►
Description
Boston Cannabis Board hearing on July 22, 2020 to discuss and adopt Draft Rules & Regulations.
A
Alright
I'm
going
to
hit
mute
all
as
a
reminder.
This
is
a
hearing
before
the
Boston
cannabis.
Borak
today
is
Wednesday
July
22nd
the
business
before
the
board.
Today
is
the
draft
rules
and
regulations.
Well,
the
public
is
welcome
and
we
are
very
happy
to
see
so
many
people
attending
today's
hearing
as
a
public
comment
period
on
the
rules
and
regulations
is
closed.
We
will
not
be
accepting
public
testimony.
Today's
hearing
is
held
pursuant
to
governor
Baker's
executive
order,
temporarily
modifying
the
Open
Meeting
Law,
due
to
the
ongoing
Kovach
19
public
health
emergency.
B
The
board
has
worked
diligently
to
balance
the
need
for
a
clear
and
predictable
set
of
rules
and
regulations
and
to
put
them
in
place
in
order
to
provide
guidance
in
a
process
for
applicants
for
cannabis
licenses
with,
while
ensuring
that
we
have
a
sufficient
public
comment
period
so
that
all
interested
parties
have
an
opportunity
to
be
heard.
It's
the
intent
of
the
board
today
to
adopt
these
rules
and
regulations.
I
want
to
thank
councilor,
Janie
and
Edwards
for
their
written
comments
and
continue
dialogue
on
these
issues.
B
They
continue
to
raise
the
bar
and
what
equity
in
this
industry
should
look
like
throughout
the
city
and
into
our
neighborhoods
and
I
want
to
turn
it
over
to
secretary
Leslie
Delaney
Hawkins.
To
give
an
overview
of
the
comments
we
received
in
the
proposed
changes
to
the
draft
rules
and
regulations,
Thank.
A
You
gerald
and
Joyce
the
process
by
which
these
draft
rules
and
regulations
have
been
drafted,
noticed
and
considered
has
been
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
Massachusetts
general
law
which
governs
rulemaking.
The
public
comment
period
on
the
draft
rules
and
regulations
began
June
17th
and
was
open
until
July
15th,
a
public
hearing
was
held
on
July
8,
the
notice
on
this
process
and
the
hearing
was
posted
to
the
City
Clerk's
website
the
board's
website
and
also
ran
in
the
public
in
the
Boston
Herald.
A
In
addition
to
the
public
testimony
heard
by
the
Boston
cannabis
board
at
its
public
hearing,
we
also
received
23
comments
with
23
individuals
or
organizations
totaling
approximately
83
pages.
The
testimony
and
public
comments
addressed
many
aspects
of
both
the
draft
rules
and
regulations
and
the
cannabis
industry
as
a
whole.
The
testimony
and
written
comments
received
by
the
Boston
cannabis
board
touched
on
a
number
of
issues.
All
of
these
public
comments
have
been
posted
to
the
board's
website
as
well,
as
has
the
recording
of
the
public
hearing.
A
Much
of
the
testimony
and
comments
received
were
substantive
and
have
been
incorporated
into
this
revised
document
being
considered
by
the
board.
Today,
some
of
the
testimony
and
comments
received
were
more
policy
driven
in
nature
and,
while
not
necessarily
appropriate
to
incorporate
into
the
regulatory
framework.
It
is
incredibly
informative
of
the
industry
as
a
whole
and
the
challenges
facing
the
same,
especially
regarding
equity,
and
it
is
instructive
of
many
of
the
issues
to
be
presented
and
discussed
before
the
board
at
its
public
hearings
regarding
applications.
A
I
do
want
to
note
that
the
board
and
these
direct
regulations
are
bound
by
Massachusetts
general
law
issues
such
as
the
categorization
of
different
types
of
cannabis
establishments,
for
example
a
testing
facility
versus
a
dispensary.
Well,
these
make
logical
sense,
they're,
not
within
the
legal
realm
of
what
the
board's
authority
extends
to
by
not
including
these
issues
in
the
rules
and
regulations.
The
board
is
in
no
way
dismissing
the
validity
of
ideas.
However,
we
are
bound
by
the
law.
A
This
overview
of
the
public
comments-
I'm
going
to
provide
in
a
minute
is
in
no
way
exhaustive.
It
is
simply
meant
to
highlight
broad
topics
and
ideas
that
were
received
from
multiple
individuals.
All
comments
have
been
reviewed
in
detail
by
each
commissioner
and
the
board
staff.
