* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:01]
          WELL, HELLO EVERYBODY. 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
IT'S SIX O'CLOCK, SO WE'RE GONNA CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. 
          HOPE EVERYBODY IS HAVING A LOVELY TUESDAY. 
          I'D LIKE TO ASK OUR CLERK TO TAKE ROLE. 
          COMMISSIONER BAUER HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER MOSES. 
          ABSENT. 
          COMMISSIONER MCCARLEY? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER KUSON? HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER WIMAN? HERE. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER CATER THOMPSON. 
          HERE. 
          CHAIR HUBER. 
          HERE WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE STRAIGHT INTO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          UH, DURING GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO MAKE COMMENTS ON ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT ARE WITHIN THE PUBLIC. 
          THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AND THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE CURRENT AGENDA. 
          PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO UP TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON. 
          DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          TIME WILL BE ALLOCATED IN EQUAL SHARES TOTALING NO MORE THAN 15 MINUTES. 
          I LIKE TO ASK IF WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          I HAD A FEELING, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. 
          UM, WANNA ASK IF WE GOT ANY ONLINE? WE RECEIVED NO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I REMEMBERED THIS TIME TO ASK THAT QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I WOULD SAY WE'RE MOVING STRAIGHT INTO PRESENTATIONS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY FOR TODAY. 
          I 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WANT TO GET THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 23RD, 2024. 
          DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE EDITS FROM THOSE MINUTES? OH, GREAT. 
          IF WE COULD JUST GET A ROLL CALL. 
          COMMISSIONER BAUER? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MOSES. 
          ABSENT. 
          COMMISSIONER MCCURLEY? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER KUSON? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WIMAN? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER GATOR THOMPSON. 
          YES. 
          CHAIR HOOPER? YES. 
          THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          WITH THAT 
          [PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION]
WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MATTERS OF JURISDICTION OR CONSIDERATION. 
          UH, AND FOR THAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO MEETING ITEM TWO. 
          THIS IS A PUBLIC HEAR PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO REVOKE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT. 
          LAND USE AT 145. 
          146 KENTUCKY STREET, CURRENTLY OPERATED BY NOVATO, L-L-C-D-B-A, OR JAMESON'S ROARING DONKEY, LOCATED AT 146 KENTUCKY STREET. 
          FINDINGS FOR EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OR CE QA ARE RECOMMENDED PURSUANT TO CE QA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15 3 2, 1. 
          ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BY REGULATORY AGENCY, WHICH EXEMPTS ACTIONS BY REGULATORY AGENCIES TO ENFORCE OR REVOKE A PERMIT OR OTHER ENTITLED OR OTHER ENTITLEMENTS FOR USE ISSUED. 
          AND WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF ANYBODY HAS EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE. 
          ARE WE GOOD? OKAY. 
          IN THE PAST I'VE SPOKEN TO THE PEOPLE WITH JAMESON, BUT THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. 
          THAT WAS A WHILE AGO. 
          YEAH. 
          IT WASN'T SINCE THIS. 
          OH, THEN WE'RE FINE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE OUR, A ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, JORDAN GREEN TO COME UP AND PRESENT. 
          NOT YET. 
          WHEN IS, OH, I'M GONNA TRY IT AGAIN. 
          GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS JORDAN GREEN AND I'M AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WITH THE CITY OF PETALUMA. 
          WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT 1 4 6 KENTUCKY STREET, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS JAMESON'S ROARING DONKEY. 
          WE'RE GONNA FIRST PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND. 
          1 4 6. 
          KENTUCKY STREET IS ZONED MIXED USE, TOO. 
          THAT MEANS CERTAIN USES ARE A MATTER OF, RIGHT. 
          SUCH AS A CATERING SERVICE OR GENERAL RETAIL, A FITNESS FACILITY, A LIBRARY, A MUSEUM, OR AN ART GALLERY. 
          BUT TO SELL ALCOHOL, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUIRED TO GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH I'M GOING TO REFER TO AS A CUP. 
          IN 2004, THE CITY'S PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTED A CUP TO THE OWNERS OF INFUSIONS, ALLOWING THEM TO OPERATE A BAR AT 1 4 6 KENTUCKY STREET. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, BY 2008, THE CITY HAD ALREADY ISSUED AN ARNOLD NO 
          [00:05:01]
CITATION, WHICH IS AN ALCOHOL RELATED NUISANCE ORDINANCE. 
          SO VIOLATION OF OUR ORDINANCE BECAUSE THERE WERE PROBLEMS AND INFUSIONS, POLICE GETTING CALLED FOR FIGHTS, PUBLIC INTOXICATION, AND OTHER GENERAL PROBLEMS TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          IN 2009, THEY SOLD THAT BUSINESS TO THE ROCKS AND THEY AGREED TO BUY, ABIDE BY THE CONDITIONS OF THE CUP. 
          BUT BY 2010, THERE WERE ALSO PROBLEMS AT THE ROCKS, SUCH AS FIGHTS AND OTHER ALCOHOL RELATED PROBLEMS. SO THEY, IN 2000, THE CITY, YOU KNOW, WORKED, TRIED TO WORK WITH THEM. 
          AND IN 2014, THE ROCK SOLD THEIR BUSINESS TO NODO, L-L-C-D-B-A JAMESON WARRING DONKEY, WHICH ALSO AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE CUP. 
          WHEN THIS 2004 CUP WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE APPLICATION SAID IT WOULD, IT WAS A, A BAR LOUNGE THAT WOULD RUN WITH QUIET GRACE. 
          IT WOULDN'T CREATE ANY EXTRA BURDEN ON THE POLICE OR FIRE DEPARTMENTS, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE SEEN HERE. 
          THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT EXTRA BURDEN ON OUR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS AS IT'S RAN AS JAMESON SOARING DONKEY. 
          THEY SAID THEY'D HAVE A DRESS CODE TO CREATE A HIGH-END ESTABLISHMENT. 
          THERE'S NO DRESS CODE HERE. 
          THE APPLICATION SAID THAT THEY, TO THE A, B, C, SET A CAPACITY OF 130 PERSONS. 
          JAMESON'S WARING DONKEY HAD AN OCCUPANCY SIGN OF 275 PEOPLE. 
          THAT IS DOUBLE THE HUNDRED AND 30 PEOPLE. 
          THAT WAS ANTICIPATED WHEN THIS CUP WAS GRANTED. 
          THE CITY HAS SINCE WORKED WITH JARD AND THEY REDUCED IT TO 1 39. 
          BUT THAT DIDN'T STOP THE PROBLEMS. THEY ANTICIPATED A FLOOR, THEY PROVIDED A FLOOR PLAN THAT DEPICTED MOSTLY SEATED AREA WHERE PEOPLE WOULD DINE AND THERE'D BE SLOW MUSIC. 
          BUT AT JDS, THERE'S SOME SEATED AREA AS WELL AS A BAR AREA, A DANCE AREA, AND A POOL TABLE. 
          SO IT'S A DIFFERENT USE THAN WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED IN 2004. 
          SO WHY ARE WE HERE? WE'RE HERE BECAUSE WE ARE SEEKING THE REVOCATION OF THE CUP THAT WAS ISSUED IN 2004, AND THAT'S BASED ON JJRD. 
          WE'RE USING THAT FOR JAMESON TOURING DONKEY, THEIR HISTORY OF OPERATING AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THEIR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2004 CUP, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW ARE IZO, WHICH IS PETALUMA'S IMPLEMENTED ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          SECTION 8.074 SAYS THAT WE COULD BRING A CUP BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AT ANY TIME BASED ON A LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, TRAFFIC, CONGESTION, NOISE, OR OTHER ADVERSE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS. 
          AND THIS NOTICE WAS IN THE 2004 CUP. 
          THERE WAS ALSO A 20 DAY SUSPENSION THAT WE RECENTLY ISSUED UNDER OUR IZO SECTION 24.060 FOR JDS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CUP. 
          SO FIRST WE'RE GONNA START WITH WHAT'S A PUBLIC NUISANCE. 
          IT'S ESSENTIALLY ANYTHING THAT'S INJURIOUS TO OUR HEALTH. 
          IT'S INDECENT OR OFFENSIVE TO OUR SENSES. 
          IT OBSTRUCTS THE FREE USE OF PROPERTY AND IT INTERFERES WITH A COMFORTABLE, COMFORTABLE ENJOYMENT OF LIFE OR PROPERTY. 
          AND IT AFFECTS THIS AT THE SAME TIME OR ENTIRE COMMUNITY OR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANY CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF PEOPLE. 
          OUR OWN PETALUMA MUNICIPAL CODE STATES THAT A NUISANCE, A PUBLIC NUISANCE IS A VIOLATION OF OUR PMC OR WHICH ALSO INCLUDES OUR IZO. 
          SO HERE AT JAMESON'S WARING DONKEY, IT'S CREATED A PUBLIC NUISANCE. 
          THERE HAVE BEEN ALCOHOL RELATED NUISANCE CITATIONS. 
          SO FOR VIOLATING ARNO OR ORDINANCE MEANT TO STOP PROBLEMS RELATED TO TOO MUCH ALCOHOL. 
          DRINKING TOO MUCH ALCOHOL. 
          THERE'S BEEN CALLS FOR SERVICE. 
          WE'VE HAD REPEATED OVERCROWDING ISSUES, WE'VE HAD FIGHTS ARREST. 
          AND THOSE FIGHTS JUST DON'T INCLUDE THE PATRONS WHO GO THERE AND DRINK TOO MUCH. 
          IT INCLUDES THEIR OWN STAFF MEMBERS. 
          YOU MAY HAVE RECALLED AN INCIDENT IN THE ARGUS OR A NICKEL WHERE THE POLICE HAD TO ARREST THEIR OWN SECURITY GUARDS FOR BEATING UP A CUSTOMER AND HE WASN'T EVEN INTOXICATED. 
          AND IT'S ALSO A NUISANCE BECAUSE THEY STILL DON'T HAVE AN APPROVED SECURITY PLAN, WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF IS A VIOLATION OF OUR CUP. 
          SO WHY IS ROARING DONKEY DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER ALCOHOL RELATED ESTABLISHMENT? LOOK AT ALL THE CALLS FOR SERVICE THAT THE POLICE HAVE HAD TO RESPOND TO. 
          FROM JANUARY, 2018 TO APRIL 23RD, 2024, THEY RESPONDED TO 328 CALLS FOR SERVICE COMPARED TO SAY THE BLOCK. 
          WELL, THE BLOCK WAS IN EXISTENCE, I DON'T 
          [00:10:01]
THINK IN 18, BUT THERE'S THE BUCKHORN, GAIL'S HIDEAWAY, MARIO AND JOHNS MCNAIR'S SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. 
          SAME WITH CRIME REPORTS. 
          57 CRIME REPORTS RELATED WITH JA JAMESON'S WEARING DONKEY, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN ANY OTHER BAR THERE EXCEPT FOR THE HIDEAWAY. 
          THERE'S BEEN PROBLEMS RELATED WITH THE HIDEAWAY TOO. 
          HOWEVER, THEY WORKED WITH THE CITY, THEY CHANGED THEIR PRACTICES AND THEIR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE HAS BEEN CLOSED. 
          NOW WE LOOK AT THE PLACE OF LAST DRINKS WHEN POLICE OFFICERS CONDUCT A TRAFFIC STOP OR PERHAPS ARRIVE AT A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND THEY NOTICE THE DRIVER'S BEEN DRINKING ALCOHOL, THEY CONDUCT A DUI INVESTIGATION. 
          ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS ASKED IS, WHERE'S THE LAST PLACE YOU DRANK? YOU DRANK. 
          AND IN 2020 2 35 PEOPLE SAID THAT THE LAST PLACE THEY DRANK WAS JAMESON'S SOARING DONKEY, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN ANY OF THE OTHER BARS THERE, SUCH AS MARIO AND JOHN'S HIDEAWAY, BUCKHORN. 
          AND IN JUST THIS YEAR, SEVEN PEOPLE COMPARED TO TWO OR ONE FOR SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS. 
          SO THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS WITH ALL THE DETAILS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE ATTACHMENTS OF WHY THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE. 
          THERE'S ALSO THE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CUP. 
          IT REQUIRES AN APPROVED SEC SECURITY PLAN. 
          J-I-D-J-R-D HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ONE. 
          THEY'VE SUBMITTED PIECE MEAL DOCUMENTS. 
          THEY INCLUDED WHAT APPEARED TO BE CUS CUT AND PASTE JOBS FROM GOOGLE THAT WERE NOT EVEN CUSTOMIZED TO JRD. 
          IT FAILED TO INCLUDE BEST PRACTICES TO OPERATE A BAR AND NIGHTCLUB. 
          THE END OF 2023, THEY INCLUDED A PLAN THAT THEY HAD SOME DEESCALATION TACTICS AND THOSE COULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL, BUT THE SECURITY DIDN'T EVEN FOLLOW THEM. 
          ON DECEMBER 31ST AND TWO MEN WERE KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS JUST OUTSIDE OF THEIR BAR. 
          ON APRIL 20TH, THE POLICE ARRESTED THEIR SECURITY FOR BEATING SOMEONE UP WHO WAS SERIOUSLY INSURED. 
          SO WE ARE HERE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN ACTING AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE. 
          THEY VIOLATED OUR MUNICIPAL CODE AND OUR IZO, THEY WON'T, THEY'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR CUP. 
          AND THEY'RE A DANGER AND THEY'RE OPERATING, THEY'RE OPERATIONS ARE A DANGER TO OUR COMMUNITY. 
          SO WE'RE HERE TO, WE HAVE TO ADVISE YOU OF YOUR OPTIONS COULD REVOKE THE CUP BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM, NOT JUST WITH JRD, BUT SINCE THIS WAS AWARDED IN 2004. 
          IT WAS PROBLEMS WITH THE FIRST BAR THAT WAS THERE WITH INFUSIONS. 
          THEN THE NEXT BAR, THE ROCKS, AND NOW JRD, IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE. 
          YOU COULD SUSPEND IT. 
          WE, YOU COULD ISSUE NEW OR MODIFIED CONDITIONS, A COMBINATION, OR YOU COULD DO NOTHING. 
          NOW, RECENTLY, JUST ABOUT APPROXIMATELY A WEEK BEFORE THIS HEARING, WE WERE CONTACTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY, AND HE'S HERE, I'M NOT GONNA SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT HE SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE. 
          WE WANNA WORK WITH YOU CITY. 
          WE'RE EVICTING, JRD, WE DON'T WANNA CONTRIBUTE TO THESE PROBLEMS. SO IN LIGHT OF THAT ASSURANCE, AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTS OF EVIDENCE THAT THERE EVICTING JRD, WE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, INSTEAD OF JUST REVOKING THE CP, WE ARE GONNA ASK YOU TO REVOKE IT. 
          BUT TOLL THAT REVOCATION, AND THAT ESSENTIALLY MEANS SUSPEND. 
          BUT THE DEFAULT IS TO REVOKE IT. 
          WE'RE RECOMMENDING 90 DAYS, BUT IF I KNOW PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY HAS SOME CONCERNS. 
          SO WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK WITH YOU AND PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD WE'RE ASKING TO REVOKE IT, SUSPEND THAT REVOCATION ISSUE, OR I'M SAYING 90 DAYS RIGHT NOW, A SUSPENSION SO THAT JRD CAN OR NO OTHER BAR CAN REOPEN THERE. 
          AND THEN ALLOW THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DRAFT AN AMENDED CUP THAT PROVIDES THE CITY WITH THE TOOLS IT NEEDS TO PREVENT THE RECURRENCE OF THE PROBLEMS WE'VE HAD AT 1 4 6 KENTUCKY STREET. 
          AND HERE WE, IT'S JUST A SUMMARY OF WHAT I'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT. 
          SO DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD. 
          SO, UM, SO REWROTE, REVOKE OR SUSPEND THE, UM, CUP AND IF YOU, IF WE WORK WITH THE ATTORNEY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE CITY, SO WOULD THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE A CUP AND NOT A BUSINESS? 'CAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY HAD A CUP AND IT WASN'T CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING. 
          CORRECT? WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT EITHER. 
          BUT IN 2004, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUED THE CUP TO THE BUSINESS. 
          WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IT BE ISSUED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEN ANY BUSINESS THAT 
          [00:15:01]
THEY LEASE THE PROPERTY TO WOULD BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THAT CUP. 
          THANK YOU, DARREN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS CUP CHANGED FROM ESTABLISHMENT TO ESTABLISHMENT, WAS THERE A PROCESS BY WHICH WE MADE SURE SUBSEQUENT ESTABLISHMENTS COMPORTED WITH THE CONDITIONS WERE OF A SIMILAR TENOR? BECAUSE THAT'S BROUGHT UP THAT INFUSIONS MAYBE DIFFERENT THAN THE USED THERE TODAY. 
          WHAT WAS THE PROCESS WHERE WE CHECKED THAT OFF BECAUSE I SAW THEIR STATEMENTS, JUST A COUPLE SENTENCES THAT WE'LL DO THIS. 
          WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE FOR THE CITY TO VERIFY? WELL, THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. 
          I HAVE THE EVIDENCE OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY SIGNED AND AGREED. 
          HOWEVER, I WOULD ASK PERHAPS OUR OTHER CITY TEAM, IF ANYONE KNOWS WHAT THE CURRENT PROCESS IS, I JUST HAVE THE DOCUMENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID SIGN THAT THEY WOULD ABIDE BY THE TERMS. THE THE CURRENT PROCESS WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON THE BUSINESS OWNER TO NOTIFY THE CITY. 
          I THINK THIS, THIS GOES BACK TO THE COUNCIL QUESTION ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          SO TYPICALLY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS UNDERSTOOD TO RUN WITH THE LAND. 
          HENCE THE PROPERTY OWNER RAISED THE QUESTION A ABOUT THE REVOCATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE THEY, THEY DO SEE THAT AS REVOKING THEIR LAND USE RIGHTS THAT WERE VESTED THROUGH THAT ISSUANCE IN 2004. 
          WHAT WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, UM, HAS HAPPENED IS THAT THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT CHAPTER WAS WRITTEN TO ADDRESS A SITUATION WHERE STATE A BC WOULD NOT NECESSARILY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVOKE A LICENSE. 
          THEY ALWAYS, THEY ALWAYS, UM, PEGGED THE LICENSE TO, UH, A CITY'S AUTHORIZATION THROUGH THROUGH A CUP. 
          SO WHAT WE THINK HAPPENED WAS THAT CHAPTER, THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE MAN ESTABLISHMENT CHAPTER WAS WRITTEN TO ISSUE CS TO A BUSINESS AND THEN GO THROUGH A BUSINESS TO BUSINESS TRANSFER. 
          BECAUSE IF THE CITY REVOKED THAT CUP FOR THE BUSINESS, THEN THE STATE WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO REVOKE THEN THE ASSOCIATED, UH, A BC LICENSE, UM, PER THEIR, THEIR TERMS AND REGULATIONS. 
          HOWEVER, WE DO, WE DO CURRENTLY FIND IT INTERESTING THAT THE CHAPTER IS WRITTEN THIS WAY. 
          AND OUR GOAL THROUGH THIS PROCESS WOULD BE TO, UH, CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTE THE CUP TO THE LAND OR, OR ASSOCIATE IT TO THE LAND AS A VESTED RIGHT. 
          UM, WHILE WE CAN STILL USE THE PROCESS OF, YOU KNOW, A SUSPENSION OF THE CUP CAN STILL BE APPLIED TO A BUSINESS OPERATING AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION, BUT IT WOULD THEN BECOME THE CORRECT USE OF THE CUP. 
          HOWEVER, EVEN, EVEN IF WE GO THAT ROUTE, WE WOULD STILL, UM, RELY UPON A BUSINESS TO INFORM US THAT IT IS SEEKING TO GO INTO A CERTAIN ESTABLISHMENT. 
          NOW WHEN THEY DO APPLY TO A B, C FOR THEIR LICENSE, UM, THEY, A BC ALWAYS COMES TO THE CITY AND ASKS FOR VERIFICATION THAT, UM, THE, THE, UM, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT IS PERMITTED. 
          SO WE DO HAVE THAT CROSSCHECK ON THE PROCESS. 
          COOL. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CONTEXT. 
          AND, AND YEAH, THE GIST OF THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE BUSINESS, WHETHER THERE WAS SOMETHING BUILT IN THERE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY MUST HAVE GOTTEN SOME SIGN OFF ALONG THE WAY, SO THAT'S FINE. 
          UM, OCCUPANCY WISE, YOU KNOW, I NOTICED IN THERE WHY WAS THE ROCKS THE PREVIOUS ESTABLISHMENT ALLOWED TO HAVE 275 PERSONS? WAS IT WAS THAT, SO WHAT HAPPENED IN, AND OBVIOUSLY I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, BUT WHEN OUR, WHEN THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC SAFETY PROBLEMS IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, OUR POLICE OFFICERS AND OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, SEE WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHY, AND HOW CAN WE HELP PREVENT THIS? AND WHEN OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM ENTERED THE JRD, THEY SAW THE 275 PERSON SIGN AND THEY LOOKED AROUND LIKE, THIS DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT BASED ON THEIR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, AND THEN WENT BACK AND WE WORKED WITH THEM TO 139 CAPACITY AND WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT 275 PERSON SIGN CAME FROM. 
          OKAY. 
          AND YOU LED PERFECTLY INTO MY NEXT QUESTION WAS THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S APPROACH TO REVISING THE STANDARD, STARTING WITH THE BASE CUP AND THEN DOING THAT KIND OF VOLUMETRIC CALCULATION THAT WOULD BE THE STANDARD PROCEDURE WHENEVER THEY'RE COMING INTO A BUSINESS. 
          THERE WAS NOTHING PARTICULARLY ABNORMAL ABOUT HIS APPROACH TO THIS BUSINESS? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. 
          BUT ONCE AGAIN, FOR CURRENT PRACTICES, I WOULD CONSULT WITH MY TEAM HERE AND LET THEM ANSWER WHAT THE CURRENT PRACTICES ARE. 
          [00:20:01]
IF EITHER OF, YOU KNOW, I COULD CHECK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, UM, WE DON'T, UH, WE DO HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HERE WHO I THINK WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION ABOUT THEIR CURRENT PRACTICES. 
          SO BASICALLY, UM, OH, IF YOU COULD, IF YOU COULD COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH, . 
          SO BASICALLY FOR, UM, OCCUPANCY FOR ESTABLISHMENTS, I WAS NOT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT, UM, DID THIS. 
          MY PARTNER DOUG, WAS HE'S OUT SICK. 
          BUT YOU WOULD, UM, GO BACK TO THE CUP FROM 2004, AND I BELIEVE THAT ONE STATED IT WAS 130 PEOPLE. 
          SO AFTER THAT WE HAD OUR BUILDING, UM, OUR CHIEF BUILDING OFFICER GO OUT AND THEY MEASURED THE ACTUAL BUILDING TO SEE THAT IT WAS INDEED 1 39 FOR AN OCCUPANCY. 
          TERRIFIC. 
          AND THAT'S THE STANDARD PROCEDURE NO MATTER WHO THE BUSINESS IS. 
          THOSE ARE BEST PRACTICES. 
          YES. 
          OKAY, FANTASTIC. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          SURE. 
          AND THEN THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICER. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE CODE ENFORCEMENT OR MAYBE PLANNING, BUT, UH, HOW MANY OTHER BARS IN THE DOWNTOWN ARE UNDER CS, UH, MAYBE COMPARED TO KIND OF OUR COMP GROUP OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT HAVE TO ALSO PRODUCE A SECURITY PLAN, UM, AS DESCRIBED? IS IT ALL SOME, SO I'LL, I'LL TAKE THE LEAD AND THEN, UM, DYLAN AND JORDAN CAN FOLLOW UP AS WELL. 
          ANY, ANY OPERATION OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, WHICH IS, WHICH IS A BAR WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE TO, TO PRODUCE AND IMPLEMENT A SECURITY PLAN. 
          UM, WE DO HAVE ESTABLISHMENTS DOWNTOWN THAT ARE CONSIDERED FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS WHERE THEY, THEY MAY BE SERVING ALCOHOL, BUT UH, THEY'RE ALSO SERVING FOOD ALONG WITH THAT. 
          AND FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT ORDINANCE. 
          SO THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A SECURITY PLAN. 
          UM, INTERESTINGLY, IF YOU, IF YOU RECALL, I THINK IT WAS TWO YEARS AGO THIS SUMMER THAT, UH, A KAPU BAR, UH, CAME THROUGH FOR, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          AND THE REASON WE DID THAT WAS BECAUSE, UH, FOR A PORTION OF THE EVENING THEY WERE SERVING FOOD. 
          AND SO THEY, THEY CLASSIFIED AS A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT, BUT I BELIEVE AT 10 O'CLOCK THEY WANTED TO STOP FOOD SERVICE BUT CONTINUE TO SERVE ALCOHOL IN THE LOUNGE. 
          AND SO THAT CUP ALLOWED FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, UM, TO OPERATE FROM 10, I THINK UNTIL 1:00 AM 10:00 PM UNTIL 1:00 AM. 
          SO WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UM, TO BE PRETTY FINE GRAINED ABOUT HOW WE TREAT AND, AND HOW WE, UM, REGULATE, I GUESS THE, THE, UM, SERVICE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AS IT RELATES TO, TO FOOD SERVICE. 
          AND I'LL JUST ADD THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          IT IS A REQUIREMENT IN OUR CHAPTER EIGHT OF THE IZO, THE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT CHAPTER. 
          UM, I'M TRYING TO FIND WHEN THAT ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY ENACTED, BUT AT LEAST SINCE CHAPTER EIGHT WAS ENACTED AND ADOPTED, IT'S A REQUIREMENT. 
          WELL, AND THAT'S THE CONTEXT I WAS LOOKING FOR, IS WE KNOW WHAT A GOOD SECURITY PLAN LOOKS LIKE. 
          EVERYONE NEEDS TO COMPORT WITH THAT. 
          AND THEN THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE THOROUGH SECURITY PLAN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S KIND OF THIS, UM, EMAILS AND IT LOOKS LIKE A PIECEMEAL PROCESS NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, 2023. 
          JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT DECEMBER 19TH VERSION WAS NOT APPROVED BY OUR POLICE CHIEF AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY MATCH OR IS UP TO THE STANDARD OF ALL THE OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? IT WAS NOT APPROVED BY OUR POLICE CHIEF. 
          AND I COULD, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION. 
          WELL, JUST WHETHER OR NOT, YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S THE KEY IS IF IT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE POLICE CHIEF OR NOT, BUT JUST WHETHER THE FORMAT, THE STYLE OF IT, THAT, THAT WAS KIND OF UP TO THE STANDARD THAT WE EXPECT OF A SECURITY PLAN, UM, OR, OR MAYBE OUR POLICE CHIEF WHO'S COMING TO THE PODIUM CAN TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT APPROVAL PROCESS AND WHY WE DON'T HAVE A APPROVED ONE RIGHT NOW. 
          YEAH, ESSENTIALLY WE WENT THROUGH A NUMBER OF MEETINGS AND COMMUNICATIONS BACK AND FORTH WITH THE, UH, THE TENANTS AS WELL AS THEIR ATTORNEY. 
          UH, AS JORDAN MENTIONED, THE INITIAL VERSIONS OF THAT WERE ACTUALLY CUT AND PASTE OF WHAT LOOKED LIKE A GOOGLE INTERNET SEARCH. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , THERE WAS REFERENCES FROM THE A BC CODE SECTIONS, UH, THAT JUST WERE PASTED INTO THE DOCUMENT. 
          THERE WASN'T SUBSTANCE AS TO WHAT PROCESSES OR PROCEDURES OR TRAINING. 
