Thread by @shayshinecastle

Marpa House, up now. Here's the staff presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_5A_-…

Again, it's being reused from communal living to separate units. (16 3BR units) Overall occupancy will decrease from 50 to 48

Planning Board voted unanimously to OK, with some conditions (on-site management, etc.)

The new name will be Ash House. Here's the property owner's presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_5A_-…

Marpa House is the historic landmark name of the building. Council landmarked last year: boulderbeat.news/2020/05/08/bou…

I believe one of Planning Board's conditions for approval is that occupancy will stay at 48 persons total, even if Bedrooms Are For People's measure is successful (which would change occupancy citywide to 1 person per bedroom, + 1)

Honestly not sure how much more I'll tweet until the council deliberation. Again, 40+ ppl signed up for public hearing. Here's the list: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/May_4,_20…

Except fo this: Planner Sloane Walbert going over some more of Planning Board's conditions for approval, which include quiet hours and that the property owners market the units to non-students as well.

Forgot to say that the fear of uni students living here is among neighbors' biggest points of opposition.

Another interesting tidbit: Bc Friend is absent, there's the possibility of a 4-4 vote. Boulder's code is unclear as to what happens in this instance. (Is the project approved? Denied?)

City Attorney Tom Carr recommends NOT having a 4-4 tie, he says.

I think a 4-4 vote is unlikely, with Friend gone. And the Planning Board was 7-0. Council rarely overrules unanimous PB decisions. But stranger things have happened.

Yates asks about what the law says RE: requiring or banning students from living at this property.

Carr: Some cases have struck down student prohibitions, but none in Colorado

Wallach asks about occupancy.
Carr going over the history of how Boulder's occupancy limits came to be. We've gone over that before; DM or email me if you want my notes.

Wallach: "This area was subject to a downzoning in 1974, which made this (property) non-conforming. What was the purpose of that downzoning?"

Carr: "I'm not quite sure you're right. There have been various downzonings on the Hill to reduce overall occupancy over time."

This particularly property has a non-conforming use (congregate living) bc "it predates zoning," Carr says.

It was a frat house, once upon a time.

Getting a little in the weeds here, but I find it interesting.

I'm listening and not tweeting, but a lot of back-and-forth over occupancy.

Carr: "I have no problem with anything the applicant agrees to." But "is a little troubled" by requiring specific occupancy that conflicts with city code.

I think this gets to Planning Board's condition.

We're disclosing ex parte communications now. This is non-public conversations, meetings, etc. that council members have done surrounding this project.

They are required to disclose these on the record.

No one had any, so we've moved on.

The property owner explaining the location: 1/3 mile from campus, 1/3 mile from the Uni Hill commercial district, right behind CU's largest sorority, across the alley from 3 Airbnbs.

"We have 100 years of history (of this property) as a for-rent use," Dale says.

(Forget his first name, but last name is Dale)

Or maybe it was O'Dea...? I don't see a Dale listed on the presentation, but there is a Rob O’Dea – Consultant.

"The property is still configured today as it was a century ago to be a fraternity," This Man says. Lots of shared spaces (sounds nice) party rooms.

Calls it a "highly problematic group home"

LOL also compares it to a "flop house-type environment"

Going over the "unconventional" landmarking process of the property, which is true. One of only a handful of properties in the city where landmarking was pursued over the objection of the owner.

I believe they eventually came on board. But it was not pretty at the beginning.

Shambhala was selling bc of the sexual abuse/assault allegations and ensuing financial devastation.

It was during negotiations for the sale that the landmark process was initiated.

Didn't know this: Residents at the time were given 90 days of free rent... did I hear that correctly? Or was it 9 days?

We've pursued a stringent good neighbor agreement, This Man says. Including 24 conditions "which I think may make it the most conditioned project" in the city.

I'm not sure there's any way to verify that. 24 is a lot of conditions, but Boulder also loves it some conditions.

RE: good neighbor agreement, This Man says the property owner asked for the city's best examples of past agreements and based theirs on those.

Now elaborating the environmental benefits of re-using this space (its walkability, upgrades to older systems, etc.)