The
board
received
multiple
comments,
regarded
at
requesting
that
the
board
waived
the
requirement
of
a
specific
location
in
order
to
proceed
with
the
process
and
site
control
as
a
barrier
to
entry.
A
Multiple
comments
were
received
regarding
the
desire
to
see
a
concrete
timeline
for
licensure
at
both
the
local
and
the
state
level.
Comments
were
received
regarding
the
desire
to
see
diversity
and
equity,
and
both
the
siting
and
operations
of
licensees
comments
were
received
regarding
the
definition
of
an
equity
applicant
and
how
the
same
will
be
interpreted.
Pursuant
to
the
ordinance
comments
were
received
regarding
the
definition
of
the
area
of
disproportionate
impact
and
how
the
same
will
be
interpreted.
Pursuant
to
the
ordinance
comments
were
received,
requesting
clarity
on
what
constitutes
a
complete
application.
A
Before
this
board,
multiple
comments
were
received
on
the
school
buffer
zone,
both
those
in
favour
of
a
citywide
ordinance,
lessening
the
requirement
and
those
proposed.
Those
opposed
comments
were
received
regarding
whether
ancillary
facilities,
such
as
gymnasiums,
are
included
for
purposes
of
the
school
buffer
zone.
Many
comments
received
were
received
regarding
the
half-mile
buffer
zone
from
an
existing
cannabis
dispensary,
and
the
proposed
process
forgot
in
the
same
comments
were
received
regarding
the
proposed
requirement
that
all
direct
and
indirect
beneficial
interest
holders
be
disclosed.
A
Comments
were
received
regarding
the
process
for
evaluation
of
applications
and
ensuring
the
same
reflects.
The
ordinance
comments
were
received,
requesting
clarity
on
the
process
for
disciplinary
action
and
the
enforcement
authorities
regarding
the
same
comments
were
received
regarding
the
ability,
the
ability
of
the
board
to
review
and
in
forest
representations
made
regarding
all
of
the
criteria
in
the
ordinance
comments
were
also
received
regarding
separate
standards
and
a
separate
process
for
cannabis
establishments
such
as
testing
facilities
that
do
not
necessarily
pose
an
impact.
A
The
quality
of
life
on
the
surrounding
area
before
I
provide
an
overview
on
the
specific
substantive
changes
in
the
filed
draft
rules
and
regulations
that
are
before
us
today.
I
want
to
provide
some
context
from
a
legal
perspective
on
several
points,
on
the
requirement
of
a
location
to
proceed
with
licensure
by
this
board
and
the
ccc.
The
ccc
and
mass
turner
law
requires
an
a
butters
hearing
prior
to
moving
forward
with
an
application,
and
such
a
meeting
cannot
be
held
without
a
specific
address.
A
However,
the
board
recognizes
that
the
requirement
of
site
control
is
evidenced
through
a
binding
contract.
Agreement
may
be
a
barrier
to
entry,
and
the
final
draft
of
these
rules
and
regulations
includes
language
regarding
site
control.
That
makes
it
clear
a
lease
agreement
or
other
binding
agreement
is
not
required
to
evidence
site
control.
As
you
will
hear,
the
board
will
accept
as
evidence
of
site
control,
a
letter
signed
by
the
landlord
simply
expressing
an
intent
to
actually
enter
into
an
agreement
with
the
proposed
licensee.
Should
they
obtain
licensure.
C
Just
just
one
for
clarification,
so
if
they
have
a
binding
contract
with
a
from
space
provider
and
we
grant
them
a
license
if
they
lose
somehow
that
person
decides
now
that
that
space
is
not
available
to
them,
but
they
have
the
license
that
we
have
granted
them.
What
does
that
do
they
have
to
stop
the
process
all
over
again,
because
now
they've
lost
their
their
site.
That's.
A
C
A
A
Of
the
requirement
by
the
CCC
and
Mass
General
law
of
a
and
a
butters
hearing,
it
legally
has
to
start
again.
I
will
say
that
if
it's
an
incident
where
site
control
may
be
a
lease
lapsed,
I
think
that's
something
where
we
could
work
with
okay,
but
if
it's
a
situation
where
the
licensee,
where
the
site
control
was
actually
revoked
by
whomever
owns
the
property,
that's
that's
a
private
business
transaction.
At
that
point,
the
license
would
have
to
be
revoked
okay
and
just
to
make
it
clear.
A
They
do
not
need
a
binding
contract
in
any
way
to
evidence,
site
control.
