07.26.23 HAB Packet
CITY OF BOULDER
HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AGENDA
DATE: July 26, 2023
TIME: 6 PM
LOCATION: Hybrid Meeting – HAB Members will meet at the
Brenton Building at 1136 Alpine Avenue – Public will
access the meeting via a link posted the day of meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL / 6:00 p.m.
2. AGENDA REVIEW
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. May 31, 2023 – See attached
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION / 6:05 p.m.
a. Open comment
5. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD / 6:10 p.m.
a. Occupancy Reform Public Hearing (Recommendation)
o Staff presentation – Karl Guiler
o The staff report is attached. Questions for HAB:
1. Does the Housing Advisory Board find that the proposed ordinance implements the
adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan?
2. Does the Housing Advisory Board recommend any modifications to the draft
ordinance?
o Board questions
o Public comment
o Board discussion and decision
b. Retreat Follow-up
c. Updates (airport, Boulder Junction Phase 2)
6. MATTERS FROM STAFF / 8:40 p.m.
7. DEBRIEF MEETING AND CALENDAR CHECK / 8:50 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT / 9:00 p.m.
Informational Item: Updates and education; no action to be taken
Feedback: Discussion of board processes and items of interest; may result in action
Input: Discussion and comments to shape staff work on housing issues, projects, and policies; no action taken
Decision: Vote on board processes, work plan, agenda items, etc.
Recommendation: Vote on the board’s input to city council
For more information, please contact the HAB Secretary at 303.441.3097, or via email at
bollert@bouldercolorado.gov. Board agendas are available online at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards-
commissions/housing-advisory-board. Please note agenda item times are approximate.
HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD
Summary Minutes: 05/31/23
HAB Members In person: Brenton Building, 1136 Alpine Ave, Community Virtual (Zoom)
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Leccese, Chair
Danny Teodoru, Vice Chair
Philip Ogren
Karen Klerman
Terry Palmos
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Julianne Ramsey
Karin Hoskin
Laura Kaplan, Planning Board Liaison
STAFF PRESENT:
Jay Sugnet
Ingrid Castro-Campos
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL / 6:00 p.m.
2. AGENDA REVIEW
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 26, 2023
a. Terdoro Motions to approve, Klerman seconds, approved 5-0
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION / 6:03 p.m.
5. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD / 6:04 p.m.
a. Occupancy
b. Retreat Planning
i. June 13 (3-6pm) Teodoro will prepare a detailed agenda based on suggestions
from the board and share prior the retreat.
c. Parking & Affordable Housing - presentation by Laura Rossbert, Shopworks
Architecture
i. Laura discussed the study results and conclusions with the following high
level take aways: 1) more parking is required by city codes than utilized by
affordable housing projects; 2) the lower the income of residents, the lower
the demand for parking; 3) parking is expensive to build and diverts limited
funding to building parking instead of housing; and 4) many affordable
housing projects do not get built because parking reductions require
additional process and uncertainty for a developer.
ii. The board asked questions and discussed Boulder specifics related to
affordable housing and parking.
iii. Laura also discussed a relatively new concept called trauma-informed design
that elicited many questions and comments from Board members. The goal of
TID is to create environments that promote a sense of calm, safety, dignity,
empowerment, and well-being for all occupants. These outcomes can be
achieved by adapting spatial layout, thoughtful furniture choices, visual
interest, light and color, art, and biophilic design. Laura emphasized the
importance of future residents providing input on design to achieve the best
outcomes.
d. Airport update – Phillip shared that no meeting occurred since the last update, but
that he is working on an editorial for Boulder Beat sharing his thoughts on the airport
process.
e. Boulder Junction Phase 2 – Michael shared that he attended the joint city board
meeting, heard a presentation similar to what was shared at the open house, and there
was good discussion.
6. MATTERS FROM STAFF / 8:32 p.m.
a. ADU Update
i. Adopted the HAB and Planning Board recommendation unanimously.
b. SB-213
i. Died on the vine, Governor may bring some version back next session.
7. DEBRIEF MEETING AND CALENDAR CHECK / 8:42 p.m.
a. Next meeting is the retreat on June 13, 2023
8. ADJOURNMENT / 8:50 p.m.
a. Palmos Motions to Adjourn, Klerman seconds. Approved 5-0
APPROVED BY
_________________________________
Board Chair
_________________________________
DATE
1
CITY OF BOULDER
HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 26, 2023
AGENDA TITLE
Public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Ordinance
8585, amending Chapter 9-8, “Intensity Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, increasing the
number of persons that may occupy a dwelling unit, and setting forth related details.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS
Planning & Development Services
Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services
Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager
Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor
OBJECTIVE
Define the steps for Housing Advisory Board consideration of this request:
1. Hear staff presentation.
2. Hold public hearing.
3. Housing Advisory Board discussion.
4. Housing Advisory Board recommendation to City Council.
KEY ISSUES
Staff has identified the following key issues to help guide the board’s discussion:
2
1. Does the Housing Advisory Board find that the proposed ordinance
implements the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan?
