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:…
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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Shay Castle

Shay Castle Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shayshinecastle

19 May
Moving on: Library district public hearing. Here's the presentation:…
I didn't take many notes, since I've covered this so extensively in the past and not much has changed. You can catch up here:…
Read 154 tweets
19 May
Quick update on the city attorney search. Tom Carr retiring in June; council will (likely) appoint Sandra Llanes as interim city attorney before the new one starts in July.
Those semi-finalists have been ID'd and are being interviewed by council (in pairs of 2) now. We should know the recommendation by next week or early June.
Llanes is a current deputy city attorney.
Read 6 tweets
19 May
Moving on to the consent agenda, where the adjustment to base budget item is. Normally pretty routine, but as I said, this time it includes $2.7M for encampment removal.…
Brockett on why he wanted a public hearing: There are significant new expenditures on items of community interest.
"There have been some strong opinions from the community on a lot of different sides," Brockett says. "That was my primary reason for requesting that be a public hearing."
Read 39 tweets
19 May
I don't have a list of open comment speakers, so idk who we've got or why. I may tweet; I may not. I'll keep you in suspense.
Patrick Murphy complaining about the new system for displaying emails to/from city council (which are public record). I agree; I didn't think it possible for the old one to get worse, but somehow, they did it.
So far, mostly Marpa House neighbors. As I said (earlier tonight and on KGNU yesterday) tonight's vote is likely a formality. Council just giving final OK to stuff they already discussed / voted on.
Read 7 tweets
19 May
Alright, our second monthly COVID briefing. Again, not sure why, since we just had one. Maybe they'll say.

Presentation here:…
Maybe bc we moved into Level Clear on Sunday, and ended our local mask mandate...?
Lexi Nolen, director of BoCo Public Health, with some good news: Boulder County has passed 70% of the adult population vaccinated.
Read 24 tweets
18 May
Another Tuesday, another #Boulder city council meeting.

Tonight: A second COVID briefing (not sure why, since we had one last week)
Public hearing on forming a library district
Final votes on Marpa House and appropriating $2.7M in new spending to remove encampments.
Those last two are really formalities, since council already voted on the substance of them. Both items are on the consent agenda, which mean they normally wouldn't even be discussed, but a few minutes have been set aside for each.
30 min for Marpa and 10-15 (can't remember) for the budget item. Councilman Aaron Brockett asked for a public hearing on the appropriation of $$; I guess this was the compromise.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!