As
long
as
it's
a
letter
that
says,
the
landlord
is
essentially
open
to
entering
eventually
into
an
agreement
that
will
be
sufficient
for
the
board's
purposes
and
it's
our
understanding
that
those
are
that
is
sufficient
for
the
CCC's
as
well.
Okay,.
B
Leslie
I
just
want
to
say,
I,
think
the
revised
language
goes
a
long
way
to
making
it
easier
for
these
applicants
to
meet
the
conditions
of
site
control.
I
think
our
first
draft
was
more
stringent,
requiring
a
legal
lease
or
a
deed,
and
what
you
just
mentioned,
just
having
in
a
letter
of
intent
from
the
landlord
I,
think
opens
it
up
to
more
people.
B
That
would
otherwise
perhaps
be
in
a
situation
where,
if
for
some
financial
obligation
that
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
board
that
lapsed,
they
could
still
maintain
their
status
as
an
active
applicant.
But
that's
and
I
like
that,
because
I
think
it
that's
a
it's
a
private
transaction
between
the
landlord
and
in
the
in
the
tenant
and
I.
Don't
think
we
want
to
get
involved
in
that.
But
if
the
landlord
wants
to
state
that
should
an
application
be
approved,
they
can.
This
is
their
site.
A
The
board
also
received
correspondence
regarding
the
timeline
for
the
process.
Well,
the
board
cannot
dictate
the
full
timeline,
because
obviously
every
applicant
and
every
process
is
unique.
The
final
draft
of
the
rules
and
regulations
require
that
the
board
hold
a
hearing
within
30
days
of
a
completed
application,
which
is
also
defined
in
these
rules
and
regulations.
A
A
On
the
definition
of
an
equity
applicant
in
defining
equity
applicant,
the
board
sought
to
honor
the
specific
intent
of
the
ordinance.
Hence
the
definition
contained
herein.
It's
important
to
note
that,
in
addition
to
the
priority
given
to
equity
applicants
via
the
one
to
one
ratio,
certified
equity
applicants
also
have
access
to
the
equity
fund
and
the
Associated
technical
support
and
resources
which
are
managed
by
the
Office
of
Economic
Development.
And
that
is
why
the
board
is
interpreting
and
has
defined.
A
Equity
applicant
in
terms
of
the
ordinance
is
that
every
one
of
the
individuals
constituting
fifty
one
or
more
percent
of
ownership
must
hit
at
least
three
of
the
criteria
outlined
in
the
ordinance
now
return
to
the
specific
language
when
we
get
into
the
actual
rules
and
regulations
themselves.
But
that
was
something
that
we
received.
A
number
of
requests
for
clarification
on.
D
A
A
The
requirement
of
all
direct
and
indirect
beneficial
interest
holders
being
disclosed
the
board
did
receive
correspondence
asking
at
comments
asking
that
the
board,
instead
of
mirror
the
language
of
the
CCC.
However,
the
ordinance
creating
this
board
and
this
process
specifically
requires
the
Office
of
Economic
Development
to
track
information
regarding
applicants
and
licensees,
including
all
the
ownership
individuals.
It's
also
important
for
the
board
to
know
exactly
who
owns
and
operates
these
establishments,
regardless
of
how
small
the
beneficial
interest
may
be.
As
such,
we
did
not
amend
the
draft
language.
A
I
do
also
want
to
point
out
that,
as
cannabis
is
mirrored
very
closely
on
liquor,
licensing
regulations,
that
is
the
same
for
anyone
applying
for
a
liquor
license
and
also
in
the
city
of
Boston.
That
is
the
same
for
anyone
required
applying
for
a
food
only
license.
There
is
a
requirement
that
all
beneficial
interests
holders
are
disclosed
joint.
He
of
the
commissioners
have
questions
on
that
point.
A
A
The
board
will
define
area
of
disproportionate
impact
in
the
same
way
as
the
cannabis
Control
Commission
does,
and
that
is
based
on
the
very
extensive
process
that
the
ccc
underwent,
including
significant
research
and
looking
at
census
data.
The
board
at
this
time
is,
did
not
the
board
staff
do
not
feel
that
there
was
a
need
to
reinvent
that
language.
It
is
important
to
note
as
well.
A
Defining
equity
applicant
again,
the
definition
is
that
the
proposed
definition
is
each
individual,
constituting
the
51%
or
more
ownership.
Interest
must
meet
at
least
three
of
the
criteria
established
in
the
ordinance
and
again.