2. Does the Housing Advisory Board recommend any modifications to the
draft ordinance?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for Housing Advisory Board to make a recommendation to
City Council on an ordinance to amend Section 9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling Units,”
B.R.C. 1981 of the land use code to increase the occupancy limit per dwelling unit to:
• five persons (from three and four unrelated persons depending on zoning district)
on a citywide basis.
• two to three persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship,
including foster children, or adoption.
• from two occupants to three occupants in efficiency living units as proportional
increases to the five unrelated citywide.
The draft ordinance related to occupancy is found in Attachment A.
City Council identified updating occupancy limits as one of their top work program
priorities for 2022-2023. Staff discussed the project in detail with City Council on March
9, Planning Board on April 18 and again, with City Council on June 15 to receive specific
direction. Housing Advisory Board was briefed on the project on April 26. Summaries of
community feedback on this project and the Zoning for Affordable Housing project can
be found in Attachment B and Attachment C. Attachment D contains written public
comments received in recent months.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests Housing Advisory Board consideration of this matter and action in the
form of the following motion:
Suggested Motion Language:
Housing Advisory Board recommends that City Council adopt Ordinance 8585,
amending Chapter 9-8, “Intensity Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, increasing the number of
persons that may occupy a dwelling unit, and setting forth related details.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
The City Council study session memo contains public feedback on occupancy received
up to the City Council discussion on March 9.
Since that discussion, P&DS has used a variety of methods to engage the public including
but not limited to meetings with neighborhoods, interest groups and individuals, outreach
to students, renters and others in need of affordable housing options, conducting virtual
3
and drop-in “office hours,” hearing comments at board public hearings, and a Be Heard
Boulder questionnaire.
Diverse feedback has been collected on both the occupancy reform and zoning for
affordable housing projects with support and opposition being relatively even and
crossing all range of perspectives. Detailed summaries of the feedback received through
each outreach method or event are found in Attachment B. Attachment C contains the
results of the Be Heard Boulder questionnaire which includes over 2,000 responses and
over 1,000 written comments. Attachment D contains other written comments
specifically on occupancy received in recent months.
While Be Heard Boulder is only one tool of public engagement and is not viewed with
the same weight as a statistically valid survey (the limitations of Be Heard Boulder are
discussed in Attachment C), specific feedback on occupancy obtained through the Be
Heard Boulder questionnaire is helpful understand broad community sentiments. The
results, while not necessarily a cross section of the whole community, are provided below
for consideration:
• More support shown for 4 unrelated than 5 unrelated citywide with slight majority
indicating “Strongly Support” or “Somewhat Support”
• More even split between support and opposition for 5 unrelated with a higher level of
“Definitely Do Not Support”
• Majority of Not Support responses related to removing occupancy requirements
entirely with more than half as “Definitely Do Not Support” and “Somewhat Do Not
Support”
• Most respondents indicated as home / property owners with nearly a 1/3 being renters
• More support for changes among renters and younger participants
• More than half of respondents felt that regulations should not be left as is
BACKGROUND
At its retreat in 2022 and its discussion at a study session in November 2022, City
Council identified updating the occupancy regulations as one of its top work program
priorities for 2022-2023. The city currently has a 3 unrelated people per unit limit in
lower density residential areas and 4 unrelated people limit outside those areas. The
council direction was to “perform a comparative analysis from other communities,
develop a model occupancy approach, and solicit community input for ordinance
revisions.” Staff plans to complete the project by August 2023.
On March 9, 2023, staff presented an overview of the project including the background,
scope and timeline, community engagement received thus far, information on how other
cities regulate occupancy and suggested potential options for council to provide feedback.
In summary, council directed staff to explore the options of increasing the occupancy
citywide to 4 unrelated people per unit or to 5 unrelated people per unit. The council also
requested that engagement be expanded to include people most impacted by housing
challenges. Some council members asked staff to reconsider the city’s current family
definition.
4
For a full background on the project, the analysis of other community regulations, an
overview of the city’s current occupancy regulations and all the potential options
presented to City Council, see the March 9th memorandum at this link. A similar
overview of the project was provided to Planning Board on April 18, 2023 with the
memo at this link. Housing Advisory Board was briefed on the project on April 26.