          IT WAS JUST STATEMENTS OF, YOU KNOW, WE WILL HAVE A SECURITY PLAN. 
          WE WILL REGULATE PEOPLE'S 
          [00:25:01]
CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL, WE WILL MONITOR SECURITY, UM, TOTALLY LACKING ALSO COM INCREDIBLY INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE WERE EXPERIENCING, WHAT WE WERE RESPONDING TO FOR CALLS OF SERVICE. 
          SO THERE WAS A DISCONNECT OF NOT ONLY DO THERE SEEMED TO BE A, A FUNDAMENTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ON WHAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES WERE AS AN ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT PROVIDER. 
          UH, THERE WASN'T CLARITY AS HOW THEY WOULD TRAIN THEIR STAFF IN THESE AREAS. 
          THERE WASN'T, UM, CLARITY AS TO HOW THEY WOULD MONITOR AND MAINTAIN OR MEASURE THEIR PERFORMANCE IN THESE AREAS. 
          AND, UH, ULTIMATELY IN THE FINAL, UH, INVESTIGATION THAT MY STAFF RESPONDED TO, WHERE WE ARRESTED, I BELIEVE FIVE OF THEIR SECURITY GUARDS, ESSENTIALLY ALL OF THEIR ON-DUTY SECURITY STAFF, UH, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THEY WEREN'T EVEN FOLLOWING WHAT THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AS SOME OF THEIR SAFETY PROTOCOLS. 
          UM, SO COMPLETELY LACKING, DIDN'T HAVE A PLAN, DIDN'T HAVE AN EMERGENCY PLAN. 
          UM, AND DESPITE OUR ATTEMPTS TO WORK WITH DUR, UM, WE PROVIDED SOME EXAMPLES TO THEM, UM, YOU KNOW, OFFERED GUIDANCE AND THEY INDICATED THEY HAD THE ABILITY AND THEIR ATTORNEY WAS GONNA ASSIST 'EM IN THE PROCESS. 
          AND WE WERE STILL WAITING TO SEE SOMETHING SUFFICIENT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT REALLY THOROUGH BREAKDOWN. 
          AND YOU GOT TO MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS ACTUALLY IF WE PROVIDED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND EXAMPLES TO ENABLE THEM TO COMPLY, UH, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WAS THE CASE. 
          UH, THOSE ARE ALL OF MY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, HEIDI. 
          YES, THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY, UM, THING LIKE A PROBATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT, UM, IS SOMETIMES OFFERED FOR THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          LIKE SAY WE WERE TO, UM, DO A 90 DAY SUSPENSION AND THEN, UM, SAY GIVE THEM SOME SORT OF PROBATION. 
          LIKE YOU HAVE TO HAVE LESS THAN X INCIDENTS OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO US OR YOU WILL JUST AUTOMATICALLY GET YOUR COP REVOKED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          DOES THAT EXIST? WELL, YOU COULD ISSUE A SUSPENSION IN SOME TERMS, BUT I WOULD, AS TO THE DETAILS I WOULD REFER, I WOULD DEFER TO THE OTHER ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HERE, DYLAN AND BRADY. 
          BUT HOWEVER, THE CITY STAFF HAS MET WITH THEM SINCE LAST SUMMER, ALMOST A YEAR NOW, WHERE I, OUR POLICE CHIEF, MANY EXECUTIVE CITY TEAM MEMBERS AND HAVE SAT WITH THEM AND SAID, WE NEED YOU TO FIX THIS HERE. 
          HOW CAN WE HELP YOU? MM-HMM. 
           AND HAVE DONE THAT REPEATEDLY. 
          WE HAVE GIVEN THEM, YOU KNOW, WARNINGS AND NOTICES. 
          SO WE WOULD STILL RECOMMEND AGAINST THAT BECAUSE WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE POSSIBLY CAN, EVEN FOLLOWING UP WHEN THEY DON'T RESPOND TO US TO HELP THEM GET, MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO RUN A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS IN PETALUMA. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED THAT. 
          SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU ALREADY KIND OF GAVE THEM A PROBATIONARY PERIOD IN A WAY? WE DID. 
          ESSENTIALLY, IT'S, HEY, WE'RE, AND WE SAID, WE IS ACTUALLY, WE DID, WE ISSUED A 20 DAYS A NOTICE OF A 20 DAY SUSPENSION IN NOVEMBER, I THINK IT IS. 
          I'D HAVE TO CHECK OUR TIMELINE. 
          AND THEN THEY SAID, NO, NO, NO, WE WILL, WE WILL. 
          HERE'S OUR DRAFT, UH, SECURITY PLAN. 
          AND THEN WE WENT BACK, SAID, THIS ISN'T ENOUGH. 
          AND THEN WE ALLOWED THEM TO STAY OPEN OVER THANKSGIVING BECAUSE THEY PRO PROVIDED ANOTHER CROWD CONTROL PLAN. 
          WE SAID, OKAY, THIS IS HELPFUL, BUT WE STILL NEED MORE. 
          AND WE CONTINUED THAT 20 DAY SUSPENSION NOTICE FROM NOVEMBER, I BELIEVE IT WAS NOVEMBER. 
          IF NOT, I COULD CHECK THE TIMELINE ALL THE WAY UNTIL APRIL WHEN WE FINALLY SAID, YOU'RE SUSPENDED. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AFTER THEIR OWN SECURITY BEAT UP A PATRON. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND SAY, SAY WE WERE TO DO THIS 90 DAY SUSPENSION, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THEN THEY WERE TO GET THEIR LICENSE BACK WITH THE, UM, REQUIREMENTS THAT WE PUT FORWARD TODAY. 
          WHAT IF THEY BREAK THE RULES AGAIN, THEN WHAT HAPPENS? THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING OUR TEAM HAS DISCUSSED AS WELL, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SEEKING A REVOCATION AND TOLLING THAT TO ALLOW US TO DRAFT A CUP THAT PROVIDES THE CITY WITH TOOLS IT NEEDS TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. 
          WHAT KIND OF TOOLS LIKE MIGHT THEY BE? WELL, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE I RELY ON OUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           SUCH AS OUR POLICE CHIEF, OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT BUILDING AND PLANNING TO REALLY KNOW THE BEST TOOLS OUT THERE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO PART OF THE ALCOHOL, UM, NUISANCE ORDINANCES WE PROVIDE ALL, AND WE REQUIRE OUR, OUR ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS TO GO TO RESPONSIBLE BEVERAGE SERVICE IDEALLY. 
          AND FUNDAMENTALLY, I THINK WE ARE, WE'RE WELCOMING OF ANY BUSINESS THAT WANTS TO BE HIGH PERFORMING AND BE SUCCESSFUL AND PROMOTE A VIBRANT DOWNTOWN. 
          AND IF THEY'RE PROPERLY MANAGING THEIR ESTABLISHMENT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE SEE IN MANY OF THE OTHER I'LL ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS THAT PROPER MANAGEMENT, PROPER OVERSIGHT AND PROPER PROCESSES GENERALLY LEADS TO PROPER PERFORMANCE. 
          AND IT DOESN'T IMPACT MY STAFF. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, IN THE MODEL WE'VE DETAILED TONIGHT, IT'S HEAVILY IMPACTED US. 
          MY STAFF, YOU KNOW, ALMOST 
          [00:30:01]
20 YEARS OF MY CAREER HAVE BEEN SPENT PATROLLING KENTUCKY STREET OFTEN FOR ISSUES COMING OUT OF THIS VERY ADDRESS. 
          UM, SO THROUGH RESPONSIBLE BEVERAGE TRAINING, THROUGH COMMUNICATION WITH MY TEAM, UM, THROUGH AN ADOPTED SECURITY PLAN, THROUGH A CLEARLY DEFINED CUP, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR A RIGHT SIZED ESTABLISHMENT THAT'S GONNA BE PERFORMING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE PROTOCOLS, FOLLOWING STATE, LOCAL, UM, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. 
          AND AS YOU SAW, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE OTHER ISSUES AT OTHER ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS PERIODICALLY, BUT THE RESPONSIVENESS, THE ATTENTIVENESS TO RE REMEDYING THOSE ISSUES TO COMMUNICATING WITH OUR TEAM, UM, AND ALSO SHOWING IN THE AFTERMATH OF THOSE THAT THEY HAVE WORKED ON THEM AND THEY SUCCESSIVELY MANAGE THEMSELVES, UM, IS, IS IMPACTFUL. 
          WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT, AS JORDAN MENTIONED, UH, THROUGH THE BACK AND FORTH COMMUNICATIONS ON THE SECURITY PLAN, WE GAVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO STAY OPEN. 
          WE KNEW THAT AROUND THANKSGIVING IS A HIGH VOLUME NIGHT AS WELL AS MOST RECENTLY DURING BUTTER AND EGGS. 
          AND WE WANTED TO BE THOUGHTFUL OF THE IMPACTS ON THE BUSINESS. 
          AND SO AS LONG AS THEY WERE COM COMMUNICATING AND INDICATING THEY WERE WORKING ON THE PLAN AND PROVIDING UPDATED VERSIONS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE INSUFFICIENT, WE ALLOWED THEM TO CONTINUE. 
          AND ULTIMATELY WE JUST GOT TO A PLACE THAT I COULDN'T ALLOW AND OUR CITY TEAM COULDN'T ALLOW A BUSINESS TO BE OPERATING WHERE PATRONS THAT AFTER A BREATHALYZER TEST HAVE ZERO ALCOHOL IN THEIR SYSTEM, HAD ONLY BEEN IN THE BAR FOR A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME OR ASSAULTED. 
          UM, AND NOT ONLY ASSAULTED, BUT REMOVED FROM THE BUSINESS, WE WEREN'T NOTIFIED THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE. 
          ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I WOULD LOOK FOR IN A SECURITY PLAN IS, HEY, WE HAD AN ISSUE. 
          WE TRIED TO DEESCALATE AND REMOVE IT OUT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, AND THEN WE CALLED FOR POLICE ASSISTANCE. 
          NOW WE'RE SEEING PATRONS RELOCATED DOWN THE STREET OUT OF A FIELD OF VIEW OF A VIDEO AND, AND BEING BRUTALLY ASSAULTED, UM, TO THE POINT THAT MY STAFF IS MAKING ARRESTS AND WE'RE COMMUNICATING WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 
          SO IT'S REALLY A PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN FOR OUR COMMUNITY AT THAT POINT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND I JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, I KNOW THAT THERE BAR THAT WAS ACROSS THE STREET, I FORGOT THE NAME OF IT NOW, LIKE FINNEGAN'S OR FLA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY KIND OF CLOSED SUDDENLY. 
          WAS THAT AT ALL RELATED? I KNOW THERE WERE INCIDENTS THERE TOO. 
          IS THAT AT ALL RELATED TO THINGS GOING ON IN THAT AREA AT NIGHT? UH, DO YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE WERE ISSUES, UM, ESSENTIALLY BEING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS ESTABLISHMENT COMPOUNDED AND, AND EXPONENTIALLY WHEN PEOPLE WERE LEAVING, BOTH WOULD CREATE A, A MORE CHALLENGING SITUATION. 
          BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THE BUSINESS SOLD. 
          UM, IT WAS OPERATING MORE IN A RESTAURANT, UH, MODEL IS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          BUT, UM, NO, WE WEREN'T IN A, IN A SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION HEARING PROCESS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I WAS WONDERING IF THEY HAD ANYTHING, ANY PROBLEMS THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT COMMENT AS WELL. 
          MM-HMM. 
          UM, THE, THE, AND, AND I'VE ASKED, UH, THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING UP THE SLIDE THAT REFLECTS THOSE ALTERNATIVES OR THE REVOCATION WITH THE TOLLING AGREEMENT. 
          WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ALSO IS RECOGNIZE THAT AS, AS, UM, CITY STAFF HAVE INDICATED, WE DO HAVE A BUSINESS WITH ISSUES. 
          WE ALSO HAVE A CUP THAT BEST LAND USE RIGHTS THAT A PROPERTY OWNER TURNS TO FOR, UM, IN PART VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. 
          AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE WHERE, UM, WE COULD CRAFT MORE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 
          WE COULD, WE COULD WORK TO, UH, ENSURE THAT WE HAVE A CURRENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO WORK FORWARD FROM THAT WOULD ALLOW THOSE, THOSE VESTED RIGHTS TO CONTINUE FORWARD, UH, PERHAPS WITH A BUSINESS THAT IS MORE COMPLIANT AND, UM, RESPONSIVE TO, UH, TO THE NEEDS OF THE CITY. 
          AND, AND SO HERE THE OPTIONS, THE, THE REVOCATION OPTION, THE SUSPENSION OPTION, A COMBINATION OF SUSPENSION AND CONDITIONS. 
          UM, SO HOW THAT MIGHT, SORRY, HOW THAT MIGHT LOOK IS, IS THE ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE COULD CONTINUE TO READ THAT. 
          IT WOULD BE A REVOCATION, IT WOULD, UH, MAKE A FINDING OF A NUISANCE. 
          AND, BUT THAT, THAT REVOCATION COULD BE SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF, OF 90 DAYS OR MORE, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT FEEL APPROPRIATE IF IT CHOOSES TO TAKE THIS APPROACH THAT WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO COME BACK WITH A MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          IN DOING SO, THEN IT WOULDN'T PRECLUDE THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM LEASING TO A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT. 
          SO, SO THERE STILL COULD BE A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT WITH ALCOHOL SALES THERE, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE CONDITIONAL 
          [00:35:01]
USE PERMIT. 
          OR THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD COME BACK, UM, THROUGH A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED CUP PROCESS, REVISE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL, AND THEY COULD DO SO WITHIN THAT TOLLING PERIOD. 
          AND IF THEY DO SO, THEN THE, UH, THE REVOCATION WOULD EXPIRE AND, UH, THE NEW, THE NEW, UM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE BECOME EFFECTIVE THEN NOT. 
          AND THIS REARRANGES WHERE I WAS GONNA GO WITH QUESTIONS, BUT WITH THAT IN MIND, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, EVEN IF IT WEREN'T A QUESTION OF THIS TENANT NECESSARILY, JUST BECAUSE OF HOW THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VESTED RIGHTS, WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT ADJUSTING WHAT THE COP LOOKS LIKE. 
          RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, IN AN IDEAL WORLD. 
          GO FOR IT, ANDREW. 
          I, I'LL J YES. 
          I THINK AT THE VERY LEAST WE WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY THE CEP. 
          SO IT'S CLEAR THAT IT RUNS WITH THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND NOT TENANT SPECIFIC. 
          WE'RE NOT SAYING THIS BUSINESS TO BUSINESS TRANSFER THAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR. 
          CORRECT. 
          CORRECT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          AND THE OTHER THING IT WOULD DO TOO IS, IS AS, UM, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY GREEN POINTED OUT SOME OF THOSE ABOUT, IT WOULD BE A QUIET, IT WOULD BE A QUIET ESTABLISHMENT, IT WOULD HAVE A DRESS CODE. 
          SOME OF THOSE, THOSE, UH, DESCRIPTORS ARE VERY SPECIFIC TO A PREFERRED BUSINESS MODEL. 
          AND SO I THINK FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, WE WOULD, WE WOULD PREFER TO FOCUS ON OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO, UM, OCCUPANCY, HOURS OF OPERATION. 
          UM, MAYBE DETAILING OUT SPECIFICALLY WHAT A SECURITY PLAN MIGHT INCLUDE SO THAT, THAT, UM, ALL PARTIES ARE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE CITY ARE. 
          AND I WOULD THINK THE KAO ONE THAT WE DID TWO YEARS AGO WOULD BE A PRETTY GOOD JUMPING OFF POINT TO HELP US WITH THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          WELL, AND GOING OFF OF THIS, UH, A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS GOING INTO THIS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED. 
          UH, ONE THING THAT DID KEEP COMING UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND ESPECIALLY CAME UP WHEN GOING THROUGH THE TIMELINE OF HOW MANY ISSUES THERE HAVE BEEN WITH THIS SITE, JUST WITH THIS BUSINESS NOW, WITH THE PRIOR ONE, UH, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE STAGES OF ESCALATION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT ON THIS? AND I ONLY ASK BECAUSE I, I DON'T THINK WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, OR AT LEAST NOT IN QUITE SOME TIME IN TERMS OF PULLING THE COP AND I WAS JUST WONDERING, IS THIS, DOES IT NORMALLY GET TO THIS POINT WHERE THERE'S SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THIS ONE THAT MADE IT HARDER TO COME UNDER COMPLIANCE? JUST WANTED TO GET A SENSE OF THAT. 
          YEAH, I THINK I, YOU KNOW, WE RESPOND TO CALLS AT, AT BARS OFTEN FOR THINGS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, IN THE CONTROL OR NOT IN THE CONTROL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT. 
          UM, SO THAT IN ITSELF IS NOT UNUSUAL. 
          WE DO REGULAR INSPECTIONS, UM, FOR JUST, YOU KNOW, CONTEXT LEADING INTO BUTTER AND EGGS. 
          'CAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF DRINKING. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF DUI DRIVING. 
          WE HAVE A PRETTY CHALLENGING DUI CHALLENGE IN OUR COMMUNITY CURRENTLY. 
          WE COMMUNICATE WITH THE BARS REGULARLY. 
          WE HOST MEETINGS IN ADVANCE OF MANY OF THESE SPECIAL EVENTS. 
          WE GIVE THEM EXPECTATIONS THIS YEAR, A, B, C, THEIR TEAM CAME DOWN AND ALSO MET WITH THE ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS. 
          WE DO WALKTHROUGHS, FIRE PREVENTION COMES WITH US, UM, WITH MY PUBLIC SAFETY STAFF, WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT. 
          WE'RE LOOKING FOR SAFETY ISSUES, OCCUPANCY ISSUES, FIRE HAZARDS, UH, ET CETERA. 
          AND IF THEY FIND THINGS GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A VERBAL COUNSELING TO, TO GET INTO CORRECTIVE COMPLIANCE, BUT WE CAN ESCALATE TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION. 
          UM, IF THEY DON'T CORRECT THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION SUBSEQUENTLY, CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN TAKE FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION. 
          UM, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF THOSE PROCESSES INTERMITTENTLY. 
          UM, THEN MORE FREQUENTLY, CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, WITH SOME OF THE ATTENTION AND THE INCREASED FREQUENCY OF THE INCIDENTS THERE, WE WERE OUT THERE MORE, WE WERE BEING THOUGHTFUL AND COM COMPREHENSIVE IN, IN OUR ASSESSMENTS AND REVIEWS. 
          UM, BUT WE ALSO WERE GOING WELL BEYOND MINOR INFRACTIONS AND SEEING CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS AND FELONY ARRESTS OF STAFF MEMBERS. 
          SO THINGS KIND OF CONTINUED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. 
          WE ALSO HEARD A LOT OF, UM, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS ESTABLISHMENT, LIKE WE'RE WORKING ON IT. 
          MM-HMM , WE'RE GONNA DO BETTER. 
          I'M GONNA BE PRESENT. 
          UM, MANAGEMENT WILL BE PRESENT AND THEN WE'D HAVE ANOTHER INCIDENT AND MANAGEMENT WASN'T THERE. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE JUST NEVER SAW THE SAME CORRECTIVE ACTIONS OR ATTENTIVENESS THAT OUR OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS DEMONSTRATED. 
          AND UNLESS YOU WANNA FOLLOW UP THERE, BLAKE? I WAS, YEAH. 
          AND IDEALLY, AND I'M SURE CHIEF MILLER AND AMY FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD SAY THE SAME THING IS THE CITY LIKES TO PRACTICE ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT WHERE, YOU KNOW, FIRST MAYBE IT'S A LETTER AND THEN IT'S MAYBE ISSUING SOME CITATIONS AND HITTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE WALLET. 
          AND IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, THEN LAST CASE SCENARIO, WE'RE IN FRONT OF A JUDGE OR WE'RE IN FRONT OF YOU TO EITHER REVOKE 
          [00:40:01]
OR SEEK AN INJUNCTION OR WHATEVER WE'RE TRYING TO MODIFY. 
          AND THAT USUALLY, YOU KNOW, HITTING PEOPLE IN THE WALLET THAT GETS THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND TYPICALLY TO ABATE. 
          AND THE CITY WITH THE ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT LOOKS PRETTY REASONABLE IN FRONT OF A JUDGE TO SAY, HEY, YOUR HONOR, WE TRIED GOING THIS ROUTE THAT THOSE OBVIOUSLY WEREN'T WORKING, SO NOW WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TO END. 
          UM, THAT'S TYPICALLY OUR PROCESS, I WOULD SAY. 
          UH, SO THEN IT'S FAIR TO SAY YES, THERE ARE A LONG TRAIL OF ISSUES, CORRECTIONS HAD BEEN MADE, THERE'S KIND OF BACK AND FORTH. 
          AND THEN IT STARTED TO ESCALATE MORE RECENTLY TO OBVIOUSLY THE MOST EXTREME EXAMPLE RECENTLY, KIND OF HITTING THAT BOILING POINT FOR THE CITY. 
          YEAH. 
          WE SAW ISSUES JUST EVEN WITH OCCUPANCY WHERE WE HAD ADMONISHED THEM. 
          FIRE PREVENTION HAD ISSUED NOTICE OF CORRECTIONS, WARNINGS, CITATIONS. 
          AND THEY STILL WERE OPEN, WELL EXCEEDING THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS. 
          UM, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. 
          UM, WE SAW FIRE HAZARDS WHERE THINGS WERE BLOCKING DOORS OR DOORS WERE LOCKED THAT WERE ESCAPE ROUTES. 
          AND WE'VE SEEN THOSE, UH, TYPE OF PREDICAMENTS AND VERY POORLY IN OTHER COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS THROUGH THE YEARS. 
          UM, WE'VE HAD SOME A, B, C COMPLIANCE CHECKS THAT FOUND, UM, VIOLATIONS WITHIN THEIR OWN A BC CODE. 
          AND THE A BC OFFICIALS PROVIDED THAT FEEDBACK DIRECTLY TO THE ESTABLISHMENT TOO. 
          SO YEAH, A LITANY OF, OF CONCERNS OVER A, A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND I, I WAS GONNA ASK A QUESTION RELATED TO HOW ENFORCEABLE THE PRIOR CUP WAS. 
          'CAUSE THAT LANGUAGE WAS A LITTLE DATED , UH, BUT YOU'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE OF UPDATING AND MODERNIZING WHATEVER COMES AFTER ROGER, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? UH, A QUESTION THE CUP RUNS IS, IT STARTS WITH A PROPERTY OWNER. 
          THAT'S CORRECT, YES. 
          REGARDLESS OF LI TENANT. 
          CORRECT. 
          UHHUH . 
          SO IT SEEMS LIKE THE PROP, HOW HAS THE PROPERTY OWNER BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY SORT OF CORRECTIVE ACTION OR ENFORCEMENT OR, YOU KNOW, I, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          IT'S ALL BEEN WELL, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY IS ACTUALLY HERE AND WE'D LOVE TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. 
          IF THIS IS A GOOD TIME, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          YEAH, THAT'S PERFECT. 
          WE ARE GONNA, WE JUST WANTED TO FINISH UP ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD FOR CITY STAFF, FOR ANYONE AFFILIATED, THAT'S ALL. 
          IF YOU'RE GOOD TO GO, THEN YES, IF WE COULD HAVE THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER PRESENT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          UH, CHAIR, CHAIR. 
          I HAD A COUPLE, UH, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. 
          I TAKE IT BACK. 
          YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          I THINK THEY PROBABLY WILL RUN INTO THAT, BUT, UM, UM, SO THE, SO SAME CUP UNDER THREE DIFFERENT OWNERS OR, OR BUSINESS OPERATORS, UM, DO WE KNOW THE IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE BUSINESS OPERATORS? WERE THEY JUST THE, THE UNDERLYING OWNERS OF THOSE OPERATORS? WERE THEY THE SAME PEOPLE? WERE THERE ANY COMMON, UH, YOU KNOW, PERSONNEL IN THAT OWNERSHIP GROUP OR WERE THEY TRULY THREE DIFFERENT OP YOU KNOW, UH, OPERATORS WITH DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS OWNERS? YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY WERE ALL DIFFERENT. 
          UH, I KNOW THAT THIS SPECIFIC OO OWNER OPERATOR, UH, HAD PRIOR EXPERIENCE IN THE INDUSTRY, WHICH I THINK MAY ALLEVIATED SOME OF THE PRIOR DECISION OF THE TRANSFER DESPITE SOME OF THE PRIOR PROCESSES BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY, UM, OUR RECORDS INDICATE THAT WE WERE IN A RELATIVELY SIMILAR PROCESS, UM, WITH THE PRIOR BUSINESS PREDATING THIS ONE. 
          BUT I THINK THERE WAS A HIGHER DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT AN ESTABLISHED BAR OWNER WAS GONNA COME IN AND, AND PERFORM LIKE WE SEE MANY OF OUR OTHER ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS. 
          BUT ALL THREE TIMES IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THREE DIFFERENT, UM, INDIVIDUALS OWNING THE BUSINESS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UM, THROUGH THIS PERIOD SINCE 2004, WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER THE SAME INDIVIDUAL AS WELL, OR THE SAME OWNERSHIP GROUP, OR HAS THE PROPERTY CHANGED HANDS IN THAT TIME? I HAVE ONE QUICK CLAIM DEED THAT WAS FILED IN WITH THE COUNTY IN 2021, BUT I THINK OUR PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY WOULD BE BEST FIT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN TO SEGUE INTO THAT, I WAS JUST GONNA ASK ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE EVICTION PROCESS. 
          UM, SO IT'S, IT'S GOOD WITH ME. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU CHIEF MILLER FOR ANSWERING ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS. 
          IF WE COULD GET THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          CHAIRMAN CHAIRPERSON COOPER, I'D BE HAPPY TO. 
          BUT IF THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS FROM ANYBODY ELSE, I'D LIKE MAYBE FOR THOSE TO BE ADDRESSED FIRST, BECAUSE I MIGHT BE  ALSO. 
          SO WE'RE, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO COME UP TO PRESENT, BUT THEN WE'RE ALSO GONNA ASK YOU QUESTIONS AS WELL. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WELL, GOOD EVENING. 
          THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. 
          MY NAME IS MICHAEL BLUTO. 
          I AM AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CURRENT OWNERS. 
          UM, I'LL ADDRESS 
          [00:45:01]
THE LAST QUESTION FIRST, WHICH WAS ABOUT OWNERSHIP. 
          AND MY CLIENTS ARE TRUSTEES OF A FAMILY TRUST. 
          THEY RECEIVED OWNERSHIP FROM A PRIOR FAMILY TRUST THAT PASSED, UH, WHEN THE GRANTORS OF THAT TRUST DECEASED, UM, I BELIEVE THEN THERE WERE THREE TRU THREE SIBLINGS WHO HAD, IT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THREE SIBLINGS. 
          MY CLIENT'S TRUST HAS PURCHASED A PORTION OF, IF NOT ALL OF ANOTHER SIBLING'S TRUST. 
          I KNOW THIS. 
          SO THAT I KNEW I WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON MY CLIENT'S BEHALF IN AN EVICTION PROCESS. 
          AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THAT I KNOW. 
          SO, UM, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS FIRST, UH, USED FOR A BAR FOR INFUSIONS, MY CLIENTS WERE NOT INVOLVED. 
          AND I'M NOT SURE WHEN IT PASSED TO MY CLIENT'S AND, AND SIBLINGS TRUST, BUT I THINK THAT WAS IN 2021 AND JUST RECENTLY AND RECORDED, BUT NOT AVAILABLE, UH, WAS THE LAST TRANSACTION WHERE THEY, THEY BOUGHT OUT ONE OF THE OTHER SIBLINGS. 
          SORRY IF I CONFUSED YOU, MR. WIMAN, THAT'S NOT THE BEST ANSWER, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT. 
