADAM PRESIDENT, I'LL MOVE A DUE PASS. >>COUN. BORREGO: I NEED A SECOND. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR JONES. WITH THAT, WE'LL PROCEED TO OUR PRESENTATION REGARDING THE NON-CANNABIS AMENDMENT. ONCE WE E HAVE CONCLUDED WITH THAT, WE'LL COME BACK AND DO THE CANNABIS AMENDMENT. MS. MORRIS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE WITH THE IDO ANNUAL UPDATE. I HAVE A PRESENTATION WHERE I CAN BRING UP SLIDES IF YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A SLIDE ON THE SCREEN. OTHERWISE, I CAN ALSO JUST DESCRIBE THINGS. IT'S AT YOUR WISH. >>COUN. JONES: IF I MAY, MADAM PRESIDENT. >>COUN. JONES: I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU HAD THE SLIDE ON THE SCREEN SO THE PEOPLE AT HOME AND THOSE OF US WHO GET CONFUSED CAN SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. THANK YOU. >> GREAT. MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS, HERE IS THE FIRST SLIDE. IT GIVES US BACKGROUND INFORMATION. JUNE 17, THIS IS OUR SECOND COUNCIL MEETING ON THIS MATTER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THIS HAS TWO PACKETS. THE CANNABIS AMENDMENT AND EVERYTHING ELSE. STARTING OUT WITH THOSE OTHER MATTERS. THE FIRST OF THOSE AMENDMENTS IS B1, OVERNIGHT SHELTER. THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO LIMIT BEDS FOR AN OVERNIGHT SHELTER BASED ON THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT. THIS IS REVISED SINCE IT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC TO ALLOW FOR A BED LIMITATION TO DOUBLE. AND A GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT IS ALSO IN PLACE. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? COUNCILORS, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO A SUMMARY OF THE SEVEN NON-CANNABIS AMENDMENTS AND THEN DO VOTING? >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. THAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW. >> SORRY, I GOT MYSELF CONFUSED. >>COUN. BORREGO: FOR THE SAKE OF NON-CONFUSION. >> SORRY, I'M EASILY CONFUSED THESE DAYS. CONTINUING, MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, THE B2, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT IN RESPONSE SHOWING THE STATE MADE IN RELATION TO THE LIQUOR LICENSES. THE STATE MADE REVISIONS TO ALLOW FOR ALCOHOL DELIVERY. AND THIS AMENDMENT JUST MAKES THAT DEFINITION OF BAR AND RESTAURANTS COMPLAINT WITH THOSE CHANGES AT THE STATE LEVEL. B3, THIS AMENDMENT REVISES SOME REVISIONS -- MADE AT THE STATE LEVEL. IN TERMS OF FOOD PROCESSING. THE STATE HAD A HOME FOOD PREPARATION BILL. THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO MAKE FOOD IN THEIR OWN HOME. THIS MAKES SOME REVISIONS TO THE HOME OCCUPATION USE IN THE IDO IN ORDER TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE. AMENDMENT B4 CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC RESPONSIVENESS, THIS PROPOSES TO STRIKE SECTION 5-2 REQUIRING THE CLIMATIC. WHERE THE SUN HITS WINDOWS AND WALLS. AND GEOGRAPHIC RESPONSIVENESS ANALYSIS WHICH ARE UP FOR AN ANALYSIS ON VIEWS. THE NEXT THREE AMENDMENTS HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT NUMBERING. B NUMBERS ARE BASED ON WHEN THE AMENDMENTS WERE DRAFTED RATHER THAN THE ORDER YOU HAVE THEM THIS EVENING. B22, CAMPGROUNDS AT NONRESIDENTIAL USE DISTRICT. THIS TAKES CAMPGROUND AND RV PARK AND BREAKS INTO TWO DIFFERENT USES. THE CAMPGROUND USE WOULD REMAIN A NONRESIDENTIAL USE ZONE DISTRICT LIKE IT IS IN THE ZONE CODE. WHICH WOULD REQUIRE GOING TO THE EPC AND RV PARKS AS A SEPARATE USE WOULD BE CONDITIONAL AND MEDIUM IN A NONRESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS ZONED DISTRICTS. PER THE REVISIONS. AMENDMENT B23, THIS ONE IS ONE OF TWO AMENDMENTS ABOUT THE NORTHWEST MESA ESCARPMENT. THESE TWO AMENDMENTS CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. ONE AMENDMENT WOULD KEEP THE REVISION WHICH IS THIS ONE. IT KEEPS THE PROPOSED CHANGES SO THE -- THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN REVISED TO ADD POLICIES. AND AMENDMENT B24 IS CHANGES PROPOSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY. MADAM CHAIR, WITH THAT, THAT LEAD US TO THE END OF THE SEVEN AMENDMENTS. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. MS. MORRIS, WE'LL CONCLUDE WITH THE PRESENTATION. I WILL ASK COUNCILORS IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED AT THIS TIME? I CAN'T SEE MY HAND RAISING ELEMENT. COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. POINT OF CLARIFICATION. DO WE WANT TO DISCUSS THESE NOW? I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL ONES. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED? >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR DAVIS, WOULD I'D LIKE IS FOR COUNCILORS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE AND WE'LL VOTE ON THEM ONE AT A TIME. THAT WAY WE CAN GET THOSE OFF THE TABLE. >>COUN. DAVIS: IF THAT'S THE CASE, MS. MORRIS, OR THE SPONSO -- >>COUN. BORREGO: I CAN'T HEAR YOU COUNCILOR DAVIS. I THINK YOU'RE ON MUTE. >>COUN. DAVIS: IF THAT'S THE CASE I'D LIKE TO ASK MS. MORRIS OR COUNCILOR BENTON ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL AMENDMENT, IF THAT'S OKAY. MS. MORRIS, COUNCILOR BENTON, IF IT'S BETTER FOR YOU, I WANTED A LITTLE CLARIFICATION. I GOT A COPY OF AN EMAIL FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE THAT WAS SENT OUT THAT ASKED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS TO CALL THE CITY COUNCIL AND OPPOSE THE CITY COUNCIL'S PUSH FOR THIS AMENDMENT THAT WOULD REMOVE THE UNENFORCEABLE CLIMATE LANGUAGE FROM THE IDO THAT DEALS WITH WHERE BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED AND WHAT USES ARE ALLOWED. IT DIDN'T MENTION THE COUNCIL INTENDED TO PUT THEM IN THE DESIGN MANUAL. MS. MORRIS, DO I RECALL FROM THE NOTES THROUGH THE EPC PROCESS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION'S OWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUESTED THIS CHANGE TO ENFORCE THE RULES AND THEY RECOGNIZE THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO ENFORCE THE LANGUAGE AS IN THE IDF? >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS, THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IN THE IDO THROUGH THE GEOGRAPHIC AND CLIMATIC RESPONSIVENESS, I DID READ THIS EMAIL AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING IN THERE IS THAT THE REASON THAT THIS IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE IDO IS THAT AN ANALYSIS IS ASKED FOR BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANYONE TO MAKE CHANGES TO THEIR DESIGN. IT'S A POLICY ANALYSIS. THE IDO IS INTENDED TO BE A REGULATORY DOCUMENT. IF WE'RE NOT ASKING PEOPLE TO MAKE ACTUAL CHANGES TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT, THE IDO ISN'T REALLY THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THIS. SO THE PROPOSAL IS THAT THIS WOULD GO INTO A DESIGN GUIDELINE BOOK, WHICH THERE WAS A BUDGET AMENDMENT PASSED FOR WORK ON >>COUN. BENTON: JUST A BIT OF BACKGROUND. IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE WAS AN ARCHITECT. I FOCUSED MY ENTIRE CAREER ON TWO FACTORS. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN. THESE ARE THE PRIMARY DRIVERS OF OUR FIRM'S WORK AND THE WORK THAT WE SOUGHT. I'LL TAKE NO BACK SEAT TO ANYONE WITH REGARD TO MY SUPPORT FOR THE INTENTIONS. I THINK THE INTENTION OF THESE PROVISIONS ARE NOBLE AND CORRECT. THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS. THIS IS A REGULATORY DOCUMENT. THIS IS NOT SUGGESTION. THERE'S NO LANGUAGE IN IT, IF YOU READ IT, OTHER THAN REQUIRING THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS TO SUPPOSEDLY CONSIDER THESE CONTACTORS, THERE'S NO LANGUAGE THAT WOULD HAVE THEIR WORK BE CHECKED BY ANYONE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I VENTURE TO SAY VERY FEW PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING DIVISION WHICH WOULD BE REVIEWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS AND IN THIS CASE THE WAY ITS WRITTEN PRIOR TO A SITE PLAN BEING APPROVED THAT THIS WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION. WE HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS AND ASKED THE SAME QUESTIONS IN COMMITTEE. IT WAS CLEAR THIS WAS AN ASPIRATIONAL TYPE OF PROVISION WITH REGARD TO THE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OR THE REQUIREMENTS TO CONSIDER SOLAR IMPACTS ON BUILDING FACE. AND HOW IT WOULD BE EXCLUDED. IT NEEDS TO BE EXCLUDED IN THE SUMMER AND ALLOWED IN THE DEEP PART OF THE WINTER. TOTALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. THERE'S NOTHING REGULATORY IN THIS LANGUAGE. THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT BELONG IN THE REGULATORY DOCUMENT WHICH IS WHAT THE IDO IS. LET ME TALK ABOUT THE VIEW PROTECTION BECAUSE THAT WAS MENTIONED BY THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS. I THINK IT'S SUCH A SHAME THAT PEOPLE WERE RILED UP WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE OBJECTIONS ARE TO THIS. THE VIEW PROTECTION OR A VIEW CONSIDERATION IS PROBLEMATIC IN THE IDO FROM THE REGULATORY STANDPOINT. IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM. THERE'S NO MECHANISM TO CHECK THE WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL OTHER THAN THEM, I GUESS, PROVIDING SOMETHING. THERE'S NOT EVEN ANY MENTION OF HOW THAT SOMETHING WOULD BE REVIEWED. THAT'S ONE ISSUE WITH THE VIEW PROTECTIONS, SIMILAR TO THAT WITH THE ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS. THE OTHER PROBLEM IS OUR ZONE CODES HAVE NEVER PROTECTED SUCH AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE THE VIEW OF A VOLCANO IN THE NORTHWEST MESA. THERE'S NO PROTECTIONS FOR IT. THAT'S PROTECTING SEEING THAT GEOGRAPHIC FEATURE FROM A DISTANCE. FROM AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY, THERE'S NO RIGHT TO A VIEW. AND WHAT SORT OF VIEW? IS IT A PEEPHOLE IN THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING? IS IT A ONE FOOT BY ONE FOOT WINDOW? THE INTENTION IS TO MAKE BETTER LOOKING BUILDINGS. I THINK WE'RE GOING ABOUT THIS THE WRONG WAY. AGAIN, THIS ASPIRATIONAL LANGUAGE IS NOT BELONGING IN A REGULATORY DOCUMENT LIKE THE IDO. IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT IN THERE, YOU NEED TO DESCRIBE EXACTLY HOW IT WILL BE ENFORCED. NOT JUST SUGGESTED. AND WHO WILL BE DOING THAT ENFORCEMENT. THIS IS MAIN REASON. I DON'T OBJECT TO THESE CONCEPTS. IF THERE'S A GOOD VIEW, A GOOD DESIGNER SHOULD TRY TO CONSIDER IT. IT'S NOT GUARANTEED THAT IT WILL EXIST WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE BUILDS SOMETHING. THIS IS THE WRONG APPROACH. I BELIEVE PRETTY SURE SHE WAS SAYING THAT THE -- SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE SIERRA CLUB THAT WE SHOULD TACKLE THESE ISSUES. THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR TOGETHER AND ADMINISTRATION SHOULD TACKLE THESE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO CLIMATE RESPONSIVENESS. THIS IS A DIFFERENT STORY. I DON'T THINK SHE WAS SPEAKING TO THAT. MOST PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT SUSTAINABLE DESIGN. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU WERE COUNCILOR. >>COUN. BENTON: I'M NOT FINISHED, MADAM PRESIDENT. LET ME FINISH MY EXPLANATION OF THIS. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO DEFEND MY INTENTIONS WHICH CERTAINLY ARE NOT TO TORPEDO THESE IDEAS BUT RATHER PUT THEM WITH TEETH WHERE WE CAN ENFORCE THEM FAIRLY. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: I'M GOING TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE HAVE MS. MORRIS ANSWERING QUESTIONS AND WE WILL BE COMING TO EACH ONE, ONE BY ONE. YOU'LL STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON EACH ONE. SINCE WE HAVE MS. MORRIS AND MS. SCHULZ WITH US RIGHT NOW. >>COUN. JONES: LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR HERE TO THE COUNCIL AND THE PEOPLE WATCHING. WOULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW EXACTLY WE ARE ADDRESSING THIS? ARE WE WORKING ON OUR TWO SEPARATE LISTS OF IDO AMENDMENTS? >>COUN. BORREGO: WE ARE -- >>COUN. JONES: MAY I ASK THE QUESTION FIRST? >>COUN. BORREGO: I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE. >>COUN. JONES: I'LL STOP WHEN I'M DONE. MY QUESTION IS ARE WE GOING TO ADDRESS EACH ONE OF THE ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT THEY DO AND WILL BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS AND DISCUSS THE BEST APPROACH FOR OUR DECISION AND WILL WE BE ALLOWED TO AMEND AND VOTE YES OR NO TO KEEP THE ITEM ON THE LIST TO BE INCLUDED? THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS, MADAM PRESIDENT. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR, ARE YOU DONE? >>COUN. JONES: YES, MA'AM. THAT'S WHY I SAID THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. SOMETIMES ON THE VIDEO I SEE YOU GUYS PAUSE AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE DONE OR NOT. THAT'S WHY I ASKED. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE WILL ADDRESS THE NON-CANNABIS ITEM ONE BY ONE. IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN I STARTED, PETRA WAS GOING TO GIVE A SUMMARY OF EACH AND WE WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS OF PETRA OR SHANNA AND WE'LL GO BACK AND ADDRESS EACH ONE ONE BY ONE. WE'LL MOVE EACH ITEM ONE BY ONE. AND WE'LL COME BACK AND WE'LL WORK ON OUR CANNABIS ONE. WE WILL MOVE IN THE SAME PROCESS. WE'LL HAVE STAFF GIVE A SUMMARY. AND WE WILL COME BACK AND ASK THEM ANY QUESTIONS OR HAVE QUESTIONS ANSWERED. WE'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AS WE MOVE THEM ONE BY ONE TO COME BACK AND ASK QUESTIONS OR ANSWER QUESTIONS OR MOVER ANY QUESTIONS. >>COUN. JONES: I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT WAS VERY CLEAR. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILORS, I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS RAISED FOR MS. MORRIS. THEY WILL BE IN THE CHAT ROOM. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. I BELIEVE THAT IS COUNCILOR DAVIS. COUNCILOR DAVIS, ARE YOU THERE STILL? COUNCILOR DAVIS. THERE YOU ARE. >>COUN. DAVIS: I AM, MA'AM. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR DAVIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS AMENDMENT NUMBER B1? WHICH IS OVERNIGHT SHELTER. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES, MA'AM I MOVE AMENDMENT B1. AMENDMENT B1 AS WE'VE HEARD FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. -- >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR DAVIS, YOU'RE MUTED. >>COUN. DAVIS: I NOTICED I WAS REMOVED FROM THE MEETING. LET ME TRY THAT AGAIN. AMENDMENT B1 ADDRESSES WHAT WE FOUND TO BE A GAP IN THE IDO AND THAT IT WOULD ALLOW ANY SHELTER AN UNLIMITED CAPACITY. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IN THIS AMENDMENT IS BE SURE THAT ANY NEW SHELTERS THAT ARE OPENING THAT THEY OPEN WITH A CAPACITY THAT CAN BE MAINTAINED BY A NEIGHBORHOOD'S CARING CAPACITY. THE ABILITY TO SERVE THOSE PEOPLE AND HELP THOSE PEOPLE. IN KEEPING WITH OUR VISION FOR THE MAYOR'S DISTRIBUTED SERVICES. WE CAN STILL HEAR YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. IN KEEPING WITH THE MAYOR'S PLAN OF DISTRIBUTIVE SERVICES ENSURING THAT CENTERS SPREAD ACROSS THE CITY ARE ALLOWED TO OPERATE AND CAN HAVE MORE THAN THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF BEDS IF THEY ARE ABLE TO HELP TRANSITION PEOPLE TO HOUSING. WE WANT TOEN SURE WE'RE NOT JUST WAREHOUSING PEOPLE. WE'RE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SERVICE CENTERS INCLUDING THOSE THAT PROVIDE OVERNIGHT SHELTER AS LONG AS THERE'S AN OPTION FOR ONE TO START WORKING ON PERMANENT HOUSING. OUR EXISTING FOLKS WILL BE GRANDFATHERED IN. ALL OF OUR SHELTERS PROVIDE SERVICES WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT NEW ONES OPERATED BY THE CITY WILL DO THE SAME. I MOVE AMENDMENT B1. >>COUN. BORREGO: WE HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND? BEFORE WE START DEBATING ON ANYTHING WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON COUNCILOR DAVIS'S MOTION FOR AMENDMENT B1. I NEED A SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR BASSAN. OKAY, COUNCILORS, I WILL ASK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING OVERNIGHT SHELTER AMENDMENT B1, NONCANNABIS. COUNCILOR BENTON. COUNCILOR BENTON, YOU'RE MUTED. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. >>COUN. BENTON: THANK YOU. THANKS FOR REMINDING ME. I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR A SPONSOR OR STAFF OR MAYBE OUR LEGAL ADVISORS, IS THERE -- I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT HERE. AND I APPRECIATE IT. IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY OTHER THAN THE ZONING, I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS STEMMING FROM THE BIG ONE ON OUR PLATE WHICH IS THE GATEWAY CENTER, FOR US TO AS A COUNCIL AND PERHAPS AS THE ADMINISTRATION IF THEY WOULD SO CHOOSE, TO DEAL WITH THESE CAPACITIES AND NUMBERS OUTSIDE OF THE ZONING CODE? >>COUN. BORREGO: I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER THAT TO LEGAL, COUNCILOR BENTON. SOMEBODY FROM THE MAYOR'S COUNSEL? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. THE CITY COUNCIL, BEYOND ZONING, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE POLICIES AND LAWS THAT WILL GENERALLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. I HAVEN'T BEEN PRESENTED WITH THAT QUESTION BEFORE ABOUT ALTERNATIVES TO THE IDO. I THINK IT'S NOT OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL METHODS TO IMPOSE POLICY FOR THE CITY THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL RELATIVE TO THE TYPE OF PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED HERE. >>COUN. BENTON: THANK YOU. IF I MAY, MADAM PRESIDENT, CHRIS, THAT WOULD BE VIA A POLICY RESOLUTION MOST LIKELY. AS OPPOSED TO THIS, WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE. AM I RIGHT? >> I THINK THAT BOTH AVENUES WILL BE POSSIBLE TO THE EXTENT THAT COUNCIL WANTED TO EXPLORE POLICIES THAT WILL BE IN ITS AUTHORITY TO SET POLICY FOR THE CITY RELATIVE TO OVERNIGHT SHELTERS OUTSIDE OF THE IDO THAT CAN BE DONE THROUGH A RESOLUTION. WE HAVE ORDINANCES ALSO IN THE FORM OF LAW ON A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT GUIDE THE WAY THE CITY FUNCTIONS AND WHAT IS POSSIBLE WITH CITY RESOURCES. THAT'S NOT OUTSIDE OF THE REALLIM EITHER. >>COUN. BENTON: ONE QUICK QUESTION. ONE LAST QUESTION. WITH REGARD TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES, I KNOW WE'RE REQUIRED TO ALLOW GROUP HOMES BY FEDERAL LAW IN OUR ZONING CODE. ARE THERE NUMBERS ATTACHED TO THAT FEDERAL LAW IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES? I DON'T THINK WE CAN PROHIBIT A GROUP HOME FOR THIS TYPE OF PURPOSE. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR BENTON, WE DO HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. I'M GOING TO DEFER TO MS. SCHULZ. >> GROUP HOMES AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES ARE TWO SEPARATE LAND USES IN THE IDO THAT ARE DISTINCT FROM AN OVERNIGHT SHELTER. THOSE USES DO TALK ABOUT HOW MANY PERSONS CAN BE IN THOSE HOMES. >>COUN. BENTON: WOULD THIS EFFECTIVELY EXPAND THEM? ESPECIALLY IF THESE SERVICES ARE BEING PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE SHELTER. THIS WOULD BE INCREASING THOSE NUMBERS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES WOULD IT NOT? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR BENTON, ONE OF THE DISTINCT FEATURES ABOUT AN OVERNIGHT SHELTER OCCURRING IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE IS AN OVERNIGHT SHELTER IS NOT PERMITTED USE IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS. THE ONLY WAY AN OVERNIGHT SHELTER CAN OCCUR IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT IF IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AS A PART OF THEIR MISSION AN OVERNIGHT SHELTER CAN BE AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION ITSELF. OTHER THAN THAT, THE CITY FOR EXAMPLE CANNOT OPEN ONE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. IT CAN ONLY OCCUR ASSOCIATED WITH A REZLIGIOUS INSTITUTION. >>COUN. BENTON: THIS WOULD APPLY TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION? >> IN TERMS OF AN OVERNIGHT SHELTER A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION IS THE ONLY TYPE OF INSTITUTION IN ANY OF THOSE R-ZONES. >>COUN. BENTON: I UNDERSTAND. IN TERMS OF YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO IT BUT THESE NUMBERS WOULD PLACE LIMITATIONS ON THAT -- OR THIS AMENDMENT WOULD PLACE LIMITATION? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR BENTON YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >>COUN. BENTON: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR BENTON. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK. I THINK YOU OPENED AN INTERESTING QUESTION. I WANTED TO CLARIFY THIS FOR MY OWN AMENDMENT. WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT, IF ONE OF THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS WANTED TO OPEN A SHELTER IN ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, I'M GOING TO PICK ON COUNCILOR BASSAN FOR A SECOND AND A CHURCH IN HER NEIGHBORHOOD CHOSE TO CONVERT HER GYM TO A SHELTER BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THEIR MISSION, WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT COULD THEY DO SO WITH AN UNLIMITED CAPACITY IF THEY BELIEVED THIS WAS PART OF THEIR CALLING? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR DAVIS, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND THERE WOULD NOT BE LIMITS ON AN OVERNIGHT SHELTER UNDER THE TERMS YOU JUST DESCRIBED. A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION WANTING TO DEDICATE EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY TO THE USES, THERE'S NO LIMITS TO THE IDO. MY LAST QUESTION. I'M PICKING ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I CAN THINK OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, IF COUNCILOR BORREGO IS DEVELOPING A LOT OF CITY RESOURCES ON THE CIBOLA LOOP, THERE'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PRIVATE LAND, IF SOMEONE IN ONE OF THOSE MIXED USE AREAS CHOSE TO OPEN AN OVERNIGHT SHELTER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CITY SOURCES, WITHOUT THIS THERE WOULD BE AN UNLIMITED CAPACITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? >> YES. THERE ARE NO CAPACITY LIMITS ON OVERNIGHT SHELTERS ON THE IDO TODAY. >>COUN. DAVIS: THANK YOU, I THINK THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO OUR SHELTERS. I WANT TO EXPAND MANY OF THEM AND PARTNERED TO HELP DO SO WITH THE TRUMBLE COMMUNITY. I THINK THEY'RE BETTER SERVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVICES ON-SITE AND DON'T WAREHOUSE FOLKS. I HOPE WE CAN PASS THIS AMENDMENT. I'LL USE THAT AS A CLOSE. >>COUN. BORREGO: BEFORE YOU CLOSE, TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR QUESTION. SOMETHING CAME TO MIND AS WE'RE DISCUSSING IT. I JUST WANT TO ASK THE STAFF ABOUT IT. IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, COMMUNITY EMERGENCY, AND WE NEEDED TO HAVE SHELTERS FOR PEOPLE THAT MAYBE NEEDED TO MOVE OUT OF THE THEIR HOUSES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, GOD FORBID, BUT WE NEVER EXPECTED THE PANDEMIC EITHER. WOULD THAT PROHIBIT CHURCHES OR LARGE FACILITIES FROM HAVING OVERNIGHT SHELTERS? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I'LL TAKE A STAB AT THAT. AS WE EXPERIENCE GOING INTO THE PANDEMIC, EMERGENCY SITUATIONS DO PRESENT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELATIVE TO A NUMBER OF THINGS. AS WE SAW THIS BODY HAD THE ABILITY TO MEET IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH EMERGENCY MATTERS. THE CITY ALSO HAS AN CIRCUMSTANCES. SO, WITH ALL OF THE STUFF THAT OCCURS UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE IDO, THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO RELIEVE THESE LIMITATIONS IN EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES AS WE SAW HAPPEN OVER THE PAST SUMMER. THESE TYPES OF RULES, TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE ENACTED INTO THE IDO WOULD APPLY, HOWEVER THE EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WAIVE THOSE THROUGH EMERGENCY DECLARATION OR FOR THE COUNCIL TO VISIT IF NECESSARY. KRNG I THINK THE LATTER OPTION WOULD BE EXCESSIVE. >>COUN. BORREGO: WITH THAT, I SEE COUNCILOR GIBSON HAS RAISED HER HAND. COUNCILOR DAVIS, IF YOU WILL YIELD FOR A MINUTE. COUNCILOR GIBSON. >>COUN. GIBSON: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I'LL MAKE THIS REALLY BRIEF. FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE EXISTING SHELTERS THAT WE HAVE NOW. I BELIEVE THEY'RE UNDER 100 CAPACITY. MOST OF THEM HAVE SPECIAL FOCUSES. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WORK WELL. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION, WE TALKED ABOUT THE LEGAL ABILITY THAT CHURCHES OR FAITH-BASED GROUPS HAVE. THE THING THAT WASN'T NOTED IN RECENT DISCUSSION WAS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY THAT CITY GOVERNMENT OR COUNTY GOVERNMENT. ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT. I'M REALLY SORRY BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS. IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE WE ARE TRYING TO LIMIT PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR CONDITION AND HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN BE IN AN AREA. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, I THINK WE ALL AGREE, WE WANT TO GET PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS. I DON'T SEE THIS AS A WAY TO DO THAT. I THINK THE CITY IS BEST EQUIPPED TO MANAGE SOMETHING LIKE GATEWAY. BETTER THAN ANY ENTITY I CAN THINK OF. I'M SORRY, I'LL JUST REPEAT MYSELF. I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR GIBSON. THERE'S A COUPLE OF COUNCILORS THAT RAISED THEIR HAND. I'M GOING TO GO TO COUNCILOR JONES AND COUNCILOR SENA. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I APPRECIATE THAT. THIS IS -- I THINK WE'RE ALL CONFUSED, OR AT LEAST I AM, ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE SHELTER AND HELP TO HELPLESS AND PEOPLE IN NEED. WHEN THIS FIRST SITUATION FIRST HIT THE LIGHT OF DAY ABOUT THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A MAJOR BUILD OF A NEW FACILITY IN THE NORTHEAST PART OF TOWN WITH ALL KINDS OF FACILITIES PROVIDED. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN OVERNIGHT SHELTER, MEDICAL CARE, EDUCATION, TRAINING, FOR FAMILIES AND EVERYONE. THAT HAS EVOLVED TO, AS I SEE IT, POTENTIALLY SMALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS. VERY SMALL, WITHOUT ALL THOSE SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. NOW TO A VERY LARGE BUILDING THAT WE ARE NOW WILLING TO SPEND AN A BUILDING THAT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED THESE SERVICES AND HOUSE OTHER PEOPLE AND INCLUDE EDUCATION AND HELP WITH CHILDREN AND MEN. AND WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS SHOWING US COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. MY MAJOR CONCERN IS IF WE CAN'T DECIDE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO HOW CAN WE DECIDE HOW WE'RE GOING TO RUN IT AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO CONTROL IT AND MANAGE IT? THIS IS A VERY LARGE BUILDING THAT AFFECTS A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO ARE USED TO AN OFFICE BUILDING THAT HAD ANY NUMBER OF PATIENTS. THIS WAS A MEDICAL FACILITY. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE MAJOR ISSUE. I THINK THE MAJOR ISSUE IS THE AMBIGUITY OF WHAT THE FACILITY IS GOING TO BE. THEREFORE, HOW DO WE HANDLE THIS? I'M NOT SURE HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE ON THIS. I DON'T LIKE NOT KNOWING WHAT I'M REALLY VOTING ON AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO WHETHER I VOTE YES OR NO. I REALLY LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE REST OF THE PLAN IS FOR THE FACILITY. IF WE'RE GOING TO -- AM I OKAY TO TALK IF WE ALL KNOW WHAT PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? IF WE'RE GOING TO KEEP IT AS AN OFFICE BUILDING, WHY DID WE SPEND ALL OF OUR MONEY TO BE USED TO HELP HOMELESS AND NEAR HOMELESS AND PEOPLE IN NEED? WHY DID WE SPEND IT ON AN OFFICE BUILDING? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. IT'S VERY CONFUSING FOR ME AND DIFFICULT TO PUT TOGETHER THE PIECES OF MONEY, SERVICE, AND USE. I AM PRONE TO VOTE FOR COUNCILOR DAVIS'S MOTION SIMPLY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS WILL BE USED FOR. I'LL WAIT AND HEAR WHAT OTHER COUNCILORS HAVE TO SAY AND SEE IF SOMEONE CAN SAY THIS IS A GOOD USE OF CITY MONEY. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AS COUNCILORS IS USE OUR MONEY WISELY AND PROVIDE AS MUCH AS WE CAN FOR THE CITIZENS WITH THAT MONEY. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I WON'T SPEAK AGAIN ON THIS TOPIC. I'LL LET YOU CARRY ON WITHOUT ME. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR JONES. COUNCILOR SENA. >>COUN. SENA: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I APPRECIATE THE SPONSOR TRYING TO OVERALL THINK OF THE ISSUE OF OUR UNSHELTERED COMMUNITY. I WANT TO TALK ON SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WAS RAISED BY OUR PUBLIC COMMENT. REALLY, ALSO THE STUDY THAT WE HAD THROUGH THE URBAN INSTITUTE WHERE HOMELESSNESS IN ALBUQUERQUE HAS QUADRUPLED IN THE SPAN OF 2013 TO 2019. KNOWING THAT THE PANDEMIC HAS PUT VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN SITUATIONS WHERE THEY MAY FACE HOMELESSNESS, I THINK THAT THINKING OF HOW WE INVEST THE FUNDS HOW THAT TAXPAYERS APPROVED OF CREATING A SPACE TO ADDRESS THE POPULATION, WHETHER IT'S THE 567 THAT WAS ACCOUNTED FROM THE STUDY, WHICH WE KNOW IS LOT MORE CONSIDERING THE COMMUNITY OF MIGRANT COMMUNITIES. I THINK COUNCILOR GIBSON SAID IT BEST IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE PLANS. I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. I HOPE THAT WE CAN FURTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW WE -- WHAT SHELTERS WILL LOOK LIKE IN THE COMMUNITY. KNOWING THE WEST SIDE EMERGENCY HOUSING CENTER WHICH IS BEING UTILIZED AND IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE UTILIZED HOW IT IS. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A WINTER EMERGENCY SHELTER. IT IS REALLY QUITE FAR FROM THE REST OF THE RESOURCES, WE'RE SPENDING MORE IN TERMS OF TRANSPORTING INDIVIDUALS AROUND THE CITY TO GET WHERE THEY NEED TO GO TO CONNECT TO SERVICES TO GET TOWARD PERMANENT HOUSING. KNOWING THAT IS IN MY DISTRICT AND SEEING HOW IT'S REALLY IMPACTING WHERE SOMETIMES IF A BUS ISN'T AVAILABLE AND PEOPLE WANT TO LEAVE, THAT'S QUITE A FAR WALK. THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW WHERE THE WEST SIDE EMERGENCY HOUSING CENTER IS, IT'S NEAR DOUBLE EAGLE AIRPORT. IT'S REALLY QUITE FAR IN THE DISTRICT. I JUST WANT TO THINK THROUGH AS TO HOW WE PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE COMMUNITY AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF HOMELESSNESS WITHIN THE CITY. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR SENA. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO OUR SPONSOR OF THIS AMENDMENT. COUNCILOR, AFTER YOU HAVE DONE YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT, BEFORE WE VOTE I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO MR. MELENDREZ TO UNDERSTAND OUR VOTE ONCE IT'S TAKEN AND WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE AMENDMENTS. THAT WOULD APPLY TO EACH AMENDMENT AS WE VOTE ON THEM. WITH THAT, COUNCILOR DAVIS TO CLOSE AND TO MR. MELENDREZ. >>COUN. DAVIS: I WANT TO ADDRESS THE TWO QUESTIONS THAT I THOUGHT WERE LEFT HANGING. I APPRECIATE AND I SHARE COUNCILOR BENTON'S INTEREST IN CREATING A CITY POLICY FOR HOW CITY SHELTERS CAN BE OPERATED WITH SERVICES. I WANT TO REMIND US THAT -- AND IT GETS TO COUNCILOR SENA'S POINT. NUMBER ONE, I DON'T THINK IT'S LIKELY THAT THE CITY EMPLOYEES ARE GOING TO BE OPERATE AND RUNNING THE GATEWAY SHELTER. WE KNOW THROUGH PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR A NON-PROFIT TO MANAGE THAT SERVICE AND THAT LOCATION. AS MUCH AS I APPRECIATE WE COULD DO THIS THROUGH CITY FACILITIES, EXCEPT FOR THE WEST SIDE SHELTER, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT USEFUL ON THE FUTURE. IN THE LARGER SENSE IT GETS BACK TO THE POINT THAT WE DO UNDERSTAND AND COUNCILOR SENA MADE AN EXCELLENT POINT. I'VE BEEN HERE SIX YEARS AND THE WEST SIDE SHELTER HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR A SEASONAL FACILITY FOUR OF THE SIX YEARS. WE GAVE UP THINKING IT'S TEMPORARY LAST YEAR BEFORE THE PANDEMIC. PRECISELY BECAUSE WE HAVE A BIG POPULATION OF PEOPLE WHO NEED ASSISTANCE AND SHELTER. THE GATEWAY CENTER WAS APPROVED BY VOTERS NOT JUST AS $14 MILLION TO DO SOMETHING BUT TO DO A GATEWAY CENTER TO TRANSITION PEOPLE TO HOUSING. AS RECENT AS LAST WEEK, WE HAD SOME PIECES OF MEETING WITH VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS. IN THE LAST MEETING THE ADMINISTRATION STILL FAILED TO BRING A PLAN FOR HOW THE GATEWAY WILL OPERATE. AN INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE HOUSING TO HELP THOSE PEOPLE. I THINK THAT IS A REAL CONCERN FROM HOMELESS PROVIDERS, WE JUST CREATE ANOTHER PLACE TO HIDE PEOPLE IN THE CORNER OF TOWN THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T SPEND TIME IN. PEOPLE THAT DO LIVE THERE EVERY DAY AND UNDERSTAND THE CHARACTER AND CULTURE OF THE COMMUNITY AND SENSE OF TOGETHERNESS THAT COMES FROM LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH SO MANY CHALLENGES, THEY'RE TELLING US THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT AND OTHERS THEY WELCOME A PLAN, THEY DON'T WELCOME A WAREHOUSE THAT JUST TRANSFERS SOMEONE'S PROBLEMS TO A DIFFERENT PART OF TOWN. I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE THEY WON'T OWN A NEW FACILITY. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR DAVIS FOR YOUR CLOSE. I'LL GO TO MR. MELENDREZ SO HE CAN EXPLAIN THE VOTE. >> THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION TO COMMENT ON THIS. EACH AMENDMENT ONCE VOTED UPON, IF VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE WILL BECOME A PART OF THE UNDERLYING BILL WHICH IS 0-21-60. IF VOTED DOWN, THE INVERSE WOULD OCCUR. IT WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE BILL. ONCE THE VOTE GOES THROUGH ON EACH OF THESE AND THE EXTENT IT'S BENEFICIAL FOR THE PUBLIC AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE MAKES IT PART OF THE BILL EVEN IF IT'S DEFERRED TO ANOTHER MEETING THAT AMENDMENT STICKS WITH THE BILL. A RULE OF PROCEDURE IS THAT WE'RE NOT SUPPOSES TO TAKE REPETITIVE MOTION. IF AN AMENDMENT FAILS, THAT SAME EXACT AMENDMENT WOULD NOT BE PROPER FOR IT TO BE REMOVED. EITHER NOW OR SUBSEQUENT MEETING FOR THE SAME BILL. IF AN AMENDMENT IS VOTED DOWN, IT SHOULD NOT BE RESURRECTED IN THE SAME FORM AT A FUTURE MEETING, EVEN IF THE BILL IS DEFERRED. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. WITH THAT WE'LL GO TO THE VOTE ON AMENDMENT B1 OVERNIGHT SHELTER. MS. ORTEGA. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. BENTON: NO. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: NO. >>COUN. HARRIS: NO. >>COUN. JONES: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. SENA: NO. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM B2 WHICH IS LIQUOR STATE CHANGES. WHO IS THE SPONSOR ON THIS BILL? COUNCILOR BASSAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN YOUR BILL? BEFORE YOU DO, I NEED A SECOND. I CAN SEE MY SCREEN FOR HANDS AND SUCH. >>COUN. BASSAN: THAT'S OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR AMENDMENT B2. THIS IS CHANGING SOME DEFINITIONS TO ALIGN WITH THE STATE. IT'S MAKING THE CHANGES FOR BAR AND FOR RESTAURANT IN RESPONSES TO THE RECENTS CHANGES TO THE LIQUOR CONTROL ACT. THE CHANGES BRING THE DEFINITIONS INTO CONFORMITY EWITH THE ANTICIPATED TO LICENSING THAT ALLOW A BUSINESS TO HAVE ALCOHOL DELIVERY SERVICE. REALLY IT'S A TECHNICAL CLEAN UP TO BE IN LINE WITH WHAT THE STATE PASSED AS FAR AS ALCOHOL DELIVERY. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR BASSAN. I WILL SECOND YOUR MOTION. >>COUN. BASSAN: I'M HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR HAVE MS. MORRIS. >>COUN. BORREGO: ANY QUESTIONS OF COUNCILORS? IT DOES NOT APPEAR SO, COUNCILOR BASSAN. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO THE VOTE. MS. ORTEGA. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. THAT PASSES ON A 9-0. WE'LL MOVE TO B3. FOOD PROCESSING. I BELIEVE THIS IS ALSO COUNCILOR BASSAN. COUNCILOR JONES. I'M SORRY. I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THIS CAME FROM THE ADMINISTRATION. IF I CAN HAVE MS. MORRIS OR ONE OF OUR PEOPLE EXPLAIN THIS TO US. I THINK IT'S FAIRLY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND. LET'S LET THEM DO THIS. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR JONES, I'D BE HAPPY TO EXPLAIN THIS. THIS IS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO THE LIQUOR AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILOR BASSAN PROPOSED BUT IN RELATION TO HOME MADE FOODS. THE STATE LEGISLATURE, HOUSE BILL 177 THE HOME MADE FOOD BILL PASSES THAT ALLOWS FOLKS TO PRODUCE NON-PARISHABLE FOOD IN THEIR HOME AND SELL THAT. WE'RE JUST SHIFTING SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS IN THE HOME OCCUPATION USE OF THE IDO AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE BILL 177. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. COUNCILOR JONES. >>COUN. JONES: I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. BORREGO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. >>COUN. BENTON: I BELIEVE WE DID NOT MOVE. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR JONES MOVED HER ITEM AND I SECONDED THE ITEM. >>COUN. BENTON: OKAY. >>COUN. BORREGO: AND COUNCILOR BASSAN ALSO DID. COUNCILOR JONES, GO AHEAD. >>COUN. JONES: I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE TO THE VOTE. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. THE STAFF JUST POINTED OUT TO ME WHERE ON THE SHEET IT SAYS WHO THE SPONSOR IS. I'M CLEAR ON THAT NOW. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM B4. THIS IS CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC RESPONSIVENESS. THIS IS COUNCILOR BENTON. COUNCILOR BENTON. >>COUN. BENTON: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I'LL MOVE B4. I'LL MOVE B4, THIS IS GEOGRAPHIC RESPONSIVENESS AND CLIMATE RESPONSIVENESS. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR JONES. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. COUNCILOR BENTON, GO AHEAD. >>COUN. BENTON: I THINK WE PRETTY MUCH SLICE ASKED DICED THUS. I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CLOSE AND VOTE ON IT. >>COUN. BORREGO: DO KNOW OTHER COUNCILORS HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ITEM? COUNCILOR SENA. >>COUN. SENA: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, MAYBE THIS IS FOR PETRA OR MS. SCHULZ. I THOUGHT THE PURPOSE OF THE IDO, I NOTICED SOME OF IT IS ENFORCEABLE OR REGULATORY. IS THAT DIFFERENT TO WHAT THE REST OF THE IDO SPEAKS TO? >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS, THERE'S AN OPENING SECTION TO THE IDO THAT CONPLAINS POLICY STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT THE INTENT OF IDO. ASIDE FROM THAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS REGULATORY IN NATURE AND SHOULD BE ENFORCED. THAT IS THE CONCERN WITH THIS ONE IS THAT THE ENFORCEABLE PART IS ITS FOR AN ANALYSIS. NORMALLY, WHEN YOU PROVIDE SOMETHING THERE'S AN ACTION THAT FOLLOWS IS. THIS REQUIRES AN ANALYSIS BUT NO ACTUAL ACTION. THAT'S WHAT COUNCILOR BENTON WAS TRYING TO GET AT EARLIER. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >>COUN. SENA: I MEAN IT SORT OF DOES. I THINK THERE'S DIFFERENT POINTS. IF WE'RE GOING TO EVALUATE EVERY SUGGESTION THAT'S NOT EXACTLY REGULATORY WITHIN THE IDO, THAT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING MEETING AS WELL. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE WHY I FIND IT'S IMPORTANT TO LEAVE IN THE IDO IS HAVING RECORD OF ASKING. ANALYSIS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION FOR PLANS AND PUBLIC RECORD. AND UNTIL THE DESIGN MANUAL IS RELEASED I'D LIKE TO HAVE IT THERE BEFORE WE MOVE THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE IN RESPONSE TO HOLDING THOSE ACCOUNTABLE AS A FORM OF PUBLIC RECORD. I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS. I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF WHAT COUNCILOR BENTON IS TRYING TO DO BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE TEETH AS WELL. I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO SEE THESE POLICIES LIKE WE STATED PREVIOUSLY TO ADDRESS WHAT SHELTERS WOULD LOOK LIKE THROUGHOUT OUR CITY AND SAME THING FOR HOW WE ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND BE PART OF THAT DISCUSSION TOO, COUNCILOR BENTON. I THINK IT'S A WORTHY THING TO DO AND REALLY HAVING IT IN FRONT OF POLICY. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR SENA. COUNCILOR BENTON, I JUST HAD A QUESTION, MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER THIS FOR ME. I COMPLETELY RESPECT YOUR DISCIPLINE AND YOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. I WAS CONTACTED BY THE GROUP WHO ACTUALLY WORKED ON THIS. SOME OF THE MEMBERS WROTE TO ME AND THEY WROTE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, THEY WORKED ON THIS FOR YEARS -- NOT YEARS BUT MONTHS. MAYBE A COUPLE OF YEARS. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT REGARDING THAT? THEY DID WRITE TO ME IN OPPOSITION AND ASKED FOR MY SUPPORT OF THAT OPPOSITION. I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY. >>COUN. BENTON: MADAM PRESIDENT, THANK YOU FOR THAT. YES, I RECEIVED THOSE SAME EMAILS FROM MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE COLLEAGUES OF MINE OR WORKED WITH ME AS CONSULTANS OR PARTNERS. WE DID RECEIVE THOSE FROM SOME FOLKS IN THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY. BY THE WAY, LANDSCAPE IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT IS ALSO MENTIONED. I THINK IT'S MENTIONED IN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE. I APPRECIATE THE VOLUNTEERISM OF ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT PARTICIPATED. I APPRECIATE THEIR PROFESSIONAL STANDING AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES. I DON'T THINK THEY QUITE GOT THE FACT THAT THIS IS JUST PUTTING EVERYBODY THROUGH AN EXERCISE WITH NO GUARANTEED OUTCOME. THAT WAS HOW I RESPONDED TO THOSE. WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE SOMETHING THAT HAD SOME TEETH? WHERE WE CAN DEMONSTRATE OR QUESTION THESE ANALYSIS THAT PEOPLE WOULD DO AND THERE WOULD BE SOMEBODY ON THE STAFF THAT CAN DO THAT. MAYBE A CONSULTANT THAT WOULD BE HIRED TO DO THESE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS OR ANALYSIS. THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK IT'S READY FOR PRIME TIME. I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE INTENT AND APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHO INITIATED THE DISCUSSION. >>COUN. BORREGO: THAT'S A QUESTION OF STAFF. IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND IN REVIEW OF DIFFERENT POLICIES THAT WE HAVE, THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT ARE REGULATORY AND SOME ITEMS THAT ARE VOLUNTARY. IS THAT CORRECT? WE DO HAVE SOME AREAS THAT THE STAFF ALSO REVIEWS ON A SUBJECTIVE LEVEL. IS THAT CORRECT? >> MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE IDO IS EVERY PROVISION SHOULD BE REGULATORY. WE HAVE TWO DISCRETIONARY BOARDS INCLUDING CITY COUNCIL WHO CAN MAKE DISCRETIONARY PLANS LIKE SITE PLANS. BUT THE STANDARDS ARE INTENDED TO BE YOU NEED IT OR DON'T. AND NOT OFFER THE GRAY AREA THAT PREVIOUS CODE AND SECTOR PLANS OFFERED. WHEN THE ABC TO Z PROJECT STARTED THERE WAS AN INTENTION TO SPLIT OUT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS BECAUSE IT WAS HARD TO ENFORCE AND MAKE THE DISTINCTION. THAT GOT SOME PROPERTY OWNERS INTO NASTY APPEALS. THE IDO TRIED REALLY HARD TO MAINTAIN REGULATORY NATURE AND MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE REGULATORY NATURE AND PUTTING POLICY NATURE SUCH AS THIS DEVIATES FROM THE ORIGINAL NATURE OF THE ABC TO Z PROJECT. >>COUN. BORREGO: I APOLOGIZE, I WAS MUTED. MY QUESTION WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY THE IDO. THERE'S OTHER DOCUMENTS WE HAVE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND SOME REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SUBJECTIVE AND NOT COMPLETELY DEFINED. IS THAT CORRECT? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, ASIDE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I WOULD INVITE MS. MORRIS TO CHIME IN ON THIS. I CANNOT THINK OF ANY PLANNING DOCUMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ADOPTED AND ENFORCED THAT WOULD BE POLICY RELATED OUTSIDE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> THE ADOPTED CODES IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ARE ALL REGULATORY IN NATURE WITH HAD EXCEPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>COUN. BORREGO: WHAT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS MANUAL, ARE THOSE REGULATORY AS WELL? >> YES. THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS MANUAL IS REGULATORY DOCUMENT. TO DEVIATE FROM IT REQUIRES A WAIVER SYSTEM. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. I SEE COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I WISH I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THIS QUESTION A LONG TIME AGO. MY APOLOGIES, BUT SOMETIMES WE GET OUR LIGHTBULB MOMENTS. THE PROBLEM IS THERE'S NO ACTION FOLLOW-UP TO THE POLICY, WHICH I AGREE IS PROBLEMATIC. INSTEAD OF REMOVING THIS POLICY NOW AND DOING THIS DESIGN MANUAL LATER, WHICH I REALIZE IS SOON, BUT SOON AS FAR AS GOVERNMENT TIME. INSTEAD OF REMOVING IT NOW AND DOING THE DEVELOPING MANUAL, IS THERE A WAY TO ADD AN ACTION ITEM TO THE END OF IT? AND DO THAT AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER. CERTAINLY NOT TONIGHT. IS THAT AN OPTION? >>COUN. BORREGO: THAT WOULD REQUIRE A DEFERRAL. >>COUN. BASSAN: I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION IF IT'S AN OPTION. HAVE WE THOUGHT OF, IF THERE'S AN ACTION ITEM OR WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT INSTEAD OF REMOVING IT AND PUTTING IT BACK ONCE THERE'S AN ACTION ITEM. MAYBE JUST CONSIDER NOT DOING IT TONIGHT OR NOT WITH DRAWING IT TONIGHT OR REMOVING IT. BUT ADDING THE ACTION ITEM EVENTUALLY. >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS, I THINK THAT GOING BEYOND THE REQUIRED ANALYSIS WOULD BE A LARGER ENDEAVOR BECAUSE WE NEED TO WORK OUT WHAT THOSE ACTION ITEMS WERE. FOR THE CLIMATIC THAT RELATIVELY EASY TO ADDRESS, FOR THE VIEW LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE QUITE CHALLENGING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT VIEWS WE WANT TO REGULATE. RIGHT NOW, THE ARGUMENT IS WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR AN ANALYSIS WE'RE NOT PROTECTING ANYONE'S VIEWS FROM THEIR PROPERTY. FOR THAT PORTION OF THE ANALYSIS, TO ADD REGULATION TO THAT, I THINK WOULD GO QUITE A BIT FURTHER THAN WHAT THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL FOLKS WORKING ON THIS. FOR THE SOLAR STUFF, THAT COULD BE DONE, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER DONE AT A FUTURE ANNUAL UPDATE. ONCE STAFF HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK OUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO REQUIRE THESE WINDOWS HAVE SOME SHADING, YOU NEED TO WORK ON THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WOULD WANT TO WORK ON WITH THE STAFF. IT'S FOR THIS REASON THAT THIS IS BETTER ADDRESSED IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINE BOOKLET PROPOSED. TAKING THIS ON WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, I THINK IT GOES FURTHER THAN THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL FOLKS PUTTING THIS FORWARD AND FURTHER THAN THE INTENT OF THE COUNCIL. >>COUN. BASSAN: MADAM PRESIDENT, IF I MAY FOLLOW UP. >>COUN. BORREGO: GO AHEAD. >>COUN. BASSAN: I HESITATE TO REMOVE SOMETHING FROM HERE. I AGREE WE NEED ACTION PLAN AND THE UNLESS IS VALID. I HESITATE TO REMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE IDO WHEN IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS DESIGN GUIDELINE IS GOING TO CREATE THE ACTION ITEM AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ALL THESE STEPS ANYWAY. THEY'RE GOING TO BE A LARGE ENDEAVOR. THERE'S SUCH AN OUTPOURING FROM COMMUNITY AND I'M SURE YOU KNOW WHERE WHERE STAND. I LIKE THINGS THAT MAKE SENSE. I THINK COUNCILOR BENTON, SOME OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING MAKES SENSE, WHY CAN'T WE LEAVE IT ON THERE NOW AND WORK ON IT. WHETHER IT'S WORKING ON IT THEN OR REMOVING THE ACTION ITEM. CHRONE IF IT'S A REAL QUESTION OR IF IT'S RHETORICAL. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR BASSAN. COUNCILOR BENTON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? >>COUN. BENTON: I WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH OTHER COUNCILORS IN THE COMMUNITY AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DO A RESOLUTION THAT OUTLINES A PATH FORWARD WITH RESPECT TO REGULATIONS. MY FUNDAMENTAL, AS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL SPONSORS OF THE IDO AND SOMEBODY THAT WORKS WITH CODES ALL MY LIFE, I APPRECIATED WHEN IT WAS CLEAR WHAT YOU SHALL DO AND NOT WHAT YOU MAY DO OR MIGHT DO. OFTENTIMES IN THE PAST, WHEN WE'RE FORMULATING REGULATORY LANGUAGE WE TRY TO AVOID SQUISHY WORDS AND SAY SHALL DO THIS. THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM WITH REGARD TO MY OWN DEFENSE OF THE IDO AS A REGULATORY DOCUMENT. I TOTALLY GREE WE OUGHT TO HAVE REGULATIONS AND DEVELOP THE REGULATIONS. THAT WOULD BE A STEP FORWARD. OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT IN THE IDO NOW. TECHNICALLY IT IS BECAUSE IT WAS PUT FORTH AS AN EPC AND DRAFTED INTO IDO. ONE I SAW IT A RED LIGHT WENT OFF. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR BENTON. COUNCILOR GIBSON AND BACK TO COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. GIBSON: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE COUNTING THE NUMBER OF ANGELS ON A PINHEAD. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE LOSING ANYTHING BY REMOVING THIS FROM THE IDO. WE WON'T BE LOSING THE LANGUAGE. WE WON'T BE LOSING THE INTENT. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ON BOARD WITH THAT. IF THAT DOESN'T GIVE THE DOUBTERS WHO ARE HAVING SOME TROUBLE GOING ALONG WITH THIS, GIVE THE LEVEL OF COMFORT THEY NEED, THIS STUFF GETS ARCHIVED. RIGHT? WE DON'T JUST THROW AWAY THE OLD IDO BOOK AND BRING IN ANOTHER ONE. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT NOTHING IS GOING TO BE LOST. IT WOULD BE RELOCATED IN A MORE SUITABLE PLACE. I WILL VOTE FOR THIS. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S REALLY AN IMPORTANT PRACTICE TO KEEP THESE TWO THINGS SEPARATE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WAS AN ERROR OR A GOOD INTENTION, BUT IT DIDN'T WORK OUT WELL. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN IT UP. I SAY WE CLEAN IT UP. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. A COUPLE THINGS FOLLOWING UP WITH THAT. WE MIGHT BE GAINING ANYTHING, OR WE MIGHT NOT LOSE ANYTHING. BUT WE'RE NOT GAINING ANYTHING AT THIS MOMENT WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING AND RELOCATED TO A LIMBO FOR NOW. AND LIMBO IS NOT REALLY WHAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR. I THINK THAT EVEN AS MS. MORRIS WAS SAYING, THE CLIMATIC MIGHT BE EASY TO WORK WITH BUT THE GEOGRAPHIC ARE NOT. CAN WE LEAVE PART OF IT? CAN WE BELIEVE CLIMATIC? >>COUN. BORREGO: I WANT TO WEIGH IN A LITTLE BIT. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE REGULATORY AND GUIDELINE BECAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING NOW. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO START GETTING THINGS ON THE BOOK. LIVING ON THE WEST SIDE ACROSS THE RIVER CLOSE TO THE PETROGLYPHS, RESPONSE IT IMPORTANT. I RESPECT YOUR PROFESSION AND YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BUT I ALSO WORKED IN CODE REGULATORY FOR MANY YEARS. I DO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH IS PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE REGULATORY AND THEY WANT PREDICTABILITY. I GET THAT. THAT DOES THOUGHT PRECLUDE THE FACT THAT IF WE DON'T SUPPORT THIS, WE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WE WILL BE HAVING ANOTHER SET OF AMENDMENTS COMING FORWARD IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. I THINK WE CAN ESTABLISH THE GUIDELINES AND MOVE FORWARD WITH REGULATORY DOWN THE LINE. I'M LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE WHO SENT ME INFORMATION. AND EXPLAINED THE PROCESS THEY WENT THROUGH TO GET TO THIS POINT. FOR THOSE REASONS, I THINK IT'S OKAY TO ESTABLISH THE GUIDELINES. AND COME BACK DOWN THE LINE IF WE HAVE REGULATORY DECISIONS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE. WE CAN DO THAT. FOR THAT REASON, I THINK I'M JUST GOING TO SUPPORT -- I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. I THINK THAT IT DOES PUT IN PLACE THE GUIDELINES WE NEED. I THINK WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS TO CREATE THOSE GUIDELINES RATHER REGULATORY. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COUNCILORS IN THE QUEUE. FOR STATEMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE TO A VOTE. MS. ORTEGA. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: NO. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. SENA: NO. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. OKAY COUNCILORS. THAT FAILS ON A 4-5 VOTE. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM B5 CAMPGROUNDS IN THE -- ZONE. LET ME GET MY BEARINGS. THIS IS COUNCILOR BENTON. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? >>COUN. BENTON: MADAM PRESIDENT, I'M NOT GOING TO MOVE THIS AMENDMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: ARE YOU WITHDRAWING THIS AMENDMENT, COUNCILOR? >>COUN. BENTON: I'M NOT MOVE IT. >>COUN. BORREGO: YOU'RE JUST NOT MOVING IT. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO MYSELF. THIS IS ITEM B6. NORTHWEST MESA ESCARPMENT BPO. I WOULD MOVE THIS ITEM. COUNCILORS, I MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THIS ITEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? COUNCILOR SENA, THANK YOU FOR THAT SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS? >>COUN. GIBSON: MADAM PRESIDENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: I HAVE COUNCILOR HARRIS AND COUNCILOR GIBSON. >>COUN. HARRIS: BRIEFLY. IS THIS ALSO B23? >>COUN. BORREGO: THIS IS B23. >>COUN. HARRIS: OKAY. THANKS. >>COUN. BORREGO: AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX. I'M SORRY, COUNCILORS. WE CHANGED THE NUMBERING HERE BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE WAS NOT MOVED. THIS IS FIVE. IT CHANGES TO FIVE. YES, COUNCILOR HARRIS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR GIBSON. >>COUN. GIBSON: I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR IT. WHAT IS THE AMENDMENT NUMBER? >>COUN. BORREGO: THE AMENDMENT IS B5. SINCE WE DID NOT MOVE B5, THE ORIGINAL B5. THIS CHANGES TO B5. IT'S ALSO REFERRED IN YOUR PACKET AS B23. >>COUN. GIBSON: OKAY. >>COUN. BASSAN: MADAM PRESIDENT, DOES THAT MEAN IT IS NOW B22? OKAY, JUST MAKING SURE. >>COUN. BORREGO: I HAVE TO ASK THE STAFF. >> JUST TO GIVE CLARITY. YOU HAVE A SHEET LISTING OF ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS AND THIS ON YOUR SHEET LISTING IS ITEM B23. THE WAY THAT THEY ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE BILL IS STRAIGHT NUMERICALLY BASED ON THE MOTIONS THAT ARE MOVED. SO FAR, THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR MOVED. B22 WAS NOT MOVED. SO THIS WILL NOW BE OUR FIFTH AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE, NOT B5, BUT AMENDMENT NINE. FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR PACKET IT'S B23. >>COUN. GIBSON: IF I MAY, MADAM PRESIDENT? >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR BORREGO, I WAS ASKING THE STAFF A TECHNICAL QUESTION. GO AHEAD. >>COUN. GIBSON: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I GOT CONFUSED. WHEN MS. FLOREZ WAS GOING THROUGH THIS, I MISSED SOME OF THAT. I THINK MS. SCHULZ IS WITH US. CAN AYOU GIVE US A REVIEW? >> ABSOLUTELY, MADAM PRESIDENT. COUNCILOR GIBSON, B23 THIS IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT REGARDING THE NORTHWEST MESA BPO. YOU'LL FIND AT THE VERY END OF THE AMENDMENT THERE'S NO CHANGES IN THE BODY OF THE AMENDMENT ITSELF TO THE TEXT PROPOSED FOR THE BPO. STAFF HAS JUST TAKEN SOME TIME TO ADD ADDITIONAL POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REASON OF CREATING THE NEW SUBAREA IN THE BPO. THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THE BODY OF THE BPO AS PROPOSED BY B23. YOU'LL FIND ADDITIONAL TEXT IN THE EXPLANATION. >>COUN. GIBSON: OKAY. IF WE PASS THIS, WILL IT CHANGE THE WAY O60 LOOKS RIGHT NOW? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GIBSON YES. THIS WOULD -- IF THIS AMENDMENT IS PASSED WHAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE IDO IS A SUBAREA WITHIN THE BPO THAT WAS -- DOES A NUMBER OF THINGS. LOWERS BUILDING HEIGHT TO 30 FEET REGARDLESS OF ZONING DESIGNATION AND HEIGHT ALLOWANCE THAT ANY GIVEN PARCEL MIGHT HAVE. >>COUN. GIBSON: I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT AT LUX. WE DID PASS IT. THIS JUST DOES THAT TWICE, MAYBE? OKAY. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR GIBSON, YES IT DOES DO IT TWICE. THERE WEREN'T ANY CHANGES BETWEEN LUX AND FULL COUNCIL. JUST THE EXPLANATION SECTION THAT WAS NOT GET CODIFIED INTO THE IDO. >>COUN. GIBSON: YOU KNOW, HERE'S WHAT BOTHERS ME. I'LL TALK FRANKLY. WE DID HEAR FROM A COUPLE BUSINESS OWNERS. I'VE HEARD FROM SOME AS WELL. THEY OWN PROPERTY OVER THERE THAT IS NON-COMMERCIAL. I'M TOLD THAT THEY CAN'T DEVELOP COMMERCIAL UNLESS IT NEEDS TO BE OVER 30 FEET. 35, I'M TOLD, IS THE MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR, TO ADDRESS YOUR ITEM, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND WHEN YOU'RE DONE. >>COUN. GIBSON: THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS TURN IT OVER TO MADAM PRESIDENT AND ASK IF SHE WOULD CONSIDER 35 FEET. IT'S ONLY A DIFFERENCE OF FIVE FEET. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR, I DEFINITELY WOULD CONSIDER THAT AMENDMENT TO THIS B5. I WOULD MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MY AMENDMENT. I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE STAFF? I HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE PERSON WHO SECONDED MY AMENDMENT WOULD AGREE TO THAT. SHANNA CAN READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, THE SECTION OF B23 THAT YOU WOULD BE MOVING TO AMEND WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER FOUR WHICH SAYS MOVE EXISTING CONTENT OF 3-6 TO SUBSECTION A WITH HEADING BPO SUBAREA ONE AND CREATE A NEW SUBSECTION B. AND THE RED TEXT IN BRACKETS BEGINS WHERE IT SAYS STRUCTURE HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 FEET. STRIKE 30 FEET AND REPLACE THAT WITH 35 FEET. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR SENA, DO YOU AGREE TO THAT CHANGE? >>COUN. SENA: MY SECOND STILL STANDS. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. COUNCILOR HARRIS. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES, THANK YOU. THIS IS THE ISSUE, I GUESS THE NEXT AMENDMENT FROM COUNCILOR JONES WOULD BE AMENDMENT SIX. WHERE THE ATTORNEY SAYS THIS IS ACTUALLY SPOT ZONING. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR HARRIS, I'D LIKE TO HAVE MR. MELENDREZ ADDRESS THAT. HE AND I HAD A DISCUSSION REGARDING THAT AND WE ADDED ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE REGARDING THAT ISSUE. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR HARRIS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE PROCEDURAL COMPONENTS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH AT THIS HEARING IS TO SWEAR PEOPLE IN. THE REASON IS SOME COMPONENTS OF THIS IDO ANNUAL UPDATE DO CARRY HEIGHTENED DUE PROCESS OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE FOCUSING ON LIMITED SPACES IN THE CITY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF THE CITY IS GOING TO MEET THAT OBLIGATION IT HAS TO HAVE A RATIONAL BASIS ARTICULATED FOR THE DECISION. STAFF HAS PRESENTED BECAUSE IF IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE LUX AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH COUNCILORS AND I BELIEVE FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION, THIS PROVIDES WITH THE ADDED DISCUSSION PROVIDES THE RATIONAL BASIS FOR THIS PROPOSAL AS ARTICULATED BY THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I DIDN'T HEAR THE CONCERN SO MUCH AS PERHAPS SOME BOXES WEREN'T BEING CHECKED. PART OF WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO DO IS PRESENT THIS BACK BEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THIS RATIONALE AS OFFICIAL RATIONALE FOR THIS HEIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN THAT AREA. AND THAT RATIONALE SITES POLICIES WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WOULD BE ADVANTAGED. IN THAT SENSE, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS AS ARTICULATED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>COUN. BORREGO: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE COUNSEL? IT DOES NOT APPEAR WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO THE VOTE. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. BENTON: NO. >>COUN. DAVIS: NO. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: NO. >>COUN. JONES: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM B6 WHICH IS ALSO LISTED IN YOUR PACKET OF THE ? >> THE LIMITED USES AS WELL AS THE REDUCED LANDSCAPING. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD STRIKE THE PROPOSAL DUE ITS IMPACT ON THOSE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I MOVE APPROVAL. >>COUN. BORREGO: IT APPEARS YOU HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR HARRIS. I'M COMPLETELY NOT CLEAR ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT. I WOULD LIKE SOME EXPLANATION FROM THE BEGINNING. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IF THE PREVIOUS ITEM WENT THROUGH THIS ITEM WOULD MOVE FORWARD. AND RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ITEM. WITH THAT INTENT IN MIND, I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS PARTICULAR ITEM COULD DO THAT. IF THE PREVIOUS ITEM FAILED. >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS, THE PREVIOUS ITEM UPDATED THE RECORD. AS WAS VOTED TO MAKE THE CHANGE. THAT VOTE ALREADY STANDS. SO THE VOTE YOU JUST VOTED DOWN WAS BASICALLY TO UPDATE THAT RECORD. THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED. SO, YOU NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OR NOT, THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO RESCIND THE PROPOSAL IN ITS ENTIRETY AS VOTED ON. I THINK I MIGHT BE CONFUSING PEOPLE. >>COUN. BORREGO: COMPLETELY CONFUSED, MS. MORRIS. >> PERHAPS MS. SCHULZ OR MR. MELENDREZ CAN CHIME IN. >>COUN. BORREGO: THE PREVIOUS ITEM ONLY DEALT WITH THE TOP OF THE ESCARPMENT. THIS ITEM DEALS WITH AREAS THAT WERE NOT IN THE PREVIOUS ITEM. I'M NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW WE INCLUDED AREAS THAT WERE NOT IN THE PREVIOUS ITEM. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, FIRST OF ALL I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION. HOWEVER, THIS AMENDMENT IS VIABLE REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME ON THE PRIOR AMENDMENT. AT LUX, THE COMMITTEE VOTED TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY RESTRICTIONS WITHIN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE EXISTING VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY ON THE NORTHWEST MESA. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ESSENTIALLY UNDO THE AMENDMENT PASSED AT LUX. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ADDITIONAL VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY REGULATION BEYOND THOSE WHICH PRESENTLY EXIST IN THE IDO WOULD BE RE-PEALED. MY READ OF THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT IT WOULD BE AN EXACT REPEEL OF WHAT WAS ADOPTED, NOT BEYOND. IT WOULD NOT BE TAKING AWAY ANYTHING THAT IS EXISTING IN THE IDO. IT WOULD ONLY UNDOING WHAT THE LUX COMMITTEE DECIDED TO INCLUDE. >>COUN. BORREGO: SO, IF LUX MADE A DECISION AND THAT CAME FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL, THAT ITEM STANDS. IF THIS IS APPROVED, IT APPEALS WHAT WAS ADOPTED BY LUX. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING COMMITTEES IF WE'RE REPEALING WHAT THE COMMITTEES ARE DOING? JUST ASKING THE QUESTION. THIS IS MUCH MORE -- IT COVERS A BROADER AREA THAN WHAT THE AREA THAT LUX ADOPTED. THOSE ARE VERY TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT I HAVE THAT ARE BIG CONCERNS. COUNCILOR JONES. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. JUST GIVE US, IF YOU CAN, A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT THIS CHANGES FROM LUX. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR JONES, THIS ESSENTIALLY UNDOES WHAT LUX DID. INCLUDING THE VIEW PROTECTION BEYOND WHAT EXISTS TODAY. I KNOW THAT MS. SCHULZ WERE MORE INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN DELINEATING THE AREA THAT WOULD COVER. I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE ONE OF THEM TO DESCRIBE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFICALLY WHAT WAS DONE AT LUPS WITH RESPECT TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AND THAT ARMS YOU WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT VOTING ON THIS WOULD UNDO THOSE RESTRICTIONS THAT THE LUPS COMMITTEE AGREED TO IN THE IDO. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, THE TWO AREAS OF THE BPO UP FOR DISCUSSION IN THE PRIOR AMENDMENT AND THIS AMENDMENT B23, 24 ARE THE SAME EXACT AREAS. A LINE WAS DRAWN WITHIN THE EXISTING BPO TO A DISTANCE OF 660 FEET. WHICH YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE AMENDMENTS. IT'S WITHIN THE INNER CIRCLE THAT THESE NEW PROVISIONS WOULD APPLY. AS THEY WERE PASSED BY THE LUPS COMMITTEE. THIS AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILOR JONES IS SPONSORING IS TO RESCIND THAT AMENDMENT AS IT WAS PASSED BY THE LUPS COMMITTEE WHICH MEANS THERE WILL NOT BE >>COUN. SENA: WHILE THEY'RE GETTING THE MAPS PULLED UP. I HAVE CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS AS TO WHY -- IF THIS WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE, I'M NOT PART OF LUPS, WHY THESE VIEW PROTECTIONS WERE NECESSARY IN THE DISCUSSION. YOU KNOW, I WASN'T THERE. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE DISCUSSION AND REASONING AS TO WHY THIS WAS NECESSARY. >>COUN. BORREGO: DO WE HAVE AN APC COMMISSIONER WITH US BY ANY CHANCE? IT DOESN'T APPEAR SO. I'M GOING TO DEPEND ON THE STAFF FOR THAT ANALYSIS. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR SENA, AS THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO THE EPC, THE JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED WITH THE PROPOSAL DISCUSSED HOW THE ESCARPMENT IS A SENSITIVE AREA. WHILE THE BPO DOES PROVIDE SOME EXISTING PROTECTION, THERE HAVE BEEN MORE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA THAT SUGGESTS THAT BPO DID NOT QUITE COVER ENOUGH OR OFFER QUITE ENOUGH PROTECTION. THE ORIGINAL INTENT AS PROPOSED BY THE SPONSOR WAS TO STRENGTHEN AND BUILD UPON THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN THE VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE. I DO HAVE THE MAP UP HERE FOR YOU. I AM HAPPY TO SCROLL NORTH AND SOUTH AND EAST AND WEST IF YOU LIKE TO ZOOM IN ON ANY PARTICULAR AREAS. >>COUN. BORREGO: CAN YOU GO IN A LITTLE BIT MORE? >> I CAN CERTAINLY ZOOM IN. >>COUN. SENA: IF I CAN ASK MS. SCHULZ? CAN WE PULL UP THE LAND FEATURES. THIS TELLS US WHERE THE AREA IS. I'M THINKING ABOUT WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SENSITIVE AREAS OR HIGHLIGHTING SENSITIVE AREAS DISCUSSED BY EPC. >> I KNOW EXACTLY THE MAP FEATURE YOU'RE ASKING FOR. IT'S NOT CONTAINED IN THAT PARTICULAR MAP THAT I WAS SHOWING YOU. GIVE ME ONE MOMENT TO PULL UP ANOTHER MAP. I CAN PULL UP THE CONTOUR LINES TO SHOW WHERE THE ESCARPMENT BEGINS AND ENDS. >>COUN. BORREGO: WHILE SHE'S DOING THAT, COUNCILORS, I WANT TO MENTION THAT ALLOWING THIS AMENDMENT TO BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED TONIGHT WOULD RESCIND THE LUPS DECISION. I IT WOULD ALSO, THE WAY THE AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN, IT REMOVES ALL REFERENCES TO THE PROPOSED NORTHWEST MESA BPO HEIGHT AREA TO REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE IDO CURRENTLY. APPROVED BY LUPS. PROPOSED TO BE IN THE IDO. ARE THEY ALREADY ADOPTING THEM? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, THEY'RE NOT ADOPTED AT THIS POINT. THEY'RE PART OF THE BILL. THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE BILL. THEY ARE NOT ADOPTED AT THIS POINT. THEY WOULD NOT BE ADOPTED UNTIL THE COUNCIL ACTS ON O-21-60. MY COMPUTER AUTOMATICALLY MUTES ME. WHAT WAS ADOPT AT LUX IS RESCINDED BY THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS -- THE PRIOR AMENDMENT THAT WAS VOTED DOWN ACTUALLY INCLUDES WHAT WAS ADOPTED AT LUX. THE LUPS COMMITTEE INCLUDED A NEW SUBAREA OF THIS PARTICULAR BPO. THAT IS A GEOGRAPHIC AREA OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY. IT'S ESSENTIALLY A BUFFER AREA AROUND THAT OVERLAY. WITHIN THAT BUFFER AREA IT EXPANDS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE VIEW PROTECTION AREA, STRUCTURE HEIGHT WOULD BE LIMITED TO 30 FEET FROM NATURAL GRADE. THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL RED LINES WITHIN THAT THEY INCLUDED NEW CROSS REFERENCES TO THE NEW BPO AREA. THOSE WOULD BE REMOVED AS WELL. THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE NEW SUBAREA TOO WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED. SPECIFICALLY, WHAT IS BEING UNDONE IS THE NEW GEOGRAPHIC SUBAREA WITH HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 30 FEET AND CROSS REFERENCES TO THAT IN RELATION TO THE IDO. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, YES. LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN. WHAT THIS IS GOING TO SHOW YOU THE EXISTING BPO AREA IN YELLOW WITH THE CONTOUR LINES THAT SHOW YOU WHERE THE ESCARPMENT CURRENTLY EXIST. WHAT YOU WILL NOT SEE ON THIS MAP IS THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL 660 FEET THAT WERE PROSED TO BE DRAWN OUTSIDE OF THIS YELLOW BOARDER. NOW CAN ENVISION THE NEW SUBAREA ON THE TABLE IS 660 FEET AROUND THIS EXISTING AREA. I'M HAPPY TO SCROLL AND ZOOM IN AS THE COUNCIL PREFERS. >>COUN. BORREGO: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COUNCILORS? I CAN'T SEE THEM ON MY SCREEN. WE HAVE COUNCILOR JONES, COUNCILOR PEÑA, AND COUNCILOR BENTON. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ANYONE OF YOU THREE WHO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE EPC'S -- WHAT THE EPC HAD TO SAY AND WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS? THAT WE'RE NOW LOOKING TO UNDO IT. >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS. THE EPC HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY ON THIS. THEY ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY FROM PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA CONCERNED THAT THIS UNDOILY IMPACTS A PARTICULAR PROPERTY. A PROPERTY THE EPC APPROVED A ZONE CHANGE ON. IT WAS CONCERNS ON THAT THEY EPC CHOSE NOT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF SUPPORT ON THIS. THEY WERE CONCERNED IT WAS TARGETING A PROPERTY THAT CAN GONE THROUGH A ZONE CHANGE AND AN APPEAL. THERE ARE MOSTLY JUST RESIDENTIAL AREAS COVERED BY THE PROPOSED SECOND HEIGHT SUBAREAS. THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF COMMERCIAL AREAS. THOSE ARE SHOWN AND IN THE ZOOMED IN MAPS IN THE AMENDMENT. I THINK WE HAD TESTIMONY THAT SOME OF THESE ARE DEVELOPED OUT. SOME HAVE RELATIVELY LOW INTENSITY MIXED USE ZONING. ONE YOU TAKE OUT THE ONES ALREADY DEVELOPED AND HAVE ZONING THAT LIST OF SIX COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AMENDMENT GOES DOWN TO ABOUT TWO OR THREE THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY A PROPOSAL. >>COUN. JONES: MAY I ASK A FOLLOW UP AND I'LL BE QUIET? >>COUN. BORREGO: GO AHEAD. >>COUN. JONES: THIS IS THE SAME AS COUNCILOR HARRIS SAID, WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED SPOT ZONING? >> IT'S NOT SPOT ZONING IN TERMS OF DEFINITION. ONE ZONE SURROUNDED BY A DIFFERENT ZONE. NOT TO PUT WORDS IN COUNCILOR HARRIS'S MOUTH I COULDN'T I THINK HE'S CONCERNED ABOUT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW, I SHOULD DEFER TO COUNCILOR HARRIS ON THAT. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, SPOT ZONING IS A REALLY SPECIFIC TERM OF ART IN WHAT HAPPENS IN ZONING. THERE ARE CERTAIN JUSTIFICATIONS THAT JUSTIFY A SPOT ZONE, THAT'S GIVING ZONE TO A PARTICULAR SITE THAT DIFFERS FROM A ZONE AROUND IT. I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE THIS PROPOSAL IN EITHER DIRECTION FOR ANY TYPE OF SPOT ZONING. WHEN THE CITY HAS INTEREST IN AMENDING ZONING LIMITATIONS THAT ARE LIMITED IN GEOGRAPHY THE CITY HAS A HEIGHTENED DUE PROCESS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THAT. THAT'S QUASI-JUDICIAL. THAT'S THE PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW. THIS APPLIES TO A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PERIMETER, WITHIN 660 FEET OF THE EXISTING VIEW PROTECTION AREA. BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED GEOGRAPHY THERE'S THE LIMITED HEIGHT. IT'S NOT A SPOT ZONE. TO THE EXTENT THAT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS ARE CONCERNED, THERE ARE ISSUES RELATED TO VESTING AND THE EXTENT THAT SOMEONE HAS THE APPLICATION IN THE HOPPER OR HAS APPROVAL BY THE CITY THERE MIGHT BE A VESTING RIGHT THAT PROPERTY OWNER WOULD HAVE THAT WOULD EXEMPT THEM FROM THESE NEW LIMITATIONS. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THIS DEALS WITH A BROADER SECTION OF THE CITY AND THE COUNCIL WITH THE PRIOR AMENDMENT FAILED TO MEET, IT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A SPOT ZONE. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: WE HAVE COUNCILOR PEÑA AND COUNCILOR BENTON. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I ACTUALLY PUT MY HAND DOWN. I GUESS I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK A QUESTION. JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THIS, IF YOU HELP ME OUT WITH THIS, BASICALLY THIS SENSITIVE LANDS CORRECT? IT'S CONSIDERED SENSITIVE LANDS, CORRECT? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR PEÑA, THE BPO IS PROPOSING TO PROTECT SOME PORTION OF WHAT THE IDO WOULD CALL MAJOR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. >>COUN. PEÑA: OKAY. THEN, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION SAYING THAT THERE WAS WEAK PROTECTION OVERLAYS, RIGHT? SO COUNCILOR BORREGO WAS GOING TO STRENGTHEN THOSE WEAK PROTECTIONS AND NOW THIS WOULD JUST TAKE AWAY ALL PROTECTIONS EVEN THE ONES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST IN THE IDO. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR PEÑA. NOT QUITE. YOU'RE GOOD UP UNTIL THE VERY END. THE PROTECTIONS THAT EXIST TODAY IN THE IDO REGARDING THE OVERLAY WHICH IS THE YELLOW BOUNDARY WOULD STAY IN PLACE. WHAT WOULD BE RESCINDED IS THE PROPOSED 660-FOOT AREA. IT WOULD RESCIND THE PROPOSAL TO CREATE A NEW AREA THAT WOULD EXIST 660 FEET OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING BPO. IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE TO PASS, THIS YELLOW AREA AND ALL THE PROTECTIONS AND IDO TODAY WOULD STAY IN PLACE. OTHERWISE, YES YOU DID CHARACTERIZE WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR CORRECTLY. >>COUN. PEÑA: OKAY. THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THE SENSITIVE LANDS HAD PROTECTION OVERLAYS. AND THIS WAS JUST TAKING IT BACK DOWN TO WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY. THIS WOULD LEAVE THE BPO AS IS AND NOT HAVE THE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR BENTON. >>COUN. BENTON: MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY. I AM CERTAINLY NOT SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS A SPOT ZONE CHANGE FOR PROPERTIES BECAUSE PROPERTIES CAN STILL DEVELOP REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS ADOPTED. THEY STILL HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY WITHIN THE CURRENT ZONE THAT THEY HAVE. THIS JUST FURTHERS -- AND I MENTIONED BEFORE, WHY DO WE HAVE COMMITTEE IF WE'RE GOING TO RESCIND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THE COMMITTEES MAKE TO THE COUNCIL. FOR THAT REASON, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS COUNCILOR JONES. WITH THAT, COUNCILORS, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IN THE QUEUE. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE VOTE. MS. ORTEGA. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: NO. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. SENA: NO. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. OKAY, COUNCILORS, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE STRETCH BREAK. IT IS -- MAYBE A FIFTEEN MINUTE STRETCH BREAK. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CANNABIS ITEMS. I WANT TO GET YOU OUT OF HERE BEFORE TEN O'CLOCK TONIGHT. LET'S COME BACK AT 6:30. WE'LL START WITH THE CANNABIS AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THIS IS THE 35th MEETING OF THE 24th COUNCIL. WE TOOK A 15-MINUTE BREAK. WE ARE GOING TO RESUME OUR MEETING WITH THE IDO AMENDMENTS FOR CANNABIS-RELATED USES. COUNCILORS, IF YOU REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION WE HAD BEFORE OUR BREAK WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING A SUMMARY FROM THE STAFF ON EACH THE PACKETS BECAUSE WE FINISHED THE NON-CANNABIS RELATED AMENDMENTS. WE'RE ON THE CANNABIS-RELATED AMENDMENTS. WE'LL HAVE A SUMMARY FROM STAFF AND WE'LL ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF. WE'LL GO TO EACH COUNCILOR FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE AMENDMENT. AND WE'LL VOTE IT UP OR DOWN. WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MS. MORRIS AND MS. SCHULZ. >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS, THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO DO A SHORT SUMMARY ON THE OTHER PACKET WHICH IS CANNABIS. AMENDMENT B5 AS LABELLED IN YOUR PACKET, THIS IS ONE OF -- THAT DO TIDY UP WORK. B5 MAKES CLARIFICATION TO THE LANGUAGE IN THE IDO ABOUT HOW ODORS ARE MATEIGATED. AND MOVE FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE HAD A REQUEST FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON THIS ONE. WE KEEP THIS RATHER THAN SAYING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAY THE CITY. WHEN YOU COME TO THIS AMENDMENT THERE'S A REQUEST FROM THE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SAY THE CITY RATHER THAN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW THE MOST FLEXIBILITY. B6 IS A TIDY UP AMENDMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE ACTION TAKEN AT THE STATE LEVEL. IT ADDS THE PHRASE PREMISE. IT CHANGES EXISTING DISTANCES FROM 30 FEET TO 300 FEET. IT HAS A REVISED DEFINITION TO CANNABIS TO MAKE SURE IT REFERS TO THE CANNABIS REGULATION ACT. AND MAKES CLEAR THE IDO ARE ABOUT COMMERCIAL CANNABIS USE AND NOT PERSONAL CANNABIS USE. THIS IS TO MAKE SURE THE IDO IS IN CONFORM WITH THE CANNABIS ACT. THE THIRD OF THE TIDY UP AMENDMENTS IS B8. THIS AMENDMENT ADDS DEFINITION FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION. AND DOES NOT ALLOW IT TO OCCUR PRIOR TO THE STATE REGULATIONS ON THIS MATTER. THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT B7 THAT HAD AN OLDER VERSION OF THE DEFINITION THAT AMENDMENT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. OR REQUESTED TO BE WITHDRAWN BY THE ADMINISTRATION. THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING FROM B6 TO B8. THOSE THREE ARE THE TIDY UP STYLE AMENDMENTS. FROM THAT POINT, WE MOVE ON TO AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE MORE OF A POLICY NATURE. AMENDMENT B9, THIS AMENDMENT IS THE START OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT TALK ABOUT WHERE CANNABIS SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE. DISTANCES. B9 WOULD PROHIBIT CANNABIS RETAIL ON LOTS OR BUSSING AND MAIN STREET CORRIDOR. AND ADS ADDITIONAL USES TO THE SENSITIVE USES NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 300 FEET. RESIDENTIAL HOMES, AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 300 FEET. IT'S PROHIBITED WITHIN 300 FEET OF SCHOOL, DAY CARE, GROUP HOME OR RESIDENTIAL HOMES. IT WOULD BE CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN 300 FEET OF MIXED ZONE DISTRICT. AND PROHIBIT ON-SITE OF LOTS OF BUSSING AND MAIN STREET CORRIDOR. B10 ADDS A 300-FOOT DISTANCE SEPARATION BETWEEN CANNABIS RETAIL AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. B11, THIS AMENDMENT ADDS A DISTANCE SEPARATION BETWEEN CANNABIS CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING FROM A RELIGIOUS INITUTION OF 300 FEET. AND B12 PROPOSES A SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN CANNABIS RETAIL FACILITIES. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE CANNABIS REGULATION ACT STATED THAT LOCAL JURISDICTION HAVE SOME AUTHORITY OVER THE DENSITY OF LICENSES. ONE WAY OF ADDRESSING THAT DENSITY IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CANNABIS RETAIL FACILITIES. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD PROPOSE THAT CANNABIS RETAIL FACILITIES THAT ARE CLOSER THAN 600 FEET FROM -- REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE. AMENDMENT B13 WOULD HAVE A LARGER SEPARATION DISTANCE OF A THOUSAND FEET BETWEEN CANNABIS RETAIL FACILITIES BUT ALSO REQUIRES RESALE TO BE 1,000 FEET FROM ADULT ENTERTAINMENT USES. B14 REMOVES THE SEPARATION DISTANCE FROM CANNABIS CULTIVATION AND CANNABIS MANUFACTURING FROM A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT. THE STATE STATES THAT YOU MUST BE 300 FEET FROM A SCHOOL OR DAY CARE. ONE READ IS THAT LIST IS THE START OF A LIST AND YOU CAN START OTHER USES LIKE RESIDENTIAL, CHURCH, GROUP HOME. ANOTHER READ IS THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS ON THE LIST. IF THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS ON THE LIST WE NEED TO STRIKE RESIDENTIAL ZONE ON THE LIST. THAT'S WHAT B14 WOULD DO. THERE ARE NOTES IN B15 AND B6, IF B14 PASSES THEN THE REFERENCES TO RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS IN B6 AND B15 WOULD BE STRUCK AS WELL BY THE PASSING OF B14. B15, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW CANNABIS CULTIVATION AND CANNABIS MANUFACTURING WITHIN 300 FEET OF SCHOOL OR CHILD DAY CARE FACILITY TO SHIFT FROM PROHIBITED USE TO CONDITION USE. IF B14 PASSES, IT WOULD NOT INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS. IF B14 DOES NOT PASS, THEN B15 INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT. AMENDMENT B16, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD RESTRICT SIGN TYPE LOCATION ASK CONTENT FOR ALL THREE CANNABIS USES. B17, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD LIMIT HOURS OF OPERATION FOR CANNABIS RETAIL AND CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING USES. THE HOURS WOULD BE LIMITED IF THEY'RE WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT. B20, AMENDMENT EXEMPTS CANNABIS MICROBUSINESSES OR PRODUCE MICROBUSINESSES FROM LIMITATIONS OF CUSTOMER AND DELIVERY HOURS. B18 WOULD LOI AND IT ADS SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMITATION OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE MIXED USE ZONE. THIS AMENDMENT ALSO NOT ALLOWS ON-SITE OIL ACTIVATION OR EXTRACTION. THERE WAS LANGUAGE ABOUT ON-SITE OIL ACTIVATION AND EXTRACTION. THERE WAS CONCERNS RAISED FROM CONSTITUENTS ABOUT THE FLAMMABLE NATURE OF THOSE ACTIONS. AND THAT MIXED USE ZONES INVOLVE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THIS PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW OTHER MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES TO OCCUR NOT BE ACT VACATED OIL DISTILLATION AND EXTRACTION. AMENDMENT B21 WOULD CREATE A DEFINITION OF CANNABIS MICRO-BUSINESS AND ADDS EXEMPTIONS FOR ANY DISTANCE SEPARATION FOR BUSINESSES OPERATING UNDER CANNABIS MICRO-BUSINESS LICENSE AS DEFINED BY THE STATE. THIS AMENDMENT IS LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER AMENDMENTS IN THAT IT HAS A NUMBER OF IF CLAUSES. IT'S BASED ON THE IDEA OF BEING RESPONIVE TO EVERYTHING BEING PASSED AS A WHOLE. THE IDEA BEING THAT THE STATE HAS CREATED THESE CANNABIS MICRO-BUSINESS LICENSES IN ORDER TO SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESSES WITHIN NEW MEXICO AND ALSO TO TRY AND ADDRESS EQUITY ISSUES WE'VE HEARD FROM PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS AMENDMENT TRIES TO FURTHER THAT BY GIVING CANNABIS MICRO-BUSINESS DIFFERENT TREATMENT IF THERE'S RESTRICTIONS ON OTHER USES. AND FINALLY, AMENDMENT B9 ADDS GRANDFATHERING LANGUAGE TO ALLOW MEDICAL CANNABIS FACILITIES THAT SHIFT FROM ONLY MEDICAL SALES TO RECREATIONAL SALES TO REMAIN AS IS AND BEING EXTENDED TO ALL THREE CANNABIS USES. CANNABIS RETAIL, CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING. WITH THAT, I'LL AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>COUN. BORREGO: ARE THERE QUESTIONS? I CAN'T SEE THE QUEUE TO TELL ME IF ANY COUNCILORS HAVE THEIR HAND UP. COUNCILOR BENTON. >>COUN. BENTON: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. MY QUESTION IS FOR STAFF. WITH REGARD TO THE MICRO-BUSINESSES, CAN YOU SUMMARIZE WHICH ONES ADDRESS, JUST TO REPEAT, ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY THOSE BUSINESSES THAT PROVIDE SPECIAL PROVISIONS? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR BENTON, YES, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE B NUMBERS IN OUR GREEN PACKET, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE B20. B21. AND I THINK THAT'S ALL, MS. MORRIS, IS THERE ANOTHER ONE THAT ADDRESSES MICRO-BUSINESS THAT IS NOT B20 OR 21? >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS, NO THOSE ARE THE TWO SPECIFIC TO MICRO-BUSINESSES. AMENDMENT B18, WHILE NOT SPECIFIC TO MICRO-BUSINESS IS SPECIFIC TO SMALL SPACES. THOSE SMALLER COMMERCIAL MIXED USE SPACES WILL BE OPEN TO ANY BUSINESSES BUT MORE ATTRACTIVE WITH A MICRO-BUSINESS. THAT IS SORT OF ABOUT MICRO-BUSINESS. IF THAT MAKES SENSE. >>COUN. BENTON: THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: COULD YOU GO OVER B19 AGAIN, PLEASE? >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS, YES. B19, THIS ONE ADDS SOME GRANDFATHERING LANGUAGE. THE IDO IN THE 2019 UPDATE IN ITS FRAMEWORK GRANDFATHERED MEDICAL USES ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT MEDICAL WAS GOING TO BE A TYPE OF LICENSE IN THE FUTURE. IN THE IDO, IF YOU'RE A SELL ONLY MEDICAL CANNABIS THEN YOU'RE TREATED AS GENERAL RETAIL. HOWEVER WHAT WE DIDN'T REALIZE IN WORKING ON THAT WAS THAT THOSE MEDICAL LICENSES WOULD GO AWAY. AND THAT AS A LICENSE AND BUSINESS MODEL, CANNABIS RETAILERS AND OTHERS IN THE BUSINESS WOULD BE COVERING BOTH THE MEDICAL MARKET AND THE RECREATIONAL MARKET. SO, AMENDMENT B19 IS A MORE EXPLICIT FORM OF GRAND FATHERING TO SAY THAT IF YOU ARE A CURRENT MEDICAL CANNABIS RETAILER, YOU ARE GRANDFATHERED IN YOUR LOCATION AND YOUR FORM. AND CAN SHIFT TO 100% RECREATIONAL WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE CHANGES. FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY SOMEBODY HAS A CANNABIS RETAIL BUSINESS AND THEY HAVE 200 FEET AWAY FROM A SCHOOL. THE STATE SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE 300 FEET AWAY. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO STAY IN THEIR LOCATION WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT. THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE GRANDFATHERING LANGUAGE IS TO ALLOW THE EXISTING BUSINESSES TO SHIFT FROM A MEDICAL FORM TO A RECREATIONAL FORM WITHOUT ANYTHING BEING ON THEM. THAT SCHOOL EXAMPLE IS NOT THE BEST. MAYBE A CHURCH, THIS WOULD CONTINUE TO ALLOW THEM IN THEIR LOCATION. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF COUNCILORS OR THE STAFF? I GUESS NOT. WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO GOING THROUGH EACH AMENDMENT. WE WILL ASK THE SPONSORS TO MAKE A MOTION, ASK FOR A SECOND, ONCE THAT SECOND IS RECEIVED, THEN WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. THE STAFF WILL STAY IN THE QUEUE. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FROM THE STAFF, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE STAFF, AND WE'LL GO ON TO OUR VOTE. WITH THAT, COUNCILORS, I WOULD ASK THE COUNCILORS WHO ARE NOT SHOWING ON THE SCREEN IF THEY COULD JUST COME BACK BECAUSE WE'RE READY TO GO. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE ALL AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WITH THAT, LET'S MOVER FORWARD. COUNCILOR DAVIS, AMENDMENT B5. >>COUN. DAVIS: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. AMENDMENT B5 IS JUST A TECHNICAL UPDATE. TO REFLECT HOW THE CITY WILL ADDRESS THE REQUIRED ODOR. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR DAVIS, ARE YOU THERE? >>COUN. DAVIS: SORRY, MADAM PRESIDENT. I'M GETTING THE SAME MESSAGE THAT I GOT KICKED OUT. AMENDMENT B5 IS TECHNICAL CLEAN UP LANGUAGE ADDRESSING HOW THE CITY INTENDS TO ADMINISTER THE OTHER CONTROL PLANS REQUIRED. IT'S TECHNICAL AND DOESN'T MAKE CHANGES TO BUSINESS. I MOVE AMENDMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: I HAVE SEVERAL SECONDS. COUNCILOR SENA AND I SAW ANOTHER HAND. COUNCILOR SENA, I'LL TAKE THAT AS A SECOND. ARE THERE QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS? I DID HAVE A QUESTION, COUNCILOR DAVIS. DO WE HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AVAILABLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION? >>COUN. DAVIS: JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS MOST APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT TO ADMINISTER THIS OF THE IDO. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT. MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, IS THERE SOMEONE THEREFROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? >> SORRY TO INTERRUPT, EARLIER TODAY I GOT A REQUEST FROM THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THIS READ THE CITY RATHER THAN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. NOT QUITE SURE HOW WE INSERT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THAT WAS THE REQUEST. >>COUN. BORREGO: CAN WE MOVE ON. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE? >> YES, IT WOULD READ -- >> MADAM PRESIDENT, IT'S UP ON THE SCREEN. >> IN ACTIONS ONE, TO, THREE WHERE WE STRIKE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IT WOULD BE STRUCK TO SAY THE CITY. IT WOULD READ, ACTION NUMBER ONE WOULD SAY, APPROVED BY THE CITY. THE CITY -- IF SMOKING OR VAPING WILL BE ON-SITE. WE STRIKE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND PLANNING AND DEPARTMENT. ACTION ONE. ACTION TWO AND ACTION THREE. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY. WE HAD A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. AND A SECOND BY COUNCILOR SENA. DO YOU ACCEPT THAT CHANGE? THAT'S NOT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF ME. >>COUN. DAVIS: THAT'S A MINOR TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. I AGREE. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR SENA. OKAY. I HAD A QUESTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION. I THINK SOMEBODY FROM PLANNING. MR. WILLIAMS. MR. WILLIAMS, COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW ODORS ARE GOING TO BE MITIGATED? AND HOW THOSE WOULD BE ENFORCED ON? >> MADAM PRESIDENT. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST TO CHANGE TO THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY. MY OFFICE AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT ARE WORKING TO PROCURE HOW THEY WILL DO THAT. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASON WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHO IS BEST TO ADDRESS AND REVIEW THOSE ISSUES. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY. ARE YOU TELLING ME WE DON'T KNOW YET? >> WE DO HAVE A CONTRACTOR THAT'S WORKING TO REVIEW AND SCOPE SOME OF THAT INFORMATION. AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING DEFINITIVE. WE APPRECIATE THE FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHICH CITY DEPARTMENT WILL BE ABLE TOX CUTE THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE IDO PROVIDED COUNCIL'S APPROVAL. >>COUN. BORREGO: MR. WILLIAMS HAVE WE DONE ANY RESEARCH TO SEE HOW OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE ADOPTED THESE TYPES OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE TYPES OF USES, HOW THEY MITIGATE ODORS? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT'S AN AFFIRMATIVE YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS, I GUESS. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT'S CORRECT. WE'RE LOOKING AT BEST PRACTICES AS WELL AS THE WORK THAT THE CONSULTANT IS PERFORMING IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH THE PLAN THAT'S ENFORCEABLE. AND ENSURE THAT THE CORRECT AGENCY IS REVIEWING THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA FOR ADDRESSING ODORS. >>COUN. BORREGO: I THINK THAT ALL OF THE COUNCILORS WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW THOSE ODORS ARE GOING TO BE MITIGATED. WHEN YOU DO HAVE A PLAN OF ACTION, WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE. >> YES, MA'AM. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, I THINK YOUR QUESTION TO THE DEPARTMENT IS DO WE KNOW WHO ADMAIN -- ADMINISTRATE IT AND THE ANSWER IS NO. THESE PROGRAMS ARE STANDARD, AND THEY'RE IMPLEMENTED ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THE STAFF WRITE UP MENTIONS THE DENVER HAS AN EFFECTIVE ONE THEY USE CARBON FILTERING AND STANDARD AIR FILTERING FOR ALL FACILITIES THAT USE MANUFACTURING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. I APPRECIATE THE CITY IS LOOKING FOR THE EXPERTS. I WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTION THAT WE WANT TO LEAVE THE FLEXIBILITY INTEREST THE RIGHT DEPARTMENT AND RIGHT EXPERTS. IT'S NOT NO ONE IS DOING THIS, IT HAPPENS IN EVERY JURISDICTION TO FIND THE RIGHT DEPARTMENT TO PLACE IT INTO. >>COUN. BORREGO: ANY QUESTIONS, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE TO THE VOTE ON TECHNICAL AMENDMENT B5. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. WE'LL MOVE TO B6. COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: MADAM PRESIDENT, I MOVE ITEM B6 WHICH IS FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR DAVIS, WE LOST YOU AGAIN. >>COUN. DAVIS: WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT IT ISSUE UP TO OUR FOLKS. AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT ADDRESSES A COUPLE OF OTHER TECHNICAL CLEAN-UPS. FOR THOSE WATCHING AT HOME WHO KNOW ABOUT THESE ISSUES, IT CONTAINS LANGUAGE WE NEED TO BE REMOVED. WE HAVE OTHER AMENDMENTS TO REMOVE IT. IN THE INTEREST OF DOING THIS STEP BY STEP. THIS BRINGS THE CITY'S IDO PROHIBITTIONS BETWEEN CANNABIS ACTIVITY AND SCHOOLS INTO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. ESSENTIALLY CHANGING 330 TO 300 FEET. I MOVE ITEM SIX. >>COUN. BORREGO: I HAVE A COUPLE OF SECONDS. COUNCILOR BENTON, YOUR HAND WENT UP FIRST. ARE THERE QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ISSUE? IT DOES NOT APPEAR SO. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO THE VOTE. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. WE'LL MOVE ON TO FLOOR AMENDMENT B7. IT LOOKS LIKE THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE SPONSOR? WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM B8. COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. HERE WE GO AGAIN. ITEM B8 IS FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER NINE. IT'S JUST A LANGUAGE CLEAN UP THAT DEFINES WHAT COMMERCIAL ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IS. THIS IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE STATE RULES AND WILL BE PRESUMED TO BE ALLOW FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. THE DEFINITION IS TO BE COMPLAINT WITH STATE LAW. I MOVE WHATEVER AMENDMENT THIS IS. I THINK IT'S NUMBER NINE. >>COUN. BORREGO: ACTUALLY, IT'S B8. NUMBER NINE. OKAY. WHY DO I NOT HAVE THAT ON MY SCRIPT? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR SENA. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR GIBSON. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES, THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I HAVE A NOTE HERE THAT SOME LANGUAGE WAS INCORPORATED IN B8 THAT CAME FROM B12. IS THAT CORRECT? >>COUN. BORREGO: I'LL ASK THE STAFF OR SPONSOR TO RESPOND. >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS, I CAN RESPOND TO THAT. B8, THERE WAS LANGUAGE THAT WHEN I WAS CREATING ALL THE AMENDMENTS THAT I ERRONEOUSLY PUT INTO B12. IT HAD NO LOGICAL CONNECTION, I THINK MY EYES WERE STARTING TO CROSS. THE LANGUAGE SHOULD HAVE GONE INTO B8. WE'VE CAUGHT IT NOW. THAT LANGUAGE IS BEING STRICKEN FROM B12 AND YOU'LL SEE THAT IN GREEN WITH A STRIKE THROUGH. AND BEING PLACED INTO B8. IT'S ALSO IN GREEN TO SHOW THE CHANGES BETWEEN WHAT WAS SENT TO YOU ON THE 14th AND WHAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU TODAY. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT CONFUSION. THAT'S MY FAULT. >>COUN. GIBSON: THANK YOU. AND ACTUALLY, MY INTEREST IS IN THE DISTANCE SEPARATION BETWEEN FACILITIES. I'LL HOLD THOSE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FOR B12. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY. COUNCILORS , DID EVERYONE UNDERSTAND WHAT MS. MORRIS SAID? IF YOU'RE LOOK AT YOUR AMENDMENT B12, YOU SEE THE STRIKE THROUGH LANGUAGE IN GREEN, SHE IS INCORPORATING THAT INTO B8. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR. ANY QUESTIONS? IT SEEMS THIS LANGUAGE IS RELATING BACK TO THE STATE ISSUING REGULATIONS. >>COUN. DAVIS: THAT'S CORRECT, MADAM PRESIDENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT'S WHAT IT'S SAYING. ANY QUESTIONS? GOING TWICE. OBVIOUSLY NOT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO A VOTE. ITEM B8, WHICH IS ALSO AMENDMENT NUMBER NINE. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. OKAY, COUNCILORS, THE FIRST TWO WERE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. THE SECOND WAS DEFINITIONS. WE ARE MOVING ON TO DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS. IF YOU FOLLOW IT IN YOUR PACKET, THIS IS AMENDMENT B9. IT'S ALSO AMENDMENT NUMBER TEN. THIS IS COUNCILOR JONES. >> THIS IS PAUL IN THE ADMINISTRATION, MAY WE JUMP IN, THIS IS ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT CAME FROM THE ADMINISTRATION? >>COUN. BORREGO: YES, YOU JUST JUMPED IN. ALL RIGHT. COUNCILOR JONES, I'M GOING TO DEFER TO YOU. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I WAS GOING TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR THAT THIS WAS BY REQUEST. THE MAYOR SENT IT DOWN. IT WOULD PROHIBIT CANNABIS RETAIL ON LOTS ON MAIN STREET CORRIDOR WITHIN 300 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS GROUP HOME OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. IT ALLOWS CANNABIS RETAIL TO OCCUR WITHIN 300 TEAT OF LOT CONTAINING RESIDENTIAL USE OR MIXED USE. OR PROHIBIT ON-SITE CONSUMPTION ON LOTS ON MAIN STREET CORRIDOR. >>COUN. BORREGO: I NEED A SECOND. COUNCILOR BASSAN. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF COUNCILORS? IT LIKES LIKE COUNCILOR DAVIS ALSO OFFERED A SECOND. >>COUN. DAVIS: I WAS OFFERING A COMMENT OR QUESTION. >>COUN. BORREGO: GO AHEAD. >>COUN. DAVIS: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I DON'T SECOND THIS. I THINK THIS IS A CONVERSATION INVOLVED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION. I THINK THEIR CONCERN FOR WHAT IS INVOLVED. I THINK THE EXISTING DISPENSARY ON CENTRAL OR MAIN STREET CORRIDORS, ALL OVER THE CITY ARE GOOD NEIGHBORS. OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THEM. THIS STARTED AS A PROHIBITION. WE USED LANGUAGE ABOUT A RATIONINAL PUBLIC BASIS FOR SAYING A LEGAL BUSINESS CAN'T USE CENTRAL AVENUE WHEN EVERY OTHER THING CAN. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. I DO SUPPORT, FOR THE RECORD, COUNCILOR BENTON'S MORATORIUM IN OLD TOWN TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARCHITECTURE THERE THAT ARE DIFFERENT. I DON'T SEE A BASIS FOR THIS. I THINK THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT'S APPROPRIATE IN EACH SECTION OF THE ROAD. I WOULD OPPOSE IT. IF OTHER COUNCILORS WANT TO DISCUSS IT, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. I'M NOT EVEN IF THE SPONSOR IS SUPPORTING IT TONIGHT. >>COUN. BORREGO: WE HAVE COUNCILOR JONES AND COUNCILOR SENA. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I'M SPONSORING THIS BY REQUEST. I MUST TELL YOU, HAVING HAD BUSINESS ON CENTRAL CALL ME ABOUT THIS AND SAY WOULD WELCOME HAVING CANNABIS WITHIN OUR LAWS AND REQUIREMENTS ON CENTRAL. THEY ARE DYING. THEY ARE DYING ON CENTRAL. THEY WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HAVE TRAFFIC AND BUSINESS. THEY BELIEVE THIS IS NOT A HARMFUL BUSINESS. AND WOULD INCREASE THE TRAFFIC. AND OPEN OUR CITY BACK UP AGAIN. WITH FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT QUITE SURE ABOUT THIS, FASTEN YOUR SEAT BELTS, I'M GOING TO VOTE NO ON THIS LEGISLATION. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR JONES. COUNCILOR SENA. >>COUN. SENA: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I HAVE A LOT OF COMMUNITIES, SPECIFIC BLACK, INDIGENOUS, PEOPLE OF COLOR REACH OUT TO ME WITH CONCERNS ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WAS DISCUSSION AND MOVEMENT. JUST TO CLARIFY AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC THAT ALSO IS WATCHING. DEFINING WHAT THE MAIN STREETS ARE ASIDE FROM CENTRAL. THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING. CAN YOU ELABORATE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS TAKEN AWAY SUCH AS THE PROHIBITION OR WITHIN 660 FEET SO THE PUBLIC IS CLEAR HOW THIS AMENDMENT HAS CHANGED SINCE ITS INCEPTION? >>COUN. BORREGO: WAS THAT A QUESTION? >>COUN. SENA: IF MORRIS OR THE MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, EITHER ONE. IF YOU CAN CLARIFY HOW THIS HAS EVOLVED AND OUTLINING WHAT OTHER STREETS ARE INVOLVED IN THIS AMENDMENT. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR SENA. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE COUNCIL FOR THIS DISCUSSION. AND FOR TAKING THE TIME TO WORK WITH COUNCIL STAFF TO HEAR FROM THE INDUSTRY AND FROM ADVOCATES. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ON THE MAY 12 LUPS MEETING THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT PUT FORWARD BY THE ADMINISTRATION THAT DID HAVE SOME ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ABOUT 660 FROM A MAIN STREET CORRIDOR. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK WE'VE HAD WITH FOLKS ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY IS MAIN STREET CORRIDOR. SOME OF THE ORIGINAL THINKING WHEN THIS PROCESS BEGAN BACK IN MAY WAS PROTECTING HISTORIC CHARACTER PARTS OF THE CITY INCLUDING OLD TOWN AND HISTORIC ROUTE 66. THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE CAME FROM. AS YOU MENTIONED, COUNCILOR SENA, THIS HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME AS WE CONTINUE TO GET PUBLIC INPUT AND WORK WITH INDUSTRY AND ADVOCATES. THE 660-FOOT WAS TAKEN AWAY. ALL THAT WOULD BE LEFT, IF A PROPERTY ABUNDT MAIN STREET CORRIDOR, AND COUNCILOR DAVIS MENTIONED WHAT IT WAS, THEY'RE MEANT TO PRESERVE WALKABLE MAIN STREET AREAS WHERE PEOPLE MILL ABOUT AND SHOP. THEY HAVE A SPECIAL DESIGNATION FOR THAT REASON. THEY INCLUDE 4th STREET IN BARELAS, AND BRIDGE IN THE SOUTH VALLEY. IT INCLUDES CENTRAL IN DOWNTOWN AND NOB HILL AND SMALL SECTION OF SAN PEDRO. WE WORKED WITH A NUMBER OF FOLKS AROUND INEQUITY ISSUES ABOUT WHERE FOLKS CAN ACTUALLY OPEN UP BUSINESSES. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO TALK WITH FOLKS ABOUT. THAT'S A PRIORITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION IS HEARING THE EQUITY CONCERNS AND ADDRESSING THEM. BUT ALSO BALANCING THAT WITH SMART PLANNING AND TRYING TO PRESERVE HISTORIC NGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY. THAT IS THE GENESIS OF WHERE THAT CAME FROM. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT MR. DILLA OR SOMEONE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION WANTED TO SPEAK. >> THAT WAS ME. I'M WITH THE ADMINISTRATION. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY. I THOUGHT MR. PADILLA WAS GOING TO SPEAK. WE HAVE COUNCILOR SENA. >>UN. SENA: YEAH, I WLD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON MY STATEMENT. I APPRECIATE THE EVOLUTION OF THIS AND THE CONTINU CONVSATION AS TO WHAT EQUITY LOOKS LIKE IN THIS INDUST. WE HEARD TAY REALLY THINKING ROUGH OF HOW THIS INDUSTRY WOULD NOT BE HERE WITHO SOME OF THE RESIDENTS THAT SPOKE ON HOW ITARMED COMMUNITIES O COLOR. I CAN'SUPPORT TH. IN THINKING SPECIFICALLY OF TE EQUITY ISSUES. I AM ENCOURAGED THAT WE ARE CONTUING TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS A TO WHAT EQUITY . I KNOW WE WONGET THIS 100% PERFECT OVERL, AND HOWQUITY IS ALSO A CHALLENGE IN GENER IN TERMS OF POLICY. I WILL SAY THAT SOME REVIONS FO CANNABISEGULATION WILL COME THRGH AND OUR COMMUNITY AYS INAUGED IN THIS PROCS. I'T BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: A OTHER QUESTIONS COUNCILO? I HA A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE MAIN STRT CORRID. HAT THEEFINITION AS DEFID BY THESTATE? I'M ASKINGHE STAFF. I'M LOOK AT THE STAFF. >> MAIN STREET CORRIDOR DEFINED THE O. WHEN WAS SPEAKG MENTIONED THE LISTF CRIDORS AS DENED BY THE IDO. POIONS OFENTRAL AVENUE, 4th STREETSAN PEDRO, BE AND BROADWAY. >>COUN. BORREG THOSE ARE ACTULY T MAI STREET THATE PLY T THETATE FOR DESIGNION? >> IT'S NOT N MEXICO MAIN STRE. THESE ARE MN STREE AS PLAN.EDY THE COMPREHSIVE IN THE COMEHENVE PLAN, THE'S MAP THAT SHOWS THAT LISTFROADWA THAT HAVE BEE MAIN SEET SIGNION. >>CO. BORREGO: THAS RELY CONFUSING CAUSWE HAVE MAIN REETS AL OVER THE CITY. I THIN ABOUT MONOMERY BOULARD IS A MNSTREET. UNSER IS A MAIN ST. I INK IT'SEALL SEWHAT MISLEADING BECAU WHEN TIT OF ALBUQUERQUE ALI F MAIN STREDESIGNATIO WEAVE GO THROUGH ANNTIRE PROC AN APPLICATIPROCS AND APPROVAL PSSND THAT AREA IS DESIGNATE A MAIN STREET. CERAL ANU IS AN EXAMPLE OF TH. th STET IS ANMPLE OFHE DEGNATION OF A MAIREET. THIS QUITE CONFUSING T . I WAS TNKING WEN IREADHIS, I WAS THINKG MA SEET AS DEFINED BTHETATEAINTREET PROGM. THATSOTHESE. I'D LIKO KNOW HOW T O CIDES WHAT IS AAIN STREE R DESIGNATION OF THE I? ADAMCHR COCILORS THAT AN EELLENTQUESTION AUALLY GOES BK A STEP. THE COMPHENSIVE PLAN WHENT SADTED IN 2017 ADOPD A CORRIDORS MA IT LISTED A SERI OF NTERS. BA NTERS, ACTIVY CENTERS AND EMPLOYME CENTERS. D SERIES OF CORRORS, MAI STREETAS ONE OF THE CORRIDORS. THE IDO I ITS ADOPTI TIES CERTAI DEVELMENTNTITLEMENT AND RESICONS TO CERTAIN COIDORS. E TEE ONES WE USE ARE UAN CE, MN STREET A PMIUM TRANSITCOIDOR. THISNDMENT MAKES REFEN TO ONE O TH THATS THE IN STREECOIDOR. >>UN. BORREGO: INDERSTD WHAT YOU'RE YING MS.MORRIS. IT SEEMSO MIKE -- LISIANA BOEVARD IS A URBAN COOR. ISOT IN FAC ARBAN CORRIDOR. PAO IS A URBAN COIDOR WEAVE A CTE THAT IS DEFINED IN THE CPREHSIVE PLAN I THE FUTU. I REALLY TNK THIS MIG BE SOMETHINTHAT WE WANT T LK AT IN THE FURE DETERMINE AND IATE TO DIGRE, BUT IS ANMPORTANT T MAKE. IT'S VER MISLEADI AND WHEN I READ THIS I THOUGHF THE ATE MAINTET PROGRAM. >> MAM CHAIR, IAGE, WE VE ARD CONFUSION OVER THE YEARS. DEFINITE,UTEOMPRENSIVE AN UPDE SHO PROBABLY CONSIDER A DIFFERENT TM THAN MAIN STREET CORRID. AL CONSIDER WHAT ROAD WAYS GET TH DESIGNATION AND WHEER THERE'DITIONAL ROADAYS YOU WANT ADD TO THAT WHATEVE WE LLHOSEORRIDORS IN THE FUTURE. >>. BORREGO: AS LONG A IT'S ON THE RADAR. COUNCILOR JONES. >>COUN. JONE TNK YOU, MAD PRESIDENT. TOSIMPLIFY IT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING OR LISTENING O PAYING ATTENTN, WHE THE WORDS MAIN AND STREET ARE CAPITALIZED ATEFERS TO A SPECIFI DEFINITION O MAIN REET. IT LIKE WHENEVER YOU PITALIZE NEIGHRHOOD AND YOU'REALKING ABOUT A DEFINITI OF NEIGHBORHOOD VERS -- IT IS CONFUSING. YOU READT THAT WAYND DERSTAND IT AS THE WORDS CAPITALID IT'S RERRING TO A SPECIFIC MAIN STREET NEIGHBORHOOD OR WHATEVER. COUN. BORREGO: I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK IT IS CONFUSING TO READER ASOU SEE IT A YOU THIN YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF MAIN STREET YOU THINKB13. >>COUN. DAVIS: I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, MADAM PRESIDENT. I SAW THE ADMINISTRATION WANTED TO WEIGH IN ON THAT QUESTION AND THEY CAN HELP US RESOLVE THIS DISCREPANCY. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, THIS IS PAUL ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN QUICKLY. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT ONE ISSUE OF CLARITY AROUND THIS. THE ADMINISTRATION'S AMENDMENT WHICH IS B13 ACTUALLY WOULD BE PROHIBITIVE WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF ANOTHER CANNABIS RETAIL FACILITY. AND B12 AMENDMENT WHICH IS COUNCILOR DAVIS'S AMENDMENT WOULD BE CONDITIONAL WITHIN 600 FEET. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE MY NOTES DID NOT SAY CONDITIONAL. LET ME HAVE THAT CLARIFIED REALLY QUICK. GIVE ME JUST ONE MOMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: EXCUSE ME. I'M GOING TO HAVE THE STAFF CLARIFY THIS. MY NOTES IN FRONT OF ME ARE READING DIFFERENT. I WOULD LIKE FOR EACH ONE TO BE CLARIFIED. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS THAT YOU KNOW FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY. HE IS CORRECT. B12 WOULD ALLOW -- I'LL READ IT. B12 STATES THAT THIS USE WHICH IS CANNABIS RETAIL SHALL BE CONDITIONAL WITHIN 600 FEET OF ANOTHER CANNABIS RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT. SO ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO OPERATE A CANNABIS RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN 600 FEET OF ANOTHER IF YOU GOT CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. OTHERWISE IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. B13 STATES THAT IT SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF ANOTHER CANNABIS RETAIL. IT GOES BEYOND THAT AND WILL NOT BE PERMITTED OF 1,000 FEET OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT OR ADULT RESOURCES. THEY HAVE SOME COMPONENTS IN COMMON WITH RESPECT TO PROHIBITION ON DISTANCING BETWEEN, HOWEVER B13 HAS THE EXPANSIVE DISTANCE LIMITATION BETWEEN ADULT USES. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT CONFUSION. >>COUN. BORREGO: DID YOU ALL GET THAT? IS THAT CLEAR? I SEE NODS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I JUST WANT TO COMMENT THAT WE ARE CREATING DISTANCE SEPARATION BETWEEN ADULT USES BUT NOT BETWEEN CHURCHES. THAT'S MY COMMENT. COUNCILOR SENA. >>COUN. SENA: I JUST WANTED A POINT OF CLARIFICATION TO WHICH BILL WE'RE DISCUSSING. ARE WE DISCUSSING B13 IS THIS THE NEXT FLOOR AMENDMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO TREAT THEM SEPARATE BECAUSE THEY'RE PRETTY DIFFERENT. IF WE CAN DO ONE AT A TIME AND WHICHEVER COMES FIRST IT DOESN'T MATTER. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ONE SPECIFIC. >>COUN. BORREGO: WE WILL TREAT THEM SEPARATELY. I THINK THEY'RE RELATED THAT'S WHY WE DISCUSS THEM TOGETHER. COUNCILORS, I THINK WHAT KWIEM GOING TO DO -- COUNCILOR GIBSON, GO AHEAD. >>COUN. GIBSON: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THIS SEEMS LIKE A GOOD TIME TO REMIND OURSELVES OF SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD EARLIER. AND ACTUALLY HEARD FROM SOME OF THE CANNABIS PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN GROWING AND MANUFACTURING RETAIL CANNABIS. THE RISK THAT THEY'RE FACING OF AS THEY'RE FINDING A PIECE OF PROPERTY OR STOREFRONT TO RENT ASK MAKING THAT INITIAL INVESTMENT, AND NOT KNOWING IF THEY COULD INADVERTENTLY BE WITHIN A 600-FOOT OR 1,000-FOOT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WANTS TO DO THAT. I DON'T THINK WE HOPE TO PUT COMPLICATIONS ON PEOPLE LIKE THAT. WHERE PARTICULARLY IN THE BEGINNING AS THE STATE BEGINS TO ISSUE LICENSES, THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET INTO THIS BUSINESS I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY, BUT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT THIS ON THE STATE OR EVEN ON OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHO WAS FIRST. AND WHO MAY BE ENCROACHED? WHO WAS THE ENCROACHER. I'M WONDERING IF THIS COUNCIL WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT IN A GRACE PERIOD FOR WHATEVER DISTANCING THAT WE DETERMINE, IF ANY, IS APPROPRIATE. IF PERHAPS WE COULD PUT A SIX-MONTH PERIOD BEFORE THESE KICK IN. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN DOING THAT. >>COUN. BORREGO: IS THAT AN AMENDMENT TO EITHER OF THESE? >>COUN. GIBSON: I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE. I THINK THAT IF THE SPONSORS ARE WILLING TO DO THIS, YEAH, I WOULD ADD THE MANAGEMENT. WHERE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM. >>COUN. BORREGO: LET'S HANDLE -- I SAID WE'RE GOING TO DO B13 FIRST BECAUSE IT'S THE MOST RESTRICTIVE AND WE'LL COME BACK TO ITEM 12. I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A MOTION ON ITEM 13. COUNCILOR JONES, THIS IS YOUR AMENDMENT. >>COUN. JONES: I'M DOING IT BY REQUEST. I DON'T FEEL FREE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: I GUESS NOT, COUNCILOR GIBSON. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON ITEM B13? COUNCILOR JONES. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON B13? COUNCILOR GIBSON, IS THAT A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM B13 AS A DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT BETWEEN CANNABIS RETAIL FACILITIES OF A THOUSAND FEET. COUNCILOR SENA, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >>COUN. SENA: I HAVE A QUESTION SINCE THIS IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S AMENDMENT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND THIS. THIS ADULT RETAIL AND ADULT ENTERTAINMENT. NOT ON THE DENSITY QUESTION, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. CAN WE GO PG AS POSSIBLE INTO THE REASONING FOR THE SEPARATION? >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR SENA, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. ONE OF THE INITIAL STEPS THE ADMINISTRATION TOOK WHEN THIS WAS SIGNED UNTIL LAW WAS TO REALLY LOOK AT BEST PRACTICES FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY AND COMPARE IN WHAT WE SEE AND HOW IT LOOKS AND HOW WE ENVISION HOW ALBUQUERQUE COULD LOOK. ONE OF THE THINGS WE SAW IN LOOKING AT OTHER COMMUNITIES IS THERE'S OFTEN PROHIBITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF ADULT BUSINESSES. >>COUN. SENA: IF I CAN FOLLOW UP? WHERE ARE YOU DASH WHAT OTHER CITIES OR MUNICIPALITIES ARE YOU REFERENCING? COLORADO OREGON CALIFORNIA? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR SENA, WE LOOKED AT MUNICIPALITIES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. I BELIEVE WE'RE THE 17th STATE IN THE NATION TO PASS RECREATIONAL CANNABIS. I CANIGATE BACK TO YOU ON EXACTLY WHICH CITIES HAD PROHIBBITIONS. WE DID A NATION WIDE LANDSCAPE VIEW. >>COUN. SENA: WHAT WAS THEIR JUSTIFICATION OF PROHIBITION OF ADULT RETAIL? >> I THINK IT GOES BACK TO THE IDEA OF ADULT THEMED BUSINESSES AND THE FACT THIS IS AN ADULT PRODUCT ONLY AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE 21 YEARS AND OLDER. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. NOT TO BE AT POINT, REALLY QUICKLY, WE DIDN'T HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS AT ALL. I'M CURIOUS IF THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO BE DEALING WITH. CAN YOU TELL ME, DID THE MAYOR HEAR FROM STRIP CLUBS THAT LEGAL CANNABIS BUYERS WOULD LOWER THEIR PROPERTY VALUES? >> NO. I DON'T KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE MAYOR HEARD FROM. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR DAVIS FOR THE QUESTION. THIS IS SOMETHING WE TOOK A LOOK OF OVER CONCENTRATION OF ADULT THEMED BUSINESSES IN COMMUNITIES AS WELL. THAT'S SOMETHING THE MAYOR IS SENSITIVE. >>COUN. DAVIS: I DON'T THINK THE MAYOR IS SUGGESTING THAT OUR CURRENT CANNABIS CUSTOMERS ARE HAVING THIS ISSUE. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE MAYOR ALSO DIDN'T HEAR FROM SEX TOY SELLERS THAT THEY'RE WORRIED FROM CANNABIS RETAILERS. WE DIDN'T HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT FROM ANYBODY IN THE ADULT INDUSTRY THAT WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE HORRIBLE THINGS TO HAPPEN BECAUSE CANNABIS SHOWED UP. >> THAT DID NOT COME FROM THAT INDUSTRY. I THINK THE CONCERN WOULD BE FOR THE FOLKS THAT LIVE WITHIN A NUMBER OF THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE CONCENTRATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >>COUN. DAVIS: I DON'T SEE ANY NEXUS IN A HIGHLY REGULATED BACKGROUND CHECKED HIGHLY CONTROLLED LEGAL BUSINESS HAVING ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING SEX BUSINESSES OR ANYTHING ELSE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN THESE TWO. I APPRECIATE THE OTHER COUNCILOR WHO RAISED THOSE CONCERNS. LET ME ADDRESS THE OTHER MATTER HERE. I WON'T DO THIS AGAIN. I THINK THE THOUSAND FOOT DISTANCE LACKS A POLICY BASIS. CERTAINLY AS A PROHIBITION. I ARGUE THE OTHER AMENDMENT, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT WITH THE DISTANCE WE USE FOR LIQUOR AND IS CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE TREAT REGULATED BUSINESSES AND THAT 600-FOOT RULE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. I ALSO ARGUE A BLANKET PROHIBITTION DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCES OF OUR CITY THAT WE HEARD AND WE REJECTED THAT EARLIER. I THINK WE CAN ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS IN THE NEXT AMENDMENT BY WAY OF CONDITIONAL USE THAT ALLOWS EACH NEIGHBORHOOD TO WEIGH IN ON THE QUESTIONS FOR THEMSELVES WITH THIS COUNCIL IF THEY COME UP. I WOULD OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT ON THE BASIS OF OPPOSING BOTH PARTS. >>COUN. BORREGO: BEFORE YOU -- THAT'S NOT YOUR AMENDMENT. COUNCILOR SENA ALSO HAS A COMMENT. >>COUN. SENA: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. MY QUESTION IS RELATING TO COUNCILOR DAVIS'S AS TO HOW WE'RE THINKING ABOUT REGULATING SPACES OR WHETHER IT'S ADULT ENTERTAINMENT OR NOT AND JUST THE ADULT BUSINESS IN GENERAL. HOW DO WE REGULATE, I GUESS THIS COULD BE FOR MS. MORRIS. SUCH AS BREWERIES, MICROBREWERIES, OR LIQUOR SALES, IS THAT DISTANCE RELATE TO THE NEXT AMENDMENT OR HOW IS IT REGULATED? >>COUN. BORREGO: MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS, BREWERY AND TAP ROOMS AND OTHER LIQUOR USES HAVE SOME DISTANCE SEPARATIONS IN THEM. UNDER THE STATE REGULATIONS, BUT THERE ARE NO DISTANCE REGULATIONS IN THE IDO. AND ALSO NO DISTANCE SEPARATION BETWEEN OTHER SIMILAR USES. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE A BREWERY YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE AWAY FROM ANOTHER BREWERY. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CLUSTER. >>COUN. SENA: MADAM PRESIDENT, IF I CAN FOLLOW UP ON THIS QUESTION. FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT WAS A LIQUOR STORE, WHAT IS THE STATE REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF DISTANCE BETWEEN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT AND RETAIL? >> I GOT BRIEFLY DISTRACTED. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >>COUN. SENA: NO WORRIES. MY QUESTION IS WHEN IT RELATES TO STATE REGULATIONS AS YOU SAID, WHAT ARE ARE THOSE REGULATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO ADULT ENTERTAINMENT OR PROXIMITY TO LIQUOR STORES? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, AS FAR AS I KNOW THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS BETWEEN ALCOHOL AND ADULT BUSINESSES. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT LIQUOR LICENSES ARE LIMITED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A CHURCH OR SCHOOL. AGAIN THAT'S AT THE STATE LEVEL. AND LIQUOR RETAIL IS CONDITIONAL WITHIN 500 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL USES. WE DO HAVE SOME STUFF IN BOTH THE STATE LEVEL AND THE IDO ABOUT DISTANCES BETWEEN ALCOHOL AND USES THAT ARE SENSITIVE THAT MAY BE IMPACTED BY IT LIKE CHURCHES AND RESIDENTIAL AND SCHOOLS. WHAT WE DON'T HAVE IS ANYTHING ABOUT ADULT USE TO ADULT USE. WHETHER IT'S ALCOHOL SALES OR ADULT THINGS TO OTHER ADULT THINGS SUCH AS ADULT RETAIL. >>COUN. BORREGO: DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILOR? >>COUN. SENA: YES, THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF COUNCILORS? IT DOESN'T APPEAR SO. WITH THAT, COUNCILORS, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO A VOTE ON ITEM B13 WHICH IS ALSO AMENDMENT 13. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. BENTON: NO. >>COUN. DAVIS: NO. >>COUN. GIBSON: NO. >>COUN. HARRIS: NO. >>COUN. JONES: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. SENA: NO. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. OKAY. COUNCILORS, NOW COUNCILOR DAVIS. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE BACK TO ITEM B12 WHICH IS ITEM 14. >>COUN. DAVIS: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. WHAT IS NOW AMENDMENT 14 IS A BACK UP OF THE FIRST VERSION. IN SHORT, THIS WOULD ADD A 600 FOOT CONDITIONAL DISTANCE BETWEEN CANNABIS RETAIL. IT LETS EACH NEIGHBORHOOD DECIDE FOR ITSELF OR WEIGH IN ON QUESTIONS OF ADDITIONAL CANNABIS LOCATIONS THAT ARE CLUSTERED CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. THAT'S ALL. I MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER 12. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR DAVIS. I'LL SECOND YOUR AMENDMENT. THERE'S ALSO A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR SENA. NO, A QUESTION FROM COUNCILOR SENA? >>COUN. SENA: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO IF THIS -- OR JUST IN ANTICIPATION OF THIS INDUSTRY. IF THEY POP-UP ANOTHER ONE NEARBY WOULD IT BE -- HOW WOULD THIS PROCESS GO? IS IT WHO GOT THERE FIRST? I JUST WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND MORE. I UNDERSTAND THE DENSITY QUESTION. BUT JUST CURIOUS HOW THIS, IF IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE, IF NEIGHBORHOODS SAY THIS IS THE ONE WE'RE UTILIZING WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER ONE IN THE AREA. HOW IT RELATES. OR PROVIDE SOME WAYS THAT EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO. I GET IT'S CONDITIONAL. IT COULD BE APPROVED. >>COUN. DAVIS: I JUST HAD A LITTLE CONNECTION ISSUE. WAS SHE ASKING ME OR STAFF? >>COUN. SENA: EITHER ONE. WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT. EITHER COUNCILOR DAVIS OR MS. MORRIS. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR DAVIS, IT'S YOUR CALL. >>COUN. DAVIS: I MISSED THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION. I CAN ALWAYS JUMP IN. I HAVE A LOT TO SAY. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, AS DRAFTED THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE THE FOOT THROUGH THE DOOR. IF SOMEBODY CAME IN WITH A BUILDING PERMIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND THAT WAS APPROVED FIRST THEY WOULD GET THE SPOT. THE PERSON WHO SUBMITTED THE NEXT APPLICATION, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE COMING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE. THAT SPEAKS TO COUNCILOR GIBSON'S DISCUSSION A LITTLE BIT EARLIER ABOUT THE SIX-MONTH GREAT PERIOD. I THINK IF I'M CHECKING THE CONVERSATION CORRECTLY, WE ASK THE QUESTION ON B13 BUT WE DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION ON B12 ABOUT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD A SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD. I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING, COUNCILOR SENA, WITH THIS QUESTION. AS DRAFTED IT'S THE FIRST PERSON TO GET IN THROUGH THE DOOR EGETS -- IS THE PERSON THAT HAS TO GET THE CONDITIONAL USE. >>COUN. GIBSON: MADAM PRESIDENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: GIVE ME ONE SECOND. COUNCILOR SENA, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >>COUN. SENA: IN PART. I ALSO AM CURIOUS WHAT COUNCILOR GIBSON WOULD LIKE TO SAY. MAYBE I'LL HOLD MY NEXT COMMENT AFTER COUNCILOR GIBSON. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR GIBSON. >>COUN. GIBSON: I THINK THE ANSWER THAT MS. MORRIS GAVE US IS THE MOST LOGICAL AND COMMON SENSEICAL ONE. AT LEAST ON ITS FACE. IT MAY NOT BE A REAL WORKABLE ONE. PARTICULARLY IN THE VERY EARLY DAYS OF OPENING THIS UP. FOR EXAMPLE, I DON'T KNOW IF I MENTIONED THIS OR NOT, ONE OF THE BUSINESSES THAT IS LOOKING TO DO BUSINESS IS THINKING ABOUT QUITE A LARGE INVESTMENT. AND WANTS TO BUY PROPERTY AND BUILD A BUILDING. THEY HAVE TO HAVE A LOCATION. THEY HAVE TO HAVE AN ADDRESS IN ORDER TO GET THE LICENSE. AND ONCE THEY GET THE LICENSE THEY CAN GO THROUGH PLANNING AND DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO THERE. IN THAT CASE THEY CAN BE PRETTY WELL INVESTED BEFORE THEY ANY WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO BE FIRST IN LINE OR NOT. I DIDN'T SAY THAT VERY WELL. I HOPE I MADE SOME SENSE. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR SENA. >>COUN. SENA: MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT IS JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS INDIVIDUAL WHO ARE IN THIS INDUSTRY ARE LOOKING TO BE IN THIS INDUSTRY HAVE DEEPER POCKETS OR ARE WORRIED JUST FOR MICROBUSINESSES. I'M LOOKING THROUGH MY AMENDMENT FOR B21 AS TO HOW IT RELATES TO MICRO-BUSINESS. I WORRY THAT IT APPLIES. IF THE FIRST PERSON GETS THEIR PERMIT AND HAS THE FUNDS TO DO SO TO START THE APPLICATION PROCESS. THEY'RE ALREADY BEHIND BECAUSE THE FEDERAL LOAN PROGRAMS AND JUST BEING NOT A SAME LEVEL OR PLAYING FIELD. I'M JUST CURIOUS AS HOW HOW THIS WOULD BE ADDRESS FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN A MICRO-BUSINESS THAT CAN BE PUSHED OUT OF AN AREA JUST BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T WANT ANOTHER ONE BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY IS TAKEN OVER THAT BLOCK. >>COUN. GIBSON: MADAM PRESIDENT, IF MAY, I PROBABLY DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH ON WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT BEFORE. THE EXAMPLE I GAVE -- IN A BIG LARGER ESTABLISHMENT WANTING TO GET INTO BUSINESS HERE. AND TO OUR INDUSTRY DOWN HE. IT COULD HAPPEN WITH A MICRO-BUSINESS. IT COULD HAPPEN WITH JUST ABOUT ANYONE. WE COULD BE LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT PLACES OF BUSINESS WITHIN THE SAME SHOPPING CENTER OR STRIP MALL. SMALLER BUSINESS -- MUCH SMALLER INVESTMENT THEM TO THEM IS AN AWFUL LOT OF MONEY. I GAVE THE ONE EXAMPLE, MAYBE THAT'S NOT THE BEST EXAMPLE TO GIVE. IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU'RE MAKING A VERY LARGE INVESTMENT OR A SMALL INVESTMENT IT'S PROPORTIONAL TO WHERE YOU ARE IN THE MARKET. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK. I'VE LISTENED TO COUNCILOR SENA AND COUNCILOR GIBSON, I THINK THEY MAKE EXCELLENT POINTS. I OFFERED THIS AS A COMPROMISE FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSALS. I AM NOT -- I'M CONVINCED WE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF PROHIBITING OUR NEW MICROBUSINESSES FROM COMPETING IN AN EQUAL PLAYING FIELD. I'M INCLINED TO NOT SUPPORT MY AMENDMENT AND LET THE BUSINESS START AS IT SHOULD. WE COULD REVISIT THIS LATER THIS YEAR. I'M INCLINED TO GIVE THEM A FAIR SHAKE. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR SENA, DO YOU HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT? >>COUN. GIBSON: ONE MORE. >>COUN. BORREGO: HANG ON COUNCILOR GIBSON, COUNCILOR SENA HAD HER HAND UP FIRST. >>COUN. SENA: COUNCILOR DAVIS, I APPRECIATE THAT. I HOPE WE TALK ABOUT DENSITY SOON. I THINK THEY'RE ROLLING IN, NO PUN INTENDED. THEY'RE COMING. WE HAVE TO REALLY ADDRESS HOW WE LOOK AT DENSITY. I KNOW THAT IS WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY BASED ON THE CANNABIS RECREATIONAL ACT. I HOPE WE THINK THAT THROUGH. I WOULD LOVE TO FURTHERER THIS CONVERSATION. AND SEE WHAT DENSITY COULD LOOK LIKE. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SEPARATION BETWEEN CANNABIS RETAIL. BUT HOW THAT LOOKS, I THINK WE'RE ALL DECIDING THAT. JUST APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR GIBSON AND COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. GIBSON: YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT THAT FAR AWAY FROM THE 2021IDO UPDATE. WE WILL BE REVISITING THIS THIS FALL. I BELIEVE IT'S IN OCTOBER. THAT MIGHT BE PRETTY GOOD TIMING IF WE CAME BACK TO REVISIT THIS. LOOK AT THIS AGAIN. I DON'T EXPECT THAT WE -- I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE INFLUX INITIALLY. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE SO GREAT THAT ALL OF THE GOOD SPOTS ARE TAKEN UP, FOR EXAMPLE. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR PEÑA. >>COUN. PEÑA: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THIS IS FOR MR. MELENDREZ. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUSINESSES AND SATURATION OF BUSINESS. RIGHT NOW, FROM THE LOOKS OF IT IT'S REALLY THE LARGER BUSINESSES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS OPEN PLAYING FIELD IN TERMS OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN BUSINESSES BECAUSE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE STATE HASN'T COME UP WITH A MECHANISM ON HOW TO GIVE MICROLICENSES. IS THAT CORRECT? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR PEÑA, THE CANNABIS REGULATION ACT CONTEMPLATES THIS CONCEPT OF MICRO-BUSINESSES. IT'S UP TO THE REGULATION DIVISION TO COME UP WITH THE RULES AS TO HOW THAT LICENSING WILL WORK. THAT PROCESS IS NOT COMPLETE. >>COUN. PEÑA: SO, WHERE DO SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS -- I'M REALLY HAVING A LOT OF HESITATION WITH ALL THIS RESTRICTIONS WE'RE PUTTING FORWARD AND ALL THESE AMENDMENTS WE'RE PUTTING FORWARD. I'M JUST SIT HERE LISTENING. I THINK IT'S A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR CITY AND FOR THE STATE. JUST LISTENING TO EVERYBODY AND WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT -- I'M HEARING EVERYBODY TALK ABOUT CANNABIS, AND IT'S DRIVING ME A LITTLE NUTS BECAUSE WE -- THIS IS WHAT ME AS A PERSON OF COLOR IS MARIJUANA, WE'RE PUTTING ALL THESE THINGS FORWARD AND TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTIONS FROM DISTANCES AND I'M JUST REALLY CONCERNED THAT THESE MICRO-BUSINESSES SINCE THIS PROCESS HAS NOT STARTED, THOSE PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DO IN TERMS OF MAKING SOME LANGUAGE IN ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS THAT REALLY TALK ABOUT HOW WE SAVE A SPACE FOR THESE. EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE SATURATED. THE LITTLE GUY ISN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET IN. JUST KNOWING THAT I KNOW PEOPLE WHO HAVE SERVED PRISON TIME BECAUSE OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA. I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED IT. I'M WANTING TO MOVE FORWARD AND I'M WANTING TO MAKE ROOM FOR THIS INDUSTRY TO COME INTO OUR CITY. IT JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S REAL HERE. SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL IN JAIL. WE CALL IT CANNABIS. WHEN IT WAS IN OUR HANDS IT'S MARRY JUANA. I WOULD REALLY LOVE FOR US TO -- LOOKING AT THIS AMENDMENT IN PARTICULAR IS THAT WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING TO WHERE WE CAN NOT ALLOW FOR SOME OF THESE BUSINESSES TO -- I FEEL LIKE WE'RE LIFTING EVERYTHING AND THEY CAN COME IN AND WE'RE ROLLING OUT THE RED CARPET, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME PEOPLE PRESENT THAT REALLY SHOULD BE HAVING OPPORTUNITIES TO GET INTO THE INDUSTRY. I'M NOT SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS MOVING FORWARD. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR BENTON. >>COUN. BENTON: JUST TO FOLLOW ON WHAT COUNCILOR PEÑA'S THOUGHT THERE. WITH REGARD TO THIS SPECIFIC AMENDMENT BEFORE US, I'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH IT IF WE DID HAVE A GEOGRAPHICAL PREVENTATIVE CONCENTRATION FOR THE BIG BUSINESSES BUT WE EXEMPT THE MICRO-BUSINESS FROM THIS DISTANCE SEPARATION. NOT TO CONFUSE MATTERS ANYMORE. I AGREE, I THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME BREAKS GIVEN. BESIDES THE FACT THAT THEY CAN COMBINE ALL THE OPERATIONS WITHIN BUILDING. THERE'S NOT THAT MANY BREAKS ASIDE FROM THE AMENDMENTS COMING UP FOR MICRO-BUSINESS MODEL. I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY FAIR. GIVE THEM A LEG UP. >>COUN. PEÑA: MADAM PRESIDENT, JUST TO FOLLOW UP, THANK YOU COUNCILOR BENTON. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. THIS IS VERY FRUSTRAING BEING A PERSON OF COLOR AND TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS IS STEAM ROLLING US IN CERTAIN ASPECTS. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR COMMENTS, COUNCILOR DAVIS. I'M GLAD THAT YOU HAVE ALL THE EXPERIENCE IN ALL OF THIS. I JUST WANT IT TO GET LOST ABOUT PEOPLE. AND ABOUT PEOPLE OF COLOR IN ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION AS WE MAKE WAY FOR THE INDUSTRY. I DON'T WANT TO LOOK BACK AND SEE WE DIDN'T DO DUE DILIGENCE IN TERMS OF US GETTING RUN-OVER AGAIN. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR PEÑA. COUNCILOR SENA, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP FOR SOME TIME. >>COUN. SENA: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I DON'T WANT TO JUMP TO MY AMENDMENT. MY AMENDMENT B21 SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT MICRO-BUSINESS WITH THIS LENS. ESPECIALLY IN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH NOT JUST THOSE ALREADY IN THE INDUSTRY BUT WITH THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN HARMED. TALKING WITH INDIVIDUALS WHOSE FAMILIES ARE WAITING FOR RECORDS TO BE EXPUNGED. AND THINKING ABOUT THIS INDUSTRY AND HOW THEY SHAPE HOW WE CONTINUE. THE INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC COMMENT SHARED THAT HIS LIFE WAS IMPACTED FOR HAVING FIVE GRAMS. AND HOW REALLY NOW THINKING BACK TO ALL THE YEARS THAT HE LOST AND HOW HE WISHES TO JUMP INTO THE INDUSTRY WHICH YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO. I WOULD LOVE TO JUST TALK BRIEFLY WITH MS. MORRIS FOR MICRO-BUSINESSES AND THIS SPECIFIC AMENDMENT. I BELIEVE IF I'M CORRECT MY AMENDMENT WOULD EXEMPT MICROBUSINESSES FROM THAT. I WANT CLARIFICATION SO I MAY ACTUALLY SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT KNOWING THERE IS AN EXEMPTION. I WANT CLARIFICATION IN DISCUSSING MICRO-BUSINESSES. >>COUN. BORREGO: PARDON ME. MS. MORRIS. >> YES, AMENDMENT B21 HAS A SERIES OF IF CLAUSES BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT OTHER AMENDMENTS PASS IN ADVANCE. THIS IS ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT THERE'S AN IF CLAUSE ABOUT. IF THIS AMENDMENT B12 PASSES WITH 600 FEET CONDITIONAL DISTANCE BETWEEN RETAILERS IT WOULD EXEMPT CANNABIS MICRO-BUSINESSES. THAT AMENDMENT INCLUDES DEFINITION TO SAY THAT WOULD BE ANYONE WITH CANNABIS MICRO-BUSINESS LICENSE OR INTEGRATED CANNABIS LICENSE. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILORS. COUNCILOR SENA. >>COUN. SENA: COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MICRO-BUSINESS A LOT. WHAT IS REALLY A MICRO-BUSINESS? I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS AWARE AS WELL THE IMPACT OF WHAT REGULAR CANNABIS INDUSTRY AS WE'RE DISCUSSING IT VERSUS A MICRO-BUSINESS. CAN YOU GO INTO THAT DETAIL AND WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY. >> YES. THE STATE ENACTED THESE TWO LICENSES WITH THE INTENT TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT THEY WERE HEARING ABOUT THE EQUITY ISSUE AND SMALL BUSINESS LEVEL AND CONCERNS. THE TWO MICRO-BUSINESS LICENSES ARE LIMITED TO ONE RETAIL STORE. IT'S SMALL IN SCALE. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, IF I MAY ADD TO MS. MORRIS COMMENT -- >>COUN. BORREGO: I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT COUNCILOR BENTON IS WAVING HIS HAND. I'M GOING TO REMIND YOU TO USE YOUR RAISE HAND FEATURE. I SEE PEOPLE DOING THIS. AND I SEE PEOPLE PUTTING THEIR HANDS UP. >>COUN. BORREGO: I'M GOING TO ADDRESS COUNCILOR SENA'S QUESTION. I CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING MS. MORRIS SET. THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS ABOUT THE CANNABIS REGULATION ACT HAS A LICENING FEE THE COST OF ENTRY IS ATTAINABLE RELATIVE TO WHAT YOU PAY FOR THE REGULATION DIVISION TO GET A LICENSE. >>COUN. SENA: MR. MELENDREZ, IF I CAN CONTINUE ON MY LINE OF QUESTIONS TO FOLLOW UP. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AS PART OF WHAT THE DEFINITION OF MICRO-BUSINESS IT ALSO RELATES TO HOW IT'S PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED. IT USES NON-VOLATILE SOLVENTS. IT JUST IS JUST COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN A WAY. IS THAT CORRECT? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR SENA, I'LL ME QUITE HONEST, I HAVE NOT PAID ATTENTION TO THAT COMPONENT OF IT. I LOOKED AT THE LICENSING AND THE STRUCTURE OF UNDERLYING POLICY BUT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THOSE DETAILS. >>COUN. DAVIS: THAT IS PROPOSED FOR THE MANUFACTURING RULES, THEY HAVEN'T DEVELOPED IT. YOU'RE RIGHT. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY, COUNCILORS, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD BEAT A DEAD HORSE TO DEATH ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. I HATE TO USE THOSE ANALOGIES. YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT COUNCILOR SENA? >>COUN. SENA: I THINK AFTER THIS REALIZATION AND THIS CONVERSATION I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT. I THINK IN TALKING AND UNDERSTANDING A LITTLE BIT BETTER WHAT CONDITION USE APPLIES TO THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY BUT ALSO THINKING ABOUT WHAT ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS WE HAVE DOWN THE LINE. I DO REALLY APPRECIATE COUNCILOR PEÑA'S REMARKS. I AM IN THE SAME AGREEMENT. I HAD A FAMILY MEMBER THAT WAS INCARSATED WHEN IT WAS DEEMED ILLEGAL. WHILE HE WAS SERVING TIME IT BECAME LEGAL IN HIS STATE, NOT OURS. NOW HE'S WAITING FOR EXPUNGEMENT. KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING THAT SO MANY ARE CONTINUING TO WAIT. I SHARED WHAT'S MY GENERAL THOUGHTS AND SENTIMENTS ARE ABOUT THIS REGULATION. AND HOW WE'RE PROCEEDING RAPIDLY. I WILL STATE THAT I KNOW THAT THE -- SENT OUT A LETTER TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THIS. I DO WANT TO CAUTION US AS WE THINK THROUGH THAT OTHER CITIES WATCHING US. I HOPE WE'RE BEING JUST MINDFUL OF THAT AND THINKING OF WHO WE ARE INCLUDING IN THE TABLE. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT AND WILL ENCOURAGE THE SPONSOR TO REVERSE HIS -- I GUESS WITH THAT I URGE YOUR SUPPORT? >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY, COUNCILOR. ACTUALLY THIS IS COUNCILOR DAVIS'S, SO COUNCILOR DAVIS WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? >>COUN. DAVIS: YOU KNOW THE OLD SAYING YOU QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD. >>COUN. DAVIS: I'LL SUPPORT YOURS IF YOU SUPPORT MINE. I THINK THESE TWO-PIECES OF LEGISLATION ACCOMPLISH EVERYONE'S GOALS. IT'S UNNECESSARILY LIMITS THE CLUSTERING OF THESE LARGE RETAILERS AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE WELL-ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT SOME OF THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND ALLOW EXEMPT BUSINESSES TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE. YOUNG IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE. LET'S WORK ON THAT TOGETHER. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR BOTH AMENDMENTS. >>COUN. BORREGO: WE ARE ON -- WE'VE ALREADY DEALT WITH B13 WHICH IS NUMBER 14. I'M SORRY, NUMBER 13. WE'RE GOING TO -- THIS IS AMENDMENT 14, WHICH ON MY SHEET SHOWS IT'S LISTED AS B12. I THINK WE'VE HAD THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO A VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. COUNCILORS THAT MOTION PASSES. I'M JUST GOING TO MENTION FOR THE COUNCIL, WE'RE HALFWAY THROUGH AND IT'S 8:15. I THINK WE HAVE UNTIL 10:30 AND WE HAVE TO START AMENDING THE RULES. I'D LIKE TO TRY FINISH TONIGHT, IT POSSIBLE, COUNCILORS. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO EXPECT IS WE'RE TRYING TO FORGE THROUGH ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS. WE ARE ON WHAT I CALL B14, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER 15 AMENDMENT 15. THIS IS COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: THANK YOU, I WANT TO BE SURE WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ONE. FLOOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 15 LIMITS -- I'M SORRY. GIVE ME A SECOND. >>COUN. BORREGO: I CAN READ IT INTO THE RECORD. >>COUN. DAVIS: THIS IS TECHNICAL CLEAN UP. >>COUN. BORREGO: HE MOVES SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FOR CANNABIS AND CANNABIS MANUFACTURING FROM A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT. >>COUN. DAVIS: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THIS DEALS WITH CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING. THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE PROHIBBITION. I MOVE AMENDMENT 15. >>COUN. BORREGO: IS THERE A SECOND? COUNCILOR BENTON, IS THAT A SECOND? OKAY, COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: AGAIN, MADAM PRESIDENT, I THINK THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THE COUNCIL IS VOTING TONIGHT. THESE BUSINESSES ARE NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THEY'RE SIMPLY FACILIIES TO OPERATE AND PREPARE PRODUCTS FOR OTHER PLACES. AS WE'VE ADDRESSED IF THERE WERE SUCH A THING THEY HAVE AN ODOR PLAN FOR THE CITY. THIS SEEMS UNNECESSARY TO ADD THE EXTRA RESTRICTION BEYOND WHAT THE STATE IS DETERMINED AS APPROPRIATE. >>COUN. BORREGO: ANY QUESTIONS OF COUNCILORS? JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE LAST AMENDMENT THAT PASSED CREATED A DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT. THIS IS REMOVING THE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT. AM I CONFUSED HERE? >>COUN. DAVIS: MADAM PRESIDENT WAS RETAIL. THE RETAIL STORES. THIS ONE RELATES TO MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THEY'RE IN THE INDUSTRYAL AREAS. >> THE PREVIOUS WAS TALKING ABOUT RETAIL TO RETAIL. THIS AMENDMENT THAT THE COUNCIL IS DISCUSSING NOW IS DISCUSSING TO A DISTANCE SEPARATION THAT EXISTS IN THE IDO BETWEEN EITHER A CULTIVATION OR MANUFACTURING USE AND RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD PROPOSED TO STRIKE THAT DISTANCE SEPARATION TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT. >>COUN. BORREGO: IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ZONED RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S DISTANCE REQUIREMENT. >> COUNCILOR BORREGO, WHAT EXISTS IN THE IDO TODAY IS THAT THE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT, IF YOU'RE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT A CANNABIS MANUFACTURING FACILITY CANNOT BE WITHIN 330 OF THAT ZONE DISTRICT? THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO STRIKE THAT DISTANCE SEP RECOGNITION REQUIREMENT WHICH WILL ALLOW THEM TO LOCATE WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT. >>COUN. DAVIS: AS LONG AS IT'S OTHERWISE PERMITTED. IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE INDUSTRIAL OR MRU. THOSE PLACES WHERE THOSE ZONES BACK UP TO RESIDENTIAL. IT'S NOT YOU CAN JUST DO IT IN ANY RESIDENTIAL AREA BECAUSE. >> MADAM PRESIDENT. OF COURSE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE PROPER ZONING IN PLACE AND THERE'S SPECIFIC STANDARDS. THE ONE YOU MENTIONED IS ODOR CONTROL PLAN. THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED. IT WOULD NOT ALLOW R1 ZONING TO START A CANNABIS FACILITY. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR BENTON. >>COUN. BENTON: QUICK QUESTION. DOES THIS RELATE TO MICRO-BUSINESS IN ANY WAY? DOES THIS APPLY TO THEM? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR BENTON, THIS IS DELETING A DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT. IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE OPENING THE DOOR TO MORE FACILITIES TO LOCATE IN MORE AREAS OF THE SITSY WHETHER THEY HAVE A MICRO-BUSINESS LICENSE OR A REGULAR LICENSE. >>COUN. BENTON: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE'LL MOVE TO THE VOTE. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. AMENDMENT NUMBER B15, WHICH IS AMENDMENT 16 AND THIS IS COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: BEFORE I MOVE THIS, I WANT TO ASK STAFF TO CLARIFY FOR US, SINCE WE PASSED THE LAST AMENDMENT I DON'T THINK THIS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THIS WOULD NOW RESTORE A CONDITIONAL USE PROHIBITION THAT WE JUST TOOK AWAY PROHIBITION. AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILORS, THIS TAKES CANNABIS CULTIVATION TO CONDITIONAL WITHIN 300 FEET. B14 AND B15 BUILD ON EACH OTHER. BECAUSE B14 JUST GOT RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT THIS WOULD BE REVISING, IF IT PASSES, THE IDO WOULD READ CULTIVATION AND CANNABIS MANUFACTURING WITHIN 300 FEET OF A SCHOOL AND DAY CARE. AS OPPOSED TO PROHIBITED. >>COUN. DAVIS: THANK YOU, MA'AM. SINCE WE DELETED RESIDENTIAL THAT WILL APPLY? >> THAT'S CORRECT, YOU SHOULD HAVE A VERSION THAT HAS FINAL ACTION ITEM NUMBER THREE THAT AS AN ASTRIX NEXT TO IT. >>COUN. DAVIS: I MOVE THIS AMENDMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: THERE'S A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >>COUN. JONES: SECOND. >>COUN. BORREGO: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. I WOULD OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. COULD WE ADD RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION TO THIS? >>COUN. DAVIS: I WOULD NOT CONSIDER IT FRIENDLY SINCE WE REJECTED IT EARLY CONSIDER. I WOULDN'T CLOSE THE PRESIDENT FOR TRYING TO AMEND MY AMENDMENT. >>COUN. DAVIS: I WON'T SUPPORT IT, BUT YOU CAN TRY IF YOU LIKE. >>COUN. BORREGO: I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT, IF I COULD. I MAKE A MOTION A MOTION ADD RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SEE TWO SECONDS. COUNCILOR BASSAN AND COUNCILOR HARRIS. I GUESS WE NEED TO VOTE. UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE VOTE ON THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS. I'LL GO TO MS. ORTEGA. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: NO. >>COUN. DAVIS: NO. >>COUN. GIBSON: NO. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. SENA: NO. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. SO THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FAILS. WE WILL MOVE TO -- UNLESS THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ITEM B15, WHICH IS ALSO ITEM AMENDMENT 16, COUNCILOR SENA. >>COUN. SENA: JUST WANTED MORE CLARIFICATION. I DON'T KNOW IF I QUITE UNDERSTOOD HOW B14 RELATES TO THIS AMENDMENT. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT, THEN RESIDENTIAL ZONE IS STRUCK FROM THE AMENDMENT? AM I NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT PROPERLY? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR SENA, YES, EVEN THOUGH THIS REFERENCES RESIDENTIAL ZONE, THE AMENDMENT THAT PASSED PRIOR STRUCK THAT LANGUAGE. SO THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT OF THE IDO TODAY BECAUSE THAT PREVIOUS AMENDMENT PASSED. WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO IS ALLOW A CONDITIONAL USE TO BE REQUESTED IF A MANUFACTURING OR CULTIVATION FACILITY WANTED TO OCCUR WITHIN 300 FOOT OF A SCHOOL OR CHILD DAY CARE FACILITY. RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT IS NOT ON THE TABLE, AT THIS POINT. >>COUN. SENA: MADAM PRESIDENT, IF I CAN FOLLOW UP. >>COUN. BORREGO: OF COURSE. >>COUN. SENA: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I GUESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OUR PUBLIC THAT IS WATCHING, WHAT WOULD IT ENTAIL TO GO THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR SENA, CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL REQUESTS GO THROUGH THE ZONING HEARING EXAMINER. THAT IS A PUBLIC MEETING THAT REQUIRES NOTICE TO THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AN APPLICANT WOULD SEND A REQUEST FOR PRE-APPLICATION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WHERE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE HEARING TAKES PLACE. AND OF COURSE THE HEARING ITSELF, PUBLIC COMMENT WOULD BE TAKEN AND THE ZONING HEARING EXAMINER HAS A SPECIFIC SET OF CRITERIA THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED WHEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED THAT RELATES TO HARM AND PROVING THAT THIS USE WOULD NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. >>COUN. SENA: THANK YOU FOR THAT. >>COUN. BORREGO: I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COUNCILORS. WITH THAT, I'LL GO BACK TO THE SPONSOR FOR A CLOSE. >>COUN. DAVIS: I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY. WE WILL GO TO MS. ORTEGA. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. I HOPE YOU'RE FOLLOWING ALONG, THESE NUMBERS ARE GETTING CONFUSING. I'M GOING TO JUMP A LITTLE BIT ON THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE REGULATION HOURS, BUT WE HAVE ZONING ISSUES I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE DEAL WITH THE SIGNS AND HOURS. I THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT. WE'RE GOING TO JUMP TO -- ON YOUR LIST IT SAYS AMENDMENT NUMBER B18 WHICH NOW WILL BE AMENDMENT 17. IT'S UNDER ZONING. WE WILL MOVE TO OUR SPONSOR ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. THAT IS UNDER POLICY DIRECTION. COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: I'M PULLING IT OUT OF MY PACKET. JUST A SECOND. SO I CAN SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY ABOUT IT. THE NEXT AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR CANNABIS PRODUCT MANUFACTURING IN A MIXED USE AREA IF IT DOESN'T EXCEED 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES MUST BE IN THE CLOSED BUILDING. THE PURPOSE BEHIND THIS, I'M SEEING SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THE PURPOSE IS FOR SMALL MANUFACTURES, THIS IS FOLKS THAT MAKE EDIBLES. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES, WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN A MIXED USE AREA LIKE A LIVE-WORK ENVIRONMENT SO THEY CAN HAVE A SMALL BUSINESS. MR. MELENDREZ THAT HAS AN ADDITIONAL TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CLARIFY THAT IT DOESN'T ALLOW HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. I MOVE THIS AMENDMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. COUNCILOR, ARE YOU AMENDING THE MOTION BEFORE WE GET THE SECOND? IF YOU ARE, WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD. >>COUN. DAVIS: I'M GOING TO ASK MR. MELENDREZ THAT HAS LANGUAGE TO CLARIFY THE INTENT. I'LL LET THE PRESIDENT DECIDE IF IT'S FRIENDLY OR NEED A SEPARATE VOTE. I DON'T THINK WE DO. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR DAVIS. ON THE AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU, THE B18 AMENDMENT, THERE IS A PARAGRAPH TWO. AND THERE IS WITHIN THAT PARAGRAPH TWO GREEN TEXT THAT READS, IF LOCATED IN THE MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICT ON-SITE ACTIVATION. >> AND SO, THERE IS EXISTING LANGUAGE IN THE IDO THAT TALKS ABOUT LIMITING THE USE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL REGULATIONS. TO THE EXTENT THAT PRODUCTION PROCESSES ARE OCCURRING THAT DON'T USE THOSE TYPES OF SUBSTANCES AND MATERIALS THAT ARE BECAUSE OF THEIR VOLATILITY OR TOXICITY, THEN THOSE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES ARE NOT THE ONES THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO TARGET HERE. IF THAT MADE ANY SENSE, IF I STILL HAVE YOU, THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO STRIKE THAT GREEN LANGUAGE AND MAKE IT SAY, IF LOCATED IN A MIXED USE ZONE DISTRICT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL REGULATIONS, THE USE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IS PROHIBITED. >>COUN. DAVIS: WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT YOU CAN'T USE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. I TRUST THE STAFF TO MAKE SURE THE TECHNICAL LANGUAGE WORKS. COUNCILOR JONES ARE YOU STILL PROVIDING A SECOND? >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: I'LL COME BACK TO COUNCILOR BASSAN. >>COUN. BASSAN: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I HAD A QUESTION, NOW IT TURNED INTO A COMMENT. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY UNNECESSARY EXPLOSIONS. I KNOW WE'VE REACHED OUT AND I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VERSUS JUST OIL. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> WE'RE ON AMENDMENT 17 WHICH IS B18. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE GET THROUGH THIS BECAUSE OUR MONDAY MEETING WILL BE JUST AS LONG AND OUR FRIDAY MEETING WILL BE SHORTER. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO AMENDMENT 18, IT'S LABELLED AS B21. THIS IS COUNCILOR SENA. >>COUN. SENA: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. FLOOR AMENDMENT 18 IS WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING ON MICRO-BUSINESSES RETAIL, CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING. IT HAS A LOT OF IF STATEMENTS WHETHER OR NOT WE PASSED THE OTHER AMENDMENTS. I MOVE THIS AMENDMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: I'M LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR AMENDMENT. >>COUN. SENA: MADAM PRESIDENT, IF I CAN HAVE ONE ITEM ON THIS ITEM PACKET DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE WE EXPLAIN THAT. SO IF MS. MORRIS CAN EXPLAIN THE SECTION AND GO ON TO THE REST OF THE AMENDMENTS AND HOW THEY APPLY. >>COUN. BORREGO: MS. MORRIS OR MS. SCHULZ. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILORS, YES. THIS AMENDMENT HAS A LARGE NUMBER OF ACTION ITEMS IN IT. THE FIRST TWO ACTION ITEMS ARE INTENDED NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. ACTION ITEM NUMBER ONE WOULD TAKE CANNABIS RETAIL FROM PROHIBITED TO PERMITTED IN THE MXT ZONE. BUT ADD USE SPECIFIC STANDARD THAT SAYS IF YOU A CANNABIS RETAIL MICRO-BUSINESS LICENSE. DANCEBUS MICRO-BUSINESS HOLDERS WOULD BE ABLE TO GO INTO ZONES THAT OTHERWISE THEY COULDN'T FOR RETAIL USE. AND AMENDMENT THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN AND EIGHT ARE ALL BASED ON AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE OR HAVE NOT PASSED. AMENDMENT NUMBER -- ACTION NUMBER THREE WOULD BE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE B9 DID NOT PASS. ACTION ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE CULTIVATION MOVED TO CONDITIONAL. AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE IS ALSO IRRELEVANT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ADD ANY OTHER USES IN SCHOOLS OR DAYCARES. ACTION ITEM NUMBER SIX IS IRRELEVANT. AGAIN BECAUSE MANUFACTURING HASN'T HAD ANYWAY OTHER A USES. ACTION ITEM SEVEN IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE WE PASSED B18. AND NUMBER EIGHT ALSO IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ADD EXTRA USES TO CANNABIS MANUFACTURING. IN THIS ONE THE KEY ITEM ARE ACTUALLY NUMBERS ONE, TWO AND NINE. YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN VOTING IN SUCH A WAY THAT IS SO FAR PRETTY SUPPORTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASPECT OF CANNABIS AND SO THOSE ADDITIONAL ITEMS ARE NOT NECESSARY. HANG ON A MINUTE. IT'S A LONG DAY. YOU DID VOTE YES ON THE 600 FOOT. THAT ONE IS -- ACTION ITEM NUMBER TWO. THREE. IF AMENDMENTS PASS AND THERE'S SEPARATION BETWEEN CANNABIS RETAIL YOU USES OF DAY CARE AND PROHIBIT CANNABIS RETAIL MAIN STREET AND REQUIRE DISTANCE BETWEEN CANNABIS RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT. THIS LAST SECTION ADD THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS. SO THE RELEVANT ACTION ITEMS ARE ONE, TWO, THREE, AND NINE. WHICH HAS A DEFINITION FOR CANNABIS MICRO-BUSINESS LICENSE. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH, COUNCILORS? I SEE COUNCILOR SENA'S HAND RAISED. >>COUN. SENA: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I APPRECIATE OUR STAFF HERE FOR HANGING TOUGH WITH US AND ALL OF OUR FAMILIES. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THAT CLARIFICATION. REALLY WANTED TO STRESS THAT POINT AS TO HOW THIS RELATES TO WHAT WE PASSED PREVIOUSLY IN THINKING ABOUT OUR DENSITY QUESTION. I THINK THIS IS REALLY GETTING AT THE HEART OF WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING PREVIOUSLY. THIS PUTS OTHERS AT A MORE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. I THINK THIS IS JUST A STEP OF APPLYING EQUITY UNTIL -- INTO THE INDUSTRY. I THINK CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE THAT PASSED THE BILL AT THE LEGISLATURE ARE CERTAINLY INTERESTED IN THIS BECAUSE COMPONENTS OF THE BILL THAT ALLOW FOR MORE EQUITY IN THIS DISCUSSION IN PREVIOUS VERSIONS WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THE ONE THAT PASSED. I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE STRESS THOSE POINTS. ESPECIALLY AS WE TALK ABOUT WHETHER CO-COPS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE BILL. AND THINKING ABOUT HOW THOSE THAT WISH TO ENTER INTO THIS INDUSTRY SHOULD BE ABLE TO AND REALLY THINKING ABOUT MICRO-BUSINESS AND SMALL BUSINESS. WITH THAT, IF I CAN CLOSE, IF NO ONE ELSE HAS QUESTIONS, I URGE YOUR SUPPORT SO WE CAN APPLY SOME EQUITY INTO THIS INDUSTRY. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR SENA. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. NO MORE HANDS ON THE QUEUE. WE'LL GO TO MS. ORTEGA FOR THE VOTE. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO POLICY DIRECTION. WHICH IS LABELLED IN YOUR PACKET UNDER SIGN REGULATION. B16. THIS IS SPONSORED BY COUNCILOR JONES. IT WOULD BE AMENDMENT NUMBER 18. AMENDMENT NUMBER 19. COUNCILOR JONES. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THIS IS BY REQUEST. IT'S ADDRESSING SIGNAGE. IT'S BASICALLY RESTRICTING SIGNS FOR ALL CANNABIS USES, RETAIL, MANUFACTURING. >>COUN. BORREGO: I'LL SECOND THAT. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: ARE THERE QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR DAVIS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >>COUN. DAVIS: IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DEBATE IT, I'M HAPPY TO GET INTO IT. I THINK THIS IS AN OVERREACH AND UNNECESSARY TO TREAT THESE BUSINESSES DIFFERENTLY. IF WE WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT WHY THESE ARE UNNECESSARY PARTICULARLY FOR NEW BUSINESSES GETTING STARTED. WE'LL SEE WHERE THE CONVERSATION GOES. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILORS, IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT ANYBODY HAS CONVERSATIONS. THERE NO HANDS RAISED IN THE QUEUE. COUNCILORS, WE'LL GO TO THE VOTE. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. BENTON: NO. >>COUN. DAVIS: NO. >>COUN. GIBSON: NO. >>COUN. HARRIS: NO. >>COUN. JONES: NO. >>COUN. SENA: NO. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. WE'LL MOVE TO OURS. OUR FIRST AMENDMENT IS LABELLED B17. THIS WOULD BE AMENDMENT B20. AND OUR SPONSOR IS COUNCILOR JONES. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. BY REQUEST I'M PASSING IT ON. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR JONES. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COUNCILOR PEÑA, IS THAT A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR PEÑA. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING HOURS? CUSTOMER VISITS AND DELIVERIES. COUNCILOR SENA, YOU HAVE QUESTION? >>COUN. SENA: I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON THIS ONE SINCE ITS THEIR AMENDMENT. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THE IDEA IS THIS MIRRORS LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENT AS MUCH AS NOT ALLOWING IT BETWEEN 10 P.M. AND 7 A.M. THE THINKING HERE IS THERE'S ADDED LANGUAGE THAT WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT POTENTIALLY THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES COULD HAVE DELIVERY TRUCKS COMING IN ASK OUT. THERE COULD BE BACK UP BEEPERS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO PROTECT SOME OF THE AREAS THAT ARE CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL ZONED DISTRICTS. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: I'M ALWAYS THE ONE. MAYBE YOU CAN GIVE ME THIS QUICKLY, HE WAS QUICK ENOUGH TO TELL ME THIS, WE MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOME OF THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE CONDITIONAL. WHEN THEY'RE CONDITIONAL USE THERE ARE HOUR RESTRICTIONS IN THAT. IT SEEMS DUEPLICATIVE TO PASS ANOTHER HOURS RESTRICTIONS. THE ONES WE SEED TOO CLOSE TO OTHER USES ALREADY HAVE ONE. WOULD IT POSSIBLE TO JUST EXPLAIN THAT REALLY QUICKLY? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR DAVIS, TO THE EXTENT THAT A CANNABIS USE IS CONDITIONAL WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARD FOR ANY CONDITIONAL USE IN THE CITY IS THAT IT WOULD NOT INCREASE NONRESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY AFTER THE HOURS OF 8 P.M. AND BEFORE 6 A.M. TO THE EXTENT THIS WOULD PROPOSE THAT CUSTOMER VISITS AND DELIVERIES CANNOT HAPPEN AFTER 10 P.M. AND THE NATURE OF THOSE TRIPS BEING NON-RESIDENTIAL IT APPEARS THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS THAT EXISTS ALREADY WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE. >>COUN. DAVIS: FOR THAT REASON, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY. >>COUN. BORREGO: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COUNCILORS? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION OF MR. MELENDREZ. BY RESTRICTING DELIVERIES AND VISITS, ARE THERE OTHER USES THAT HAVE THAT SAME RESTRICTION? OR ARE WE CALLING OUT A SPECIFIC BUSINESS? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, LIKE ANYTHING THAT THE COUNCIL ENACTS THROUGH ZONING, AS LONG AS THERE'S A RATIONAL BASIS FOR WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH OTHER USES. PRESUMABLY TO THE EXTENT THAT OTHER USESS ARE HAVING SIMILAR IMPACT THEY'RE SUBJECT TO SIMILAR LIMITATIONS. HOWEVER ASIDE FROM THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARD AND NIGHT TIME OPERATIONS, HOURS OF OPERATION ARE NOT RESTRICTED BY THE IDO. WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL LICENSES, WITH LIQUOR LICENSING AND SOME OF THE RULES THE STATE REGULATION DIVISION COMES UP, THERE CAN BE HOUR RESTRICTIONS UNDER LICENSE THAT ARE ENFORCED AGAINST THE LICENSE AS OPPOSED TO A LAND USE MATTER. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS KIND OF NOT A LAND USE ISSUE IT'S MORE REGULATORY? NOT REGULATORY, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD IS. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REACHING FOR THERE IS IT CAN BE LICENSING ISSUE. WE'RE WAITING FOR THE DIVISION TO COME UP WITH SPECIFIC PARAMETERS OF LICENSES. TO THE EX TENT IT'S ANYTHING LIKE LIQUOR LISANCING IT CAN HAVE HOURS LIMITATION. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. COUNCILOR SENA. >>COUN. SENA: I HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR. PART OF THIS FRUSTRATION IS JUST BECAUSE I WISH WE WAITED FOR THE GUIDELINES ON THIS. I AM CURIOUS ABOUT PROHIBITION ON TIMES BUT I ALSO WORRY THAT IT WOULD ALSO PROMOTE THOSE THAT WISH TO DO THIS IN NOT A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS STYLE. THAT'S MY WORRY THAT DURING SOME OF THESE TIMES THAT IT IS PROHIBITED IT COULD PROMOTE THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS. I'M JUST AM TRYING TO TAP THAT DPIEN LINE BECAUSE I ALSO UNDERSTAND AND HOPE THAT RLB WOULD SEND MORE GUIDANCE BEFORE WE GOT HERE. IT'S MORE OF A STATEMENT THAN A QUESTION, I STILL -- I AM REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE VOTING ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE JUST BECAUSE THAT RLB HAS NOT SENT MORE GUIDELINES. I FEEL MORE CONFIDENT NOW THAT IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED. I THINK IT IS TRUE IN TERMS OF HOURS OF OPERATION FOR CULTIVATION FACILITIES. I THINK THAT CLARIFICATION WAS REALLY HELPFUL. AGAIN, THIS ONE I JUST AM REALLY TROUBLING WITH. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR EITHER A RESPONSE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION SINCE THIS IS THEIR AMENDMENT. I STILL STRUGGLE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PROMOTE THOSE THAT ARE NOT IN THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS TO NOT GET PROMOTED. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR SENA. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE'RE MOVING RIGHT ALONG. WE ONLY HAVE THREE AFTER THIS. WE'LL MOVE TO THE VOTE. >>COUN. DAVIS: MADAM PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THE RESULT OF THE PRIOR AMENDMENT WHICH WAS AMENDMENT NUMBER 19. B16 I ANNOUNCED 8-0 PASSING, IT'S 0-8 FAILED. ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 20, WHICH IS B17. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. BENTON: NO. >>COUN. DAVIS: NO. >>COUN. GIBSON: NO. >>COUN. JONES: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. SENA: NO. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THE VOTE? 0-8 AGAINST WITH HARRIS EXCUSED. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS FOR BEARING WITH ME. B20 IS NOW MUTE. WE WILL WITHDRAW THAT. WE ONLY HAVE TWO MORE, COUNCILORS. HOW ABOUT THAT? ACTUALLY WE ONLY HAVE ONE MORE. WE SHOULD ALL BE PROUD OF OURSELFS. OTHER REGULATIONS. ON YOUR SHOAT, IT'S THE VERY LAST ONE. THIS IS AMENDMENT B19, WHICH WILL BE AMENDMENT B21. THIS IS COUNCILOR JONES. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THIS IS BY REQUEST. B21 GRAND FATHER LANGUAGES TO SPECIFY EXISTING MEDICAL CANNABIS FACILITIES WILL BE LEGAL WITH THE PURPOSE OF IBO IF THEY CHOOSE TO SELL CANNABIS IN THE FUTURE. >>COUN. BORREGO: ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE COUNCILOR DAVIS. >>COUN. DAVIS: JUST A SECOND. >>COUN. BORREGO: ANOTHER SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS, COUNCILORS? THERE ARE NO HANDS IN THE QUEUE. WE WILL GO TO THE VOTE. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU SHOULD ALL BE VERY -- I'M SORRY. I'M WANTING TO GET OUT OF HEREBY -- >>COUN. BENTON: I DON'T THINK THIS WILL TAKE LONG. I INQUIRED AS TO WHETHER THIS IS OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE A DIFFERENT VERSION OF MY BILL ON THE AMENDMENT B4. THAT WAS ON THE GEOGRAPHIC RESPONSIVENESS AND CLIMATE. I THINK STAFF HAS THAT. IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME ONLY IT WOULD ADDRESS THE GEOGRAPHIC RESPONSIVENESS. THAT'S THE VIEW ASPECT AS OPPOSED TO THE WITHOUT ENERGY CLIMATE RESPONSIVENESS. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR BENTON, YOU'RE WANTING TO GO BACK -- JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR. >>COUN. BENTON: THIS IS A NEW AMENDMENT. WE'RE NOT GOING BACK. THIS IS THE SAME LANGUAGE WE'RE DEBATING IN THE PREVIOUS ONE. >>COUN. BORREGO: ALL RIGHT, COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU'RE BRINGING FORWARD. THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED AMENDMENT 22. >>COUN. BENTON: YES, THIS IS THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE THAT WAS LEFT IN THE OTHER ONE WHEN IT WAS DEFEATED. THIS IS CURRENTLY IN THE BILL. THIS WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE -- THIS IS THE WRONG ONE. THIS IS THE CLIMATE ONE. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR BENTON, THE GEOGRAPHIC RESPONSIVENESS OF THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS CONSIDERED EARLIER. IT WOULD -- >>COUN. BENTON: THANK YOU. THIS WOULD LEAVE -- THE CLIMATIC IS ALREADY IN THERE. WE REALLY WOULDN'T BE AMENDING THAT PART. THIS WOULD LEAVE THE CLIMATE STUFF IN AS PER OUR PREVIOUS VOTE BUT REMOVE THE GEOGRAPHIC RESPONIVENESS WHICH IS FANCY TERM FOR MAINTAINING VIEWS OR CONSIDERATION OF VIEWS IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN AND AGAIN, WELL-INTENDED BUT IN THIS CASE I THINK IT GOES ON EVEN MORE DIFFICULT GROUND IN THAT IT IMPLIES VIEWS ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE. I THINK THAT'S PROBLEMATIC. I'M NOT BEING ARTICULATE BUT I'D LIKE TO GIVE THIS A TRY. I'LL MOVE THIS AMENDMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS AMENDMENT? COUNCILOR DAVIS. SO COUNCILOR DAVIS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCILOR BASSAN AND COUNCILOR JONES. >>COUN. BASSAN: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I GUESS I -- LOOKING AT B4, WITH OUR CONVERSATION EARLIER, YOU'RE SAYING TAKE OUT THE CLIMATIC RESPONSIVENESS. >>COUN. BENTON: NO LEAVE IT IN AND TAKE OUT THE GEOGRAPHIC RESPONSIVENESS. >>COUN. BASSAN: I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M READING IT RIGHT. >>COUN. BENTON: CLIMATE IS IN THERE. THIS IS RESPONDING TO VIEWS AND PERMANENT FEATURES THAT WOULD BE SEEING FROM WITHIN THE BUILDING. >>COUN. BASSAN: OKAY. >>COUN. BENTON: WE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH DEBATE ABOUT THIS. WE'RE MORE FOCUSED ON THE CLIMATE. >>COUN. BASSAN: SORRY, COUNCILOR, MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR, I THINK THAT AGAIN AS MUCH AS I AGREED WITH YOUR ORIGINAL ONE PER SE, IT'S STILL LEAVING SOME OF IT. IF THE COUNCIL WANTS IT THAT'S FINE. I HOPE WE COME UP WITH A BETTER PIECE AFTER THIS. WE'RE ALL TIRED. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR BASSAN. COUNCILOR JONES. >>COUN. JONES: I WAS CURIOUS WHAT EXACTLY WE'RE DOING. THAT WAS MADE VERY CLEAR. I'M FINE. THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE TO A VOTE. COUNCILOR BENTON, BEFORE WE MOVE TO A VOTE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? >>COUN. BENTON: I THINK WE'VE SAID ENOUGH ABOUT IT. AS LONG AS EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT I'M DOING IS TAKING THIS ONE OUT. >>COUN. BORREGO: WE'LL MOVE TO A VOTE. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: NO. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. SENA: NO. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. >> MOTION FAILS. ON A 3-5 VOTE. COUNCILOR GIBSON IS EXCUSED FROM AMENDMENT 22. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY, COUNCILORS. JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS THE LAST ONE, I'M BRINGING ONE MORE UP. THIS IS WOULD BE NUMBER 23. I'M GOING TO HAVE SHANNA EXPLAIN THIS ONE. >>COUN. BASSAN: WILL YOU PLEASE MUTE BECAUSE WE CAN'T HEAR MS. SCHULZ WHEN BOTHS BOTH ARE ON. >> THIS AMENDMENT WILL RESCIND THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS PASSED BY THE LUPS HEARING. AN AMENDMENT PASSED THAT ALLOW DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES AS A PERMISSIVE USE IN THE MXL ZONE. IN THE IDO TODAY DRIVE THROUGHS ARE A CONDITIONAL USE. IT PASSED FROM CONDITIONAL TO PERMISSIVE. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD GO BACK ON AND MOVE IT BACK FROM PERMISSIVE TO CONDITIONAL. >>COUN. BORREGO: I MOVE THIS AMENDMENT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE SEVERAL HANDS RAISED. COUNCILOR BENTON, COUNCILOR SENA. COUNCILOR BENTON, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? WAS THAT A SECOND? >>COUN. BENTON: THAT WAS A SECOND. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR BENTON. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY COMMENTS? WE'LL MOVE TO THE VOTE. COUNCILOR JONES. >>COUN. JONES: I'M SORRY. I'M GOING TO RIB YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT. I THOUGHT WE WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO QUESTION WHAT OUR COMMITTEES DID. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR, WE SET A PRECEDENT EARLY, I GUESS WE QUESTION THEM. >>COUN. JONES: I'M JUST GIVING YOU HARD TIME. >>COUN. BORREGO: I TOTALLY GET IT. I'M EXHAUSTED JUST THE SAME AS YOU ARE. THANK YOU FOR THAT, COUNCILOR. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO THE VOTE IF WE HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: NO. >>COUN. JONES: NO. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: YES. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HANGING TOUGH TONIGHT. I KNOW THIS IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT MEETING. AND AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THAT WE DID REALLY, REALLY WELL. I SEE COUNCILOR SENA ALSO HAS A COMMENT. COUNCILOR SENA, IS THAT FROM A PREVIOUS VOTE? >>COUN. SENA: THIS IS A GENERAL COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE HOWEVER WE'RE VOTING FOR THE OVERALL ORDINANCE FOR THE IDO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS ABLE TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE CLOSING. >>COUN. BORREGO: GO AHEAD. >>COUN. SENA: I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS CLOSE OR COMMENT FROM COUNCILOR BENTON. I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE TO TAKE THIS TIME. I KNOW OVERAL THIS PROCESS OF THE IDO IS VERY FRUSTRATING FOR THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THAT WE TRY TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE. WE DO HAVE THE COMMITTEES AS WAS EXPLAINED PREVIOUSLY. HOWEVER, IN JUST RELATING IT TO WHAT WE JUST DID FOR THE PAST SIX HOURS, MOSTLY TALKING ABOUT CANNABIS TOO, I REALLY DO STRUGGLE WITH THE FACT THAT WE DID RUSH THROUGH AN INDUSTRY THAT IS SO NEW WITHOUT HAVING MORE GUIDELINES FROM THE STATE AND ALSO MORE INPUT. I REALLY DO WISH THAT THERE WAS MORE TIME SO THAT WE CAN HAVE MORE PEOPLE AT THE TABLE, SPECIFICALLY THOSE THAT ARE STILL AWAITING EX -- I KNOW THIS ORDINANCE WILL PASS. I'M GOING TO VOTE NO. SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE REASONS. I JUST CAN'T REALLY KNOWINGLY SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT WE JUST DID FOR THIS INDUSTRY. I TRY NOT TO DO THIS BECAUSE I KNOW SO MANY OTHERS TAKE A LOT OF ISSUE WITH THE IDO. BUT, MY SPECIFIC REASON IS RELATE TODAY CANNABIS. WE DO NOT DECRIMINALIZE CANNABIS EVERY TWO MONTHS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S ONE IN A GENERATIONAL THING THAT WE DO. FOR US TO HAVE GONE THROUGH SO FAST, I WILL BE VOTE NO ON OVERALL ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF THAT. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR BENTON. >>COUN. BENTON: THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO WORKED SO HARD ON OUR STAFF ON THE BILL. I KNOW IT SEEMS TEDIOUS AND DRAWN OUT, BUT THINK ABOUT THE WAY WE USED TO DO AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE. IT WAS ANY TIME AND ALL THE TIME. IT WAS A VERY UNPREDICTABLE PROCESS FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED. THE GOOD THING ABOUT THE IDO IS THAT WE DO HAVE A PREDICTABLE TIME TO DO ANNUAL UPDATES AND WE REMAIN ON SCHEDULE. I REALLY WANT TO THANK MS. MORRIS AND MS. SCHULZ AND MR. MELENDREZ AND THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT. IT'S GOOD WORK. THE CANNABIS IS SOMETHING THAT JUMPED UP ON US. I DON'T THINK WE HAD MUCH CHOICE BUT TO PASS SOMETHING FAIRLY QUICKLY. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THOSE DETAILS OF THE SCHEDULE THAT'S IMPOSED ON US BY THE STATE. ONE OF THE MANY THINGS I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR DILIGENCE AND INCLUDING ALL THE COUNCILORS WORKING ON THIS. I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. >>COUN. BORREGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILOR. ANY OTHER? I KNOW THAT WAS THE CLOSER REMARK. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COUNCILORS THAT WANT TO SAY ANYTHING BEFORE WE CLOSE? >>COUN. DAVIS: I SAID MORE THAN MY SHARE. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY THAT WORKED ON THIS. IT'S MY BELIEF THAT THE STATE DIDN'T GIVE US A LOT OF LATITUDE. WE REALLY DID A GOOD JOB OF LISTENING TO EVERYBODY. I OPPOSED IT EARLIER, BUT I'M GLAD WE EXTENDED SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS TO ALLOW THE VOICES. I THINK COUNCILOR SENA IS RIGHT WE SHOULD CONTINUE THE CONVERSATIONS NOT BECAUSE THE BILL PASS OR THAT IT WILL GO INT EFFECT, BUT BECAUSE AS SOMEBODY MENTIONED WE'RE GOING TO START DOING THE NEXT ROUND IN A MONTH OR SO LOOKING AT THE NEW AMENDMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRESS. I APPRECIATE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN FOR ANOTHER YEAR. I DO APPRECIATE WE HAD OUR CHANCE TO DO IT. THANK YOU AND I APPRECIATE YOUR HELP. >>COUN. BORREGO: I AM ALSO GOING TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL BECAUSE I THINK THAT -- OBVIOUSLY BEING A PLANNER AND HAVING MY BACKGROUND THAT I DO, I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE STAFF. AND THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE TO GET THIS FAR. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE PROCESSES THAT HAVE OCCURRED. AND FOR THAT REASON I'M GOING TO VOTE NO. COUNCILOR BENTON, I GUESS THAT WAS YOUR CLOSE. >>COUN. BENTON: I THINK COUNCILOR JONES WAS CO-SPONSOR. >>COUN. JONES: THIS IS MY NEW PUPPY. THIS WAS ONE VERY DIFFICULT AND STRAINING ISSUE. I KNOW THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST DIVIDED TOPICS WE'VE COME UP AGAINST. SOME OF US DON'T BELIEVE IN LEGALIZED CANNABIS IN ANY WAY. REALIZE IT IS AND KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT TO MAKE IT WORK FOR THE PEOPLE. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, COUNCILOR DAVIS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOW YOURS. >>COUN. BORREGO: WE'RE GETTING TIRED. COUNCILOR GIBSON. >>COUN. GIBSON: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I ACCIDENTALLY BACKED OUT OF THE MEETING AND I WAS HAVING TROUBLE GETTING BACK ON. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I DID VOTE IN THE DRIVE UP RECENSION. AND DID NOT REALIZE HOW I WAS VOTING. I VOTED FOR THE BILL AND VOTED AGAINST. I'M WONDERING IF I CAN CHANGE -- I MOVE TO RECONSIDER. >>COUN. HARRIS: SECOND. >>COUN. BORREGO: WE'VE ALREADY CLOSED THE FLOOR. I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW IT. >>COUN. GIBSON: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. >>COUN. HARRIS: SHE CAN RECONSIDER AN AN MANAGEMENT. >>COUN. BORREGO: WE'LL GO TO THE LAST AMENDMENT. COUNCILOR GIBSON. >>COUN. HARRIS: FIRST VOTE ON THE RECONSIDERATION. >>COUN. BORREGO: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECONSIDER. I'VE GOT TO FIND THE NUMBER. 23. IS THAT FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH? THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECONSIDER THE 23, WHICH IS THE DRIVE THROUGH BE CONDITIONAL. WE WILL GO TO THE VOTE. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: NO. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS MOTION IS FOR RECONSIDERATION. WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS. WE NEED A MAJORITY VOTE FOR RECONSIDERATION AND WE GO BACK TO AMENDMENT 23 FOR A NEW VOTE. >>COUN. GIBSON: I'M SORRY. I'M TIRED AND CONFUSED. MY VOTE IS YES. I'M SORRY. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: YES. >>COUN. SENA: NO. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. >> NOW WE'RE BACK ON AMENDMENT 23. WE NEED A NEW MOTION AND A VOTE. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY, COUNCILOR GIBSON, WE NEED A NEW MOTION. I MAKE THE MOTION BECAUSE IT IT WAS MY BILL. I AM MOVING ITEM NUMBER 23 AND WE WILL GO TO THE VOTE. I'M SORRY, WE NEED A SECOND. >>COUN. BENTON: I'LL SECOND IT. >>COUN. BORREGO: COUNCILOR BENTON, THANK YOU FOR THE SECOND. >>COUN. JONES: I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE READ WHAT THE OVERVIEW OF WHAT IT IS WE'RE VOTING ON. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, COUNCILOR JONES, WHAT THE VOTE ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW IS FOR AMENDMENT 23. WHICH WOULD RESCIND THE AMENDMENT AS IT PASSED AT THE LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE TO MAKE A DRIVE THROUGH USE PERMISSIVE IN THE MXL ZONE. A YES VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT WOULD RETAIN DRIVE THROUGH AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE MXL ZONE AS IT EXISTED IN THE IDO TODAY. >>COUN. JONES: THANK YOU. >>COUN. BORREGO: WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO THE VOTE. >>COUN. BASSAN: NO. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: NO. >>COUN. HARRIS: NO. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. SENA: YES. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. >> AMENDMENT 23 FAILS. >>COUN. BORREGO: OKAY, COUNCILORS, ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL THIS EVENENING? >>COUN. BORREGO: WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL VOTE ON THAT. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL BILL. AS AMENDED. >>COUN. BASSAN: YES. >>COUN. BENTON: YES. >>COUN. DAVIS: YES. >>COUN. GIBSON: YES. >>COUN. HARRIS: YES. >>COUN. JONES: YES. >>COUN. PEÑA: NO. >>COUN. SENA: NO. >>COUN. BORREGO: NO. COUNCILORS, AS AMENDED BILL 060 PASSES ON 6-3 VOTE. THERE ANY BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THIS EVENING? IF NOT, WE'LL ADJOURN. THANK YOU, COUNCILORS.