Previous feedback from City Council, Planning Board and Housing Advisory Board is
provided below.
City Council direction at March 9, 2023 Study Session
City Council feedback on the project can be reviewed in the April 20, 2023 Study Session
summary memorandum at this link.
Planning Board
Staff presented the occupancy reform project and the preferred option to the Planning
Board on Apr. 18, 2023 (see this link). The board was generally mixed on whether to
increase maximum occupancy limits.
Three board members were in support of increasing occupancy limits citing the
following:
• There are benefits to increasing the limit to address the housing shortage, adding
to the housing supply to reduce costs and that many bedrooms are already
occupied whether compliant with current limits or not.
• Enforcement of illegal occupancy only removes housing options and increasing
the limit would increase housing security for some occupants.
• Occupancy is a form of gentle infill, a better use of land, and the proposed
changes would avoid situations of property owners cramming in additional
bedrooms to get more occupancy and more rental income, which was a concern of
the “Bedrooms Are For People” ballot measure if it had passed.
• Occupancy should not be regulated on the basis of the relation between
individuals within housing units.
Two board members were firmly against increasing occupancy limits by the City Council
following the “Bedrooms Are For People” ballot measure citing the following:
• Increasing occupancy will not protect neighborhood character, it would make
landlords more profit and will push families out of neighborhoods.
• Overriding the ballot measure would be a mistake especially since there is no
mechanism to guarantee affordability with any increase in allowed occupancy.
Two board members expressed that they were more ‘in the middle’ on the issue and felt
that occupancy may need to be tied to parking to avoid parking impacts. The following
additional comments were raised but not in the majority:
• More data should be offered before there could be support.
5
• There needs to be a better understanding of how increasing occupancy might
impact city infrastructure.
If occupancy is increased, it should be done conservatively, at 4 unrelated persons. One
member indicated that if limits are increased, university adjacent neighborhoods should
be exempted out of any increase.
Housing Advisory Board
Housing Advisory Board (HAB) reviewed the options at its Apr. 26, 2023 meeting. The
majority of board members supported increasing occupancy limits. One member
expressed opposition to the change saying that it would not greatly impact the number of
units needed and levels of affordability and thus, should not be the focus. Rather,
regulations on cooperative units should be liberalized by increasing the number of
allowable permits per year. HAB members in support of the change stated that bedroom
vacancies is a concern and an easy way to increase housing options. It would also enable
young professionals to live together and share costs. Some acknowledged that it wouldn’t
solve all problems, but that increasing occupancy was the right trajectory. One member
indicated that concerns about corporate entities buying up properties to take advantage of
increased occupancy is better handled through licensing and not zoning regulation. The
board member also felt that the city needn’t change its definition of “family.”
City Council direction at June 15, 2023 Check-in
Staff provided an update on the project to City Council on June 15, including results of
community engagement, further analysis of the option to increase the occupancy limit,
feedback from Planning Board and Housing Advisory Board, and additional council
requested data. Staff specifically requested direction from council on whether the
ordinance should increase the current occupancy limits to 4 or to 5 citywide. The detailed
memorandum to council can be accessed at this link.
A majority of council directed the following changes to be addressed in the draft
ordinance:
• Increase the occupancy limit to 5 unrelated citywide;
• Prepare at least two options for code language that would restrict any increases in
occupancy in areas that have a concentration of nonconformities (e.g.,
nonconforming density on the Hill); and
• Consider changes that would permit two families within a unit or alternatively, up
to three unrelated people and their dependents.
Council also requested that staff reach out to landlords to understand how they may
address or update leases in the Fall 2023 in light of these changes to open up more
options for students. Enforcement was also a major topic of discussion (particularly
parking related impacts) and council requested that staff look into the issue in the near
term.
6
SUMMARY OF CURRENT OCCUPANCY REGULATIONS
The city regulates each dwelling unit according to the following limitations:
• A family plus two roomers (two additional unrelated persons). The definition of
family is broad and includes traditional marriage, same-sex marriage, and
domestic partnerships. The definition is as follows: “Family means the heads of
household plus the following persons who are related to the heads of the
household: parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and
sisters, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces, first cousins, the children of first
cousins, great-grandchildren, great-grandparents, great-great-grandchildren,
great-great-grandparents, grandnieces, grandnephews, great-aunts and great-
uncles. These relationships may be of the whole or half blood, by adoption,
guardianship, including foster children, or through a marriage or a domestic
partnership meeting the requirements of Chapter 12-4, "Domestic Partners,"
B.R.C. 1981, to a person with such a relationship with the heads of household.”