This
is
based
on
the
ordinance
itself
and
what
the
board
staff
interpreted
as
the
Council's
intent.
A
The
earring
schedule
for
disciplinary
actions
we're
proposing
additional
language
regarding
the
notice
process
for
disciplinary
hearings
and
emergency
discipline,
disciplinary
hearings
in
order
to
provide
licensees
and
community
members
and
other
interested
parties
more
clarity
in
what
the
process
would
be
and
to
ensure
that
all
of
a
licensees
due
process
rights
are
met
there.
Any
questions
on
the
proposed
language
regarding
disciplinary
hearings.
A
Section
one
point:
zero:
two:
on
the
application:
there
was
previously
language
that
stated
that
the
board
will
not
accept
a
partial
application.
There
were
a
number
of
comments
with
concerns
over
that
and
that
language
has
been
revised
to
state
that
the
board
will
not
hold
a
hearing
on
a
partial
application,
but
we
will
accept
a
partial
application
and
work
with
the
applicant
to
get
to
the
point
ideally
of
a
completed
application
there.
Any
questions
on
the
complete
versus
partial
application.
A
Request
for
a
letter
of
support
in
opposition
or
opposition
from
a
city
councilor,
which
is
pursuant
to
the
ordinance
required
to
complete
an
application
upon
notice
that
the
applicant
has
requested
a
letter.
The
board
will
also
send
correspondence
to
the
respective
district
city
councilor,
stating
that,
if
they're
requesting
a
letter
and
that,
if
one
has
not
been
received
within
45
days,
that
will
be
considered
non
opposition
and
a
hearing
will
be
scheduled
and,
of
course,
that
perspective
District
City
Council
can
clarify
their
position
either
in
writing
or
on
the
record.
At
a
hearing.
A
C
A
That,
in
terms
of
the
final
licensure
at
the
non
use,
language
and
the
three-month
update,
speaks
to
that,
and
maybe
one
of
the
things
when
we
get
to
that
person,
we
can
build
in
language
if
you
and
the
other
commissioners
are
open
to
it.
Stating
that
the
update
should
include
an
update
on
the
negotiations
with
with
the
proposed
landlord.
Yes,.
A
Section
1.03,
evaluation
of
new
applications,
the
board
staff
struck
the
language
requiring
a
minimum
of
50
percent
score
on
criteria
two
through
five
and
the
board
is
working
with
the
word.
Staff
is
working
with
the
commissioners
to
develop
a
score
sheet
which
will
be
used
based
on
the
ordinance
itself,
and
we
will
be
doing
more
work
on
that.
But
we
have
struck
the
minimum
requirement
in
order
based
on
public
comments
and
order
to
ensure
that
the
board
has
full
discretion,
and
these
issues
about
minimum
scores
can
be
addressed
on
a
case-by-case
basis
in
their
deliberations.
A
On
the
proposed
buffer
zone
process
in
Section
1.05,
the
board
staff
has
removed
the
language
of
regarding
a
letter
of
support
from
directive
butters
and
a
letter
of
support
from
either
the
district
city
councilor
or
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services,
based
on
the
multiple
comments
on
that.
That
would
create
a
barrier
to
entry
and
also
that
wasn't
previously
required.
The
board
notes
that,
in
order
for
a
application
to
be
heard
within
the
half-mile
buffer
zone,
some
support
must
be
evidence.
But
there
is
no
minimum
number
of
support
letters
and
those
could
be
from
residents.
A
A
C
One
more
of
a
comment:
I,
don't
know
if
it's
a
question:
how
are
we
going
to
or
are
we
going
to
incorporate
the
fact
that
a
lot
of
our
neighborhoods
use
community
centers
as
extensions
of
these
schools
for
maybe
after-school
activities
or
outdoor
activities?
So
are
we
or
are
we
able
to
include
those
in
the
school
zone
after.
A
We
spoke
about
this
extensively
with
corporation
council
as
well
and
based
on
the
statutory
history
of
the
revision
at
the
state
level.
The
language
used
to
state
that
instead
of
the
500-foot
buffer
zone,
applied
to
any
area
in
which
children
congregate
and
the
state
purposely
changed
that
in
order
to
make
it
less
restrictive.
A
B
Lastly,
I
just
want
to
say
mr.
Holmes
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from
on
that
I
had
a
take
a
look
at
some
of
the
legislative
history
to
see
how
that
definition
changed
both
in
Massachusetts
in
in
other
states
and
I,
wouldn't
want
something
that
we
did
here
in
Boston.