          NO, I THINK THAT THAT BRINGS IT UP TO DAVE. 
          BUT WHAT, OKAY, I THINK I HEARD, I'M SORRY. 
          WHAT I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY WAS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW IF, UM, THE OWNERS, THE WHO THE CURRENT TRUSTEES ARE NOW BENEFICIARIES OF WHETHER THOSE OWNERS WERE THE OWNERS IN 2004. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
          I BELIEVE THAT MY CLIENTS ONLY BECAME OWNERS IN 2021. 
          I'M GOING FROM RECOLLECTION THERE. 
          SO IF I'M, I MAKE A MISTAKE, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE DATE OF THE QUICK CLAIM DEED THAT I BELIEVE THE C CITY ATTORNEY HAS. 
          AND THAT'S WHEN THE BIG TRANSFER FROM, UH, PARENTAL TRUST, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, UH, THAT THAT TRANSFER HAPPENED TO THE TRUST OF THE SIBLINGS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO FOR MOST OF THIS TIME, UM, IT WAS OWNED BY PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT OWNERS ANY LONGER. 
          AND I CAN ALSO SAY THAT NONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRUSTEES OR GRANTORS OF THESE TRUSTS WERE OWNERS OF THE BUSINESSES THAT WERE INVOLVED. 
          THERE'S COMPLETE SEPARATION. 
          SO, UM, I'D LIKE TO START WITH MY PRESENTATION FIRST, UH, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY. 
          SO WE'RE TALKING HERE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A REVOCATION. 
          NOW THIS IS, UM, REVOCATION HAS A SERIOUS EFFECT ON MY, ON MY CLIENTS BECAUSE AS MR. TRIPLE SAID, IT IS A PROPERTY RIGHT THAT ACCRUES TO MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY, NOT TO THEM PERSONALLY. 
          IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN SELL TO SOMEBODY ELSE. 
          IT RUNS WITH THE PROPERTY. 
          SO WHEN THE, UH, WHEN THE INITIAL TRUST GRANTED THIS PROPERTY TO, UH, MY CLIENT'S TRUST ALONG WITH THAT CAME THE RIGHT, UH, OF, UH, TO USE THE CUP. 
          SO IT DOESN'T BELONG TO MY CLIENTS PERSONALLY. 
          IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY CAN GO AND SELL, BUT IT DOES HAVE VALUE TO THEM. 
          AND THAT BECAUSE OF CUP IS ALREADY IN PLACE, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO GO AND FIND ANOTHER TENANT WHO WOULD OPERATE A, UH, BUSINESS IN THE SAME CLASS. 
          HOPEFULLY NOT IN THE SAME, UM, MANNER , BUT IN DEFINITELY IN THE SAME CLASS BECAUSE IT ALREADY EXISTS. 
          THAT MEANS THAT THE SOMEBODY COMING IN WHO WOULD WISH TO OPERATE AN ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT WITH ENTERTAINMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE HOOPS OF APPLYING FOR A CUP, MAKES IT THAT MUCH EASIER TO, UH, GET AN A, B, C LICENSE. 
          SO THERE IS A VALUE THERE. 
          IT ALSO MAKES IT EASIER FOR MY CLIENT TO FILL THAT SPACE. 
          IT'S 4,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY 1 46 AND 1 48. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S A, THAT'S A CONSIDERATION. 
          THE ACTS THAT HAVE BROUGHT US TO THIS POINT, UM, AS YOU'VE HEARD, HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE OWNERS IN THE PAST, OR SORRY, NOT THE OWNERS, THROUGH THE TENANTS IN THE PAST. 
          THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH A MUNICIPALITY SEEKING TO, UM, SEEKING TO AMELIORATE CONDITIONS BY PEOPLE WITH A, WITH A CUP. 
          AND I USUALLY REPRESENT THE LAND OWNERS. 
          NORMALLY I GET A LETTER SAYING, HEY, WE'RE CONSIDERING TAKING ACTION AND OUR MUNICIPAL CODES HAVE YOU OWNERS ON THE HOOK, BECAUSE IF THERE ARE COSTS TO ABATE A NUISANCE, THOSE CAN BE APPLIED IN A LIEN 
          [00:50:01]
ON THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNERS. 
          SO THERE IS AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IN PLACE ALREADY. 
          THE CITY HAS NOT SAID WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, AND THAT'S GREAT. 
          UM, I TOLD MY CLIENTS, AND THEY HAVE DONE THIS, THEY'VE GOTTEN AHEAD OF THE PROGRAM AND SAID, WE'RE JUST GONNA END THIS HERE. 
          AND NOW BY EVICTING, WHICH IS NORMALLY WHAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ASK LANDOWNERS TO DO BEFORE THINGS GET OUT OF HAND, HEY, LET'S LET THE LANDOWNER TAKE CARE OF IT. 
          AND I CAN DO THAT. 
          IF THERE'S CLEAR EVIDENCE OF A NUISANCE, THEN UNDERNEATH CALIFORNIA STATUTES, I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE NUISANCE. 
          THE NUISANCE IS, IS ALREADY CAUSED FOR EVICTION THREE DAY NOTICE. 
          IF THE TENANTS DON'T VACATE AFTER THAT NOTICE IS GIVEN, THEN WE PROCEED TO AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION. 
          IN THIS CASE, I GAVE THAT NOTICE AND THAT NOTICE EXPIRES ON WEDNESDAY. 
          WE ALSO GAVE A SECOND NOTICE BECAUSE IN THE CONTRACT, IN THE LEASE IT SAYS THAT THE, THE TENANTS WILL ABIDE BY ALL, UM, STATE, LOCAL COUNTY AUTHORITIES. 
          AND WHEN THEY DID NOT PROVIDE AN APPROVED SECURITY PLAN, THEY DID NOT DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO UNDER THE LEASE. 
          THAT GIVES ME A SECOND OPPORTUNITY TO EVICT. 
          IN THIS CASE, STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT I GIVE THE TENANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THIS BREACH OF THE LEASE. 
          AND SO I'VE DONE, SO I'VE GIVEN A THREE DAY NOTICE SAYING, QUIT THE VA, QUIT THE, UM, THE 1 46 OR CURE THIS BREACH OF THE LEASE BY PROVIDING AN UPDATED, ACCEPTABLE SECURITY PLAN. 
          EVEN IF THEY DO THAT, THEY'RE STILL GONNA GET BOOTED BECAUSE THERE'S A NUISANCE THAT CANNOT, THAT THEY CAN'T CURE. 
          BUT BEING THE THOROUGH ATTORNEY, I TRY TO BE, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW WE DO IT. 
          WE BOX 'EM IN AS MUCH AS WE CAN SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON, THE CITY CAN MOVE ON, WE CAN FIND NEW TENANTS. 
          THAT'S THE PROCESS THERE. 
          SO BOTH THOSE NOTICE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE SECOND NOTICE, UM, EXPIRES ON FRIDAY. 
          I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE TENANT'S ATTORNEY. 
          UM, THERE ORIGINALLY WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TENANTS NEEDING EXTRA TIME TO REMOVE THEIR PROPERTY, BUT THAT THEY EXPECT TO BE VACATING ON WEDNESDAY. 
          UNDER STATE LAW, ONCE A TENANT HAS BEEN EVICTED, UM, YOU STILL HAVE TO GIVE THEM AT LEAST 15 DAYS TO REMOVE THEIR PROPERTY IF THEY'RE ANY PROPERTY THAT'S LEFT ON THE PREMISES. 
          AND THIS DOESN'T MEAN TRADE FIXTURES, UH, KITCHENS, UH, BARS, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          THIS MEANS GLASSES. 
          ANYTHING THAT'S REMOVABLE, THAT'S NOT PART OF THE BUILDING, YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM AT LEAST 15 DAYS TO REMOVE IT. 
          IF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY LEFT BEHIND IS, UM, UNDER A CERTAIN VALUE, THEN THE, THEN THE LANDLORD CAN DO WITH IT AS THEY WILL. 
          IF IT'S OVER, IT HAS TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION. 
          DOESN'T MEAN THAT THINGS HAVE TO BE KEPT ON PREMISES, BUT WE HAVE TO HOLD ONTO IT. 
          AND USUALLY LANDLORDS JUST KEEP IT THERE FOR THE MEANTIME RATHER THAN TRYING TO MOVE IT AND RISK HAVING A TENANT SAY, YOU BROKE MY STUFF. 
          SO THAT IS MOST LIKELY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE. 
          I'VE BEEN BY THE ROARING DONKEY, UH, AT LEAST TWICE IN THE LAST FEW DAYS AND NOTICE THAT THEY ARE MOVING OUT. 
          UM, JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. 
          WE DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT FOR THEM TO VACATE. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO VACATE ON WEDNESDAY. 
          WE HAVE OTHER ISSUES WITH THE TENANTS REGARDING THE LEASE THAT DON'T HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP HERE, BUT THAT ARE MAKING THINGS NOT AS FRIENDLY AS THEY MIGHT BE IF THE TENANTS DO NOT VACATE WHEN THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO. 
          IT'S MY CLIENT'S INTENTION TO BRING AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION, AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION. 
          UM, IF YOU DON'T KNOW, IT'S WHEN A LANDLORD, UH, THE OWNER OF A PROPERTY OR THE PERSON WITH A RIGHT TO OCCUPY A PROPERTY SAYS TO A TENANT OR OTHER OCCUPANT, I'M RE, I'M TAKING POSSESSION BACK AND, AND IT'S AN EXPEDITED PROCEDURE. 
          SO RATHER THAN A 30 DAY SUMMONS, IT'S A FIVE DAY SUMMONS AND WE HAVE PREFERENCE IN THE COURTS. 
          OFTENTIMES, UM, THEY CAN BE DONE WITHIN A MONTH AND A HALF. 
          IF THERE'S ANY REAL DISCOVERY GOING ON, IT MIGHT TAKE THREE OR FOUR MONTHS. 
          SO THAT BRINGS ME TO MY CONCERN HERE IN THAT WE HAVE A, A PROPOSAL THAT SAYS THERE MAY BE A REVOCATION, BUT IF YOU COME BACK IN 90 DAYS OR WITHIN 90 DAYS, UM, THEN WE CAN GO AND MAYBE JUST, UM, UN UNDO THIS, UH, REVOCATION, THIS SUSPENSION OF THE REVOCATION. 
          I MIGHT NOT BE DONE IN 90 DAYS. 
          I EXPECT TO BE, BUT 
          [00:55:01]
I MIGHT NOT BE. 
          THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE WON'T BE TRYING, BUT WE ARE AT THE MERCY OF THE COURT'S CASELOAD. 
          SO I WOULD BE LOOKING TO IT RATHER THAN A REVOCATION TO SAY, WELL SUSPEND IT AND KEEP IT SUSPENDED. 
          UM, 90 DAYS WITH THE ABILITY TO COME BACK FOR ANOTHER 90 DAYS. 
          IF IT LOOKS LIKE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT, I'M ASKING FOR SUSPENSION BECAUSE REVOCATION IS A PRETTY FINAL ACT. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          YOU'RE OVER AND YOU'RE DONE. 
          AND THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY THE DOING OF MY CLIENT WHOSE RIGHT IS AT STAKE. 
          THIS IS THE ROARING DONKEY, AND MY CLIENTS HAVE COME AND DONE WHAT'S WHAT THEY NEED TO DO WITHOUT BEING ASKED WITHOUT, WITHOUT A CALL FROM THE CITY. 
          UM, MS. UM, THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, I THINK WILL BACK ME UP WHEN SHE, WHEN I SAY I REACHED OUT TO HER SAYING, THIS IS WHAT I INTEND TO DO. 
          SO WE'RE NOT THE PEOPLE I THINK THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE. 
          UM, MY CLIENTS ARE LOOKING TO HAVE A BETTER PLACE. 
          THEY MAY ACTUALLY ASK TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY IN TWO, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT ANOTHER ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT IN THE PLACE. 
          BUT MY ADVICE IS TO KEEP YOUR OPTIONS OPEN BECAUSE SOMEBODY PAYING THE RENT IS SOMEBODY PAYING THE RENT. 
          AND THAT ALSO MEANS THAT SOMEBODY WHO'S CONTRIBUTING TO TAX ROLL. 
          SO IF THE, IF, IF YOU HAVE TO GO AND GET, GET ANOTHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT MAKES LIFE TOUGHER, MAKES IT LONGER BEFORE YOU CAN FILL THAT VACANCY. 
          THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT AMENDING THE CUP TO MAKE IT, UM, TO HAVE IT BE APPLIED TO THE OWNER. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE STEP TO GO. 
          FIRST OF ALL, I I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A, UH, MUNICIPAL CODE THAT GOVERNS HOW THESE CS ARE ADDRESSED. 
          I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT. 
          THIS IS NOT MY EXPERTISE, BUT THERE IS DEFINITELY A CODE OR, UH, A CODE THAT SAYS THAT THEY RUN WITH THE LAND. 
          AND SO THE, THE PROCEDURE OF LETTING THEM GO FROM BUSINESS TO BUSINESS WORKS BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A CODE ALREADY IN PLACE THAT SAYS, RUNS WITH THE LAND AND ANY ABATEMENT NECESSARY CAN BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE LANDOWNER. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE WHY THERE HAS TO BE THAT SORT OF AMENDMENT AS FAR AS A SECURITY PLAN. 
          I THINK THAT'S ALREADY PART OF THE CUP IF IT'S NOT, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY, WHY THAT COULDN'T BE CHANGED. 
          AND WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN IMPROVED SECURITY PLAN. 
          RIGHT? I LIVE IN PETALUMA MYSELF. 
          I LOVE BEING DOWNTOWN. 
          UH, THE ROARING DONKEY WAS NOT A PLACE THAT I WOULD WALK INTO AFTER CERTAIN HOURS. 
          SO I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A, A NICE SAFE ESTABLISHMENT THERE. 
          PERSONALLY, I'M HOPING, HOPING FOR A JAZZ BAR, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU NEVER KNOW. 
          UM, AND SO BECAUSE, BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY A PROCEDURE IN PLACE FOR THE CITY TO DO WHAT IT NEEDS TO DO, AND IT'S DOING IT, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO AMEND THE CUP TO CHANGE HOW IT'S APPLIED FOR AND IT RUNS. 
          AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'S AUTHORITY TO DO THAT IF IT'S CONTRARY TO MUNICIPAL CODE. 
          AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S THE CASE. 
          I'M LOOKING AT MY NOTES, UM, TO DISCUSS ITEMS THAT I HEARD DISCUSSED ALREADY HERE. 
          SEE IF I CAN DO ANYTHING ELSE HERE. 
          I THINK THAT I'VE TOUCHED ON MOST OF THE ISSUES THAT I'VE HEARD BROUGHT TO THE BOARD, BUT I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. 
          UM, UNLAWFUL DETAINER IS A SPECIALTY OF MINE. 
          UM, UH, PUBLIC WORKS AND, AND, AND, UH, AND DEALING WITH CITIES, NOT NECESSARILY EXCEPT IN THE, EXCEPT AS IT APPLIES TO, UH, LANDLORD TENANT ISSUES. 
          SO ANYTHING I, I CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE OF, I'D BE GLAD TO HELP YOU WITH. 
          AND ANYTHING ELSE? I'LL, I'LL SEE WHAT I CAN DO AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T IMPINGE UPON ANY POSSIBLE LITIGATION THAT I MAY HAVE WITH THE TENANTS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ROGER. 
          I BELIEVE YOU HAD QUESTIONS FOR TENANT REPRESENTATIVE. 
          YEAH, JUST A GENERAL QUESTION. 
          IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE, THE TRUST FUND SITUATION. 
          UM, I MEAN, I HAVE OTHER TRUST FUNDS I'VE SEEN. 
          THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY'RE DOING. 
          THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY INHERITED. 
          THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO MANAGE IT. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE THE SKILLSET NOR THE INTEREST OR THE TIME. 
          SO WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THAT WILL CHANGE? HERE'S, HERE'S I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO CHANGE. 
          THEY DID 
          [01:00:01]
REACH OUT TO ME. 
          THEY KNEW, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          UM, THEY ASKED THEIR PROPERTY MANAGER AND THEY, ALONG WITH THEIR PROPERTY MANAGER, GAVE ME A CALL, UH, JUST A DAY OR TWO AFTER THE ARTICLE CAME OUT IN THE TIMES ARGUS, ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE ROARING DONKEY. 
          IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING BEFORE THAT, SUCH AS WITH THE NEED FOR AN UPGRADE, UPDATED SECURITY PLAN, WHILE THAT'S COMMUNICATED TO THE TENANT, IT COULD BE COMMUNICATED TO THE BUSINESS OWNER ALSO. 
          AND SUCH HAS HAPPENED TO ME WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WHERE THERE'S BEEN A LETTER FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY SAYING, WE THINK THIS IS GOING ON. 
          WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT? HELP US OUT. 
          BECAUSE IF NOT, YOU COULD BE ON THE HOOK. 
          AND IT USUALLY STARTS WITH A LETTER LIKE THAT. 
          IT'S NOT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION OR, OR A NOTICE TO ABATE. 
          IT'S A PRECURSOR. 
          AND THAT ALLOWS ME TO GET OUT AHEAD OF THINGS, FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON, HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, UM, SO THAT WE CAN COORDINATE IF POSSIBLE, OR IF, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO DO. 
          I HAVE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE THE CITY WAS WRONG ABOUT WHAT MY CLIENT WAS UP TO AND I WAS ABLE TO SHOW THEM TO THEIR SATISFACTION AND THEY SAID, OKAY, WE NEED TO GO IN ANOTHER DIRECTION. 
          SO BETTER COMMUNICATION RIGHT NOW. 
          THERE'S A RE THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT NOTICE BE GIVEN TO THE LAND OWNER ACCORDING TO THE NOTE, ACCORDING TO, UM, ASSESSOR'S RECORDS. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF THAT HAPPENED. 
          UH, WELL ACTUALLY I'M, I'M PRETTY SURE IT HAPPENED BECAUSE, BECAUSE, UM, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID THAT, THAT SHE LOOKED UP THE ASSESSOR'S RECORDS, BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT THE ASSESSOR'S RECORDS ARE GOING TO SHOW THAT. 
          UH, IT'S GOING TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE LANDOWNER, WHICH HONESTLY GIVES SOME ARGUMENTS REGARDING DUE PROCESS. 
          THERE IS CASE LAW SAYING YOU MIGHT NEED TO DO MORE AS A CITY. 
          I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS, IS AN OVERALL PICTURE INSTEAD OF, IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE I'M HERE AND I'M ON THE JOB, BUT OVERALL IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT, UH, THE CITY MIGHT WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW YOU DO THINGS WITH, WITH OTHER PEOPLE, WITH CS AND, AND ISSUES. 
          UM, I'D BE HAPPY TO TALK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, I'M NOT UNKNOWN FOR, FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. 
          , I'D LIKE TO THINK AND, AND I'M AN EASY GUY TO TALK TO. 
          AND LIKE I SAID, I LIVE HERE. 
          I'D BE GLAD TO GIVE YOU MY EXPERTISE ON THAT. 
          BUT FOR THIS CASE, I'M HERE. 
          UM, YOU HAVE MY NUMBER. 
          THESE ARE MY CLIENTS. 
          I ALSO THINK THAT THEY HAVE VERY GOOD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. 
          IT IS NOT NORMAL FOR ME TO SAY THAT USUALLY PROPERTY MANAGERS ARE MY BANE WHEN I'M TRYING TO HELP OUT THEIR LANDLORD CLIENTS. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          MOST OF MY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT, UM, WILL ACTUALLY GO BACK TO STAFF, BUT I'M GONNA STAY ON. 
          ONE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU. 
          YOU, YOU'VE NOTED GOOD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND YOU'VE NOTED THAT OF COURSE THE CLIENT WAS THE ONE WHO REACHED OUT. 
          UM, BUT, AND I, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE TRUSTS KIND OF CHANGED HANDS AND THERE'S A MAJORITY SHARE SITUATION NOW THAT WE'RE WORKING OFF OF. 
          ONE THING I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF THOUGH, HOW CLEAR WAS IT TO YOUR CLIENT SPECIFICALLY? I UNDERSTAND YOU CAN'T SPEAK TO THOSE BEFORE, BUT HOW CLEAR WERE THE OPERATIONAL ISSUES PRIOR TO THE ARTICLE? I CAN'T SAY HOW CLEAR IT WAS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A QUESTION THAT I'VE ASKED THEM IN DEPTH. 
          BUT I'LL SAY THAT WHEN I WAS DRAFTING MY NOTICES, I HAD AN EXCELLENT CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICES. 
          I KNEW THEY WOULD HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT I NEEDED IN ORDER TO DRAFT NOTICES THAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND THAT INCLUDED THE, UM, ISSUE OF, HEY, YOU HAVEN'T, HERE'S, HERE'S THE DOCUMENTATION TO, UH, TO NATO THAT YOU HAVEN'T, UM, SUBMITTED AN APPROVED, UH, SECURITY PLAN. 
          AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO BLOW THE CITY OFF, RIGHT. 
          BY SUBMITTING THESE BOGUS UM, RESPONSES. 
          THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I CAN USE IN COURT. 
          SAY, THERE YOU GO. 
          THAT'S, THEY, THEY, THEY VIOLATED OUR LEASE. 
          I CAN GO WITH THAT. 
          THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING MY CLIENTS WOULD KNOW WHAT TO MAKE, MAKE ANYTHING OF. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, AND PROPERTY MANAGERS ARE NOT ATTORNEYS AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE GIVING ILLEGAL ADVICE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WHERE THEY SHOULD BE LETTING THEIR CLIENTS KNOW YOU MIGHT NEED TO CALL AN ATTORNEY IN, AND IN THIS 
          [01:05:01]
CASE, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. 
          SO. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          UH, AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, I, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD BE MORE IN FAVOR OF A SUSPENSION. 
          THAT ONE THING I WANT TO GET CLARITY ON. 
          SO EVEN IF WE DID A REVOCATION WITH A SUSPENSION THAT WAS LONGER THAN 90 DAYS, LET'S SAY, WHICH THEORETICALLY THAT ALSO GIVES, STILL GIVES US THE OPTION TO AMEND THE COP TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH MODERN LANGUAGE. 
          'CAUSE EVEN WITHOUT THE ISSUE THAT THE, UH, BUSINESS TO BUSINESS TRANSFER ISSUE, THERE'S STILL JUST LANGUAGE IN THAT ORIGINAL CUP THAT IS FRANKLY NOT VERY ENFORCEABLE. 
          UM, IS THE ISSUE FOR YOUR CLIENT OVERALL JUST THAT IT WOULD BE A HASSLE TO GO THROUGH CUP PROCESS AGAIN, FINANCIALLY OR JUST THE TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET ANOTHER TENANT INTO THE DOOR? AND IS THAT TIME GREATER THAN, SAY, LONGER LITIGATION THROUGH THE SUSPENSION PROCESS? IT'S, I WOULD SAY IT'S BOTH OF YOUR, OF YOUR FORMER, UM, AND, AND LESS OF THE LATTER. 
          I, UH, MY, IT'S NOT MY EXPERTISE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, TIME THAT IT TAKES TO GET A CUP COULD BE LONGER THAN IT TAKES FOR ME TO HAVE THESE FOLKS OUT. 
          THEY COULD BE OUT ON WEDNESDAY OR, OR MAYBE NOT. 
          AND THERE ARE EXPENSES INVOLVED WITH THAT. 
          THERE'S AN APPROVAL PROCESS AND IT'S NOT CERTAIN. 
          WHEREAS IT SEEMS TO ME, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS THIS FOR A FACT, BUT IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE A DECENT WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS CITY, AND THAT'S GREAT, BUT WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THE INPUT OF THE TENANT. 
          AND THERE'S ALWAYS, THERE'S ALWAYS LEVERS TO BE HAD THERE, BUT THAT'S A NEGOTIATION. 
          I THINK THAT'S MORE EASILY DONE IF THERE IS A CUP IN PLACE RATHER THAN TRYING TO GET A NEW ONE. 
          GOT IT. 
          AND I THINK, AND I DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S ALSO AN IMPACT ON AN APPLICATION FOR AN ALCOHOL LICENSE IF THERE'S ALREADY A CUP IN PLACE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          FURTHERMORE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CUP MAY BE SOMETHING WHERE THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN GRANTED AND THE CURRENT BOARD MAY NOT WANT TO GRANT A NEW CUP THAT ALLOWS AN ALCOHOLIC ESTABLISHMENT. 
          SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S IN PLACE ALREADY. 
          AND YES, WHILE YOU COULD REVOKE IT AND MAKE IT GO, I WOULD STILL SAY THAT THERE WAS A FINDING IN THE PAST THAT THIS IS A, THIS IS A GOOD BUSINESS TO HAVE HERE. 
          UH, WHY NOT JUST STICK WITH THAT? WHY, WHY GO THROUGH THE HOOPS OF A, OF A NEW COP? UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN HAVE BEEN RAISED OTHER THAN MAYBE CHANGING, IF, IF THE OWNER APPLIES FOR IT, UM, ARE GOING TO BE A BIG DEAL THERE. 
          THERE COULD BE SOME HORSE TRADING, THERE COULD BE SOME HAGGLING, BUT, UH, WE'LL, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE DOWN THE ROAD. 
          RIGHT NOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THESE PEOPLE OUTTA HERE AND MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR EVERYBODY. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, AND MR. HUBER, IF I MAY, IT MAY BE THAT THE CUP MAY NOT EVEN BE NECESSARY. 
          IT COULD BE THAT A TENANT COMES IN WHO DOESN'T NEED MM-HMM. 
           THAT CUP, IN WHICH CASE I UNDERSTAND IT RETIRES. 
          IF IT'S NOT USED IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, THAT'S ALSO A POSSIBILITY. 
          SO YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARITY ON REASONS ACROSS THE BOARD. 
          MM-HMM. 
           BOTH FOR THE CITY, BUT ALSO FOR THE, FOR THE LANDOWNERS. 
          UM, AND WITH THAT IN MIND, I KNOW SAID THE OUTREACH WAS A LITTLE BIT RECENT ON THIS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, IS THE PREFERENCE REALLY FOR THE REVOCATION WITH MAYBE A LONGER THAN 90 DAY PERIOD? OR IS THERE MORE AMENABILITY TO THE SUSPENSION THAT HE'S PROPOSED? WE WOULD STILL ASK DUE TO THE HISTORY OF PROBLEMS. MM-HMM. 
          , WE WOULD STILL ASK FOR A REVOCATION TOLD IF WE NEED 120 DAYS OR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE HERE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND WE WANT A NEW OR MODIFIED CUP THAT WILL ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN HERE. 
          SO IF IT'S MORE TIME, SO BE IT. 
          BUT WE'RE REALLY SEEKING THAT REVOCATION, TOLLING IT, AND THEN SUSPENDING IT. 
          AND THAT ALLOWS US, IF WE CAN'T COME BACK TO THE PC TO YOU WITH AN AMENDED CUP, THEN WE DON'T NEED TO RE PRESENT THIS CASE. 
          IT WOULD JUST BE AN AUTOMATIC REVOCATION RATHER THAN A SUSPENSION. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE TO COME AND TAKE YOUR TIME REPRESENTING THIS CASE THAT WE'VE ALREADY PRESENTED. 
          GOT IT. 
          AND THEN ONE MORE QUESTION, AND THEN I WILL PASS IT ON. 
          UH, ANDREW, 
          [01:10:01]
I KNOW THIS IS A HARD ONE TO GAUGE, BUT I DID WANNA KEEP THIS IN MIND. 
          DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE FOR HOW LONG A NEW CUP IN THIS CASE MIGHT TAKE? I'M JUST TRYING TO GAUGE HOW THE TIMELINE ISSUE OF IT. 