Head of Household: “Heads of the household means one person or up to two
persons who are married or are domestic partners meeting the requirements of
Chapter 12-4, "Domestic Partners," B.R.C. 1981.” OR;
• 3 persons that are unrelated in zones that are generally low-density residential
zones permitting single-family detached units and public and agricultural zones
(RR, RE, RL, P, and A). This limitation does not permit additional dependents.
OR;
• 4 persons that are unrelated in all other zones. This limitation does not permit
additional dependents. OR;
• 2 persons and any of their dependents. The two persons and associated
dependents are not required to be related.
More flexibility is afforded to dependents in accessory dwelling units, as well as to
allowable unrelated people in cooperative housing units. The full language of the
occupancy limits can be reviewed in Section 9-8-5.
Dwelling units with legally established occupancy greater than that permitted by current
code are permitted to continue the nonconforming occupancy per Section 9-8-5(c).
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN ORDINANCE 8585
Per the direction of City Council from June 15 discussed on page 5 above, staff has
prepared a draft ordinance that includes the following:
Occupancy Increase
Section 9-8-5(a) is proposed to be amended to allow five unrelated persons per dwelling
unit, which amends the current limits of 3 and 4 unrelated persons discussed above.
Further, the same section is proposed to be updated to allow a commensurate increase of
“two persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship, including
foster children, or adoption” to “three persons and any of their children….” Efficiency
living units are also proposed to have a commensurate increase from two to three which
is consistent with allowances in the building code.
7
Limits on nonconforming uses
At the June 15 City Council meeting, a concern was raised about the impact of increasing
occupancy from three or four to five within dwelling units that were nonconforming to
density (e.g., a property where there are five units and the current code only permits one
unit). Council members were interested in maintaining occupancy levels in
nonconforming units at their current limit of 3 or 4, in order to minimize impacts where
there is a concentration of nonconforming uses. Council had requested at least two
options for addressing the occupancy limits for nonconforming units within Ordinance
8585.
OPTION A – Nonconforming Uses citywide: Staff is recommending the following
language for nonconforming uses as it would maintain occupancy limits in place prior to
the adoption of Ordinance 8585 in the simplest way:
Nonconforming Uses: A nonconforming residential use that is not permitted by
Section 9-6-1, “Schedule of Permitted Land Uses,” or is a lot or parcel that does not
meet the density requirements of Chapter 9-8, “Intensity Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is
subject to the following:
(1) The existing, legally established occupancy of a nonconforming use per
dwelling unit cannot be more than:
i. Three unrelated persons in P, A, RR, RE, and RL zones;
ii. Four unrelated persons in MU, RM, RMX, RH, BT, BC, BMS, BR, DT, IS,
IG, IM, and IMS zones, or
iii. Two persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship,
including foster children, or adoption.
This code language is reflected in a new Section 9-8-5(d) within Attachment A and
would effectively “freeze” the occupancy of nonconforming uses to current limits,
regardless of the increases that would apply to other conforming units.
OPTION B – Nonconforming uses in areas adjacent to the university: An alternative
version of this would be if there were intent to only “freeze” such limits within zoning
districts adjacent to the University where there are many nonconformities in areas like the
Hill and allow the increase per unit elsewhere in the city. This alternative is below and if
preferred, could be revised in the ordinance in Attachment A:
Nonconforming Uses: A nonconforming residential use that is not permitted by
Section 9-6-1, “Schedule of Permitted Land Uses,” or is a lot or parcel that does not
meet the density requirements of Chapter 9-8, “Intensity Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is
subject to the following:
(1) The existing, legally established occupancy of a nonconforming use per
dwelling unit shall not be increased to more than three unrelated persons in RL-1
and RE zones or four unrelated persons in the RM-2, RMX-1, RH-1, RH-2, RH-5,
BMS, BT-1, and BT-2 zones.
8
It should be noted that if either Option A or B were not included in the ordinance, the
increase to occupancy in Section 9-8-5(a) would not be automatic in units with
nonconforming occupancy or on lots or parcels with nonconforming uses. Rather, as
increases in occupancy are considered an “expansion of a nonconforming use” in the
code per the definition under that title in Chapter 9-16, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, a
Nonconforming Use Review application would be required for such requests to increase
occupancy. The language in Options A and B would not permit such requests for
expansion.
Other changes for consistency
There are other references to the prior limits have been updated to reflect the change to
Section 9-8-5(a) above.