"We're extremely empathetic and receptive to the range of very emotional pleas from neighbors who have shared their views on this from the beginning. ... We get where they're coming from."

"Keep perspective on the fact that this is a building that has been in continuous operation ... as rental housing .... for 100 years."

Some pretty wonky qs and answers from council and staff. Apologies; I didn't follow.

I got this one, tho: Who is going to be providing the on-site management, Wallach asks.

"Is it going to be a student getting a break on rent in exchange for services?"

No, the applicant responds. It will be a full-time, professional adult property management staff.

"In our experience, that is a not-great practice" for property management, This Man says. (Using students as managers in exchange for cheaper/free rent)

Wallach: Will it be 24/7?
Applicant: We haven't decided hours yet, but we have staff available 24/7 who live nearby. The farthest one away is 4 blocks.

Lots of back-and-forth over potential noise complaints.

Wallach inadvertently revealing how much sway political insiders still have in Boulder: Former city councilwoman Jan Burton has suggested making this a 24/7 quiet hour property. Would you do that?

Applicant: There aren't similar constraints on Burton's house, which is used as an Airbnb. We want this to be equitable restrictions.

Wallach: With all due respect, Ms. Burton does not have a history of noise complaints. Unfortunately that's not true of our student population.

Interesting glimpse into the politics of Boulder here.

Wallach asks what the rental rates will be.
Applicant: They are market-rate. They will be consistent with neighboring rents. Given that this is brand-new construction, "we anticipate they will bring a decent rent."

We're 2-3 years out from signing leases, so it would be irresponsible of me to suggest a number, the applicant says.
Wallach: Are you telling me you haven't pro forma'd the rent for this? You'd be the first developer in history to not do this.

Applicant: I'll tell you all the pro formas in the world could not account for the rise in construction costs we've seen over the last two years.

Swetlik: Are they contributing to affordable housing?
Yes, staff says, they are paying cash-in-lieu
Applicant reveals it will be nearly $600,000

Swetlik also not pleased the applicant is not revealing rental rates, since that will dictate who can live here.

Young asks about the marketing plan.

Applicant: "It will be hands down the nicest, highest-quality and best-managed property in this area. Period and full stop. "

"Our goal with this project is to reset a high bar for" what this property can be.

"We would not invest the type of $$ we're investing in a historic landmark if our intent was to let it be overrun by a bunch of rowdy and entitled college students."

Tweeting a lot more than I planned, but this is actually interesting.

Although we're moving onto the public hearing, so I'll prob stop.

45 ppl signed up. 2 min per speaker (4 min for 3 pooled speakers) sooo.... about 90 min?

LOLOL Dianna Gonzales-Burdin on the Buddhist group living use of Marpa House: "It was a little unusual... but they operated as one family."

Neighbors have hired at attorney to fight this project: Marc Painter, from Holland and Hart.

This is something I have still not gotten used to living in Boulder (having grown up and still being somewhat poor): Neighbors hiring attorneys, hydrologists, web developers and a whole host of professionals to fight development projects.

Jordan Bunch, also from Holland and Hart, arguing quite passionately. I missed if she was representing neighbor or she herself is a neighbor.

I think representing neighbors, as she said "you've heard from neighbors." And I couldn't find any property records in the area for the last name "Bunch" in the BoCo system.

Hope Michelsen, an engineering prof at CU, "LOVES interacting with students." But she doesn't want them living in her neighborhood.

They're still maturing, she says. They can't make decisions that are in their own best interest, let alone the interests of neighbors.

Zach Genn, Speaker No. 32, is the FIRST supporter of this project!

Followed by the second supporter: Chad Helton.

Trying hard not to make any Chad jokes... He sounded like a real Chad.

And the third supporter! Greg Baron.

Normally supporters aren't noteworthy, but it's been universal opposition so far.

And another! Bennett Fishbein.

Actually I'm getting a little suspicious... Fishbein sounds like he's reading a script and somehow knew that the property owners were investing $7M into it.

We're on our sixth straight supporter. All CU students or recent grads. Some live nearby.

Zachary Ofner, the son of a fraternity member who lived in this house years ago, also in support.

David Garabed is our 8th straight supporter and the only non-student to speak in support so far.

