Thread by @shayshinecastle

New thread for the Macy's vote. Should be interesting. Presentation here: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_5A_-…

Wait... Weaver is asking that maybe we move council discussion and vote for this bc Nagle is absent. Even number of officials could equal tie vote, which is tricky for development projects. They need city OK to go ahead.

The applicant will decide.

If it's a tie vote (4-4), the motion fails, as Weaver reminds us. So the applicant might want to wait so they get their OK.

Apparently there was a "last-minute emergency" that kept Nagle from being here. so says the applicant.

They want to have all council present, but they want to do it all on the same night, not break up the presentation, public hearing and council's decision.

They were originally supposed to go before Planning Board in March but waited bc they hoped for an in-person hearing.

That obviously didn't happen.

The applicant wants a decision this year, but Weaver says Nagle might not even be here by Dec. 15, so it would likely have to be in early January.

Weaver kind of rejecting that .... if the applicant doesn't want to split it up, council will just go ahead tonight, he says.

Applicant then agrees to early January.

Weaver still pushing for splitting the meeting up: presentations and public hearing tonight, discussion and vote later. Planning Board has done this before, he says.

He puts it to council to decide.

Yates wants to do it all at once, as the applicant wants. "Otherwise we have an awkward situation where 8 of us have heard and had the opportunity to ask questions and one of us has to watch it by video."

Swetlik: We're not ensured we'll have a 9th council member on Jan. 5. "Emergencies happen."

Yes, why plan anything?

Leave it to the fates.

Odd quality for someone in elected office.

Wallach and Brockett with Yates on moving the entire thing to Jan. 5

Friend is the first one to actually name Nagle, rather than referring to her as a colleague or "one of us."

Weaver: "She's fairly uncertain she can make the 15th of this month, but the 5th she promised to be available for."

Friend: What happens if we have a 4-4 vote?
Carr: "The code isn't clear. It says you neither to either approve or deny it." There's no provision for what happens if you fail to approve or deny it. "There is no precedent for this, so there is some risk."

"I could argue it other way" — reading it as an approval or denial, Carr says. The Planning Board has a charter provision for this exact situation; council doesn't.

Weaver: And in that scenario, it's not clear if we could take another vote, legally.

Swetlik: "I think it's in poor taste to schedule public hearings and not hold them."

Weaver: "I hear you. If it weren't for the prospect of us ending in a hung situation where no one knows what that means, I'd agree with you."

Yates: "This is one of the larger items we're going to handle this year, and it has been our tradition at least in the past that on larger items we try to accommodate missing council members."

OK, so this item will move to Jan. 5. And tonight's meeting just got A LOT shorter.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.

Weaver apologizes to members of the public that the hearing was cancelled.