ANALYSIS
Staff has identified the following key issues for the Housing Advisory Board’s
consideration:
1. Does the Housing Advisory Board find that the proposed ordinance
implements the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan?
2. Does the Housing Advisory Board recommend any modifications to the
draft ordinance?
Staff finds that the proposed ordinance implements the adopted policies of the
comprehensive plan. The following analysis is provided to demonstrate how the project
objective is met through the proposed ordinance.
What is the reason for the ordinance and what public purpose will be served?
City Council identified updating the occupancy regulations as a priority project for the
2022-2023 council term and requested a simple solution by ordinance in the quickest
possible timeframe to address the housing shortage.
Boulder and other Colorado Front Range communities, along with many cities across the
nation, are experiencing a housing shortage where supply has not kept up with demand
driving up housing costs. A look at statewide data on this issue can be found at this link
and a snapshot of the impact to Boulder County communities on housing costs and the
needs for housing is summarized in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan for Housing and
Community Development prepared for Boulder County, the cities of Boulder, Longmont
and Broomfield. The challenges particularly to the renting population considering the
limited availability of low cost housing and skyrocketing rents in recent years is
discussed in this Harvard prepared study at this link.
The city is undertaking the project to increase housing options in Boulder to mitigate the
rising costs and add more housing opportunities for people in more affordable ranges.
The problem statement, project purpose statement and goals and objectives of the project
that were supported by City Council are provided below:
9
Problem Statement: Boulder housing is increasingly more costly to rent or own
making it ever more challenging for some to afford to live or stay in Boulder.
Occupancy limitations and other zoning regulations may make such challenges
more pronounced.
Project Purpose Statement: Perform a comparative analysis from other
communities, develop a model occupancy approach, and solicit community input
for ordinance revisions.
Goals and Objectives:
Review city occupancy standards of other peer communities.
Based on best practices from other communities, prepare options for
changes appropriate to Boulder.
Consider simple land use code amendments that provide greater housing
opportunities in the community while preserving neighborhood character
in established neighborhoods and vet changes with the community.
While occupancy legislation, which had its roots in the 1960s, is often stated to mitigate
the impacts of any overconcentration of people in areas of the community, the city’s
Racial Equity Plan explains how such regulations also have discriminatory roots of as
stated as follows: “During the first half of the 20th century, explicit racism gave way to
more implicit forms of racism, legally continuing racial and socio-economic segregation.
Early zoning maps and regulations were used throughout the U.S. to prevent racial and
ethnic minorities from moving into middle- and upper-class neighborhoods. Federal
policies such as redlining and discriminatory lending practices were common practice
that effectively denied the American dream of homeownership to many people of color.”
How does the ordinance compare to practices in other cities?
Staff researched zoning occupancy regulations of 60 communities across the nation
including 16 Colorado communities. A detailed analysis is found in the prior City
Council and Planning Board memo packets at these links: March 9 study session and
April 18 presentation to Planning Board.
Most of the communities (called “sample” communities in this memorandum) that staff
selected for analysis have a large state university in the city or town. Many of the cities
reviewed are those that have a comparable population size to Boulder or have a
substantial amount of their population as university students. As staff was directed to find
best practices, staff broadened the list to additional local and other well-known larger
cities as well for comparative context.
Family definition: Most communities regulate occupancy using a definition of “family”.
Most of the definitions of family are very broad and similar to Boulder’s. Like Boulder,
these jurisdictions do no limit the number of people in a family who may live together.
These regulations are informed by a 1970s U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down
a restrictive definition of family as unconstitutional, finding that it intruded into the
choices concerning family living arrangements.
10
Occupancy limits on unrelated people per dwelling unit: Occupancy limits in zoning
codes are intended to limit the number of unrelated people per dwelling unit. Some
communities have uniform citywide occupancy limits per dwelling unit and many have
different occupancy limits per zoning district like Boulder’s current regulations.