          SURE. 
          THAT'S A, EXCUSE ME. 
          THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. 
          I, I THINK THAT WE, WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, WHAT WE SEEK TO DO WITH THEM. 
          AND WE HAVE A GREAT TEAM. 
          SO I, I FEEL THAT WE COULD TURN THIS AROUND AND BRING THIS BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FAIRLY QUICKLY. 
          UM, IT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE US, YOU KNOW, UM, TO WEEKS TO, TO DRAFT THE STAFF REPORT, MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ET CETERA. 
          THEN OF COURSE, 10 DAY NOTICING PERIOD. 
          UM, BUT, BUT IT WOULD BE A FAIRLY QUICK TURNAROUND FOR US. 
          AND THAT'S EVEN WITH CURRENT WORKLOAD AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON. 
          YES. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. 
          GOOD TO KNOW. 
          THANK YOU . 
          HEIDI. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          UM, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. 
          UM, COULD YOUR, UM, CLIENTS HAVE, UM, UM, EVICTED THE DONKEY BACK IN, YOU KNOW, EARLY NOVEMBER OR IN LAST FALL WHEN THE CITY ISSUED YOU A NOTICE AT THAT TIME? WOULDN'T THAT HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT TIME TO HAVE DONE THIS? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE, WITH MY CLIENTS HAVING RECEIVED A NOTICE IN NOVEMBER. 
          SO I CAN'T TELL YOU IF, IF, IF THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT THEN OR NOT. 
          BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT IF A NOTICE IF, IF NOTICE IS GIVEN, OR EVEN BEFORE A NOTICE, IF WE'RE WE'RE GIVEN A LETTER SAYING THERE'S A PROBLEM AND THAT YOUR CLIENT IS NOT, UM, NOT DOING WHAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER THE CUP AND IF THERE'S A NEED TO ABATE, YOU COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF ANY SUCH ABATEMENT AT THAT POINT IN TIME. 
          IF I HAD THE DETAILS OF WHAT THE ISSUE WAS, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN UPDATED, UM, SECURITY PLAN, AND AS LONG AS THAT, AS LONG AS I KNEW THAT THAT UPDATED SECURITY PLAN WAS SOMETHING THE CITY HAD A RIGHT TO ASK FOR, THEN I COULD EVICT ON THAT BASED ON A BREACH, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN A THREE DAY NOTICE WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE, THE BREACH OF THE LEASE BY PROVIDING AN UPDATED SECURITY PLAN. 
          WHETHER THEY COULD HAVE DONE SO OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW. 
          UM, BUT THAT, YEAH, THAT'S ANYBODY'S GUESS. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, THAT'S QUITE DIFFERENT FROM WAITING TILL THERE WAS ACTUALLY A NUISANCE, THE NUISANCE BEING THE ACTIVITIES THAT HAPPENED. 
          UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN APRIL WITH, UH, WITH THE ARRESTS OF THE BOUNCERS. 
          WHAT HAPPENED THERE TO ME IS AN ALCOHOL RELATED NUISANCE. 
          AND THAT'S QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE NEED TO HAVE AN UPGRADED SECURITY PLAN. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, WHAT CITY ATTORNEY, UM, MS. GREEN, DIDN'T YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM LAST FALL? I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT YOU PRESENTED TO US. 
          WE MET WITH JAMESON SWEARING DONKEY. 
          OKAY. 
          THE BUSINESS OWNER. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AND THEIR MANAGERS. 
          OH, SO YOU DID MEET WITH THE BUSINESS? WITH THE BUSINESS WITH THE BUSINESS OWNER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHEN NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHEN DO YOU KNOW THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER STARTED TO BECOME AWARE OF THESE ISSUES? I DON'T KNOW WHAT JRD OR TO ADVISE THEIR PROP, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THEIR PROPERTY MANAGER. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHO THE PROPERTY MANAGER IS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           OR WHAT INFORMATION THEY HAVE. 
          I KNOW THAT WE'VE PROVIDED NOTICES TO JRD AS THEY'RE THE BUSINESS LISTED IN THE CUP AND THERE IS NO PROPERTY OWNER LISTED IN OUR CUP, IT'S TO THE BUSINESS. 
          SO WE'VE ISSUED THOSE NOTICES TO THE BUSINESS THAT'S BEEN VIOLATING THE CP MM-HMM. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT I GET IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          AND I, CAN YOU JUST ADD A LITTLE CLARIFICATION TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REVOCATION AND THEN A SUSPENSION AND CHANGING THE CUP? YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE I'M SUPER CLEAR ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF LEGALLY AND ESSENTIALLY WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME OBJECTIVE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , OUR OBJECTIVE IS ASKING YOU IS THAT WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER BUS, ANOTHER ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT TO REOPEN AT 1 4 6 KENTUCKY STREET WITHOUT AN AMENDED CUP THAT INCORPORATES 2020 FOUR'S BEST PRACTICES AND GIVES THE CITY THE TOOLS IT NEEDS. 
          SO WHAT WE WANNA DO HERE IS REVOKE IT FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME OR REVOKE IT. 
          HOWEVER, WE WOULD THEN TOLL THAT REVOCATION FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, WHETHER IT'S 90 DAYS OR 120 OR 60, WHICHEVER WORKS FOR 
          [01:15:01]
EVERYONE. 
          BUT AS REVOKE IT FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, SORRY, TOLL IT FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE CITY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO FIND A NEW APPLICANT AND THE CITY TO WORK ON AN UPDATED CUP. 
          AND THEN WE TURN TO YOU AND IN THE INTERIM IT WOULD BE SUSPENDED. 
          I SEE. 
          OH, AND THE, AND THE REASON WE'RE SEEKING THAT INSTEAD OF A SUSPENSION IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN THE NEXT 90 DAYS. 
          AND SO WE WOULD ASK THAT AT THE END OF THAT TIME PERIOD, THEN IT IS AUTOMATICALLY REVOKED. 
          WHEREAS IF WE SOLELY SUSPEND IT FOR, SAY, 90 DAYS, THEN WE NEED TO COME BACK TO YOU AND THEN WE WOULD PRESENT TO YOU WHAT WE ARE NOW ASKING YOU TO REVOKE IT AND DO THIS HEARING AGAIN. 
          SO WE JUST WANNA SAVE EVERYONE'S TIME BY ASKING YOU TO REVOKE THAT NOW, BUT RECOGNIZING THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY IS HERE AND WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY FOR AN AMENDED CUP, SO WE WOULD THEN ASK TO TOLD THAT FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. 
          WE SUGGESTED 90 DAYS, BUT, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, YEAH. 
          AND FOLLOWING UP ON THIS LINE OF THOUGHT, SO GIVEN THIS ABNORMAL CUP THAT WAS ISSUED TO THE BUSINESS, NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHAT DOES THE CITY SEE AS THE LANDOWNER OR PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO UPHOLD THIS VESTED OR COMPLY TO UPHOLD THIS VESTED LAND? RIGHT? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DIDN'T SEND THEM ANY NOTICES ABOUT BEING OUTTA COMPLIANCE BECAUSE IT WAS THE BUSINESS LISTED. 
          SO WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DOES THE CITY INTERNALLY KIND OF ASSIGN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO UPHOLD THE CUP? WELL, YOU WANNA TAKE THAT, I, I MEAN, I THINK MR. BLUTO IS RIGHT, IS THAT WE WOULD, AND ANY PUBLIC NUISANCE LAWSUIT NAMED BOTH THE TENANTS AND THE PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, AS DEFENDANTS IN THAT. 
          SO I THINK SINCE THE CEP RUNS WITH THE LAND, I THINK IT'S ULTIMATELY THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR TENANTS ARE COMPLYING WITH THAT CUP. 
          BUT OBVIOUSLY HERE THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION AND THE PROPERTY OWNER DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY NOTICE FROM US. 
          SO HARD FOR THEM WITHOUT A TENANT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, TALKING TO THEM TO KNOW WHAT'S REALLY ACTUALLY GOING ON. 
          OR A PROPERTY MANAGER THAT IS TALKING TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TOO. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I THINK WE'VE CONFIRMED THIS A COUPLE TIMES, BUT THE CITY DEFINITELY DID NOT SEND A NOTICE NOTIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          THEY DID NOT HEAR ABOUT IT FROM US, THAT THERE WERE ISSUES ARISING, YOU KNOW, IN FALL OR EARLY 2024. 
          WE DID NOT NOTICE THE TRUST. 
          AND I WOULD, WE DID LOOK UP THE 2021 WHEN I GOT A CALL. 
          I SEE. 
          AND THEN I WAS TOLD THAT'S NOT EVEN THE CORRECT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. 
          AND WE ASKED FOR WHO IS, AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT CURRENT DOCUMENT, BUT NO, WE ISSUED NOT, WE FOLLOWED THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS IN OUR IZO AND THEN ISSUED IT TO JRD, WHO WAS NAMED IN THE CUP, WHICH IS ONE MORE REASON WHY WE REALLY NEED TO UPDATE OUR CUP FOR THIS PROPERTY. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO I, I THINK I HEARD THE PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE OR ATTORNEY RECOMMENDING AGAINST THE CHANGE OF THE CUP TO BE PUT IN THE PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME. 
          I MEAN, IS THAT THE STANDARD FOR US TO PROCESS CS? IT SOUNDS LIKE IT IS. 
          UM, YEAH. 
          CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT, ANDREW? SURE. 
          I I THINK THAT WE, I I AGREE THAT THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. 
          I, I, BUT I, I DISAGREE. 
          I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE CUP IS, IS REISSUED TO APPLY TO THE PROJECT, TO THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, AND, AND I THINK THIS IS A WAY OF BEGINNING TO WRITE THAT SHIP, IF YOU WILL. 
          I BELIEVE IF WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE KAPU BAR, THAT WE IDENTIFY IT AS RUNNING WITH THE LAND AS, AS THE PROPERTY BEING THE SUBJECT OF THE CUP, RECOGNIZING THAT KAPU IS THE APPLICANT AND WOULD BE AN OPERATOR, YOU KNOW, UNDER, UNDER THE CUP IF IT'S GRANTED. 
          SO I THINK WHAT WE WANT TO DO HERE IS A SIMILAR APPROACH WHERE WE, WHERE THE CUP CLEARLY RECOGNIZES THAT IT, IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAND AND THAT ANYONE COULD OPERATE, YOU KNOW, UNDER THAT CUP, UNDER THE RIGHTS GRANTED THROUGH THAT CUP PROCESS. 
          WHEN WE LOOK AT, AND, AND SO THEN IT MAY BEG THE QUESTION, WELL, IS THERE A BIGGER NEED THEN TO GO BACK TO CHAPTER EIGHT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND REWRITE THAT CHAPTER TO BE MORE CLEAR THAT CS ARE NOT ISSUED TO BUSINESSES, BUT THAT IN ORDER TO OPERATE AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION, A CUP MUST BE ISSUED OR, OR MUST BE APPROVED. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO WORK ON, UM, AS PUR SOON AND COMING OUT OF THIS EXPERIENCE IS TO TRY TO SORT OF BRING CHAPTER EIGHT MORE INTO ALIGNMENT WITH THE USE OF A CUP. 
          AND, AND THIS WOULD HELP US, UM, SORT OF BRING THIS INTO ALIGNMENT RATHER THAN DEPENDING ON A REWRITE OF THE CHAPTER. 
          [01:20:02]
AND I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT TOO, AND ANDREW PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I'M WRONG. 
          UH, TYPICALLY I THINK, THINK WE HAVE THE TENANTS, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE APPLYING FOR WHATEVER USE PERMITS, NOT NECESSARILY ALCOHOL, BUT AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION, WE GET THE CONSENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SHOW THAT THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF THE USE AS WELL. 
          SO JUST FOR THE CITY TO KNOW, THEN YOU KNOW WHO THE TENANT IS AND WHO THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          SO IT'S IN THAT USE PERMIT. 
          SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO NOTICE IF NEEDED. 
          AND AS A FOLLOW UP THERE, WHEN WE NAME THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP MIGHT CHANGE IN THE FUTURE. 
          HOW DOES THAT PASSING OF THE LAND RIGHT HAPPEN? IS IT EXPLICIT? THERE'S NO NEED FOR EXTRA NOTICING OR WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? CORRECT. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT WOULD BE EXPLICIT AND, AND, UM, I GUESS THE OFFICIAL, YOU KNOW, THE OFFICIAL TRANSFER WOULD BE THROUGH THE DEED, THE GRANT DEED. 
          UM, THAT WOULD BE RECORDED. 
          I DID WANT TO, TO, UM, ALSO NOTE THAT PART OF OUR DECISION TO NOT PURSUE AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER EIGHT AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS OF COURSE, BECAUSE WE HAVE THESE ZONING CODE UPDATE ON SCHEDULE TO BE COMPLETED. 
          SO WE SEE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTEGRATE IT INTO THAT ZONING CODE UPDATE. 
          SECOND, THIS, THIS PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH COULD, WOULD EFFECTIVELY ESTABLISH PRECEDENTS FOR HOW WE MIGHT TREAT FUTURE SITUATIONS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE OTHER, UM, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT CS OUT THERE THAT WERE ISSUED IN A SIMILAR MANNER. 
          WE CAN ALWAYS POINT BACK TO THIS PROCESS, UM, THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH WHERE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE RIGHTS RUN WITH THE LAND AND THAT WE'RE THEN APPROPRIATELY ATTRIBUTING THOSE RIGHTS AND, AND MANAGING THOSE RIGHTS MORE EFFECTIVELY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU RICK. 
          I THINK A COUPLE OF MY QUESTIONS WERE JUST ANSWERED THROUGH THAT EXCHANGE. 
          SO, UM, I'M GOOD FOR NOW, COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          ACTUALLY, MY MOST OF MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED ALSO. 
          UM, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS, YOU KNOW, FROM 20, YOU KNOW, OH FOUR TO 2024, A LOT'S CHANGED. 
          AND I THINK THIS KIND OF WORKS INTO THE DIRECTION THE CITY IS GOING WITH THE ZONING CODE, UM, UPDATES. 
          I MEAN, WE NEED TO START, THIS IS BASICALLY A CLEANUP AND THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO START CLEANING UP BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT NAMES ON ALL THESE DOCUMENTS, I HAPPEN TO KNOW THOSE NAMES . 
          AND THERE WAS A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, HANDSHAKES AND YEAH, WE'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND DO THIS. 
          THIS LOOKS GREAT. 
          WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND MOVE IT FORWARD. 
          AND NOW THAT DOESN'T REALLY WORK. 
          AND SO, SO I DON'T REALLY, I WOULD PREFER JUST TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DIRECTION THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AND IT, 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY SEEM TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE SUSPENSION. 
          AND THEN WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND THIS, THIS CAN COME BACK TO US WITHIN 90 DAYS. 
          AND THEN THE CUP IS WITH THE BUILDING OWNERS AND WHICH IS PROBABLY BETTER FOR THE BUILDING OWNERS ALSO INSTEAD OF THE ESTABLISHMENT. 
          'CAUSE THE ESTABLISHMENT, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN MOVE AND TAKE IT WITH THEM. 
          AND THEN THE BUILDING OWNERS, THEY DON'T HAVE A CUP, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS TYPE OF A, UM, BUSINESS. 
          SO, UM, AND THEN YEAH, THAT'S, I MEAN, THAT'S THE, WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE. 
          BUT I DO WANT TO BRING UP ONE THING. 
          IT WAS IN 2006, UM, STEVE CLOTS WHO OWNED REDWOOD EMPIRE GYMNASTICS, HIS SON, UM, DAVID WAS IN SANTA BARBARA, AND BOUNCERS SAT ON HIM AND KILLED HIM. 
          AND IT WAS JUST HORRIBLE. 
          AND TO THIS DAY, THEY WERE VERY GOOD FRIENDS OF OURS. 
          SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENED, AND I'M LOOKING AT BOUNCERS THAT HAVE FELONIES, I WANNA MAKE SURE NO, YOU HAVE TO, THIS IS THE CRITERIA. 
          IF YOU'RE GONNA HIRE SECURITY GUARDS, YOU HAVE TO DO BACKGROUND CHECKS. 
          THEY CAN'T HAVE FELONIES. 
          AND WE WANNA PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING IN THIS COMMUNITY. 
          IT HAPPENED TO A COMMUNITY MEMBER, IT JUST WASN'T IN PETALUMA. 
          AND WHEN I READ THAT ARTICLE, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT WAS DAVID CLOTS WHO, YOU KNOW, HE, HE WAS AN INCREDIBLE HUMAN AND HE, YOU KNOW, LEFT PROBABLY BEFORE HE WAS 23 YEARS OLD. 
          SO I THINK WE NEED TO DO THIS RIGHT. 
          AND TO ME, THE RIGHT WAY IS TO REVOKE IT AND HAVE IT BACK IN 90 DAYS AND HAVE IT CLEAN. 
          SO WHEN OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS COME, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          AND IT'S, I DON'T WANNA GO BACK TO 2004 AND KEEP THAT LANGUAGE. 
          I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE INTO THE, INTO TODAY'S WORLD. 
          THAT'S MY COMMENTS. 
          YEAH. 
          HEIDI, I'M SORRY. 
          THANKS, CHAIR. 
          I JUST WANNA ASK ONE QUESTION. 
          UM, IF WE WERE TO REVOKE THE CUP, COULD THE BUSINESS OWNER STILL, UM, HAVE A REGULAR RESTAURANT IN THERE THAT SERVES ALCOHOL IN THE INTERIM? OH, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          COMMISSIONER THE, UH, A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT, 
          [01:25:01]
WHICH IS, UM, IS RECOGNIZED AS, AS SERVING FOOD AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. 
          AND THAT CAN INCLUDE A FULL BAR, UH, BEER, WINE, AND, AND SPIRITS, UM, IS A PERMITTED USE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , ONE LAST QUESTION. 
          WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THIS HISTORY OF COMPLIANCE OR KIND OF STRUNG ALONG ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY, WAS THAT GUIDED BY THE EXISTING CUP? WAS THAT GUIDED BY CHAPTER EIGHT? WOULD CHANGES TO ONE OR EITHER OF THOSE, MAKE THAT PROCESS A LITTLE BIT STRONGER AND MORE CLEAR CUT. 
          SO WE DON'T HAVE THIS ISSUE KIND OF IN THE AIR FOR SO LONG. 
          I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO, UH, MS. GREEN AND, AND ALSO I THINK TO, TO THE CHIEF TO, UM, SHARE SOME OF THE, THE, THE CITY'S APPROACH TO HOW THEY SOUGHT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES. 
          UM, BUT, BUT IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION FROM PLANNING'S PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THINK THAT THIS, THIS CUP WAS SO UNIQUELY WRITTEN THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR US TO APPLY IT TO ANY BUSINESS OPERATING AT THAT LOCATION. 
          YEAH, I'LL, I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OUTTA MY SCOPE, BUT I THINK WE PREDOMINANTLY FELL TO THE COP AND THE C'S REGULATIONS WERE, UM, CHALLENGING. 
          UM, A LITTLE BIT NONDESCRIPT AS, AS THERE'S BEEN SOME, SOME REFERENCE TO, SO WE WERE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, REALLY STRUCTURED ON WHAT'S DETAILED IN OUR RO ORDINANCE AS WELL AS THE OCCUPANCY AND THE SECURITY PLAN WERE KIND OF THE LIMITING FACTORS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, AND JUST TO BUILD OFF OF THAT, OH, THE POINT IN QUESTION, BUT THANK YOU, SIR. 
          UM, JUST, JUST TO BUILD OFF OF THAT LAST, THAT LAST QUESTION. 
          ASSUMING WE WE MOVE TOWARDS MODIFYING THE CUP TO BE COMPLIANT BY 2024 STANDARDS, AND THEN ASSUMING THAT THE NEXT UPDATE TO THE IZO FALLS THROUGH ON TAKING A LOOK AT AT CHAPTER EIGHT, THEN WE SHOULD BE, I DON'T WANNA SAY COMPLETELY LOCKED GOING FORWARD, BUT AT LEAST IN THE ISSUES WE'VE HAD A HARD TIME ADDRESSING FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, THAT'LL BE MOSTLY ADDRESSED, CORRECT? THAT'S, THAT IS CORRECT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THE, AND, AND IT'S INTERESTING TO THINK ABOUT IF, IF YOU WERE TO JUST VOTE TO REVOKE THE CUP, THEN I DO THINK TO, TO, UH, THE COUNCIL'S POINT, IT, IT WOULD MAKE A FUTURE REVIEW OF, OF A CUP FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, CHALLENGING. 
          UM, AND, AND SO IN THAT SENSE THEN TO, TO, UH, SORT OF STEER THIS CUP INTO 2024 INTO SOMETHING THAT CAN BE MANAGED BY CITY STAFF WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, UM, AS WELL AS TO UPDATE THE, THE ZONING CODE TO REFLECT, UH, SOME OF THE NUANCES THAT, THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE, THAT QUITE FRANKLY EVOLVED OUT OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WOULD BE IMPORTANT. 
          BUT IT WOULD ALSO PRESERVE THE, UH, THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY'S, UM, ABILITY TO LOOK AT ANY FUTURE REQUESTS FOR CS, FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, TO LOOK AT THEM OBJECTIVELY, FAIRLY, AND, UM, WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT THE PREJUDICE THAT MAY RESULT FROM AN ACTION TO REVOKE TODAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I MOVE TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE ITEM? ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, BEFORE I READ THROUGH THE PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE WHO'S SEEKING TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? OH, THAT'S FAIR. 
          PRESENTING AND PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          UH, I'D LIKE TO OPEN US UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. 
          PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON. 
          IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO ALREADY, PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD AND BRING IT TO THE CLERK. 
          CAN DO IT AFTER. 
          I'D LIKE YOU CAN DO IT AFTER . 
          YEAH. 
          I'D LIKE TO ASK IF WE GOT ANY COMMENTS ON THIS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 
          YES. 
          WE RECEIVED ONE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 
          IT HAS BEEN POSTED ONLINE AND IT'S IN THE BACK, UH, FOR VIEWING, WHICH I BELIEVES WAS FROM YOU, SIR. 
          AND WITH THAT, GO AHEAD, MICHAEL BLUTO ONCE AGAIN. 
          SO I'M HEAR, I'M HEARING A LOT OF TALK ABOUT REVOCATION. 
          REVOCATION REQUIRES DUE PROCESS AND REQUIRES NOTICE. 
          NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY MY CLIENT TO BE ABLE TO AMELIORATE THIS SITUATION AND TIME BEFORE THIS HAS COME IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          THERE'S A REAL PROBLEM HERE WITH FAIRNESS FOLKS. 
          AND SO THE CITY HAS SAID, WELL, THAT'S OKAY. 
          WE'RE JUST GOING TO REVOKE AND, AND, BUT THEN WE'LL SUSPEND IT AND WE CAN COME BACK. 
          THE EFFECT OF THAT 
          [01:30:01]
IS TO STRONG ARM MY CLIENT INTO ACCEPTING A AMENDED CUP WITHOUT ANY NOTICE OF WHAT THAT CUP IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. 
          THERE'S NOTHING IN OUR COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT 2024 BEST PRACTICES ARE. 
          THIS IS NOT THE FAIR WAY TO DO THINGS. 
          IT SIMPLY ISN'T. 
          THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM A MADAM COUNCILWOMAN SAYING THAT RIGHT NOW, IF THE BUSINESS OWNER WERE TO GO AWAY, THEY WOULD TAKE THE COP WITH THEM. 
          AND THAT'S INCORRECT. 
          THERE IS A MUNICIPAL CODE THAT ALREADY SAYS THESE RIGHTS RUN WITH THE LAND. 
          I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT MY CLIENTS ARE INTERESTED IN WORKING WITH THE CITY. 
          WE HAVE JUMPED UP TO TAKE CARE OF THIS DESPITE NOT BEING GIVEN NOTICE. 
          AND YET YOU ARE LOOKING POSSIBLY TO HOLD MY CLIENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BAD ACTS OF PEOPLE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO REMOVE. 
          THERE IS A FAIRNESS FACTOR THERE ALSO AT PLAY. 
          UM, I SUGGEST INSTEAD THAT YOU WORK WITH US, ALLOW THEM, ALLOW US TO REMOVE THEM. 
          IF YOU HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A SECOND MEETING FOR REVOCATION, THAT WOULD BE FAIR. 
          THEN EVERYTHING WOULD BE, UH, ON UH, ABOVE BOARD. 
          WE WOULD HAVE OUR NOTICE. 
          YOU'D BE ABLE TO TELL US WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          AND IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE MAY WORK, WE MAY HAVE WORKED THIS OUT, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT. 
          AND THERE COULD BE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS TO THAT. 
          UM, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. 
          IF WE WERE LOOKING FOR THAT, WE WOULD'VE, WE WOULD'VE JUST SAT AROUND AND NOT DONE ANYTHING AND THEN WAITED, UH, IN AMBUSH. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. 
          SO I THINK A REVOCATION, JUST FOR CONVENIENCE SAKE, IS THE IMPROPER WAY TO DO THIS. 
          A SUSPENSION HELPS US IN THAT. 
          IT KEEPS THE, KEEPS THE TENANT FROM OPERATING, GIVES THEM INCENTIVE TO MOVE OUT AND THAT HELPS EVERYBODY. 
          BUT IT ALSO GIVES US TIME TO DO THINGS WITHOUT COMMITTING ANYBODY TO A PARTICULAR PATH. 
          THAT'S WHAT A SUSPENSION DOES. 
          AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE A SUSPENSION RIGHT NOW, THE LANGUAGE SAYS 90 DAYS, I WOULD REQUEST THAT IT SAY WITH THE ABILITY TO COME BACK TO RENEW THE SUSPENSION BASED ON FACTORS AT THE TIME. 
          IS IT NECESSARY? I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M A CONSERVATIVE PARANOID GUY. 
          THAT'S WHY I'M A LAWYER. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE ASKING FOR. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. 
          UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTIONS THAT WERE WELL THOUGHT OUT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND NOT SEEING ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS. 
          WE WILL GO NOW TO COMMISSIONER COMMENT, LIKE TO SEE WHO WOULD LIKE TO START US OFF. 
          I'LL START OFF IF I CAN. 
          UM, JUST ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION, UM, MAYBE TO ANDREW OR, UM, COUNSEL PROCEDURALLY, IS IT ALLOWABLE TO AMEND A CUP WHILE IT'S UNDER SUSPENSION? OR DOES IT HAVE, IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT IT HAS TO BE REVOKED IN ORDER TO AMEND? YEAH, I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF DISCRETION HERE. 
          SO IF WE DECIDE, IF YOU DECIDE TO SUSPEND AS WELL AS MODIFY, THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          GREAT. 
          THANKS COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          A QUESTION ON, UM, SO IF THE CUP JUST, YOU KNOW, GOES WITH THE PROPERTY, IF WE JUST CONTINUE WITH THE SAME CCUP, THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. 
          IT'S THE CUP SEEMS TO BE THE PROBLEM. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULDN'T WANT TO REDO A C, THE CUPI MEAN, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. 
          I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHY SUSPENSION WOULD BE MORE OF A BENEFIT THAN REVOCATION. 
          'CAUSE THE WHOLE POINT IS, IS THAT THIS IS AN OLD CUP MM-HMM. 
           AND WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IF YOU SUSPEND IT, YOU'RE JUST GIVING THE SAME CUP WITHOUT CHANGES OR IT'S NOT REGISTERING. 
          IT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. 
          I'M NOT SURE. 
          ARE YOU, ARE YOU ASKING IN TERMS OF WHAT THE BENEFIT WOULD BE FOR THE LANDOWNER FOR THE CITY? WHAT'S THE, I MEAN, NO, NO. 
