Thread by @shayshinecastle

A few things on consent that are interesting: The aforementioned gun violence prevention resolution, and the fifth or sixth expansion of the 2015 height limit moratorium, through August, so the community benefit work can be completed.

I believe council will be accepting suggested edits to the gun violence prevention resolution. I'll find a copy for ya'll and include it on boulderbeat.news or my newsletter, if you're interested.

Some council members offering their thoughts now. Joseph feels some of the language is too passive.

Well, some of it. Other language is too strong, she says, and not centered enough.

I'm not gonna mock Young for saying that this problem requires a holistic approach. I'm just gonna remind everyone how confused she was about people asking for a holistic approach to homelessness.

Still some finagling with the language, which I would tweet if I had a copy of the resolution and knew what it said.

Brockett nitpicking the phrase "lone gunman" — which Weaver likes bc it shows how much damage one person with an assault weapon can do — bc it obscures the systemic issues around guns and violence.

Apparently the resolution includes the phrase "bipartisan legislation." Brockett not so hot on that: "I think we want effective legislation. Who votes for it ... is not the critical thing. "

Friend, too: "We have no control" over who votes for gun control and who doesn't. By including that, "we may be ushering this into a dust bin."

Unlike other resolutions, the language of this kinda matters bc it's policy direction: Basically, direction for lobbyists on what Boulder does and doesn't want to fight for.

Wallach stating what I'm thinking: Idk why we're wordsmithing right now. We're def going to approve this. Can't we make edits and then bring it back?

"There's almost no circumstance under which I would not support it wholeheartedly."

Yates with a suggestion: Why don't we pass the resolution tonight as originally drafted, and then work on potential amendments? That way, we can get started on legislative activism and finesse it later.

That's acceptable, so Brockett is reading the resolution (with a pause in the middle bc of his barking dog)

A rare Brockett sigh!

Brockett Sigh-O-Meter: 1

Boulder asking for:
Universal background checks on all firearm sales
Safe storage
Required reporting for missing/stolen firearms
Repeal of state preemption on local gun control (the reason Boulder's assault weapons ban was recently struck down)

As well as adding violent misdemeanors to the list of crimes that prevent people from (lawfully) owning guns

There were a couple other things in the resolution but it moved pretty fast, so I missed them. Again, I'll try to get a copy for ya'll.

Wallach bringing up Appendix J. Reminder: This is the map of places that can still build to the citywide height limit of 55 feet. Currently not allowed except for the places on this map.

It's being extended through August, and staff has suggested adding Ball Aerospace and Diagonal Plaza, which both have active development applicants.

Planning Board, however, didn't want to include Diagonal Plaza.

It was a 3-4 vote, with Gerstle, Montoya, Silver and new member Boone against including it.

Wallach saying council usually follows the Planning Board's advice; why not here?

Yates: I was confused about the Planning Board's reasoning. I don't think we want to limit the opportunity for housing at this site, on the edge of the city, which offers a great potential for redevelopment.

Council has been trying to get Diagonal Plaza redeveloped for years. Idk if the plans are for the whole site or just part; I think just part, bc it's for 300-some units, and you could easily fit many more there. It's a big parcel.

Jacob Lindsey, head of planning, addressing the divergent staff/Planning Board recommendations: The proposal currently on the boards does not include a request for height above 3 stories, or height modifications.

Lindsey: Planning Board's sense was that more study might be helpful, but not in relation to the current plans, bc they aren't asking for extra height. And the board was split on this, not unanimous.

Weaver: If we don't include Diagonal Plaza at this time, will it slow down those plans?
Lindsey: No, to the best of my knowledge, it would not, bc they're not asking for 55 feet of height.

But including that site, which has always been the intention, was to encourage large-scale redevelopment. Lindsey confirms what I thought: It's for only part of the site, not the whole thing. (It's multiple parcels and owners)

Weaver: If we include Diagonal Plaza in Appendix J, that only means development can APPLY for additional height (up to 55 ft) but it would still have to meet all the requirements, right?
Yes, Lindsey says.

Brockett: There's no harm in adding it in, bc we have total discretion in turning down a development plan. Planning Board does, too.

Friend: I'm a little confused. My recollection was that we were going to let Appendix J expire in August.... so if it's going away anyway, why would we hold someone to those standards for just the next few months?

Lindsey: This is going to come back to council for a vote, so you all can decide if Appendix J remains or goes away.

In August.

Reminder: The original intent of Appendix J / height moratorium, was that it would always be temporary, until Community Benefit work was done. But council has done crazier things, so I wouldn't be surprised if at least some members want to make shorter height limits permanent.

Yates: "We've been waiting for literally decades for someone to come along and redevelop Diagonal Plaza... I wouldn't want to foreclose our options here."

Again, this is on the consent agenda. With the gun violence prevention.

Council votes to pass the consent agenda, with Wallach and Nagle voting against the Appendix J item, bc it adds Diagonal Plaza. But it passes anyway.