Staff found that Boulder’s current limitations were neither the most or least restrictive
and fell generally in the range of where other communities have their limitation. In
general, staff found:
o Communities have alternative ways of regulating occupancy that are similar to Boulder’s limits along with allowance for a variations of coops and specific occupancy limits o Most communities have occupancy limits using family and unrelated persons, but some communities do not limit unrelated occupancy or have recently eliminated unrelated occupancy limits (California, Oregon, Washington, Minneapolis, MN) o Some have lowered unrelated occupancy limits in areas around their universities in response to concerns about impacts in areas with higher occupancy (Austin, TX, College Station, TX) o Others have higher unrelated occupancy limits in areas around their universities (Charlottesville, VA, Tuscaloosa, AL) o Some communities have recently changed their unrelated occupancy limits to 5 people (Denver, CO, Madison, WI)
Considering the recent Washington and Oregon state legislation that has prohibited
regulating unrelated occupancy, staff reached out to several Washington and Oregon
communities to understand local outcomes. Staff has heard back from Bellevue, Olympia,
Redmond, Walla Walla and Seattle, in Washington and Bend, Corvallis, and Eugene in
Oregon. All the communities, except for Bend which had no previous unrelated
occupancy regulations, needed to update their code to remove unrelated occupancy
requirements. Parking appears to be the main concern in many communities that have
universities, but the impacts have not been specifically attributed to occupancy. The
communities have not reported any increase in impacts specifically related to occupancy,
but also noted that the changes are still new and that it would likely take time for
occupancies to change. Some communities also indicated that they are not necessarily
tracking data on the change given that it is a state mandate, but Redmond did note the
change appeared to have slightly reduced rents in the city.
The June 15 memorandum to City Council has more information related to peer
communities and also includes a number of different articles, commentaries and studies
relating to occupancy and efforts to increase housing in communities to mitigate for
increasing housing costs.
Are there consequences in not adopting this ordinance?
The consequence of not adopting this ordinance is that housing opportunities in the
community would remain limited and costs could continue to increase. Further, some in
the community would continue to live with housing insecurity if they are technically
noncompliant with current unrelated occupancy limitations. The purpose behind the
11
proposed ordinance is that it is one way among others (such as increased ADUs, zoning
for affordable housing, and other inclusionary housing changes) that are intended to
increase the housing supply to help reduce housing costs and increase housing
opportunities for those most in need of housing.
What adverse effects may result with the adoption of this ordinance?
While increasing occupancy in conjunction with other zoning changes to add supply
(such as broader allowance of ADUs or zoning changes to encourage more units) may
over the long term stabilize or reduce housing prices compared to if such changes were
not made, the physical impacts of increasing occupancy are more difficult to quantify.
Conversely, allowing more occupants could have the effect of increasing property values
since more revenue could be obtained by property owners or landlords. Concerns
typically are related to limited on-street parking, increased activity of people coming and
going, increased trash or property maintenance issues (like uncut grass) and in some
cases, house parties.
Many cities that have increased their unrelated occupancy limits have taken a different
approach to these impacts, focusing more on the impacts themselves through targeted
enforcement rather than focusing on how many people are in a housing unit and whether
or not they are related. For instance, a house with an allowable family of 5 related
members may present more impacts than one with 5 unrelated occupants. That said, it is
not uncommon for neighborhoods adjacent to colleges or universities in many cities
around the country to report a higher incidence of nuisance issues. Passage of Ordinance
8585 may necessitate future discussions on increasing enforcement resources to address
any potential for impacts that could arise from more people on sites.
In response to concerns of how an increase in occupancy could impact neighborhoods
like University Hill and other university adjacent neighborhoods, a provision is included
in the ordinance that would prohibit an increase in occupancy on dwelling units that are
already nonconforming to occupancy (e.g., would not permit a dwelling unit that is
already exceeding 3 or 4 occupants to increase to 5 occupants). Effectively, the ordinance
would freeze the nonconforming occupancy as it existed prior to passage of the
ordinance. This is discussed on page 7 of this memorandum.
What factors are influencing the timing of the proposed ordinance? Why?
City Council identified updating the occupancy reform as a priority project for the 2022-
2023 council term. Council has expressed that the project should be completed as soon as
possible to address the housing shortage and no later than the third quarter of 2023.
How will this ordinance implement the comprehensive plan?
This project implements several relevant policies noted below and is consistent with Core
Values and Focus Areas of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Two Core
Values of the BVCP are being a “welcoming, inclusive and diverse community” and
providing a “diversity of housing types and price ranges.” Further, one of the focus areas
of the BVCP is Housing Affordability and Diversity.
12
Adding additional housing opportunities for people is one way the BVCP notes that the
city could mitigate the jobs: housing imbalance. Increased occupancy and housing
options for unrelated people would also broaden access for more affordable housing
throughout the city, which is consistent with the city’s racial equity goals and the
Housing Policies listed below. Such changes may present more affordable housing
choices for people of all races and incomes. Increasing housing options within the city
would enable more workforce housing in the city and reduce the need for in-commuting
which increases greenhouse gas emissions and a burden for in-commuters and residents
alike.