          WHAT, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO THE CITY, UM, BY DOING A SUSPENSION VERSUS A REVOCATION OF IT. 
          AND WITH THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, I WANNA KNOW HOW WE'RE GONNA BE CHANGING THIS DOCUMENT AND CHANGING THE LANGUAGE IN HERE TO MAKE IT UPDATED. 
          I, I THINK STAFF HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT REVOCATION BEING THE BENEFIT, BUT ANDREW, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? WELL, I, I THINK TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S POINT TO SUSPEND THE CDP WOULD PERHAPS ALLOW FOR THE EVICTION OF THE CURRENT BUSINESS AND SLASH TENANT, UM, WHICH WOULD SOLVE PART OF THE ISSUE. 
          BUT WE STILL HAVE THE CUP THAT, AS THE CHIEF HAS SAID, WAS, HAS SAID, WAS DIFFICULT FOR US TO ENFORCE UPON. 
          [01:35:01]
SO I THINK THAT, UM, THE, THE APPROACH PROPOSED BY STAFF WITH, WITH THE, UM, RESOLUTION THAT'S CURRENTLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION IS, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT TO CHANGE THAT CUP. 
          UM, AND THAT REVOCATION WITH THE TOLLING AGREEMENT AND PERHAPS EVEN THE, THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION, THE ABILITY TO EXTEND THE TOLLING AGREEMENT WOULD EXACTLY GET US TO WHERE, UM, CITY STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE, THE CITY IS WITH REGARD TO THE CP. 
          SO THE TIMEFRAME FOR BOTH WOULD BE BASICALLY THE SAME. 
          THE TIMEFRAME WOULD, IF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU, FOR THE REVOCATION OR FOR THE SUSPENSION, I MEAN, I'M STILL WRITING DOWN NOTES OF 90 DAYS . 
          SURE. 
          WELL, WELL PRESUMABLY THE SUSPENSION WOULD, WOULD, WOULD JUST BE SORT OF A, UH, UH, MEASURE TO ENCOURAGE APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR. 
          UM, BUT IT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A MODIFICATION OF THE CUP TO HAVE A CUP. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S MORE CLEARLY ARTICULATING THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE CITY AND, AND GIVING CITY STAFF THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE UPON IT. 
          SO, UM, UN UNLESS, UNLESS THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE A WAY TO WRITE THAT INTO A, A, A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING. 
          BUT IT DOES SEEM THAT WITH THE REVOCATION, THE CITY DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO INSIST UPON THE CHANGES AND TO ENSURE THAT THOSE CHANGES ARE MADE. 
          OKAY. 
          I I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY, I'M KIND OF CALCULATING IN MY HEAD LIKE, HOW ARE WE GONNA GET A BUSINESS IN THERE? I MEAN, I WANT THIS DONE. 
          I MEAN, I DON'T WANT AN EMPTY STOREFRONT IN OUR DOWNTOWN, SO I'M, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CALCULATING OUT HOW QUICKLY WE CAN GET THIS DONE. 
          SO, UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER EMPTY STOREFRONT 'CAUSE THAT'S, UM, NOT THE DIRECTION I WANNA GO. 
          SO IN TERMS OF, UH, ANDREW, YOUR RELUCTANCE TO NOT GO THE VOCATION ROUTE IS SIMPLY FOR THE FACT OF AVOIDING THE NEED TO BRING THIS BACK TO US. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS THERE, IS THERE SOME OTHER MOTIVATION FOR WANTING TO GO THE REVOCATION ROUTE? WELL, I'LL ASK, I THINK, I THINK THAT, UM, DYLAN'S READY TO CLARIFY AND RESPOND. 
          BUT, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF WE ONLY SUSPEND, THAT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE CUP. 
          AND SO, SO IN LISTENING TO CHIEF MILLER, PART OF THE CHALLENGE WAS IN THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE CUP BECAUSE, UM, IT WASN'T, IT DIDN'T CLEARLY DEFINE EXPECTATIONS OF, OF, UH, OPERATIONS OF THE LAND USE, BUT IT'S AT THE CITY'S SOLE DISCRETION TO, TO AMEND THE EXISTING CUP IF IT'S UNDER SUSPENSION. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT BEFORE WHEN I YEAH, I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO COME BACK REGARDLESS, REVOCATION SUSPENSION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE MODIFIED CEP FOR YOUR APPROVAL. 
          GOT IT. 
          GOT IT. 
          IF IT'S LET, LET ME BACK THAT. 
          IN THAT TIME, WE DON'T NEED THE COOPERATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OR OF THE BUSINESS OPERATOR TO AMEND THAT CAP. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS THAT INCORRECT? WELL, I THINK PROBABLY JORDAN WOULD WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO GET TERMS THAT ARE FAVORABLE FOR THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THEN BRING THAT BACK FOR YOU. 
          SO IF IT IS SUSPENDED, THEN THE CURRENT CP IS JUST SUSPENDED AND AFTER 90 DAYS, THEY MAY COME BACK TO YOU THE PROPERTY AND SAY, OKAY, WE HAVE A NEW BUSINESS, THEY'RE GONNA ABIDE BY THIS, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY MORE PROBLEMS. AND YOU COULD JUST SAY, OKAY. 
          AND THERE IT GOES. 
          AND WE'RE SEEKING A REVOCATION WITH TOLLING THAT TO ALLOW FOR AMENDED CUP MM-HMM. 
           TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REALLY GET A NEW AMENDED CUP MM-HMM. 
           THAT SERVES TODAY, THAT IS A 2024 BEST PRACTICES RATHER THAN ONE FROM 2004 THAT HASN'T WORKED FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I GUESS I WANT A A REALLY CLEAR DEFINITIVE ANSWER. 
          CAN WE AMEND, CAN, CAN THE CITY AMEND THE CURRENT CUP WITHOUT IT BEING REVOKED? YES, I BELIEVE WE CAN. 
          SENATOR. 
          SO WHY CAN'T WE JUST START THAT TOMORROW? AND CAN WE CONDITION THE SUSPENSION WITH THAT AMENDING OF THE CUP? SO SAYING IT'S SUSPENDED AND WE HAVE TO AMEND, IF I, I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING COMMISSION IS THAT THE CITY WOULD UNILATERALLY ACT TO AMEND THE COP. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND, AND IF, IF WE WERE TO DO THAT, THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD ALWAYS APPEAL THE AMENDMENT OF THAT COP, THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE BUSINESS OWNER? NO, THE PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE THE, THE RIGHTS, THE RIGHTS ARE VESTED WITH THE LAND. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO THE RIGHTS WOULD, UM, RUN WOULD MM-HMM. 
           WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHTS. 
          SO IF WE WERE TO UNILATERALLY BRING THAT FORWARD, UM, 
          [01:40:01]
FOR AMENDMENT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER DIDN'T AGREE TO THAT AMENDMENT, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THEN THROUGH DUE PROCESS, THEY COULD APPEAL THAT, THAT DECISION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          TO BE CLEAR, THE REVOCATION WITH THE TOLLING GIVES US THE STICK. 
          SO WE'VE THE SUSPENSION OR THE TOLLING THAT'S BUILT INTO IT, THAT'S THE, WE WORK TOGETHER, WE GET TO AN OUTCOME. 
          THE SUSPENSION, OR SORRY, THE REVOCATION THAT'S PUT ON THAT IS OKAY, YOU DIDN'T GET TO AN OUTCOME, IT GOES AWAY. 
          YOU HAVE TO START FROM SCRATCH. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , IT MOTIVATES 'EM TO WANNA WORK WITH IT. 
          WE CAN ADD THE PROVISION TO THE LANGUAGE TO SAY, HEY, IF BOTH SIDES AGREE, COME BACK TO US TO ASK FOR THE SUSPENSION TO CONTINUE. 
          BUT THE REVOCATION IS TO PROVIDE THE STICK. 
          SO IT'S NOT JUST, WE HOPE THEY WORK WITH US TO UPDATE THEIR COP 'CAUSE WHY WOULD THEY? RIGHT. 
          UN UNDERSTOOD. 
          BUT, BUT A STICK COMES WITH, WITH A COST. 
          AND THAT COST BEING BORNE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO DIDN'T HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY AS, AS I'M HEARING OF GETTING US INTO THE POSITION THAT WE ARE RIGHT NOW. 
          THAT'S TRUE. 
          BUT THEY DID DECIDE TO TAKE OVER MORE OF THE TRUST. 
          WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMUNITY TOO, NOT JUST TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          SO WE HAVE TO BALANCE BOTH. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          I'M TRYING TO STRIKE THAT BALANCE. 
          AND THIS QUESTION KIND OF GETS TO THAT. 
          UH, WE HAD THE ISSUE RAISED ABOUT DUE PROCESS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, FOR NOT BEING NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS REVOCATION. 
          I'D JUST LIKE A QUICK RESPONSE FROM OUR ATTORNEY'S TEAM ON THAT. 
          I'M READING IZO SECTION 8.04 A 13, AND THAT SEEMS PRETTY UNILATERAL IN OUR ABILITY TO REVOKE GIVEN IF IT'S VIOLATED. 
          CAN YOU TALK ABOUT, UM, DUE PROCESS AND THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY, OR LACK THEREOF, OF REQUIRING THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT A REVOCATION? UH, I KNOW THE CITY AND IT'S IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE IS ALLOWED TO CREATE THE PROCESSES FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT OF ACTIONS. 
          SO HERE I'M SURE WE, UH, PROVIDE WHAT NOTICE IS REQUIRED AND AS LONG AS WE PROVIDE THAT NOTICE THAT'S STATED IN OUR ORDINANCE, I THINK WE PROVIDED ENOUGH DUE PROCESS THERE. 
          BUT TYPICALLY THE CITY DOES LIKE TO WORK WITH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO HARM IN PROVIDING AS MUCH NOTICE AS YOU CAN. 
          'CAUSE TYPICALLY THE PROPERTY OWNERS CAN NIP IT IN THE BUD FASTER THAN, YOU KNOW, US GOING TO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          UM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS KNOWN ABOUT THIS AT LEAST SINCE LAST WEEK OR A WEEK AND A HALF AGO. 
          AND, UM, SO THEY HAVEN'T BEEN, UH, NOTICED THROUGH ALL THE NOTICES THAT WE PRIOR HAVE DONE, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN, UH, ON NOTICE AND, UH, THEIR REPRESENTATIVES HERE AT THIS HEARING. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          IS IT OKAY FOR US TO JUST GO INTO COMMENTS AND JUST MM-HMM, . 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          UM, JUST TO ANSWER THE STAFF REPORT, I THINK WE PRETTY WELL ESTABLISHED THAT A REVOCATION WOULD BE ON THE TABLE BASED ON THE NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS, THE ATTEMPTS TO REMEDY THE STANDARDS ALREADY IN PLACE. 
          YOU KNOW, AND JUST KIND OF PULLING US BACK TO THE JRD PART OF THIS, YOU KNOW, I SAW THE NOTE FROM THEIR LAWYER ABOUT CAPRICIOUSNESS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          I DON'T FIND THAT EVIDENT IN HOW THE CITY APPROACHED THIS MATTER EITHER THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT OR THROUGH PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          I FEEL LIKE WE'RE FOLLOWING A CERTAIN SET OF STANDARDS ONCE WE STARTED THAT PROCESS, WE ASKED FOR COMPLIANCE. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE WE KIND OF EXTENDED OUR DURATION OF ALLOWING FOR COMPLIANCE. 
          AND THAT WINDOW CLOSED IN A PRETTY KIND OF WATERSHED MOMENT WITH THIS EVENT IN APRIL. 
          UM, SO I THINK IN MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, IN SEEING ALL THE FACTS BEFORE US, I THINK PER THAT CHAPTER EIGHT A REVOCATIONS ON THE TABLE, UM, I DO SEE THE POINT BY WHICH THE REVOCATION WITH THE TOLLING GIVES US THE FORCED OR THE STRONGER INCENTIVE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO COME TO THE TABLE AND MODIFY THE EXISTING CUP. 
          YOU KNOW, IN READING ONE OF OUR ALTERNATIVES, I DID SEE SUSPENSION WITH MODIFICATION. 
          WOULD THAT NECESSITATE, I, I MEAN, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? AND I APPRECIATE CHAIR HOOPER EXPLAINING THE IDEA OF THE STICK AND THE INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO COME TO THE TABLE AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO. 
          BUT WHEN YOU PUT ON THERE THAT ALTERNATIVE, 'CAUSE AS WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, I APPRECIATE WHAT COMMISSIONER WIMAN HAS SAID ABOUT TRYING TO FIND A MEDIUM HERE. 
          IF, IF, YOU KNOW, THERE IS KIND OF THIS INTERIM WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER WASN'T NOTIFIED ALONGSIDE THE BUSINESS OWNER. 
          SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SUSPENSION WITH MODIFICATION, WHAT WAS THE TEETH TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN? OR WHAT DID YOU ENVISION WITH THAT SOLUTION? WELL, I'M, AS A CP THAT'S COMPLETELY DISCRETIONARY OF THE CITY. 
          OUR PLANNING COMMISSION CAN MAKE THOSE FINDINGS. 
          WE ALSO, WITH THOSE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE ANY CONDITIONS WE WANT AS LONG AS THERE'S A NEXUS IN THEIR PROPORTION. 
          SO I THINK AT ANY TIME, IF THE CONDITIONS AREN'T, AND I BELIEVE EVEN THE CP SAYS THAT, THAT THAT CP CAN BE MODIFIED IF NEEDED, WE CAN BRING THE CP BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SAY, HEY, THIS PRIOR 
          [01:45:01]
CP IS NOT WORKING. 
          WE NEED TO CHANGE X, Y, AND Z. 
          AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT BEFORE YOU. 
          SO I THINK WE HAVE TEETH THERE TO MODIFY. 
          UM, HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S INVOLVEMENT IN THAT PROCESS? I THINK ANDREW IS WORRIED ABOUT IT GETTING APPEALED, BUT I THINK IT'S A DISCRETIONARY ACT. 
          AND YEAH, WE WOULD DO THE NOTICING THAT'S REQUIRED TO, UH, GRANT OR MODIFY A CUP. 
          AND THAT'S THE NOTICE THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR DUE PROCESS. 
          BECAUSE MY IDEA WAS, AND THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY, IT'S BASICALLY TO CONDITION THE SUSPENSION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WOULD SEE A MODIFIED CUP COME FORWARD TO GET APPROVED, OTHERWISE WE EXTEND THE SUSPENSION, UM, OR PURSUE REVOCATION. 
          BUT IF WE'RE UNDER THREAT OF THAT BEING APPEALED OR WE FEEL LIKE THAT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH FORCE TO ACTUALLY GUARANTEE THE OUTCOME WE'RE LOOKING FOR, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THESE EVENTS SHOW IT ISN'T VIOLATION. 
          SO WE ARE WITHIN OUR RIGHT, UNDER OUR CODE TO REVOKE THE CUP. 
          SO IN, IN THE SENSE OF TRYING TO FIND THIS REALLY MIDDLE GROUND REALLY TO ASSIST THE PROPERTY OWNER, I MEAN, IS THAT SOMETHING WE FEEL CONFIDENT IN THAT OUTCOME THAT YES, WE WOULD GET A MODIFIED CUP OR, AND MAYBE ANDREW YOU ALREADY SAID THIS, BUT, OR DO WE FEEL LIKE IF WE DO A SUSPENSION CONDITIONING, BRINGING FORWARD A MODIFICATION THAT THAT WOULDN'T GET US THE OUTCOME WE WANT JUST DEFINITIVELY THAT WOULDN'T YIELD THE RESULT WE WANT KIND OF TO A HIGH ENOUGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTY, I'M SURE. 
          WELL, I THINK IN EITHER SCENARIO IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO PLAN AND COMMISSION. 
          IT WOULD EITHER COME BACK, IT, IT WOULD EITHER COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE CUP OR IT WOULD COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A REVOCATION BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER CHOOSES NOT TO, UH, MODIFY THE CUP. 
          SO IF, IF THE, IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT TO TAKE AN APPROACH OF A SUSPENSION WITH A MODIFICATION, AND IF MODIFICATION IS NOT ACHIEVED AND SAY 90 DAYS OR, OR ALLOWS FOR AN EXTENSION TO 180 DAYS, THEN IT WOULD COME BACK FOR REVOCATION. 
          IF, IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT THAT SIGNALS THAT THE CITY SEEKS TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO, TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE MM-HMM,  THEN, THEN I THINK THAT, UM, THE COMMISSION MAY WANT TO PURSUE THAT ROUTE. 
          I, I DON'T FEEL THAT THE, THE RESOLUTION THAT'S BEFORE THE COMMISSION IS THAT MUCH DIFFERENT. 
          THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THE TOLLING IN THERE AND, AND IT EFFECTIVELY SAYS, UM, IT IS TOLLING THAT REVOCATION FOR 90 DAYS AND ISSUING A 90 DAY SUSPENSION OF THE CUP. 
          SO IT HAS A SUB SUSPENSION BUILT INTO IT. 
          THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T BRING IT BACK FOR MODIFICATION, THEN IT WOULD REVOKE SO THEN THE REVOCATION WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. 
          SO I GUESS, I GUESS IN A WAY IT WOULD PUT IT, IT WOULD, WITH THE, WITH THE CURRENT REVOCATION RESOLUTION, IT WOULD PUT THAT RESPONSIBILITY SOLELY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER TO ACT AND TO BRING IT BACK. 
          IF OTHERWISE, THEN STAFF WOULD HAVE TO INITIATE, UM, UNDER SUSPENSION RESOLUTION, STAFF WOULD HAVE TO INITIATE THE ACTION TO BRING IT BACK FOR REVOCATION. 
          AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE ATTORNEY'S POINT ABOUT DUE PROCESS AND NOTIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNER OF REVOCATION, DO WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S ANY GROUNDS FOR LEGAL CHALLENGE? UH, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , IT'S KIND OF THE SIMILAR OUTCOMES, JUST A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FRAMING OF IT WITH SUSPENSION LEADING TO A REVOCATION HEARING, OR WE'RE GONNA HAVE A REVOCATION, IT'S EXTENDED, ASSUMING WE GET A MODIFICATION. 
          DO YOU THINK DYLAN OR JORDAN, THAT LEAVES US OPEN TO ANY LEGAL CHALLENGE OR RISK OF LEGAL CHALLENGE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER? WELL, BUT , YOU KNOW, WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES A DECISION, LIKE IF THEY WERE TO REVOKE IT, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A RIGHT TO APPEAL IT. 
          OUR GOAL IS JUST TO HAVE AN AMENDED CUP THAT WORKS FOR US. 
          AND I'LL JUST ADD, REGARDLESS OF SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION, THOSE ARE BOTH TWO ACTIONS THAT REQUIRED SOME SORT OF NOTICE AND DUE PROCESS. 
          SO EITHER WAY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE IS SOME WORRY AND CONCERN, BUT, UH, I THINK WE COMPLIED WITH OUR NOTICING REQUIREMENTS AND THE GOVERNMENT CODE'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO CREATE WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE. 
          AND OF COURSE, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PROPERTY AND KIND OF KNOWING WHAT THEIR TENANTS ARE DOING. 
          UM, SO I AND THE, THE REPRESENTATIVES HERE, SO THEY'RE DEFINITELY ON NOTICE EITHER REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE OUT, OUT OUTCOME IS, AND I THINK THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. 
          CHOICE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I LIKE THAT FRAMING OF KIND OF THE SUSPENSIONS WITH THE MODIFICATION AND THEN A REVOCATION HEARING, BUT I'M OPEN TO THE EXISTING RECOMMENDATION AS WELL, IF THAT'S THE CONSENSUS WITH THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. 
          SO THANK YOU GUYS FOR WALKING THROUGH THAT. 
          [01:50:01]
PROBABLY REPEATING YOURSELVES AND CLARIFYING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, I FEEL LIKE EITHER WAY THE CUP NEEDS TO BE DONE. 
          WE EITHER THROW OUT THE EXISTING ONE 'CAUSE IT'S NOT WORKING AND START WITH A NEW ONE. 
          AND TO ME, THAT'S THE REVOCATION PROCESS, OR WE SUSPEND IT AND THEN DO A NEW ONE ANYWAY. 
          SO I ALMOST FEEL LIKE IT'S IN THE APPLICANT'S, UH, NOT IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO DO THAT METHOD. 
          'CAUSE I THINK IT COULD STRING IT ALONG IN A WHOLE NOTHER THREE MONTHS. 
          IF THEY TAKE THEIR TIME COMING TO YOU, THEN IT'S STILL GONNA BE, IT'S STILL GONNA BE REWORKED NO MATTER WHAT. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE JUST STARTING NOW IS A BETTER WAY TO DO IT STARTING TONIGHT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAY WE GIVE THEM A DEFINITIVE TIMEFRAME, THEY COME, WE GET IT DONE. 
          AND I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT SEEMS LIKE THE FASTER, QUICKER, EASIER APPROACH. 
          AND I FEEL LIKE THE OWNERS SHOULD KNOW WHAT THEIR TENANTS ARE DOING. 
          IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. 
          UM, EVERYBODY IN TOWN KNOWS WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON AT THE DONKEY, AND IF THEY WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION, THEN THAT'S ON THEM. 
          SO I DON'T GIVE THAT MUCH, I DON'T SEE THAT AS ANY EXCUSE. 
          IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON AS A DONKEY, THAT'S THEIR FAULT. 
          SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THE REVOCATION WITH THE TOLLING. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M, I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF THE REVOCATION WITH THE TOLLING. 
          AND I WOULD, I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO ADD THE LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE SUSPENSION. 
          I THINK THAT'S A COMPLETELY REASONABLE MIDDLE GROUND TO ADD, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE CLIENT. 
          UH, I MEAN, THIS ISSUE OF FAIRNESS, I I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE, YOU KNOW, ONE TRUSTEE BUYS OUT ANOTHER TRUSTEE. 
          THEY'VE GOT A LARGER SHARE, LARGER LINE ON THE HOOK FOR THIS PROPERTY. 
          THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T EXPECT FIVE PEOPLE TO BEAT SOMEBODY UP WHO WORKED FOR THE PREMISES TO LIKE POP OUT THAT NIGHT. 
          AND TO HAVE THIS ALL KIND OF BOIL, BOIL OVER. 
          AT THE SAME TIME, JUST LIKE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE PROVIDING NECESSARY SERVICES FOR OUR COMMUNITY, PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL DECISIONS THEY MAKE IN TERMS OF THE PROPERTIES THEY PURCHASE GREATER SHARES IN. 
          UH, WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT IN QUESTION. 
          AND FRANKLY, AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'VE GOTTA BE LOOKING AT WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COMMUNITY. 
          WE'VE ALREADY SEEN ONE PERSON GET BEATEN UP ON SITE. 
          WE'VE ALREADY HAD OUR POLICE VERY CLEARLY STATE HOW MUCH THIS HAS ESCALATED, HOW MUCH THEY HAVE TO GO ON SERVICE CALLS. 
          I DO NOT WANT TO BE A PARTY TO ANY DECISION THAT ONLY MAKES THAT PROBLEM WORSE OR KEEPS IT AT THE SAME LEVEL. 
          SO IF WE'RE GONNA DEAL WITH THIS AND, AND TO GO BACK TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S POINT, LET'S DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY THIS TIME, AND GET OUR CUP OUT OF THE ERA OF BACK ROOMS AND HANDSHAKES AND GET IT TO A CLEAR, MEASURABLE, DEFINITIVE PLACE. 
          UH, THE, THE QUESTIONS THAT DARREN RAISED REALLY HELP CLARIFY THAT YES, WE COULD GO ANOTHER ROUTE, BUT IT FRANKLY LEADS TO THE SAME OUTCOME WITH MORE WORK. 
          SO LET'S GET, I WOULD SUPPORT US GOING THROUGH THE REVOCATION WITH, WITH THE INTENDED TOLLING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THIS THING ALONG AND WITH THE ADDED LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE SUSPENSION SO THE CLIENT HAS ENOUGH TIME TO WORK THROUGH AND GET THE COP WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO. 
          BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, OUR PRIORITY HAS TO BE, UH, PEOPLE IN PETALUMA AND WHAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH DOWNTOWN RIGHT NOW. 
          SO, ROGER, YEAH, I SUPPORT THE, UH, THE PREVIOUS COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, I, I, I THINK THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE RIGHTS, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY AND I THINK THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IS. 
          AND I HOPE THAT THEY'LL BE PART OF THE CUP REVISIONS BECAUSE THAT WILL HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE MANAGING. 
          UM, SO I AGREE WITH, UH, RELOCATION AND, UM, UH, REDOING YOUR CUP. 
          YEAH. 
          I, I, I THINK THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT ARE, THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED HERE. 
          FIRST, THIS IS COMING BACK TO US AND IT'S COMING BACK TO US IN THE FORM OF, UH, AN AMENDED CUP, WHETHER IT'S INITIATED BY THE APPLICANT OR WHETHER IT'S INITIATED BY THE CITY. 
          TWO, WHEN IT DOES COME BACK TO US OR, OR, UH, AT THE END OF THE 90 DAYS, THE CITY STILL HAS THE STICK OF REVOCATION HANGING OVER THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE APPLICANT. 
          SO THOSE TWO THINGS, BOTH THOSE TWO THINGS ARE MATTERS OF FACT. 
          AND SO IF THAT BEING THE CASE, AND WE CAN TAKE THIS PERIOD OF 90 DAYS UNDER SUSPENSION, WHICH IS LESS SERIOUS AS ACT AND REVOCATION, I THINK THAT'S THE PRUDENT WAY FOR THIS BODY TO GO. 
          I SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE REVOCATION AND WANT IT DONE IN 90 DAYS 
          [01:55:01]
SO IT COMES BACK TO US SO WE CAN MOVE ON. 
          AND SO IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE ONE BUSINESS, IT'S ABOUT THE WHOLE DOWNTOWN AND ALL BUSINESSES AND NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS FROM ANYBODY PRIOR TO MAKING A MOTION CHAIR? I'D LIKE TO OFFER THAT WE DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT COUNSEL HAS REQUESTED A MODIFICATION, UM, TO FINDING NUMBER THREE TO ALLOW FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE 90 DAY POLLING TOLLING PERIOD. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND WE HAVE DRAFTED THAT EXTENSION. 
          IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT, WE CAN SHARE IT. 
          UH, READ IT INTO THE RECORD. 
          GREAT. 
          IT'LL SOUND BETTER THAN WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO SAY, SO, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, UH, FINDING THREE WOULD BE MODIFIED TO READ BASED ON ITS REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN. 
          THE P COMMISSION REVOKES THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1 46 KENTUCKY STREET, PETALUMA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH IZO SECTIONS 8.074 A 13, AND 24.060 SUBSECTION G. 
          HOWEVER, IT IS TOLLING THAT REVOCATION FOR 90 DAYS AND ISSUING A 90 DAY SUSPENSION OF THE CUP PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE MAY REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAY EXTENSION OF THE TOLLING IN WRITING TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR. 
          IF WITHIN 90 DAYS OR PRIOR TO THE END OF THE TOLLING PERIOD, STAFF RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES AN AMENDED CUP FOR THE BUSINESS, THE REVOCATION SHALL EXPIRE IF WITHIN 90 DAYS OR PRIOR TO THE END OF THE TOLLING PERIOD. 
          STAFF DOES NOT RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND AND OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AN AMENDED CUP FOR THE PROPERTY. 
          THEN THE REVOCATION SHALL TAKE EFFECT AND THE CUP SHALL CEASE TO BE VALID ON THE 90TH DAY OR PRIOR TO THE END OF THE TOLLING PERIOD WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          AND ANDREW, I JUST PUT IT UP BEHIND YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          MODIFIED MODIFICATIONS ARE IN RED RIGHT THERE TO NUMBER THREE IN THE RESOLUTION. 