You
actually
be
deemed
unreasonable
by
the
state
into
you
know
at
the
outset,
already
not
process,
but
I
think
we
need
to
take.
We
need.
B
We
need
to
let
the
process
work
itself
out
and
we
there
is
an
opportunity
for
this
to
be
changed,
but
that
would
have
to
be
a
citywide
ordinance,
whether
that's
expanded
or
or
eliminated,
but
right
now,
I
think
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from.
We
had
a
lot
of
comments
on
both
sides
of
the
issue
with
this,
so
I
think
we're
what
you
see
in
the
final
rules
and
regulations
reflects
our
our
grappling
with
that
issue
and
trying
to
respect
what
the
state
law
was
on.
That
Thank.
C
D
Mr.
Lamas
I
had
one
question
going
back
real
quick
to
the
additional
requirements
on
the
buffer
zone,
conflicts
on
the
documentation
of
support.
It
says
they
may
include
letters,
and
then
it
says
there
is
no
minimum
number
of
letters.
I
know
that
you
added
that
line
which,
based
on
some
of
the
questions
that
I
had
about
that
so
are
they
required
to
have
letters
are
not
required
to
have
dude.
A
A
D
Just
a
comment:
I
really
do
appreciate
you
addressing
that
issue
around
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
enforce
some
of
the
plans
that
applicants
have
said
they
would
do
and
make
sure
that
they
follow
through
with
them,
especially
on
diversity
and
inclusion
and
employment
plans.
From
my
perspective,
I
think
oftentimes
there's
a
lot
of
promises
that
are
made
from
community
from
businesses
to
communities,
investment
and
you
know
hiring
people
of
color
or
all
of
those
things
and
I
do,
and
residents
and
and
I
really
do
think
this
helps
this
language
is
helpful
in
that
way.
A
A
Issuance
of
a
license,
which
is
Section
three,
we
were
looking
to
provide
some
clarity,
there's
a
obviously
a
distinction
between
the
granting
of
a
license
and
the
issuance
of
a
license.
Obviously,
when
a
license
is
granted,
it
is
the
vote
of
this
board
and
it's
discretionary
function,
and
then
they
still
have
to
go
through
the
CCC
process
and
then,
if
they
are,
they
do
obtain
licensure
from
the
CCC.
They
then
have
to
build
out
the
space,
so
the
issuance
of
the
license
does
not
require
any
additional
hearings.
A
It's
strictly
administrative
and
what
that
will
require
is
a
final
copy
of
their
security
and
operations
plan
certificate
of
occupancy.
If
they
have
a
capacity
of
over
affinity,
they're
fires
or
assembly
permit
it
completed
wage
that
certification
form
proof
of
insurance
and
payment
of
the
prorated
annual
fee
based
on
the
date
of
opening,
and
that
also
is
pursuant
to
the
ordinance
we
did
receive
one
or
two
comments
on
the
security
and
operations
plan
and
concerns
over
whether
or
not
that
could
be
submitted
to
the
board
or
whether
it
could
be
confidential.
A
The
security
and
operations
plan
and
we
provide
them
now
to
establishments
that
movement
in
the
city
and
would
provided
each
kind
of
form
to
work
with
to
make
sure
that
they
address
certain
issues
that
are
essentially
of
concern
both
to
the
board
but
up
to
the
to
the
neighbors
and
impact
quality
of
life.
This
is
not
something
where
the
board
is
looking
for
trade
secrets.
The
is
more.
A
We
want
to
know
how
you're
going
to
be
monitoring
your
capacity
monitoring
your
lines,
how
you're
going
to
be
buying
people
coming
to
your
establishment,
so
in
no
way
is
the
information
that
the
board
is
requesting
going
to
compromise
the
actual
security
in
operations
at
the
site.
It's
more
just
to
make
sure
that,
on
the
record,
there
is
documentation
so
that
if
a
licensee
is
not
adhering
to
what
they
what
they
agreed
to
do
that
there
there
can
be
a
discussion.
B
Mostly
this
just
came
to
mind
when
we
have
these
templates
that
are
saying
that
we
could
share
with
potential
applicants.
Their
safety
is
a
safety
and
operations
plan.
Could
we
provide
some
examples
of
the
types
of
training
we
would
like
them
to
include
with
their
employees?
I
think
there
were
some
discussions
about
being
able
to
being
able
to
identify
signs
of
intoxication
or
unruly
patrons
or
customers
much
along
the
same
lines
as
a
security
or
a
person
who
works
at
the
door
at
a
bar
I.
