Thread by @shayshinecastle

New topic, new thread (though we're still on the consent agenda): Final conditions for approval of the Marpa House reuse.

Presentation describing those conditions: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_3N_-…

30 min have been set aside for this (10 were set aside for the budget item, but it took 25, so 30 min prob = 45 min - 1 hr)

But I've been wrong before.

Wallach: Will the applicant only be required to report on compliance with the Good Neighbor agreement for 3 years?
Yes, Sloane Walbert says; that's what council directed.

Wallach Sigh-O-Meter: 1.5 (he did a half-sigh before the meeting started)

Some qs from Young/Friend about the quiet hours, referencing the video an open commenter showed earlier.

Tom Carr: "It's hard to say what the decibel level is from the video. We get lots of noise complaints, and the police investigate them."

His point: That video "probably" would have violated Boulder's noise ordinance. Marpa House would have 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. quiet hours, above and beyond city ordinances.

Weaver: What's the consequence for a noise violation?
Carr: Up to revoking occupancy (like not allowing ppl to live there). "I would say it's more severe" than our typical city noise ordinance.

Nagle: Yeah, that *could* happen. But will it? The damage will already be done to neighbors who have to "sleep in noise-proof rooms and have PTSD" and other things fromt the noise.

"Idk why we're not listening to our residents and supporting ppl who don't vote or pay taxes."

I'm NOT commenting on the issues noise can cause. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of Nagle invoking PTSD here when in the past she said that should be "reserved" for soldiers; that other ppl don't have PTSD.

Bah, moving on. RAWR!

Wallach: "I'd like to first acknowledge that the new conditions for the good neighbor agreement do improve it considerably." But he still has reservations.

Quiet hours are only good if they are actually enforced, Wallach says. We have noise ordinances now that aren't enforced. "I'm not assured, given our history of not rigorously enforcing restrictions on these kind of behaviors..."

"...that this (Good Neighbor Agreement) will be any more enforceable.

Wallach Sigh-O-Meter: 2.5

Sigh-O-Meter: 3.5

Escalating quickly.

Wallach: "I'm afraid by going down this path, we've communicated the message this community is on its own. And the next time a developer offers to buy their property, they should take it, because their days as a viable residential neighborhood are numbered."

Friend: I agree it does feel like we're paying lip service to the Hill (something else Wallach said). They are still dealing with constant noise issues. I understand why they feel abandoned.

But, Friend says, We should think of that during the budget, maybe put some $$ toward code enforcement, rather than holding one property owner accountable for all the issues on the Hill.

Young and Wallach asking that reporting on compliance of the Good Neighbor Agreement be extended past 3 years, indefinitely.

Carr: "We were just following council's direction."

Yates makes the point that more police on the Hill would help with noise issues, and that's part of the budget appropriation. To Friend.

Carr: Code enforcement is under the police dept, but other things like trash and snow removal are non-police responses.

Herold: "We need both."

Friend: I'm a little bit confused about what we're being asked for. My understanding was the 6 additional officers are specific to homeless solutions, not parties on the Hill.

Idk if she used the word solutions; apologies, I must have thinking of HSBC (Homeless Solutions Boulder County)

Herold again restating that moving 6 officers to homeless encampment removals / patrolling areas with a lot of unhoused residents would impact police capacity elsewhere, like on the Hill.

Nagle: "By allowing this property to move in, we're just extending the borders of the problem area."

Nagle: "Neighbors are not entitled NIMBYs. They worked hard for what they purchased. It's just unreal to me that we're not listening to our residents. It's very very clear the neighborhood does not support this. This is who votes for us and pay taxes."

Applicant is OK with having to do annual reports on the Good Neighbor Agreement and compliance, so that will be incorporated.

Carr asking if it should be *some* limit like 10 or 20 years.

Young: Is there a reason we couldn't put a limit on the number of violations. And "say if you have more than this # of violations, something egregious happens, which could be something like losing your rental license."

"Could we do something like that?" Young says.
Carr: "You could." That's already an option for Planning Board, which reviews these complaints, although there's no cap or hard #.

Young: "To leave it as a subjective decision to a body that is constantly changing makeup. I would feel more comfortable if we had some objective criteria."

Carr: There are objective criteria in the conditions.

Council could not overturn a Planning Board decision on violations for a certain property.

Friend again looking more broadly: Could we set a hard # for noise violations before a property is sanctioned? Not just on this property, but on the Hill as a whole?
Carr: Yes.

Weaver suggests a 10-yr limit for reporting compliance at Marpa House.

Weaver: My discomfort on a hard cap with a harsh penalty is that it does not allow for mitigating circumstances. "We've seen in the past that strict guidelines around sentencing can have unintended consequences."

Wallach Sigh-O-Meter: 4.5

He likes Young's idea of a hard cap, which gives "some teeth" to the good neighbor agreement.

Wallach Sigh-O-Meter: 5.5

Asks staff how often rental licenses are revoked on the Hill.
Carr: Idk that it happens anymore. When we first did short-term rental licenses, we revoked a lot. "We haven't had that problem once ppl realized it was something we were enforcing very strictly."

Wallach: "I think having standards matters. If it becomes purely a judgement call, you don't have much."

Nagle likes it, too. Doesn't like Weaver's idea of a 10-yr automatic sunset on annual reports.

"I think it should be assessed at 10 years" and the neighbors say how it's going.

Just got a vision of me here, 10 years from now, covering the same old shit. Dear god, I hope that is not my future.

Yates: I'm not sure it makes sense to have a hard cap of violations on just this property. Let's revisit our noise ordinance and do it citywide rather on a property-by-property basis.

Council majority OK with a 10-yr sunset for annual reports. (Brockett, Weaver, Yates, Friend, Joseph)

Young wants to strengthen/ add condition to Marpa House, but she doesn't know what, exactly.

No support for a hard cap on # of violations before serious penalties, but council will take that up for a citywide change later.

Vote to come; will add that tweet later.

Nagle, Swetlik and Wallach vote against this, but it passes.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.