          I, I READ IN, UM, THAT OR PRIOR TO THE END OF THE TOLLING PERIOD, I, I, UH, READ THAT IN WHERE APPROPRIATE. 
          WE NEED TO ADD THAT. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL MOVE FORWARD THE RESOLUTION WITH THAT AMENDMENT. 
          I, I SAW HIM TYPING. 
          I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHANGES. 
          I'LL MOVE FORWARD, UM, WITH THE RESOLUTION WITH THAT, THAT AMENDMENT PERFECT. 
          THAT WAS A SECOND FROM ROGER. 
          UH, COULD WE GET A ROLL CALL VOTE? COMMISSIONER BOWER? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER MOSES. 
          ABSENT. 
          COMMISSIONER MCCURLEY? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER KUSON? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WIMAN? NO. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER CATER THOMPSON? YES. 
          CHAIR HOOPER? YES. 
          THE MOTION HAS PASSED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND WITH THAT, WE ARE CLOSING OUT THIS ITEM. 
          UH, I'M GONNA GIVE EVERYONE A QUICK FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK FOR THE NEXT ITEM. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. 
          THE FOLKS WHO ARE WAITING FOR THAT ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA BRING THIS ONE BACK. 
          UM, WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT LIGHTER OF A ROOM NOW, SO BE A MORE INTIMATE EXPERIENCE. 
          UM, WE ARE NOW ON MEETING ITEM NUMBER THREE. 
          WE'RE IN A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE FINDINGS OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 
          AND INTRODUCE, GIVE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TABLE 4.4 AND CHAPTER 28, GLOSSARY OF THE PETALUMA IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE TO ACCOMPANY AND IMPLEMENT A NEW CHAPTER, SIX POINT 10 OF THE PETALUMA MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED CANNABIS SALES TO CONTINUE EXISTING COMMERCIAL CANNABIS REGULATIONS AND ALLOW UP TO THREE RETAIL STOREFRONT CANNABIS BUSINESSES IN BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT IN PETALUMA. 
          I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT, BECAUSE THIS IS PUBLIC HEARING, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY PARTE COMMUNICATION DISCLOSURE. 
          AND WE'RE FIRST GONNA HEAR A PRESENTATION FROM CITY STAFF AND WE'LL HEAR FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DYLAN BRADY AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, BRIAN O AS WELL AS THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OPEN GOVERNMENT. 
          INGRID ALDE. 
          THANK EACH CHAIR. 
          UH, ONE MOMENT PLEASE. 
          PLEASE. 
          UM, THIS, THIS WILL REQUIRE EX 
          [02:00:01]
PARTE DISCLOSURE. 
          IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I TAKE IT BACK. 
          THIS WILL REQUIRE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. 
          DOES ANYBODY HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE? WELL, A LONG TIME AGO I TALKED TO ONE OF THE, UM, ONE OF THE COUPLES OUT THERE,  PEOPLE, BUT IT WAS, I'M NOT SURE THAT WAS QUITE, THAT WAS MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAS ANYTHING. 
          NO, YOU'RE OKAY. 
          FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS, REALLY IT ISN'T. 
          IT'S MORE WHEN IT'S THE QUASI-JUDICIAL HAT WHEN YOU'RE MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT ENTITLEMENTS. 
          THAT'S WAYNE. 
          UH, BUT ALWAYS GOOD TO JUST PUT IT OUT THERE. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU'RE OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IT'S NOT GONNA AFFECT YOUR DECISION TONIGHT, IS IT? NO. 
          OKAY, THEN YOU'RE GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, I'M ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DYLAN BRADY GOT WITH ME, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, BRIAN O INGRID, UNFORTUNATELY CAME DOWN SICK TODAY, SO SHE WON'T BE HERE. 
          AND I DON'T THINK SHE'S WATCHING ONLINE, BUT IT'S RECORDED, SO SHE'LL HAVE TO CHECK IT OUT TOMORROW. 
          UM, SO JUST KIND OF WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY, WE HAVE AN EXISTING ORDINANCE. 
          IT'S BOTH IN OUR MUNICIPAL CODE THAT'S CHAPTER 10 15, AS WELL AS IN OUR USE TABLES. 
          AND THE USES ARE DEFINED IN THE GLOSSARY OF THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          SO THIS ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED BACK IN 2017, UH, HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED SUBSEQUENTLY, BUT THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER OUR CURRENT PRACTICE ARE BOTH COMMERCIAL AND PERSONAL CULTIVATION. 
          UH, AND, AND I SHOULD SAY THAT BETTER. 
          THE COMMERCIAL USES ARE LABELED BELOW. 
          THERE'S RETAIL, THERE'S CANNABIS MANUFACTURER, THERE'S CANNABIS TESTING. 
          UH, AND THEN WE HAVE PERSONAL CULTIVATION. 
          YOU'RE ALLOWED SIX PLANTS FOR YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY, BUT WE DON'T HAVE LARGE SCALE CULTIVATION. 
          SO WHILE WE DO HAVE RETAIL, THAT RETAIL IS LIMITED TO ONLY TWO, DELIVERY ONLY, SO NOT STOREFRONTS. 
          AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT WE ARE HERE TONIGHT, IS TO AMEND, TO ALLOW STOREFRONTS LIMITED. 
          AND ALL OF THESE CURRENT USES ARE IN OUR BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. 
          AND THERE'S GONNA BE A PICTURE RIGHT HERE TO JUST SHOW WHERE THEY ARE. 
          UH, THE BUSINESS PARK IS IN RED AND THE INDUSTRIAL IS IN BLUE. 
          AND WHAT THIS GRAPHIC ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT, THEY ARE THE CURRENT BUFFERS. 
          AND THE BUFFERS ARE STATED IN A FOOTNOTE IN OUR IZO AND I BELIEVE, WHY DON'T I JUST READ IT? IT'S 600 FEET FROM ANY SCHOOLS AND CHILDCARE, 200 FEET FROM ANY PARKS, LIBRARIES, AND YOUTH CENTERS, AND A HUNDRED FEET FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO IN THE RED, IN THE BLUE ARE THE CURRENT LOCATIONS THAT, UH, MEET ALL OF THOSE BUFFERS AND WHERE ANY STOREFRONT DELIVERY WOULD TAKE PLACE OR ANY OF THE PRIOR, UH, CANNABIS MANUFACTURER TESTING USES. 
          AND ALTHOUGH THESE USES ARE ALLOWED, WE ONLY CURRENTLY HAVE ONE DELIVERY PERMIT. 
          UH, I ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY AS WELL AS INGRID, THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHO'S REALLY THE ONE THAT KIND OF OVERSEES THE CANNABIS PRIOR TO BRIAN COMING TO THIS CITY. 
          UM, AND THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY ISSUES WITH THE DELIVERY. 
          AND I DO WANT TO ADD THIS HYPERLINK AND I WOULD BE AFRAID TO CLICK IT 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK I COULD GET US BACK TO THE POWERPOINT. 
          BUT IT HAS WHERE OUR CURRENT, UH, KIND OF REGULATIONS ARE TO HOW WE REGULATE THESE DIFFERENT, UH, USES. 
          AS SO IT DESCRIBES, UH, THE APPLICATION PROCESS, HOW AN APPLICATION'S GRANTED OR DENIED OR ENFORCED, UM, SO THO THAT CURRENTLY LIVES, UH, OUTSIDE OF OUR MUNICIPAL CODE. 
          UM, SO AGAIN, THESE ARE THE DISTRICTS OR ALLOWABLE SPOTS WHERE THEY'D BE OKAY. 
          UH, SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE REALLY AT THE DIRECTION OF CITY COUNCIL. 
          IT WAS ONE OF THEIR TOP 10 GOALS AND PRIORITIES LAST YEAR. 
          AND IT'S CARRIED OVER INTO THIS YEAR AND BACK IN MARCH AND APRIL AS PART OF THE GOALS AND PRIORITIES DISCUSSION FOR 2024, UH, STAFF PROVIDED CITY COUNCIL AN OPTION OF A MORE, UH, BRIAN, WHAT DID WE CALL IT? THERE WAS A LIMITED OPTION AND KIND OF THE FULL OPTION, OR HOW DO WE DESCRIBE THAT? UH, SO WHAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S REFERRING TO IS, UH, JUST WITH THE CAPACITY OF STAFF RESOURCES AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE, THERE WAS TWO VERSIONS THAT WE PRESENTED AS PART OF CITY COUNCIL'S, UM, REVIEW OF GOALS AND PRIORITIES. 
          UM, AND SO WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE SORT OF MINOR, UH, MODIFICATION TO HELP FACILITATE RETAIL CANNABIS IN THE CITY OF PETALUMA. 
          AND WHAT THAT LIMITED OPTION IS, IT WOULD BE THREE STOREFRONT CANNABIS IN THE 
          [02:05:01]
BLUE AND RED AREA. 
          SO HERE IS THE, REALLY, THERE'S TWO AMENDMENTS TO OUR ZONING CODE THAT YOU WOULD BE RECOMMENDING TONIGHT. 
          UH, THE FIRST ONE IS TO AMEND AND YOU CAN SEE IT IN TRACK CHANGES WHAT THE EDITS ARE. 
          BUT WE'VE ALWAYS ALLOWED RETAIL OF CANNABIS IN THE BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL. 
          BUT WE'VE JUST LIMITED THAT RETAIL TO TWO DELIVERY PERMITS. 
          BUT AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, AND IT'S REALLY CLEAR IN THE NEXT, THE CLEAN VERSION OF THE DEFINITION WHERE THE YELLOW WOULD BE ADDING THE THREE STOREFRONTS TO RETAIL. 
          AND THE GREEN IS KEEPING THE TWO, UH, DELIVERY. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT THE REAL SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT IS. 
          IT WOULD BE AMENDING OUR GLOSSARY, CHAPTER 28 OF THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING OR ORDINANCE TO HAVE THIS NEW CLEAN VERSION ABOUT RETAIL THAT ACCOUNTS FOR STOREFRONT AS WELL AS THE TWO DELIVERY. 
          SO THAT IS THE SUBSTANTIVE DEFINITION TO THE RETAIL, UH, SALE DEFINITION. 
          AND THEN JUST A MINOR, UH, CHANGE TO OUR CURRENT ZONING TABLE. 
          AND REALLY, AND IT'S SHOWN HERE, THE ONLY CHANGE IS RATHER THAN HAVING THE CHAPTER B 10 15, IT WOULD BE 6.10 OF OUR MUNICIPAL CODE. 
          AND THAT'S JUST BECAUSE WE FEEL CHAPTER OR TITLE 10 IS PEACE, SAFETY AND MORALS. 
          UH, AND CANNABIS DOESN'T REALLY FIT THERE. 
          IT FITS BETTER IN TITLE SIX BUSINESS REGULATIONS. 
          SO JUST A MINOR CHANGE TO THE NUMBERING. 
          AND I WOULD IMAGINE WHEN THIS ORDINANCE GOES TO CITY COUNCIL, THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES TO THE ACTUAL, UH, SIX POINT 10 AS WELL. 
          UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, RETAIL SALE HAS ALWAYS BEEN PERMITTED BY, RIGHT. 
          UH, IT IS SUBJECT TO OBVIOUSLY THE TWO DELIVERY PERMITS AND THEN THE RECOMMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL THREE STOREFRONT. 
          UM, SO PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE BUSINESS PARKING AND INDUSTRIAL. 
          UM, AND AS THIS IS A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE OUR GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS AS WELL AS FINDINGS RELATED TO PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, AND WELFARE. 
          SO HERE ARE SOME OF THE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS, AND THEY'RE SPELLED OUT AND ITALICS IN THE STAFF REPORT TO EXPLAIN WHY. 
          UH, IT'S CONSISTENT, BUT REALLY IT'S, UH, ECONOMIC DIVERSITY OPPORTUNITIES EXPAND RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES, A BALANCED LAND USE PROGRAM, MAINTAIN BUSINESS PARK USES, UH, AND SOME MORE. 
          AS WE WOULD BE HAVING STOREFRONT IN THE CITY, PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE TO TRAVEL TO THE COUNTY OR THE NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS THAT ALLOW RETAIL IN STOREFRONTS. 
          SO THERE WOULD BE SOME CONVENIENCE THERE FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS REDUCING VMT. 
          SO HERE ARE SOME MORE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS. 
          AND AGAIN, IT'S MORE IN DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE RESOLUTION. 
          AND THEN HERE ARE THE CONSISTENCY FOR PUBLIC NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE FINDINGS, BUT ALLOW NEW JOB OPPORTUNITIES. 
          THE TAX REVENUE FROM THE RETAIL SALE USE, UH, CAN BE USED FOR POTHOLES OR OTHER CITY USES. 
          UM, IF THE CONVENIENCE FOR THE PUBLIC NO LONGER HAVING TO TRAVEL TO THE COUNTY OR, UH, SANTA ROSA RUNNER PARK TO GET CANNABIS. 
          SO THERE'LL BE CONVENIENCE THERE. 
          LESS VMT. 
          UM, AND THEN JUST THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE, WE HAVE OUR, UH, REGULATIONS TO REGULATE THE USES AS WELL AS THE BUFFERS. 
          AND THAT THIS IS CURRENTLY IN A ZONE THAT WE KNOW THAT IT IS OKAY. 
          AND THERE WON'T BE HOPEFULLY TOO MANY NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES LIKE DOWNTOWN OR NEAR RESIDENTIAL. 
          UM, AND THEN HERE ARE THE SQL FINDINGS. 
          AND THE FIRST ONE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE 1 5, 3, 1, 8, 3. 
          IT IS THE GENERAL CONSISTENCY WITH OUR COMMUNITY PLANS, OUR GENERAL PLAN, OUR ZONING CODE. 
          AND AS PREVIOUSLY A COUPLE SIDES, I EXPLAINED WHY IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR GENERAL PLAN. 
          IT'S CON CONSISTENT WITH OUR ZONING CODE AS, UH, IN THE DOWN OR IN THE INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS PARK DISTRICTS. 
          WE ALLOW RETAIL, WE ALLOW CANNABIS, UH, USES, WE ALLOW RETAIL CANNABIS. 
          UH, SO IT'S CONSISTENT THERE. 
          UH, AS WELL AS THE COMMENTS. 
          AND, AND I'LL JUST GO BACK TO THAT, THIS FIRST SEQUEL, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A CASE LAST YEAR, UH, CITY OF POMONA V LUCAS, WHERE THE CITY OF POMONA DID EXACTLY THIS, THEIR CANNABIS ORDINANCE. 
          THEY FOUND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, ZONING CODE AND THE GENERAL PLAN THERE THAT WAS UPHELD. 
          AND OURS IS EVEN LESS THERE 'CAUSE THEY WERE DOING A WHOLE BUNCH OF USES. 
          BUT THE THOUGHT PROCESS IS, IS THAT RETAIL WAS ANALYZED IN PETALUMA AS WELL AS IN THE CITY OF POMONA. 
          AND THE JET CANNABIS RETAIL WOULD BE SIMILAR IMPACTS AS THE RETAIL. 
          [02:10:01]
SO THEY WERE FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT. 
          UH, THE COMMON SENSE, AGAIN, THIS IS BECAUSE RETAIL'S ALWAYS CANNABIS HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN, UH, BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL, THE SAME DISTRICTS WHERE WE'D BE ADDING IT, THE THREE STOREFRONTS, AND IT WOULD BE KIND OF LIMITED JUST TO THOSE THREE STOREFRONTS AS WELL AS THE BUFFERS AND THE OTHER POLICE REGULATIONS. 
          AND THEN JUST 15 3 0 1 CLASS, ONE CLASS, TWO CLASS THREE EXEMPTIONS FOR EXISTING FACILITIES. 
          UH, NEW MINOR CONSTRUCTION. 
          'CAUSE THIS IS WHERE THE CANNABIS STOREFRONT RETAILS WOULD LIVE. 
          UM, SO THAT'S REALLY MY PRESENTATION. 
          BRIAN, ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD OR, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND I THINK I'LL BRING IT BACK TO MAYBE THE MAP, IF THAT MIGHT HELP. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, CAN YOU JUST WALK THROUGH THE LIMITATIONS? I MEAN, I KNOW WE KIND OF INHERITED THE TWO LIMIT ON DELIVERY, BUT CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE, THE REASONING FOR THE LIMITS ON THREE IN-PERSON RETAIL AND THEN TWO DELIVERY? BECAUSE I'M ALMOST SEEING WE'RE KIND OF SITE RESTRICTED ANYWAY, BUT CAN YOU JUST SPEAK TO THAT? YEAH, AND MAYBE BRIAN, YOU CAN HELP TOO, BUT I KIND OF SAW THIS AS MAYBE AS A TEST OR PILOT PROGRAM HERE TO SEE WHAT, HOW THREE WOULD DO IN THE CITY OR, UH, SO ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY IS CORRECT. 
          UM, PART OF THIS ALSO GOES BACK TO, UM, AS COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, CATER THOMPSON MAY RECALL, UM, PART OF THE DISCUSSION WITH THE GOALS AND PRIORITIES. 
          UM, AND, UH, THERE WAS THAT DISCUSSION. 
          IS IT THREE? IS IT FOUR? UM, AND SO, UH, WHAT WE ARE COMING BACK, UM, TO COUNCIL, UM, WITH THAT, UM, IT'S REFERENCED HERE WITH THE THREE, UM, IS BASED ON THE DIRECTION THAT WE RECEIVE FROM COUNCIL AND SPEAKING STRAIGHT TO THAT POINT ABOUT A PILOT. 
          UM, WHAT KIND OF MONITORING DO WE PLAN TO DO, UH, ONGOING, YOU KNOW, WITH PUBLIC SAFETY AND WITH EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE CITY TEAM TO SEE HOW THIS IS GOING? I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE, THAT FEEDBACK AND ANALYSIS? CERTAINLY. 
          AND SO THIS FALLS UNDER OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT, UH, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OUR PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          AND, UM, I ASSURE YOU, I I DON'T BELIEVE WE SCHEDULED, UM, THESE TWO ITEMS TONIGHT AND INTENTIONALLY. 
          UM, BUT THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A, A CONTRAST WITH HOW THE, UM, THE ALCOHOL NUISANCE ORDINANCE, UM, WAS WRITTEN. 
          UM, WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO HOW THE CANNABIS ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN. 
          AND SO, UM, IN THE CANNABIS ORDINANCE, IT'S VERY CLEAR ON THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, UM, THE ELIGIBILITY FOR ONE TO RECEIVE A PERMIT. 
          UM, AND THAT WOULDN'T BE A USE PERMIT. 
          SO IT'S SORT OF BIFURCATED OUT OF THE LAND USE CONTEXT AND MORE OF A, UM, BUSINESS, UM, UH, OWNER, UH, UM, CONTEXT. 
          SO IT'S, WE PULL THE LAND USE COMPONENT OUT. 
          IT'S MORE ARE YOU A GOOD OPERATOR? UM, ULTIMATELY THAT'S DONE THROUGH ENFORCEMENT, UH, BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND CODE ENFORCEMENT. 
          MM-HMM,  TERRIFIC. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. 
          GREAT. 
          UH, HEIDI, I THINK YOU AND THEN RICK AND THEN JANICE. 
          I, I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION. 
          UM, THIS IS GETTING INTO THE WEEDS A LITTLE BIT, BUT YOU KNOW, I NOTICED ONE OF THE AREAS IN THE, UM, SOUTHEAST IS, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, IN RED, IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE RIVER MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND ALSO THE ELLIS CREEK PARK. 
          AND IS THAT, UM, YEAH, LET ME, THAT, THAT GIVES ME SOME PAUSE. 
          CERTAINLY. 
          AND SO, UH, PART OF THE CHALLENGE, UM, AND WHAT WE, UH, THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN TOO IS, UM, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE ANALYSIS WE DID, YOU KNOW, A MONTH AGO, UM, AND WHAT THE EXISTING LAND USES MAY BE WHEN POTENTIALLY A PERMIT IS SUBMITTED, YOU KNOW, EIGHT MONTHS FROM NOW IS THINGS CAN CHANGE MON, YOU KNOW, OTHER SCHOOLS MAY COME ONLINE. 
          AND SO THERE'S ALWAYS THE CAVEAT, UM, IF AND WHEN A PERMIT IS SUBMITTED, THEY WILL STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH THE, THE CHECKS AND BALANCES. 
          AND SO IF, UM, COMMISSIONER, UH, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND JUST POINTING SPECIFICALLY 'CAUSE I CAN, I MAY BE ABLE TO CLARIFY. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          TAKE THE RED, THE ONE, THE FURTHEST ONE TO THE SOUTHEAST MM-HMM. 
           AND THEN GO RIGHT SOUTH OF THAT. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE THE MONTESSORI IS. 
          SO WE CAN TALK, UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK. 
          UM, I DO KNOW WE DID DO THE ANALYSIS, UH, BASED ON THE CRITERIA. 
          UM, AND SO DYLAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN, UM, POINT TO THE RADIUS, UM, BUT WE DID LOOK AT IT IN CONTEXT OF SCHOOLS, UM, AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL. 
          UM, THAT SAID, WE ALWAYS DO 
          [02:15:01]
OUR BEST TO IDENTIFY. 
          UM, SO IT'S MUCH EASIER ON THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SIDE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, AND SO IF THERE ARE ONES THAT WE HAVE MISSED, AGAIN, UM, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UM, CITY ATTORNEY, BUT, UM, EVEN IF IT DOES SHOW UP, THERE TYPICALLY IS A CAVEAT THAT, UM, IT MAY BE HERE, BUT YOU DO NEED TO VERIFY, UM, PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL, UM, AND SCHOOLS. 
          THERE'S DEFINITELY NO RESIDENCES THERE, BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY THE SCHOOL, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S 600 FEET, BUT IT'S DARN CLOSE. 
          AND THERE'S ALSO THE ELLIS CREEK PARK. 
          MM-HMM. 
           IS RIGHT THERE TOO. 
          AND WHAT I JUST, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN EXCLUDE CERTAIN AREAS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HATE FOR THIS AREA TO BECOME PLACE WHERE PEOPLE GO, YOU KNOW, GET STONED AND GO TO THE PARK WHERE THE KIDS ARE. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID HERE, TO ME. 
          SO ANYWAY, THAT IS THE AREA THAT I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT WORRIED ABOUT FOR THIS. 
          SO, BASED UPON A QUICK MEASUREMENT ON GOOGLE MAPS, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE ABOUT A THOUSAND FEET FROM THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL TO THE AREA, UH, THAT'S SHOWN IN RED THAT'S ZONED FOR, UM, BUSINESS PARK. 
          WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THIS, UH, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THIS DISTANCE, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT ARBITRARY KIND OF. 
          YES. 
          SO IN, IN THIS, UH, CASE, IT'S, UH, FROM PARCEL LINE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, AND SO IT SORT OF, I MEAN, MEAN IT'S, IT'S LITERALLY A, IT'S JUST A MEASUREMENT. 
          SO IT'S A THOUSAND FEET, UM, UM, IS WHAT THE EXAMPLE THAT'S BEING USED, UM, FROM THE PARCEL LINE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I, UM, THIS IS A GOOD, UH, SUGGESTION OR AT LEAST A, UM, START OF A DISCUSSION, UM, FOR THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IS BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, ON THE, UH, ZONING CODE SIDE. 
          UM, I, I WONDER IF MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST START TAKING A RUNNING LIST OF THINGS THAT WE MAY WANNA RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL. 
          'CAUSE ULTIMATELY I BELIEVE THIS WOULD COME THROUGH ON THE, UM, THE MUNI CO SIDE, RIGHT? WELL, THE BUFFERS ARE IN AS A FOOTNOTE IN OUR TABLE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE CAN DEFINITELY AMEND THAT AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE OR JUST TELLING CITY COUNCIL, HEY, PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, OKAY. 
          THE, THE RESOLUTION. 
          BUT HERE ARE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THEY MADE AS WELL. 
          YEAH. 
          HMM. 
          I LIKE THAT IDEA. 
          YEAH. 
          LIKE IF WE, WE CAN RECOMMEND TO EXCLUDE THIS AREA IF WE AGREED. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          UH, I BELIEVE IT'S RICK THEN COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          YEP. 
          UM, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, UM, IS DELIVERY SUBJECT TO THOSE SAME, UH, BUFFER ZONES, CORRECT? YEAH. 
          SO THAT'S ACTUALLY WHERE, UM, SORRY. 
          SO, UH, DELIVERY RANGE OR HOW THE ESTABLISHMENTS DELIVERY DELIVERY DESTINATION. 
          SO CAN A DELIVERY BE MADE WITHIN THOSE BUFFER ZONES? UH, UH, YES. 
          DELIVERY CAN BE MADE. 
          SO IT'S THE INVERSE. 
          SO WHERE WE CAME UP WITH THE, UM, IT'S THE LOCATION OF THE DELIVERY SITE IS WHERE THE RADIUS, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THE, THINK ABOUT THE SITE OF THE DELIVERY LOCATION IN PROXIMITY TO THE SCHOOL'S IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND SO WE APPLIED THAT LOGIC TO, UM, THE RETAIL STOREFRONT. 
          GOT IT. 
          YEAH. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          SO I DON'T, THERE'S A LIMITATION, A DELIVERY CAN BE MADE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO A YEAH. 
          A SCHOOL UNDER CURRENT ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW. 
          CORRECT. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, THERE'S NO LIMITATION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE, UM, UH, THE RELO RETAIL LOCATIONS, UM, IS THERE ANY DOCUMENTATION OF, UH, YOU KNOW, EXCESSIVE POLICE ACTION OR OTHER NEGATIVE, UM, UH, CONSEQUENCES FROM ANY NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, YOU KNOW, IN THE COUNTY OR, OR, OR ELSEWHERE, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS? YOUR HONOR? GREAT QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. 
          SO PART OF THIS, UM, I'LL, UM, PIN BACK TO THE, UM, GOALS AND PRIORITIES, DISCUSSION ON THE, UH, BALANCING OF, UH, WANTING TO BRING FORWARD A, I DON'T WANNA SAY QUICK, BUT A, UM, MAYBE A, UM, A MORE SURGICAL, UM, APPROACH TO ALLOWING RETAIL CANNABIS IN TOWN. 
          UM, AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE. 
          AND SO, UM, WHILE WE HAVE DONE SOME PRELIMINARY RESEARCH, UM, FOR, WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS, UM, I WILL SAY IT'S PRETTY SPREAD. 
          YOU HAVE SOME ON ONE SIDE, UH, USING THE EXAMPLE OF SANTA ROSA WHERE, UM, IT ESSENTIALLY, IT WAS, IT WAS LIMITLESS, RIGHT? SO THERE WAS LESS OF A CONSIDERATION ON CAPS. 
          AND SO I THINK NOW THERE'S SORT OF THE UNINTENDED, UM, 
          [02:20:01]
THERE'S JUST THE IMPACTS THAT ARE BEING FELT, UM, BUT SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, THAT MUCH, UM, MORE OF A, UM, I MEAN, IT'S AN ANALYSIS. 
          UM, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE BRINGING BACK AS PART OF THE LARGER, UM, DISCUSSION ON CANNABIS COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          UM, MINE MINE'S PROBABLY MORE OF A COMMENT, 'CAUSE THIS WAS DONE BEFORE I WAS ON THE COUNCIL OF THE MAPPING. 
          AND I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO NOTICE THAT IT'S IN BUSINESS ZONES AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES, AND IT ALL SEEMS TO BE ON THE EAST SIDE. 
          SO WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT VMT, WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE FROM THE WEST SIDE DRIVING TO THE EAST SIDE. 