Just
think
we
should.
A
And
build
out
that's
a
great
point
as
we
build
out
these
kind
of
templates,
which
will
be
available
on
the
website
as
opposed
to
being
part
of
the
rules
regulations,
because
you
know
as
we
adapt,
we
will
make
sure
that
that
is
a
piece
of
it
and
that
those
will
be
working
documents.
Okay,
any
other
questions
on
that
piece.
A
Section
at
3.07-
and
this
is
where
the
non
use
language
has
been
inserted-
the
proposed
non
use
language
in
that
states
that
any
licensee
granted
a
license
by
the
board,
pending
review
by
the
ccc,
must
submit
a
written
status
report
regarding
its
application
before
the
ccc
every
three
months
and
annually
upon
submission
of
its
annual
renewal
application.
The
board
its
discretion
may
schedule
any
licensee
pending
review
by
the
ccc
for
non
use
here
and
and
may
revoke
the
license
previously
granted.
A
A
A
A
B
You
Leslie
and
I
just
want
to
say
a
big
thank
you
to
you
for
all
the
work
you've
done
with
the
list
draft
and
the
drafts,
the
original
draft
or
getting
us
the
comments
each
week
for
researching
the
state
law
and
the
laws
and
some
of
the
other
states
and
municipalities.
I
really
appreciate
your
attention
to
it.
I
think
what
we
have
before
us
today
is
a
very
clear,
flexible,
balanced
set
of
rules
and
regulations,
they're,
fair
and
I
think
they
do
stay
to
the
true
intent
of
the
original,
ordinance
and
I.
B
Think
if
we're
able
to
vote
on
these
today,
this
will
give
us
a
great
set
of
rules
and
regulations
so
that
we
can
start
hearing
at
our
next
hearing
in
August.
Some
applications
for
the
board,
I,
don't
have
any
other
comments
or
questions
I
think
you've,
you've
outlined
it
all
for
me.
Today.
You've
answered
every
question
that
I've
had
they
do
one
turns
to
the
other
commissioners
to
see
if
they
have
any
additional
comments
or
questions
before
I
move
forward.
A
Very,
very
good:
there
is
language
that
has
been
added.
It
was
initially
designed
kind
of
time.
That's
received
comments
that
wasn't
clear.
So
we
said
these
may
be
a
amended
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
Massachusetts
General
awesome.
Look
what
those
requirements
are
very
clearly
laid
out.
There
is
a
different
or
an
emergency
regulation
versus
a
non-emergency,
so
that
that's
a
great
point.
Thank
you.
D
No
questions
just
comment
again:
I
do
appreciate
the
ability
to
be
able
to
go
back
and
forth
and
understand
what
changes
needed
to
get
made
and
what
was
state
versus
city
laws.
That's
really
helpful.
I
know
that
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
address
everybody's
concerns
and
public
comment
or
even
respond
to
them.
I
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
them.
I,
just
I,
appreciated
that
explanations.
D
On
my
end
and
and
I
just
wonder
if
other
people
have
who
have
submitted
public
comment,
have
questions
I'm,
sure
I
don't
want
to
put
too
much
version
of
you
Leslie,
but
I
do
think
that
it
is
important
to
have
someone
who
is
a
resource
who
has
really
researched
and
understand
the
state
versus
city
law,
what
needs
to
be
amended
by
ordinance
what's
and
gos
and
regs.
That
was
really
helpful
to
me
as
a
commissioner
and
I'm
sure.
D
D
A
If
there's
anyone
who
has
any
questions,
they
can
always
reach
out
to
you
to
me
and
I'm
happy
to
talk
through
any
of
the
I
have
had
more
questions
that
I
think
we
ever
imagined
throughout
this
process.
It's
been
a
learning
experience
for
everyone,
Commissioner
Smith.
Do
you
have
any
questions
or
comments?
I
was.
A
D
A
B
Want
to
say
thank
you,
I
think
this
is.
This
is
a
very
important
process
to
get
the
rules
and
regulations
correct,
and
it
gives
us
some
flexibility
if
we
decide
or
if
we
determine
as
the
process
in
this
board,
that
we
need
more
clarity
or
something
doesn't
work
and
we're
hopeful
that
at
our
next
meeting,
we'll
have
some
applications
before
us
to
discuss
and
to
evaluate
and
we're
working
with
our
team
at
the
city
attorney
Taylor
white,
an
attorney
Alexis
could
Chuck
and
we'll
have
more
information
about
that
by
the
end
of
next
week.