10th suporter: Eli Rosenfeld.

"This is the direction the neighborhood is heading," he says. "The university is expanding."

Kathy Young, our second non-student supporter. (Or so it sounds.) "The opposition is coming from a very wealthy, entitled neighborhood. ... If they don't renovate this house, they are going to get exactly what they fear." (A "run-down dump" where students will "congregate")

Brad ONeil is our third non-student supporter (12th supporter overall)

I keep wanting to call the non-students adults, but that's not fair bc students = adults, too.

But as I get older, they have started to look so very young.

Anthony Burke is the second industry professional to speak in support.

Liz Hanson, who worked as a city planner for 30 years, now works for Holland and Hart.

She now runs a biz where she helps ppl interact with the planning process / other city gov't things.

She's questioning that there may be speakers paid for by the applicant. The last speaker was a former employee of the applicant, she says.

I also felt some of the speakers sounded rehearsed....

But, to be fair, the neighbors have literally hired attorneys, who also spoke for them tonight. So....*shrug*

I mean, I personally don't feel you should be allowed to be paid to speak unless you disclose that you've been hired to do so, as the attorneys did.

Transparency and all that.

Damian Lesperance getting all anti-homeless in his testimony.

Scott Alexander: "My antenna is up looking for housing 52 weeks a year."

Lisa Spalding: The nearby sorority has a live-in house mother and does not allow alcohol. The rental properties are owned by residents who live blocks away and are occupied by families.

Her counter-claims to earlier facts shared by the applicant.

Aaron Belzer: Council overturning a unanimous Planning Board approval will "send a message" to others in Boulder that the city is "happy with dilapidated" housing, particularly on the Hill.

Daniel Haarburger referencing a "hot mic" moment at the Planning Board in which a supportive speaker reportedly said they'd earned $100 for speaking.

That should be given "weighted" consideration, Haarburger tells council.

Wow, it's 10 p.m. already.

Public hearing is over, so we're doing a quick break before council deliberates /votes.

The applicant gets 3 min to respond to the public comments. (Legal mandate, since this is a quasi-judicial matter.)

Jim Johnson: This project meets all the standards, and we've agreed to more conditions than most developments. There's a property across the alley with 80 rental licenses.. it's not just single-family homes here.

Wallach: "I'm going to be in opposition to this application."

"This project does not meet that test as it will contribute to the further deterioration of the Hill in terms of density and noise and trash," Wallach says.

That "test" being that non-conforming uses can be changed IF they won't adversely affect the area. (City code)

Wallach: "I think the conditions of the good neighbor agreement are going to be enforced and enforceable. ... This complaint-based system is going to expose neighbors to retaliation."

This project "is guaranteed to house only students," Wallach says. "I think it's going to exacerbate difficult conditions already present on the Hill."

"I'm going to enthusiastically vote no when the time comes."

No one else has anything to say.
Weaver urging them to speak up. "We are going to have to take a vote, and we're going to have to talk about why we're going to support it or not."

Nagle opposes. "When this number of neighbors, which is the actual property owners, which for me is who I'm looking to actually support, bc they have a massive investment .... that's a very scary thing."

"When you're talking about the values in Boulder, when you have that in the balance, that's a major deal," Nagle says.

Nagle: "When we've had two years of working on" a good neighbor agreement "and the neighbors are this upset" it shows there are "major problems."

"Their cries have not been heard."

Says these aren't "legitimate" reasons to oppose the project (that is, not legally criteria she can use) but echoes Wallach's actual legitimate points. (By saying she echoes those legitimate points.)

Young suggests that former city councilwoman Jan Burton's recommendation be incorporated: Make this a 24/7 quiet-hour property.

And use a single address for enforcement, which would allow the revocation of the rental license in the event of violations.

Young: "I understand that would require an ordinance change, or at least a special ordinance."

City Attorney Tom Carr advised against this, I believe. Changing city laws for one particular project leaves the city vulnerable to lawsuits.

Brockett: "We do need housing in this town. Students need housing as well as Boulder folks. The question is not — I hear people's concerns and I know, on average, young people tend to be louder than older people ...