          AND SO EVENTUALLY IT WOULD BE GREAT IF IT WAS OPENED UP, BECAUSE I KNOW LIKE IN DAVIS, LIKE TWO BLOCKS FROM THEIR DOWNTOWN OR TWO, THREE BLOCKS FROM THEIR DOWNTOWN, YOU KNOW, THERE IS JUST LIKE THIS LITTLE HOUSE AND YOU KNOW, IT'S RIGHT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT'S RIGHT IN THE DOWNTOWN. 
          AND SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE, UM, WE'RE TOO CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE WE DON'T WANT SOMETHING WHERE SOMETIMES IT MIGHT BE A BETTER LOCATION, BUT IT WAS REALLY EASY TO SAY, LET'S DO IT INDUSTRIAL PARKS AND BUSINESS PARKS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT HERE, NOBODY'S GONNA COMPLAIN. 
          AND HOPEFULLY EVENTUALLY IT'LL BE OPENED UP THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THE WHOLE CITY INSTEAD OF JUST, UM, ONCE AGAIN, INUNDATING THE EAST SIDE  WITH, UM, JUST INUNDATING THE EAST SIDE AND NOT MAKING IT MORE EQUITABLE FOR BOTH SIDES. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE COMMITMENT FROM STAFF AS PART OF, MAYBE I'LL JUST CALL IT PHASE TWO OF RETAIL CANNABIS. 
          UM, WHICH, UM, PERFECTLY LINES UP WITH THE TIMING AS IT RELATES TO ZONING CODE UPDATE AS IT RELATES TO OUR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. 
          I WILL, I WILL MENTION, UM, PART OF THE DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL ABOUT WANTING TO HAVE A WEST SIDE LOCATION, RIGHT? SO THAT WAS A, A KEY, UM, TOPIC DISCUSSION. 
          AND SO AGAIN, WITH THE TIME, UM, AND THE RESOURCES THAT WE DID HAVE, WE DID LOOK AT, UM, OTHER LOCATIONS. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHERE YOU DO SEE THIS MAP HERE. 
          UM, THE C ONE AND C TWO, THOSE ARE COMMERCIALLY ZONED DISTRICTS, UM, TO SEE IF, UM, AS PART OF THIS EXERCISE, UM, ARE THERE ELIGIBLE, UM, PARCELS AND LOCATIONS THAT MAY ACHIEVE HAVING A LITTLE MORE PARODY, RIGHT? MAYBE ANOTHER WEST SIDE, UM, OR TO HAVE A WEST SIDE LOCATION, UM, WITHOUT HAVING TO DO THE BIG, UM, ANALYSIS, RIGHT? BECAUSE, UM, IT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY WHEN YOU, LET'S JUST USE DOWNTOWN, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S ZONED MIXED USE. 
          UM, AND SO THAT LENS FOR A, A LARGER DISCUSSION AROUND THE, THE RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? IF WE DON'T, IF WE WANT TO CREATE THE, THE BUFFERS AROUND RESIDENTIAL, UM, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF, UM, THINKING AND ANALYSIS ON WHAT THAT IMPACT MAY BE FOR OUR MIXED USE, ALL OF MIXED USE. 
          UM, SO ALL THE PER, WE DON'T HAVE IT UP HERE, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, ALMOST ALL OF OUR DOWNTOWN IS ZONED MIXED USE. 
          AND SO IT'S, UM, IT'S JUST GONNA REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, THAT MUCH MORE. 
          SO WE DID DO THAT JUST TO SEE, OKAY, IF, IF WE DID EXPAND THIS TO THE COMMERCIAL, COULD THAT ACHIEVE ONE OF THE COUNCIL GOALS? UM, AND SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS THE, AN, THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO. 
          UM, IT, AGAIN, IT OPENS UP, UM, UH, THE STRETCH, UH, WITH THE MATTRESS STORE, UM, AND, UM, JERSEY MICS. 
          UM, THAT'S THE LITTLE PURPLE ON WASHINGTON. 
          BUT AGAIN, ALL OF IT'S SORT OF BEING PUSHED ONTO THE EAST SIDE. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          UM, AND SO IT, AGAIN, BECAUSE, SO WHAT, WHY STAFF DIDN'T RECOMMEND EXPANDING THE ZONING BEYOND, UM, BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL, UM, WAS IT WASN'T GOING TO ACCOMP ACCOMPLISH THE, THE GOAL THAT COUNCIL HAD OF LOOKING AT IT DOWNTOWN. 
          AND SO WE'RE GONNA SAVE THAT FOR THE PHASE TWO. 
          AND I'M HAPPY WITH STARY WITH PHASE ONE. 
          WE HAD TO START SOMEWHERE, AND I'M ACTUALLY PLEASED THAT WE'RE JUST DOING THREE SO WE CAN REALLY SEE IF THAT'S THE SWEET NUMBER. 
          'CAUSE SANTA ROSA JUST OPENED IT UP AND THAT ENDED UP BEING A DISASTER FOR THEM. 
          SO I'M ACTUALLY FINE WITH THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING. 
          IT'S JUST, UM, AND, AND JUST TO SAY THAT PEOPLE DON'T NECESSARILY GO TO A STORE AND THEN THEY WALK OUT TO A PARK JUST TO GET STONED. 
          I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A LOT OF OLDER PEOPLE THAT LIKE CHEWING GUMMIES, YOU KNOW, FOR SLEEPING. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER USES, AND SO I JUST DON'T WANNA LEAVE IT THAT THAT'S WHAT  THESE ARE ABOUT. 
          USUALLY IT'S PRETTY SAFE AND THE PEOPLE GOING IN AND GOING OUT ARE VERY SAFE. 
          AND, UM, AND I'VE MET SOME OF 
          [02:25:01]
THE PROSPECTIVE, UM, BUSINESSES AND VERY RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE. 
          AND SO I THINK THIS WAS A GOOD START FOR PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO CAN COME LATER. 
          I WAS GONNA SEE IF YOU WANNA MAKE YOUR 15 MINUTE NEIGHBORHOODS REALLY WORK, HERE'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY . 
          UM, MOST OF MY QUE I MEAN, FRANKLY, ALL MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. 
          I, I WOULD HAVE MORE QUESTIONS IF THE SCOPE OF THIS WERE BIGGER, BUT WE'RE NOT A POLICYMAKING BODY AND WE'RE REALLY LIMITED TO THE SCOPE OF WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED FOR THIS PHASE ONE, WHICH SEEMS COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED GIVEN THE PHASES THAT ARE PLANNED TO COME INTO PLAY LATER. 
          AND GIVEN THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF WE DON'T YET HAVE A CLEAR PATH FOR CLEAR, UM, OPPORTUNITY ON BOTH SIDES OF TOWN, EVEN IF WE DO TAKE THIS EXPANSION. 
          UM, WITH THAT IN MIND, IF THERE ARE NO, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I WANNA MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT SINCE I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE FOLKS HERE TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, GREAT. 
          UH, THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. 
          PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON. 
          IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO ALREADY, PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD AND BRING IT TO THE CLERK. 
          AND IN THIS CASE, FEEL FREE TO COME UP AND SPEAK AND THEN GIVE THE CARD TO THE CLERK. 
          I DON'T WANNA SLOW YOU DOWN. 
          AND WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR OUR SPEAKER, HAVE, DID WE RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE MEETING ON THIS? WE RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS MEETING ITEM PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HI. 
          HELLO. 
          MY NAME'S JAMIE REAGAN. 
          I OWN DOWN UNDER INDUSTRIES, WHICH IS HERE IN PETALUMA. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE A PETALUMA ADDRESS. 
          WE ARE A PETALUMA DISPENSARY. 
          WE PAY TAXES IN PETALUMA. 
          UM, AND AS YOU'RE CONSIDERING ALLOWING THREE DISPENSARIES LOCALLY, I, I WANNA BE CONSIDERED AS ONE OF THOSE THREE, UM, FOR RECOMMENDATION, UH, PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO, WORRY ME SOME BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN WITH OTHER CITIES SUCH AS SANTA ROSA. 
          UM, IF YOU'RE GONNA SAY WE'RE ALLOWING THREE NOW IN THESE VERY LIMITED ZONES, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE FUTURE OF PHASE TWO AND HOW MANY MORE DISPENSARIES WILL BE ALLOWED? UM, YOU KNOW, IT, THAT IS ALARMING FOR ME. 
          UM, LIMITING THE NUMBER OF STOREFRONTS DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, ALLOWS OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESSES TO BE SUCCESSFUL, UM, AND BEING SURE THAT IT MEETS THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. 
          UH, WHICH I'VE HEARD COUNCIL SAY, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE CONCERNS ARE ALLOWING SOMETHING FOR THE WEST SIDE. 
          SO, UH, I LIVE ON THE WEST SIDE OF PETALUMA. 
          I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A DISPENSARY ON THE WEST SIDE OF PETALUMA. 
          UM, BUT YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE ZONING THAT'S AVAILABLE, THAT IS NOT FEASIBLE. 
          SO, UM, I, YOU KNOW, PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE OPTIONS, IF YOU JUST ALLOW THESE PERMITS TO BE A CUP, UM, IT WOULD BE CONDITIONAL ANYWAY BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THAT SITE. 
          YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT BE A SMALL SHOPPING CENTER OR, UM, SOME OTHER USE, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY FIT THE CRITERIA OF THE NEEDS OF THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, ALSO NOT BE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A SCHOOL OR PARK. 
          I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE A BETTER APPROACH. 
          HOWEVER, I'M NOT SAYING I DON'T WANT YOU TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          I JUST THINK THAT THE, THE PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO WITH A LIMIT OF THREE OR POTENTIALLY ADDING MORE, YOU KNOW, POSES A RISK FOR, FOR HOW THAT FUTURE LOOKS. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO TO MENTION THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? EVERYONE IS ALLOWED TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT? GO AHEAD, GO RIGHT AHEAD. 
          MICHAEL BLUTO, UM, NOT DOING THIS IN MY ROLE AS AN ATTORNEY BY ANY STRETCH, JUST AS A RESIDENT OF PETALUMA, I FIND NO PROBLEMS WITH HAVING, UM, DISPENSARIES IN TOWN, UH, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY'RE ALLOWED SEEMINGLY EVERYWHERE ELSE, YOU SHOULD, WE SHOULD ALL BE ABLE TO, TO CHOOSE OUR, OUR FOIBLES DEVICES AND PLEASURES. 
          HOWEVER, I HAVE HAD, UM, SOME INTERACTION WITH CLIENTS WHO ARE IN THE MARIJUANA INDUSTRY AND RECOGNIZE THAT SECURITY IS A VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT, UM, BECAUSE WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF THE FEDERAL BANKING ISSUES, 
          [02:30:01]
UH, MY UNDERSTANDING, AND IT MAY HAVE CHANGED, AND IF SO, I APOLOGIZE THAT A LOT OF CASH INVOLVED. 
          AND SO SECURITY, UH, FOR SUCH LARGE CASH BUSINESSES IS A GENUINE CONCERN. 
          I'M JUST HOPING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE AREAS THAT ARE APPROVED, UM, NEED TO BE PLACES THAT ARE ABLE TO HAVE SECURE, UH, BUSINESSES. 
          AND I'M SURE THOSE BUSINESSES THINK THAT'S NECESSARY FOR THEMSELVES ALSO, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD WANNA LOOK AT ON A REGULAR BASIS WHEN, WHEN LOOKING FOR THESE BUSINESSES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND NOW WE WILL MOVE BACK TO COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER, I JUST WANNA SAY SECURITY IS ACTUALLY EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS PROBLEMS IN SANTA ROSA AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE REALLY DEEP INSIDE LIKE A BUSINESS PARK WHERE MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE MORE ON A PERIPHERAL, YOU KNOW, SO YOU CAN SEE INSTEAD OF, UM, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE SOME BUSINESS PARKS, YOU'RE PRETTY KIND OF, YOU GET DEEPER AND DEEPER INSIDE, AND THAT'S WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WOULD BE MORE PROBLEMS THAN, UM, A, A STOREFRONT THAT YOU CAN REALLY SEE THAT'S VISIBLE. 
          SO, UM, YEAH, NO, SECURITY IS, IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. 
          MM-HMM, , YEAH, I THINK SECURITY IS, IS THE, A MAJOR ISSUE AROUND THE CASH TRANSACTIONS. 
          UM, BUT I WILL NOTE THAT, UH, I, I WITNESSED, UH, A ROBBERY, A ARMED ROBBERY, UM, RIGHT HERE IN PETALUMA, UM, RIGHT HERE ON THE WEST SIDE. 
          AND IT WAS NOT AT A RETAIL LOCATION, IT WAS AT THE OFFICE LOCATION. 
          UM, SO OKAY, IT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE. 
          UM, IT, IT, IT'S NOT JUST ISOLATED ON RETAIL LOCATIONS. 
          I WOULDN'T WANNA BIAS AGAINST THE, THE RE RETAIL LOCATIONS FOR THAT REASON SOLELY. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, BUT I DO THINK PROBABLY THE CASH, UM, ATTRACTION, UH, IS, IS PROBABLY THE, THE GREATEST RISK. 
          UM, BUT NONETHELESS, I'D, I'D BE INCLINED TO SUPPORT THIS MEASURE. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M SO INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MEASURE IT AS IS. 
          UM, I WILL ASK STAFF FOR CONSIDERATIONS OF THINGS LIKE HOW WE SELECT OPERATORS, WHAT CONSIDERATION WE GIVE OPERATORS. 
          UH, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY DETERMINATIONS ON THAT TONIGHT. 
          WHERE DOES THAT COME INTO PLAY? IS THERE A FUTURE, YOU KNOW, REVIEWING THE PERMITTING PROCESS, REVIEWING THE MUNI CODE? UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF INSIGHT ON THAT. 
          CERTAINLY. 
          AND SO AGAIN, THIS GOES BACK TO SOME, UM, RESEARCH THAT WE LOOKED AT AS PART OF THE DELIVERY ON THE DELIVERY SIDE. 
          UM, AND SO IT, IT DOES GO ACROSS THE BOARD. 
          UM, SOME JURISDICTIONS, UM, THEY LEAVE IT UP TO THEIR COUNCIL TO MAKE THE CALL. 
          UM, SO JUST EVEN THINKING ABOUT THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG, THEY WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS. 
          UM, WHAT WE HAD DONE ON OUR PROCESS WAS A, UM, TRANSPARENT, UH, FAIR, UH, ESSENTIALLY AN RFP PROCESS. 
          AND SO WE OPEN UP, UH, SOLICIT PROPOSALS. 
          UM, THERE'S A SET, YOU KNOW, CLEAR SET OF CRITERIA, UH, WHICH, UM, WITH EACH OF THOSE, UM, PROPOSALS WOULD BE JUDGED ON. 
          AND SO IF THERE'S AN OVER, UM, UM, IF THERE ARE MORE, LET'S SAY WE LAND ON THREE OR CITY COUNCIL LANDS ON THREE, UM, AND WE HAVE FOUR, UM, THAT COME AND SUBMIT, UM, ULTIMATELY, UM, IT WOULD END UP BEING THIS COMMITTEE. 
          UM, AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S STILL BEING WORKED OUT. 
          UM, BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHED MORE LIGHT ON THAT TO, TO COUNCIL WHEN THE, THE MUNI CODE, UM, IS PROPOSED TO BE REC, UM, IS RECOMMENDED TO BE MODIFIED. 
          AND JUST TO FOLLOW ON THAT, DO WE PLAN ON LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, CHANGES ABOUT KIND OF HOW WE SELECT OPERATORS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, UH, IN THE FUTURE FOR, FOR PEOPLE WHO WANNA GIVE COMMENTARY ON THAT SIDE OF THINGS? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE, WE ARE, UM, AS A STATE IN PARTICULAR, BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PAST, UM, UH, SORT OF, UM, AND THE IMPACTS THAT, UM, THE CRIMINAL SIDE, UM, HAS PLAYED. 
          AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD THOUGHT AT THE STATE LEVEL ON HOW TO PROVIDE A MORE EQUITABLE APPROACH TO SELECTING AND, UM, UM, SELECTING BUSINESSES AND ENSURING THAT, UM, SOME OF THE PRIOR POLICIES AREN'T, UM, DISCRIMINATORY AND HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT. 
          AND SO THERE'S THIS, UM, I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS EQUITY TOOLKIT THAT THE STATE HAD PUT OUT. 
          IT CAME UP ALSO, UM, AT COUNCIL WHEN WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION. 
          AND SO ALL 
          [02:35:01]
OF THAT WILL, UM, PLAY INTO THE UPCOMING, UM, PROPOSED SELECTION PROCESS AS MORE INFORMATION COMES OUT. 
          UM, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT CHANGES AT THE POTENTIAL CHANGES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. 
          AND SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE WOULD WATCH. 
          UM, AND SO FOR FUTURE, UM, RFP, UH, PROPOSALS AND PROCEDURES, LIKE WE, WE'D WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING BEST PRACTICES AND NOT, UM, DISCOUNTING PEOPLE THAT ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          I KNOW THERE'S EXCITING DISCUSSIONS IN THE CITY OF OAKLAND ABOUT LIKE GUIDELINES, ABOUT CAPITALIZATION OF OPERATORS COMING IN, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, I, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE, UM, RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE EXCLUSION OF THE SOUTHEAST AREA THAT'S NEXT TO THE SCHOOL, AND THEN THE PARK. 
          I JUST THINK WITH, I MEAN, THE SCHOOL IS QUITE CLOSE, UM, AND THE PARK IS RIGHT THERE. 
          AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE ESTABLISHMENTS ARE VERY REPUTABLE AND, UH, I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT GO THERE, BUT THERE ARE INCIDENTS THAT HAPPEN AROUND THESE SOMETIMES. 
          AND, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE VERY CLOSE TO A SCHOOL WITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN THERE AND THE PARK RIGHT THERE TOO. 
          AND ALSO, IN ADDITION TO THE SECURITY CONCERNS THAT MIGHT, UM, COME UP WITH, UM, BEING A CASH ESTABLISHMENT, I THINK THAT'S ALSO KIND OF SKETCHY TO HAVE SO CLOSE TO A SCHOOL. 
          SO, UM, I'D BE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION WITH THE EXCLUSION OF THAT AREA. 
          UM, I WOULD, I'D BE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATION, MOSTLY, MOSTLY AS IS, UH, I, I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE, UH, CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED IN PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO AND WHAT THOSE NUMBERS EVENTUALLY LOOK LIKE AND WHY NOT USE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          UH, TO START OFF THE WHOLE PROCESS, THIS IS AN ODD ONE FOR ME BECAUSE WHEN SANTA ROSA WAS DOING THEIR PROCESS, BECAUSE OF MY JOB AT THE TIME, I HAD TO MONITOR KIND OF, ALL OF US IN SIMILAR, SIMILAR OFFICES WERE MONITORING WHAT SANTA ROSA WAS DOING. 
          'CAUSE THE STATE LAW HAD GONE THROUGH AND THEY WERE KIND OF THE LOCAL EXPERIMENT IN THIS COUNTY. 
          AND I, I SAW WHAT, YOU KNOW, OPENING UP LOOKED LIKE, NOT ONLY SEEING HOW MUCH THAT CANNIBALIZED EXISTING BUSINESS, BUT THEN TO SEE THE ONEROUS REGULATORY STRUCTURE THAT CITY APPLIED ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS ALREADY COMING IN FROM THE STATE. 
          AND THIS WAS BEFORE THE STATE HAD GONE THROUGH THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS IT HAS SO FAR. 
          UH, AND THEN TO ALSO SEE JUST WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE A MANUFACTURE. 
          I KEEP SAYING MANUFACTURING, WHEN YOU HAVE THE STORAGE COMPONENT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THOSE BIG INDUSTRIAL AREAS THAT ARE IN SANTA ROSA THAT JUST HOLD SUPPLY, WHICH AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, IS NOT REALLY SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. 
          UM, I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED THERE. 
          PROPERTY VALUES MISMATCH, THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES, SOME SITES ARE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RECOVER FROM THAT OVER THERE. 
          UH, AND, AND YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF BOOM BUST CYCLE OF GREAT, YOU'VE GOT FOLKS MOVING IN AND THEN THEY DON'T ACCOUNT FOR THE ADDED REGULATIONS BECAUSE MAYBE THEY'RE NOT A VENDOR THAT KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH AND DOESN'T KNOW THE SECURITY MEANS. 
          AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT BUST, WHICH SANTA ROSA HAS DEFINITELY GONE THROUGH. 
          THE OTHER THING TO THE SECURITY POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, UM, ONE OF MY CLOSE FRIENDS RUNS A SECURITY COMPANY AND USED TO DEAL WITH SANTA ROSA'S CANNABIS ISSUES BE FOR WORK. 
          AND THAT WAS ONE THING THEY CAME COMPLAINED ABOUT CONSTANTLY WAS THE ISSUE OF, BECAUSE OF FEDERAL BANKING LAWS, THEY DEALT WITH ARMED GAR, ARMED ARMED ROBBERIES OF EVERY MAKE AND DESCRIPTION AS, UH, VIBRANT AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE BASED ON, BASED ON TELEVISION. 
          UH, AND THEN THAT STRUGGLE OF MAKING SURE YOU HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE POLICE TO MAKE SURE THEY GOT THERE IN TIME. 
          THAT'S A LONG-WINDED WAY TO SAY, THIS IS WHY I STILL SUPPORT DOING THIS KIND OF INITIAL PHASE TO WORK WITH WHAT WE HAVE AND LETTING STAFF TAKE THE LONGER TERM LOOK OF HOW WE BRING IT OUT, HOW WE BALANCE THE BOTH SIDES OF TOWN AND KEEP THOSE SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND. 
          ONE QUESTION I DID HAVE, 'CAUSE I REMEMBER FROM, FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING, I, I BELIEVE CHIEF MILLER WAS THERE AND THEIR QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT SECURITY ASSESSMENT. 
          I ASSUME THAT THESE SITES INVOLVED, IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY, THERE'LL BE AN ASSESSMENT OF RISK AND RESPONSE TIMES AND ALL OF THE WORK THAT COMES WITH THAT, CORRECT? YES. 
          UM, SO THERE ARE SPECIFIC STANDARDS, UH, RELATED TO ONSITE SECURITY. 
          UM, AND I WOULD ALSO ANTICIPATE AS PART OF THE, UM, SELECTION PROCESS, THERE'S A PUBLIC SAFETY, UM, LENS THAT WE WILL WE'LL TAKE, UM, TO GO ON. 
          [02:40:01]
UM, THE COMMISSIONER'S POINT ABOUT THE SCHOOL, BECAUSE I, I CAN SEE WHERE EXEMPT EXEMPTING THAT AREA IS AN EASY FIX. 
          UH, I DO WONDER IF WE START TO CREEP INTO THAT IN OTHER SPOTS. 
          DO WE KNOW ABOUT SCHOOL PRO ANY OTHER SCHOOL PROXIMITIES TO THESE SPOTS AS THEY'VE BEEN LAID OUT IN THIS SPACE? OR IS THAT THE ONLY ONE? 'CAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T WANT THIS TO END UP TURNING INTO PUZZLE PIECES. 
          GREAT QUESTION. 
          UH, SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT AT OUR FINGERTIPS. 
          I THINK WHAT WE ENDED UP DOING WAS HAVING OUR, UH, MAPPING EXPERT, UH, PLUG IN THE NUMBERS. 
          SO, UM, THE BUFFERS, WE HAVE 600 FEET FROM A SCHOOL OR CHILDCARE CENTER, 200 FEET FROM PARKS, YOUTH CENTERS OR THE LIBRARY AND A HUNDRED FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. 
          AND THIS IS, UM, AGAIN, UM, PARCEL LINE TO PARCEL LINE. 
          UM, AND SO WE USE THAT AS THE, UM, SELECTION. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT THE MAP, UM, YOU SAW, UM, I COULDN'T ANSWER. 
          ARE THERE PARKS OR SCHOOLS JUST BEYOND THOSE BUFFERS? MM-HMM. 
          , UM, WITHOUT COMING BACK AND DOING A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A DEEPER DIVE. 
          UM, AND SO ONE SUGGESTION I WOULD HAVE IS IF THERE IS A NUMBER, UM, THAT THE COMMISSION MAY FEEL THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER, UM, THAT MAY BE A WAY TO ELEVATE THAT AND WE CAN BRING SOME ANALYSIS, UM, FORWARD FOR COUNCIL TO WEIGH. 
          SO IF IT'S WANTING TO EXPAND THE DISTANCE TO OUR LOCAL PARKS, YOUTH CENTERS AND LIBRARY, UM, IF YOU COULD SORT OF SETTLE ON A NUMBER, I KNOW THAT MAY, I MAY BE ASKING, UM, UM, TOO MUCH THERE. 
          UM, BUT THAT WOULD GIVE US ENOUGH TO GO AND DO THAT ANALYSIS OUTSIDE OF JUST, UM, BECAUSE TO CHAIR'S POINT, I COULDN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN, UM, IN OTHER PARTS, IF, UM, THERE ARE PARKS JUST OUTSIDE OF THOSE BUFFERS, WITHOUT GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE DATA, I WOULD SUPPORT INCREASING THE DISTANCE TO 1000 FEET FROM SCHOOLS AND THEN 500 FEET FROM PARKS. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT GETS THE MONTESSORI OUT OF THE HOT WATER, BUT THEN THE PARENTS CAN COME AND HOUND THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ABOUT THAT IF THEY WANT TO. 
          . 
          UH, AND ONE QUESTION I HAVE TO FOLLOW UP TO THAT, LIKE MOST ESTABLISHMENTS, I I TAKE IT, THESE WILL THE VENDORS THAT END UP GETTING APPROVED FOR THESE SITES, THEY'LL HAVE SECURITY PLANS THAT HAVE TO GET APPROVED, CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY, YES. 
          UM, AND SO IT'S, THERE WAS THAT HYPERLINK THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAD, UM, WASN'T, DIDN'T WANT TO CLICK ON, BUT IT, IT DOES IDENTIFY ONSITE SECURITY, UM, ALL EMPLOYEES. 
          SO THERE'S AN AGE, UM, 21 YEARS OF AGE BACKGROUND CHECK. 
          UM, THERE'S A REGISTRATION, UM, SYSTEM THAT WE EMPLOY AS THE CITY, UM, NO ONSITE CONSUMPTION. 
          UM, AND SO SOME OF THIS MAY CHANGE, RIGHT, BASED ON THE CONVERSION FROM A DELIVERY SERVICE TO A RETAIL, UM, STOREFRONT SLASH DELIVERY. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING OFF OF AT THE MOMENT, RIGHT. 
          SO THERE JUST, I GUESS THE CLEAR ANSWER IS YES TO THE ONSITE SECURITY REQUIREMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND JUST FOR EVERYONE'S, UH, INFORMATION, I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE 600 FEET BUFFER ZONE COMES FROM AS OPPOSED TO LIKE 500 OR A THOUSAND OR MORE UNIFORM NUMBER. 
          AND THAT 600 IS THE STATE LAW REGARDING PARKS OR SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY CENTERS. 
          SO THAT'S DEFINITELY JUST THE MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, 600, IS IT 600 FOR PARKS TOO? LET ME CHECK AGAIN, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS THE, WHAT DO WE HAVE? THE 600 FEET OF SCHOOLS? SCHOOLS, UH, CHILDCARE. 
          WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE, BRIAN, AND THEN 200 FEET FROM PARKS, YOUTH CENTERS AND LIBRARY. 
          YEAH, BUT I'LL DOUBLE CHECK. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA INCREASE BOTH OF THOSE RECOMMENDING TO 1,500. 
          ROGER, ROGER. 
          UM, I THINK IT'D BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A, A ZONING OR LAND USE MAP WITH THESE RADIUSES PLOTTED. 