In contrast, allowing more occupants and housing in some areas could potentially
contribute to additional impacts to neighborhoods such as parking, noise or trash from the
greater intensity. This may necessitate increased funding for zoning and police
enforcement citywide to avoid adverse impacts to residential neighborhoods as expressed
by Built Environment Policy 2.10 below. City Council requested that this be discussed
further in the near term to ensure the project is continues to be consistent with all the
BVCP policies below:
Growth Management Policy 1.11 Jobs: Housing Balance Boulder is a major
employment center, with more jobs than housing for people who work here. This has
resulted in both positive and negative impacts, including economic prosperity, significant
in-commuting and high demand on existing housing. The city will continue to be a major
employment center and will seek opportunities to improve the balance of jobs and
housing while maintaining a healthy economy. This will be accomplished by encouraging
new housing and mixed-use neighborhoods in areas close to where people work,
encouraging transit-oriented development in appropriate locations, preserving service
commercial uses, converting commercial and industrial uses to residential uses in
appropriate locations, improving regional transportation alternatives and mitigating the
impacts of traffic congestion.
Built Environment Policy 2.10 Preservation & Support for Residential
Neighborhoods The city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance
neighborhood character and livability and preserve the relative affordability of existing
housing stock. The city will also work with neighborhoods to identify areas for additional
housing, libraries, recreation centers, parks, open space or small retail uses that could be
integrated into and supportive of neighborhoods. The city will seek appropriate building
scale and compatible character in new development or redevelopment, appropriately
sized and sensitively designed streets and desired public facilities and mixed commercial
uses. The city will also encourage neighborhood schools and safe routes to school.
Housing Policy 7.01 Local Solutions to Affordable Housing The city and county will
employ local regulations, policies and programs to meet the housing needs of low,
moderate and middle-income households. Appropriate federal, state and local programs
and resources will be used locally and in collaboration with other jurisdictions. The city
and county recognize that affordable housing provides a significant community benefit
and will continually monitor and evaluate policies, processes, programs and regulations
to further the region’s affordable housing goals. The city and county will work to
integrate effective community engagement with funding and development requirements
and other processes to achieve effective local solutions.
13
Housing Policy 7.08 Preserve Existing Housing Stock The city and county,
recognizing the value of their existing housing stock, will encourage its preservation and
rehabilitation through land use policies and regulations. Special efforts will be made to
preserve and rehabilitate existing housing serving low-, moderate- and middle-income
households. Special efforts will also be made to preserve and rehabilitate existing
housing serving low-, moderate- and middle-income households and to promote a net
gain in affordable and middle-income housing.
Housing Policy 7.10 Housing for a Full Range of Households The city and county will
encourage preservation and development of housing attractive to current and future
households, persons at all stages of life and abilities, and to a variety of household
incomes and configurations. This includes singles, couples, families with children and
other dependents, extended families, non-traditional households and seniors.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance 8585
Attachment B: Summary of Community Outreach efforts and feedback
Attachment C: Be Heard Boulder Questionnaire Summary
Attachment D: Public comments
K:\CCAD\o-8585 1st Rdg-2396.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE 8585
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9-8, “INTENSITY
STANDARDS,” B.R.C. 1981, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
PERSONS THAT MAY OCCUPY A DWELLING UNIT; AND
SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling Units,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to
read as follows:
(a) General Occupancy Restrictions: Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10-2, “Property
Maintenance Code,” B.R.C. 1981, no persons except the following persons shall occupy a
dwelling unit:
(1) Members of a family plus up to two additional persons. Quarters that roomers use shall
not exceed one-third of the total floor area of the dwelling unit and shall not be a
separate dwelling unit;
(2) Up to three any five persons in P, A, RR, RE, and RL zones;
(3) Up to four persons in MU, RM, RMX, RH, BT, BC, BMS, BR, DT, IS, IG, IM, and
IMS zones; or
(4) Two Three persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship,
including foster children, or adoption.; or
(4) A nonconforming occupancy meeting the requirements of Subsection (c) of this
section.
(5) The occupancy level allowed by Subparagraphs 9-8-5 (a)(2) and (a)(3) do not apply to
nonconforming uses or nonconforming occupancies.
. . .
(c) Nonconformingity Occupancy in Dwelling Units: A dwelling unit that has a legally
established occupancy higher than the occupancy level allowed by Subsection (a) of this
section may maintain such occupancy of the dwelling unit as a nonconforming
useoccupancy, subject to the following:
(1) The higher occupancy level was established because of a rezoning of the property, an
ordinance change affecting the property, or other city approval;
K:\CCAD\o-8585 1st Rdg-2396.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(2) The rules for continuation, restoration, and change of a nonconforming use set forth in
Chapter 9-10, “Nonconformance Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, and Section 9-2-15, “Use
Review,” B.R.C. 1981;
(3) Units with an occupancy greater than four five unrelated persons shall not exceed a
total occupancy of the dwelling unit of one person per bedroom;
(4) The provisions of Chapter 10-2, “Property Maintenance Code,” B.R.C. 1981; and
(5) If a property owner intends to sell a dwelling unit with a non-conforming occupancy
that exceeds the occupancy limits in Subsection 9-8-5(a), B.R.C. 1981, every such
contract for the purchase and sale of a dwelling unit shall contain a disclosure
statement that indicates the allowable occupancy of the dwelling unit.