"but people of all ages need housing," Brockett says. This project meets the criteria and has agreed to many stringent conditions.

Happy to explore more, but wants any conditions to not be "discriminatory."

"There's no property in this city that's required to be quiet all day long," Brockett says. That seems discriminatory.

Yates asks for a definition of quiet hours: Can you be as loud as you want outside quiet hours? Or is it like quiet hours and then really quiet hours?

Walbert: We tried to be descriptive, but we didn't list decibel limits. We just tried to capture normal, conversational levels of noise vs. parties / loud music.

Yates pushes for more: "What's the dif between A and B?"

Carr: It's noise that is so loud that materially interferes with activities in another individual's home... based on a objective standard of a reasonable person.

That's the rule for non-quiet hours.

Walbert: 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Sun-Thurs and 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. Fri-Sat are the quiet hours in the agreement.

Quiet hours disallow amplified "any sound louder than normal human speech"

But as Carr says, it's "pretty much the same" as the city standard for noise.

Yates: If the standard is "don't be annoying, why don't we say don't be annoying all the time rather than only during certain hours?"

That's him agreeing with Young's suggestion of a 24-hr quiet hours policy.

Brockett jumps in again on the noise thing: "I'm having a hard time believing that quiet hours means following typical city rules, and the rest of the hours you don't have to follow city rules."

Looking again at those quiet hours. There seem to be additional provisions to quiet hours, Brockett says.

Walbert: "I think that was the intent ... to be more restrictive."

Basically, it bans amplification or generation of any sound louder than human conversational speech.

Brockett: "That's very significantly more restrictive than the overall city code, right Tom?"
Carr: "Yes."

Actually kinda loving getting in the weeds on this.

Carr going over specific decibel limits in city code. Over 50 decibels after 11 p.m. in neighborhoods is not okay.

Carr: "It's easier to prove a decibel level" than what a resonable person finds disruptive.

Reasonable*

Carr: "The challenge we usually have is finding someone to testify. We have to have a (non-police officer) witness. Generally, ppl are reluctant to be witnesses against their neighbors."

Young: If the intent of the quiet hours language was to provide more enforceability, why didn't it include decibel levels?

She and Walbert pronounced decibels as deciBELLS and ew.

Carr: "Decibel levels are very difficult to keep below 50. 50 is normal conversation. It's a pretty tough standard."

Never thought I'd have to look up the decibel level of normal human speech, but there you go. myhealth.alberta.ca/Health/Pages/c….

Joseph: I do support the project. I do think it will provide the opportunity to house people in our community. I understand concerns over affordability, but nonetheless, "we need housing. Students need housing."

24-hour quiet hours... what if you want to listen to music on your porch? "It's simply oppressive, I don't think it's right, I don't think it's fair. Would it be applied to all the housing in the community? If not, I don't think it's fair."

(That was still Joseph)

Weaver: "There were lots of myths we heard tonight." The project meets criteria. But it's important to include conditions to address the neighbors concerns.

"What's not a myth" is that this will be housing for students, Weaver says. "I think that's something to be honest about. ... It is sensible to make sure the amount of non-conformity does not increase."

Supports both of Young's proposal: Using a single address for enforcement in the event of violations, and extending quiet hours.

"Idk that 24-hr quiet hours are going to make sense. What about leaf blowers? Lawn mowers. We have to acknowledge this is a property that's going to be lived in by human beings and maintained by human beings," Weaver says.

That means a certain level of noise, Weaver says.

Weaver: "We do live in a college town. Part of that is we house college students in our town. We should not discriminate."

"We should do the best we can to protect the neighbors from a noisy or trash-filled" home.

Swetlik: "I didn't realize you could pick your neighbors."

That was in terms of limiting how many students could go there, perhaps. Wallach jumps on that. Maybe council could require some grad students and faculty on site.

Not sure that's legal, but we'll see.

Young and Weaver: Can we require landlords accept housing vouchers here?
Carr looking that up. They can't REJECT them, per Boulder and state law, but idk if they can be mandated.

Young: "If you accept vouchers, it would likely add some diversity to the residential makeup of the building."