          I MEAN, OTHERWISE WE'RE, HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          AND, UH, THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED THE CHIEF OF POLICE. 
          I THINK IT'D BE GREAT TO HAVE POLICE INPUT ON WHAT THEY'VE EXPERIENCED EITHER IN THIS CITY OR OTHER CITIES, UH, FOR ADVICE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , BUT I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          [02:45:01]
MY ONLY CONCERN WITH, UM, CHANGING THE NUMBERS, I MEAN, IF WE END UP SAYING A SHOPPING CENTER CAN HAVE, UM, A, A BUSINESS AND SO, AND I'M, I'M SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT WHERE THE KMART CENTER WAS, YOU KNOW, SO MAYBE, I MEAN, IS IT THE SHOPPING CENTER FROM WHEN YOU GO INTO THE SHOPPING CENTER IS WHERE THE RADIUS IS? OR WOULD IT BE FROM IN THE VERY BACK? YOU KNOW, THAT'S FURTHER IT'S FROM, UH, WELL, AT LEAST THE WAY THAT OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS ARE FOR CANNABIS DELIVERY. 
          UM, IT IS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          SO PARCEL, YEAH. 
          SO IT WOULD BE FROM THE START OF ENTERING, UM, THE COMMERCIAL CENTER, I KIND OF HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, ONLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE 1500 FEET, YOU KNOW, FROM A PARK AND IT'S WITHIN A SHOPPING CENTER, AND IT MIGHT BE THE RIGHT LOCATION. 
          AND SO I DON'T WANNA LIMIT, I JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S LIMITING. 
          AND GO AHEAD. 
          I, I HAVE AN IDEA THAT MIGHT HELP TO RESOLVE THIS, BUT I, I WANT TO GET A FEEL FROM STAFF AS WELL. 
          IF THIS IS REMOTELY FEASIBLE, I DON'T WANT TO ADD MORE BURDEN ONTO THE OPERATOR, BUT I ALSO CAN SEE WHERE GOOD INTENTIONS COME TO BEAR. 
          BUT YOU STILL GET INTO ARBITRARY DIS DISTANCE DISCUSSION. 
          IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN RECOMMEND THAT FOUR SITES THAT HAVE, LIKE WE KEEP THE NUMBERS AS IS, BUT WE RECOMMEND THAT FOUR SITES THAT MAY HAVE PROXIMITY TO SAY A SCHOOL OR A PARK OR THESE OTHER AREAS, EVEN WITH THE DISTANCES THAT THERE'S EXTRA REQUIREMENTS PUT IN FOR THEIR SECURITY PLAN, RIGHT? 'CAUSE IF THE, THE REAL ISSUE IS KIDS ACCESSING THE SITE IS WHAT WE'RE MOST WORRIED ABOUT. 
          AND ALSO THERE BEING THREATS TO THE SITE BECAUSE YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE POTENTIALLY HAVE CASH ON HAND IF WE'RE ENHANCING THE SECURITY PRECAUTIONS PUT IN PLACE AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S CLEAR, CLEAR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE POLICE AND CLEAR AGREEMENTS WITH THE POLICE FOR KIND OF THAT RAPID TURNAROUND TIME, IF THERE'S AN INCIDENT, WOULD THAT HELP ALLEVIATE CONCERNS OVER THE CURRENT NUMBERS? I DON'T KNOW. 
          I'M JUST, I'LL ASK QUESTIONS. 
          YEAH. 
          AND CAN I JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING? UM, SO I THINK THE, IF STAFF COULD OFFER UP SOMETHING ON, UM, CHAIR WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, I MEAN, ULTIMATELY JUST COMES DOWN TO A POLICY, UM, RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT? SO WHAT, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION FEELS, UM, AS A GROUP COLLECTIVELY COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER AND ULTIMATELY MAKING THEIR DECISION. 
          UM, JUST TO CLARIFY ON, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER CATER THOMPSON'S, UM, COMMENT ABOUT COMMERCIAL. 
          SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING NOW IS, IS JUST FOR, UM, BUSINESS PARKS AND INDUSTRIAL. 
          SO, SO USING, AND I THINK THIS GETS TO THE REASON, THE REASONING BEHIND NEEDING TO DO A PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO, UM, BECAUSE IT, WE SHOULD, AS WE INTRODUCE OTHER LAND USES LIKE, YOU KNOW, UH, COMMERCIAL PLAZAS THAT ARE FULLY FRONT LOADED WITH PARKING A SEA OF PARKING, IT MAY NOT, IT MAY OR SHOULD NOT BE TREATED THE SAME, RIGHT? SO WE'LL NEED TO SUSS SOME OF THAT OUT AS WE START TO EXPAND. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S AGAIN, UM, JUST THE REASON WHY WITH THE TIME AND THE DIRECTION OF RETURNING WITH THIS PHASE ONE, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO INTO, INTO THAT DEPTH. 
          UM, BUT WE WILL AS PART OF THAT NEXT VERSION. 
          AND THAT'S FINE. 
          I AM, I'M ACTUALLY THRILLED THAT WE'RE GETTING TO PHASE ONE. 
          AND SO I THINK IT'S GOOD. 
          I JUST, UM, I HATE PLAYING WITH DISTANCES BECAUSE SOME OF IT IS FEAR BASED AND I MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME FEAR AND, AND I'M JUST, UM, WE'RE JUST KIND OF MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT IF IT'S CLOSE TO AN AREA, YOU KNOW, GRAMMAR SCHOOL KIDS ARE GONNA GO IN THERE. 
          I MEAN, IT'S JUST NOT, THAT HAPPENS. 
          THAT'S NOT LIKE FEAR THAT THEY'RE GOING IN. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S JUST THERE'S A REASON THAT WE HAVE DISTANCES FROM SCHOOLS AND I THINK YEAH. 
          AND THAT I, YEAH, I'M, AND I DO THINK THERE'S APPROPRIATE DISTANCES. 
          I'M JUST NOT SURE THROWING A NUMBER OUT IF THAT'S THE RIGHT ONE. 
          BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, HOW WHEN WE LOOK IF THERE'S A CONFLICT MM-HMM. 
          , YOU KNOW, WHERE YOUR HOME IS AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HOW FAR AROUND, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL TO, YOU KNOW, THE MAP IS, IT'S DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT MM-HMM. 
          , YOU KNOW, TO REALLY READ THAT MAP. 
          UM, AND THAT IS VERY HELPFUL. 
          AND WE DID THAT WITH, UM, WITH URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. 
          WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, 
          [02:50:01]
1500 VERSUS, UM, A COUPLE DIFFERENT HALF A MILE. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT YEAH, YEAH, 1500. 
          SO THE CONTEXT THERE WAS LOOKING AT, UH, 1500 FEET FROM A LOCATION VERSUS HALF A MILE WAS, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY 25 AND CHANGE. 
          SO YEAH, I MEAN, SO WE CAN VISUALLY SEE REALLY WHERE THE, THE SCHOOL IS, THE PARK IS, AND THEN REALLY WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD FEEDBACK. 
          UM, I'M SEEING HOW THAT'S, UH, A MISSED OPPORTUNITY ON OUR OPPORTUNITY SITES TO NOT SHOW PARKS AND, UM, THE BUFFERS. 
          SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN, WE CAN WORK ON. 
          AND I JUST WANNA ADD TO, UH, THE PRIOR COMMISSIONER'S POINT ABOUT BRIAN, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S WRITING THE STAFF REPORT, BUT IN CASE WE CAN'T DECIDE ON, YOU KNOW, A THOUSAND FEET, 600 FEET, WHATEVER, WE CAN DEFINITELY REITERATE TO COUNCIL THAT COUN OUR PLANNING COMMISSION HAD SOME CONCERN ABOUT SAFETY OR NEAR SCHOOLS AND SECURITY AND THAT, AND HERE'S SOME POTENTIAL OPTIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD ALLEVIATE THOSE CONCERNS. 
          I THINK DYLAN TOOK MY IDEA STRAIGHT OUT THERE TO SEE ANOTHER MAP AND HOW THE SITES ARE CONSTRAINED, MAYBE WITH A SLIGHTLY BROADER RADIUS. 
          UH, I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT, WELL, AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS ON SUNSET SETTING, BUT I BELIEVE THE UPCOMING IZ WILL BE A NATURAL SUNSET ON THIS POLICY. 
          SO IF WE START GETTING NEGATIVE OUTCOMES THAT WE DON'T LIKE MM-HMM. 
           BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE NOT, NOT BE ASSUAGED JUST BY DISTANCE, RIGHT? UM, THEN WE DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, WE HAVE A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW TO CHANGE THAT WITH THE NEW IZO. 
          SO I THINK IT'S GOOD TO INCLUDE IT FOR REFERENCE, JUST TO SHOW A LITTLE COMPARISON. 
          BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, DIRECTLY, I THINK TO COMMISSIONER BOWER'S CONCERNED ABOUT NEGATIVE OUTCOMES OR IMPACTS THAT WE'RE NOT SEEING HERE, I THINK WE NATURALLY HAVE A TIMELINE ON THIS THAT'LL LET US GET RID OF IT, READJUST IT AS WE NEED IT IN THE PRETTY NEAR TERM. 
          I MEAN, A YEAR OR TWO, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OPERATORS WILL EVEN COME IN IN THAT SPACE. 
          UM, SO YEAH, AND I'LL JUST ADD TOO, I WOULD THINK THAT AS PART OF THE RFP PROCESS, THERE IS GOING TO BE A CRITERIA WHERE STAFF CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION, WHOEVER'S REVIEWING, WILL RATE, YOU KNOW, ON A SCALE OF ONE TO 10 ON THE LOCATION. 
          SO MAYBE THAT'S WHERE, UH, WE CAN ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHERE THE LOCATION IS IN PROXIMITY TO SCHOOLS AND PARKS AND THAT STUFF AS WELL. 
          WELL, IT, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE THE VOTES TO SUPPORT IT, SO JUST LET ME SAY NO AND  AND IT WILL BE RECORDED. 
          WHY, AND THEN CITY COUNCIL WILL KNOW WHY, AND I'LL GET MY, I'LL GET WHAT I WANT IS TO LET THEM KNOW WHY I, MY CONCERNS, AND THAT'S ALL I WANT. 
          . 
          UM, ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO THROW IN THERE AS, AS PART OF THE, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WOULD BE PART OF THE REPORT OR AS A RECOMMENDATION, BUT IF WE CAN STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THE, THE FINAL POLICY THAT'S VOTED ON BY COUNSEL ALSO INCLUDE LIKE A CLEAR REQUIREMENTS FOR TRACKING ON THE SAFETY AND SECURITY CONCERNS. 
          SO IT'S ALREADY BUILT IN THAT THERE'LL BE DETAILED MONITORING, WHICH I CAN IMAGINE WILL HELP WITH ANY SECURITY PLANS THAT ARE APPROVED FOR THE OPERATORS. 
          JUST ADD TO IT. 
          YEAH, WE CAN DEFINITELY ADD THAT TO THE STAFF REPORT. 
          OKAY. 
          IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, UH, COULD I GET A MOTION, MOTION TO PROVE THE, UH, AS SCRIPTED? I'LL SECOND. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, MAY I GET A ROLL CALL? VOTE. 
          COMMISSIONER BAUER? NO. 
          COMMISSIONER MOSES. 
          ABSENT. 
          COMMISSIONER LAN? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER KUSON? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER WIMAN? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER CATER THOMPSON. 
          YES. 
          CHAIR HOOPER. 
          YES. 
          THE MOTION IS CARRIED. 
          WELL, WITH THAT, WE ARE, I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS, WE'RE, WE'RE ALMOST DONE. 
          AND IT'S 9 0 5. 
          THIS IS A SPECIAL NIGHT, EVERYONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, WE'RE 
          [COMMITTEE COMMENT]
GONNA MOVE, UH, STRAIGHT INTO COMMISSION COMMENT, AND I'M JUST GONNA CHECK IN STARTING WITH COUNCIL MEMBER AND WE'LL GO ALL THE WAY DOWN. 
          UH, I HAD MY SCTA MEETING ON MONDAY, AND WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT FUNDING, WHICH IS ALWAYS A CHALLENGE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT, UM, UH, BALLOT MEASURES THAT MIGHT GO ON OR NOT. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S FAIRLY CHALLENGING AND WE'RE, UM, SHIFTING FROM, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE 1 0 1 WIDENINGS GONNA BE DONE, SO NOW IT'S GONNA BE GHOST SONOMA, WHICH IS GONNA BE DIFFERENT. 
          AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE, ARE WE LOOKING AT LIKE A, A COUNTYWIDE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, LIKE 
          [02:55:01]
COUNTIES MM-HMM. 
          , YOU KNOW, THE NORTH BAY COUNTIES AND SILICON, YOU KNOW, PALO ALTO, ALL THESE AREAS. 
          ARE THEY, ARE WE ALL GOING TO DO ONE, UM, BALLOT MEASURE FOR TRANSPORTATION, OR ARE WE GOING TO JUST HAVE ONE AND TRY AND EXPAND THE SMART, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, OR DO WE WANT TO COMBINE? AND SO IT'S REALLY, REALLY COMPLICATED AND I'M NOT SURE REALLY WHERE IT'S GOING, BUT IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE WATCHING, YOU KNOW, FOR, UM, THE BALLOT AND SEE WHAT, UM, WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING. 
          BECAUSE SMART IS ACTUALLY DOING QUITE WELL AND RIDERSHIP IS INCREASING. 
          BART IS NOT INCREASING. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU KEEP THESE SYSTEMS GOING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IN FIVE YEARS BART WILL BE BACK TO WHERE IT WAS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND YOU REALLY WANNA GET PEOPLE OUT OF CARS AND USING TRANSPORTATION AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT HIGHWAY 37, AND I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S THIS HUGE OPPORTUNITY THAT'S MI MISSED BECAUSE IF YOU HAD THE TRAIN THAT WENT ALL THE WAY TO SACRAMENTO, I MEAN, YOU'D HAVE SO MANY CARS OFF THE ROAD. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , IT WOULD JUST BE AMAZING. 
          I MEAN, I WOULD GO TO DAVIS ALL THE TIME AND JUST NEVER DRIVE, YOU KNOW, JUST THROW YOUR BIKE ON OR WHEREVER YOU HAVE TO GO. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, JUST, UM, THAT MIGHT, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN MY LIFETIME, BUT BOY, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD REALLY BE STRIVING FOR. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING ONE, OH, YOU KNOW, 37, MAYBE IT SHOULD JUST STAY THE SAME INSTEAD OF MAKING IT LARGER AND MAY, AND, YOU KNOW, GETTING OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION GOING. 
          AND SO THAT WAS A LONG DISCUSSION YESTERDAY. 
          UM,  AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW, UH, THE CHAIRMAN, UH, HOOPER, HERE'S ALL THIS STUFF UP, UP IN SACRAMENTO, BUT IT'S, IT'S REALLY CHALLENGING. 
          YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN? AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT A HOUSING MEASURE. 
          IS IT GONNA BE 10 OR 20 MILLION? AND WHO'S REALLY PUTTING IT TOGETHER AND IS IT GONNA GET ON THE BALLOT? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, HOUSING IS A REAL ISSUE. 
          AND SO THERE'S JUST A LOT THAT WE NEED TO KEEP OUR EYES ON, UM, TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS IN NOVEMBER, 2024 IN ALL DIFFERENT ASPECTS. 
          SO THAT'S IT. 
          NOTHING REPORT OUT CHAIR? NO, ACTUALLY I DO HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY ON OUR SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          GREAT SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          I'M WORKING WITH . 
          OKAY. 
          WE SIT THERE. 
          IT'S, IT'S AN HOUR. 
          UM, I WANNA SAY DARREN'S REALLY, UM, PREPARED  AND, YOU KNOW, JUST KEEPS IT GOING. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND WE'VE INVITED SOME OTHER PEOPLE IN TO, YOU KNOW, ASK, YOU KNOW, KIND OF REVIEW. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , YOU KNOW, A FEW SECTIONS. 
          ARE WE REALLY GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND, AND I THINK WE ARE GOOD, BUT, UM, BUT IT'S REALLY NICE TO HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE KIND OF LOOK, YOU KNOW, OR ASK SOMEBODY ELSE TO LOOK AND, AND GET GOOD FEEDBACK. 
          SO IT'S, UH, IT'S A REALLY GOOD PROCESS. 
          I WANT TO SAY THAT . 
          GOOD. 
          SECOND THAT I'M EXCITED TO PRESENT ON THE GENERAL PLAN FRAMEWORKS. 
          UH, A COUPLE UPDATES. 
          FIRST I WANTED TO MENTION, AND I KNOW JANICE, YOU WERE IN ATTENDANCE, UH, JUST LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK BEFORE, WE HAD DAN, ZACK FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO COME AS KIND OF A CO-HOSTED EVENT, I BELIEVE BETWEEN CATHERINE REINHARDT AND KNOW BEFORE YOU GROW. 
          THIS IS A PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO. 
          UM, I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION, GREAT MEETINGS ALL AROUND. 
          I THINK IT INFUSED A LOT OF EXCITEMENT INTO HOW TO REVITALIZE IT DOWNTOWN WHILE PROTECTING HISTORIC RESOURCES, WHILE ADVOCATING FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF DENSITY. 
          UM, SO I, I REALLY ENJOYED THAT. 
          I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT A LOT OF CITY LEADERSHIP WAS THERE SHARING IDEAS. 
          UH, FOR PAC WHERE I'M A LIAISON TO PBAC, UH, WE HAD A DISCUSSION OF TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY FRAMEWORKS AND A JOINT MEETING WITH TRANSIT. 
          UH, I DID NOT ATTEND THAT MEETING TO ATTEND THE MEETING WITH DAN ZACK, BUT I DID WATCH THE MEETING AND ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO'S INTERESTED IN ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION, TRANSIT, BIKING, PEDESTRIAN, IT WAS ALL COVERED. 
          AND ACTUALLY I THINK THERE WERE SOME GREAT QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT GENERAL PLAN FRAMEWORKS MORE BROADLY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , HOW SPECIFIC THEY SHOULD GET, HOW GENERAL THEY SHOULD BE TO LEAVE FLEXIBILITY. 
          UH, SO THAT WAS A GREAT MEETING TO REALLY LEARN SOME MORE ABOUT THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          UH, AND THEN I'LL JUST SAY A QUICK UPDATE FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE BECAUSE ROGER WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND. 
          WE HAD A REALLY SUCCESSFUL FIRST ANNUAL TREE FESTIVAL ON APRIL 27TH AT PRINCE PARK ON THE EAST SIDE. 
          UH, WE HAD THE MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, CITY STAFF, SOME OF THE CITY MANAGER TEAM THERE. 
          UH, AND IT REALLY WAS, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY A HUNDRED, 150 PLUS OF THE COMMUNITY CAME OUT. 
          WE SPREAD A HUNDRED CUBIC YARDS OF MULCH UNDER THE MASSIVE OAK TREE THERE, WHICH IS A HUGE ASK. 
          UH, WE HAD ART, WE HAD MUSIC, WE HAD FOOD TRUCKS. 
          SO ALREADY I THINK WE'RE GEARING UP TO ORGANIZE FOR NEXT YEAR TO MAKE IT BIGGER AND BETTER. 
          SO THOSE ARE MY UPDATES. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          UM, MY UPDATE'S REALLY QUICK. 
          UH, GOING 
          [03:00:01]
OFF OF DARREN'S COMMENT ON, ON THE, UM, DAN'S PRESENTATION, THAT WAS PHENOMENAL. 
          I WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND, 'CAUSE I WAS AT THE TRANSIT TRANSIT MEETING PARTIALLY FOR OUR FRAMEWORK, BUT I ENDED UP, CATHERINE RECORDED THAT, SO I ENDED UP WATCHING THAT LATER. 
          AND IT IS A PHENOMENAL, PHENOMENAL WATCH. 
          IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT HOW YOU CONSIDER HISTORIC PRESERVATION WHEN YOU'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT IN THE LONG TERM. 
          UH, THE TRANSIT MEETING WAS ALSO GREAT JUST FOR GETTING A GOOD INTRODUCTION ON SOME OF THE FRAMEWORKS DISCUSSIONS WE'RE GONNA HAVE ON THE FRAMEWORKS. 
          UH, DARREN AND I HAD A MEETING WITH ANDREW A WHILE BACK. 
          WE'VE HAD TO REALLY ADJUST SCHEDULE. 
          THERE IS A LOT COMING UP, ALL NONE OF WHICH ARE SMALL. 
          ALMOST EVERY FRAMEWORK WE'RE LOOKING AT HAS A LOT GOING INTO IT. 
          SO WE'VE HAD TO KIND OF ADJUST THAT SCHEDULE. 
          YOU'LL BE SEEING THE FIRST BATCH FROM DARREN'S SUBCOMMITTEE COMING UP ON THE 28TH. 
          AND YOU'LL BE SEEING IN DIFFERENT PIECES THE REST FROM OUR SUBCOMMITTEE FURTHER ON AFTER THAT. 
          UM, ON THE BUDGET. 
          'CAUSE I'M JUST GONNA THROW, THAT'S WHAT MY DAY JOB IS RIGHT NOW. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO FLAG FOR STAFF AND FOR ANYBODY WHO'S LOOKING AT STATE FUNDS, WE ARE LOOKING TO CUT RIGHT NOW. 
          WE'RE, WE'VE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO KEEP THINGS STABLE AND TO GET THROUGH THE MARKET DOWNTURN THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF. 
          UH, BUT IF THERE ARE EVER EXPECTATIONS OF NEW, NEW FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION OR HOUSING, IF ANYTHING, IT'S, WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE HOW WE CAN MINIMIZE WHAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE INCREDIBLY PAINFUL CUTS AND HOW TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T HURT THE MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN THE STATE. 
          SO IT'S MY OTHER OTHER WAY OF SAYING BONDS ARE A GREAT IDEA. 
           BONDS AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ABLE TO KIND OF TAKE ON THAT BURDEN WHILE THE STATE'S HAVING TO KIND OF MANAGE FINANCES, I THINK IS A GREAT IDEA IN PART BECAUSE WE WILL JUST HAVE TO KIND OF TOE THE LINE FOR A WHILE. 
          THERE'S, THERE'S JUST A LOT WE'RE HAVING TO COMPETE WITH. 
          UM, BUT THOSE ARE ALL OF MY POINTS FOR NOW, ROGER. 
          YEAH. 
          NOTHING TO COMMENT. 
          SURE. 
          COOPER. 
          UM, WHERE DID YOU GET THE, I WAS ROGER, I APOLOGIZE. 
          I WAS GONNA SEND YOU THAT YOUTUBE AND I NEVER DID FOR DAN, ZACK. 
          OH. 
          CAN BE SENT TO, I GOT IT FROM CATHERINE. 
          SO I'LL JUST SEND IT. 
          WANT ME TO JUST SEND IT TO THE WHOLE EMAIL? SEND IT TO, YEAH. 
          AND THEN YOU CAN SEND IT OUT. 
          PERFECT. 
          'CAUSE IT'S REALLY WORTH WATCHING. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          WILL DO. 
          [STAFF COMMENT]
AND WITH THAT, I BELIEVE WE'RE NOW AT, UM, STAFF REPORT FROM OUR PLANNING MANAGER. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          UM, I'LL, I'LL BE BRIEF. 
          I WANTED TO JUST REMIND YOU AGAIN THAT THE, UH, APPOINTMENT REAPPOINTMENT APPLICATIONS ARE DUE INTO THE CITY CLERK BY ON, UH, THURSDAY, JUNE 6TH AT 5:00 PM AND, UM, I KNOW WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS, YOU KNOW, UH, WITH, WITH PEOPLE INTERESTED IN, UM, APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION, THE PLANNING DIVISION ALSO, UH, STAFF'S, HCPC, AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE. 
          AND SO, UM, WE'VE HAD A VARIETY OF CONVERSATIONS AND THAT'S REAL EXCITING. 
          WE'RE ALWAYS, WE'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO BE A PART OF, OF ANYONE'S EFFORTS TO RECRUIT SOMEBODY TO ONE OF THE CCBS, UM, TO, TO, UH, WORK WITH, UM, WITH YOU TO, UH, INFORM PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT, WHAT THEY CAN EXPECT, TIME COMMITMENTS AND SO FORTH. 
          SO IF YOU DO HAVE ANYONE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO SPEAK WITH, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT AND WE'RE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. 
          UM, EXCUSE ME. 
          IN TERMS OF UPCOMING MEETINGS, WE DO, EXCUSE ME, HAVE A, UM, SPECIAL MEETING ON MAY 21ST. 
          UH, AGENDIZED FOR THAT MEETING WILL BE THE, UH, UGB BALLOT MEASURE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN, UH, WE'LL BE OFFERING, UM, CONCEPT REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL, UM, TO DEVELOP A RETIREMENT CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY AT 1221 PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH. 
          UH, THAT'S THE FORMER MARINE BOAT FACILITY, UM, UPON ON THE, UH, WEST SIDE OF, OF THE BOULEVARD AS YOU HEAD OUT OF TOWN. 
          SO, UH, WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO BRINGING THAT TO YOU IN CONCEPT AT A, AT A STUDY SESSION AND, UH, HELPING TO INFORM THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHAT THE, THE COMMISSION IN THE CITY, UM, WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT THAT SITE SHOULD, UH, DEVELOPMENT BE PURSUED. 
          THEN ON THE, UH, 28TH WILL BE A FULL ON GENERAL PLAN, UH, FRAMEWORK SESSION. 
          UH, RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT BRINGING FORWARD TO YOU THE SAFETY AND GOVERNMENT GOVERNANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS. 
          THOSE FRAMEWORKS, UM, DON'T HAVE A HOME, IF YOU WILL. 
          THEY'RE NOT BEING REVIEWED BY ANY OTHER CCB. 
          SO, UH, WE WOULD ASK FOR YOUR REVIEW FOR THOSE. 
          AND THEN WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH AD HOC, UH, COMMITTEE TOO, 
          [03:05:01]
UM, TO BRING FORWARD THEIR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND, UH, NOISE FRAMEWORKS. 
          SO AGAIN, UM, UM, VICE CHAIR AXON, PLEASE REACH OUT TO US, YOU KNOW, FOR ANY SUPPORT THAT YOU AND, AND YOUR GROUP MIGHT HAVE, UM, TO BRING THOSE FORWARD. 
          AND THEN ON JUNE, UM, 11TH, WE'LL BE REVIEWING THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS AND RECREATION FRAMEWORKS, UH, COLLECTIVELY AS A COMMISSION. 
          UM, AND THEN ON JUNE 18TH, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER SPECIAL MEETING WHERE, UH, WE'LL REVIEW HISTORIC RESOURCES, ART AND CREATIVITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, UM, FRAMEWORKS FOLLOWED BY ON JUNE 25TH, FLOOD RESILIENCY AND MOBILITY FRAMEWORKS. 
          SO I'LL GIVE YOU A SENSE OF HOW THE NEXT, UH, SEVERAL MEETINGS ARE GOING TO ROLL OUT, UM, AS IT RELATES TO THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          AND THEN I THINK, UH, SOMEWHERE IN THERE WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT WE'LL BRING FORWARD ON, UH, JUNE 11TH, A, UM, PUBLIC HEARING FOR SCOTT RANCH, A RESIDENTIAL SPAR FOR THE, UH, SCOTT RANCH PROJECT. 
          SO THAT TAKES US THROUGH THESE UPCOMING MEETINGS. 
          WE APPRECIATE, UH, YOUR COMMITMENT TO SERVICE AND TO HELPING US ACHIEVE QUORUMS FOR ALL OF THOSE REGULAR MEETINGS AND SPECIAL MEETINGS AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING. 
          ALL RIGHT, WE ARE ADJOURNED. 
          THANK YOU EVERYBODY.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.