I know we've moved on from noise, but this is another cool table of how loud things are. It shows that 80 decibels is twice as loud as 70 decibels!

chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Tra…

Proposed quiet hours are 8 p.m. to 8 a.m.

Wallach: "Not every location has to be a party location. Perhaps this is one that ought not to be. If you want to party, do it indoors or do it elsewhere."

That gets majority approval, so moving onto the next condition: Using one address for enforcement. Carr going to address legal issues with this.

Carr: Staff determines whether or not to apply nuisance violations to the entire property or a single unit.

You would be saying that discretion disappears in the case of this application. You can't really do that in the application.

"What you're essentially doing is amending the code in an application. You can't really do that."

Weaver: Can we make it a condition?
Carr: I don't love that, bc you're changing the code.
Weaver: Can we make it a condition that we're interpreting the code in this way?
Carr: You can do that.

Yates: Let's ask the applicant again if they'll consider this as a condition. We can do this the hard way or the easy way.

Applicants accept.

Carr with information for Young: He's a little uncomfortable requiring that a certain % of tenants have Section 8 vouchers.

"I think we're on the line there."

Yates: "I'm uncomfortable regulating who may live where. We have federal laws on this, state laws on this. ... It feels a little draconian to me, to tell a landlord who he may or may not rent property to."

Carr: "There's no case law that says you can't do it. ... My preference would be that you don't do it."

Swetlik: I was just interested in learning more about it. If we're putting enough things in place here that will make it attractive to ppl who don't want to live disruptively, I think that accomplishes the goals.

"Idk that many college students that don't want to be noisy after 8 p.m.," Swetlik says. "That doesn't tend to happen a lot."

Young: Can we require that their marketing materials say "Section 8 vouchers accepted?"

Yes, Carr says.

I get what they're trying to do here, but there's no way a voucher holder could afford this housing. Vouchers are only for a certain amount; they still have to compete with the market and market-rate rents.

One of the reasons homelessness has grown so much in the past 40 years: Bc the gov't stopped providing actual housing and started doing vouchers instead.

Nagle: What happens if they have violations? What can the city do? Or, if things are going well, maybe the quiet hours could become more normal?

Wallach Sigh-O-Meter: 5(?) I've lost count.

Wallach Sigh-O-Meter: 6

Brockett: "I'm really uncomfortable with us as a council picking and choosing who lives in what buildings. Whether it's age or on other characteristics, I think it's too intrusive."

Weaver, (I assume) joking: "I didn't know you were a libertarian. That's awesome."

So another condition will be a one-year check-in on noise complaints, police calls, "whatever would be relevant," as Weaver says, on the property to see how the good neighbor agreement and other conditions are being enforced.

Wallach: What can we do with a check-in?
Carr: I don't think you can add any conditions. Bc you have the conditions for approval you do now, and that's it.
Weaver: "I'd call it useless, so we'd have to do better than that."

Yates: What's the consequence of violating the good neighbor agreement? (Or other conditions aren't met)
Carr: We could reverse the approval, I guess. ... There are criteria under which you can revoke a rental license. I just don't remember if that's one of them.

God this is fun.

Still talking about enforcement options.

OK, so staff is going to write these conditions into a final agreement and bring it back for a final approval May 25.

Actually, May 18.

Nagle speaking to residents. "Let us know if these conditions make you feel better. I'd be very interested in hearing about that before I vote."

Technically, since the public hearing is over, no further communications should be considered in council's vote. But... emails keep coming in, so.... *shrug*

Brockett: "We have to read our emails."
Carr: "We'll put them in the record, send them to the applicant, make sure they have a chance to rebut them if they so choose."

Swetlik: Are these conditions in addition to or in lieu of Planning Board's conditions?
Weaver: I think they are either altering or in addition to.

They are:
8 p.m. to 8 a.m. quiet hours (6-2 in favor of that)
Single address for enforcement (unanimous in favor)
Marketing must indicate that housing vouchers are accepted....

AND
There will be 3 check-ins at 1-yr intervals RE: code violations, noise complaints, police reports, etc. and to make sure conditions for approval are being met

Those were council's conditions. Planning Board's still apply as well.

That's the end of this item. Maybe a couple more.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!