(d) Nonconforming Uses: A nonconforming residential use that is not permitted by Section 9-6-
1, “Schedule of Permitted Land Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, or is a lot or parcel that does not meet
the density requirements of Chapter 9-8, “Intensity Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is subject to
the following:
(1) The existing, legally established occupancy of a nonconforming use per dwelling unit
cannot be more than:
(A) Three unrelated persons in P, A, RR, RE, and RL zones;
(B) Four unrelated persons in MU, RM, RMX, RH, BT, BC, BMS, BR, DT, IS, IG,
IM, and IMS zones; or
(C) Two persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship, including
foster children, or adoption.
(2) The rules for continuation, restoration, and change of a nonconforming use set forth in
Chapter 9-10, “Nonconformance Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, and Section 9-2-15, “Use
Review,” B.R.C. 1981, apply except that occupancy cannot be more than that
permitted by Subparagraph (1).
(de) Cooperative Housing License: A dwelling unit licensed as a cooperative housing unit
pursuant to Section 10-11-3, “Cooperative Housing Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981, shall not be
subject to the occupancy limits or any exceptions as set forth in this section; and an attached
accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory dwelling unit licensed with such dwelling
unit as a cooperative housing unit shall not be subject to the occupancy standards of
Subparagraph 9-6-3(n)(1)(A)(ii), “Occupancy Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981. All such
dwelling units together with any attached accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory
dwelling unit so licensed shall be limited to no fewer than four five occupants with the
maximum number of occupants, without regard to whether the occupants are related or not,
as follows:
(1) In the RR, RE and RL zone districts to no more than twelve occupants, provided,
however, that occupancy shall not exceed more than one person per two hundred
square feet of habitable space;
(2) In all other zone districts to no more than fifteen occupants, provided, however, that
occupancy shall not exceed more than one person per two hundred square feet of
habitable space; and
K:\CCAD\o-8585 1st Rdg-2396.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(3) The city manager may authorize a greater number of occupants in any cooperative
housing unit that is deed restricted as permanently affordable if the planning board
after a public hearing recommends a greater number. Before making any such
recommendation, the planning board shall consider the potential impacts on the
surrounding community, the number of residents proposed, the proposed habitable
square feet per person, the available off-street parking, and the mission of the
cooperative.
(ef) Prohibition: No person shall occupy a dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit in violation
of this section or intentionally or negligently misrepresent the permitted occupancy of a
dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit in violation of this section.
Section 2. Section 9-8-7, “Density and Occupancy of Efficiency Living Units,” B.R.C.
1981, is amended to read as follows:
(a) Dwelling Unit Equivalents for Efficiency Living Units: For purposes of the density limits of
Section 9-8-1, “Schedule of Intensity Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, two efficiency living units
constitute one dwelling unit.
(b) Dwelling Unit Equivalents for Growth Management Allocations: For purposes of counting
dwelling units under the provisions of Chapter 9-14, “Residential Growth Management
System,” B.R.C. 1981, two efficiency living units equal one dwelling unit.
(c) Dwelling Unit Equivalents for Moderate Income Housing: For purposes of counting
dwelling units under the provisions of Ordinance No. 4638, as amended, “Moderate Income
Housing,” one efficiency living unit equals one dwelling unit.
(d) Maximum Occupancy: No more than two three persons shall occupy an efficiency living
unit.
Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 4. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
K:\CCAD\o-8585 1st Rdg-2396.docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 3rd day of August 2023.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
__________________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of August
2023.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
Attest:
__________________________________
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH EFFORTS AND FEEDBACK
The March study session memos linked below contain public feedback on both projects received
up to the City Council discussion. This memo details public feedback received since the March
study sessions.
Occupancy Reform
Zoning for Affordable Housing
P&DS has used a variety of ways to engage the public on these projects including but not limited
to meetings with neighborhoods, interest groups and individuals, outreach to students, renters
and others in need of affordable housing options, conducting virtual and drop-in “office hours”,
hearing comments at board public hearings and a Be Heard Boulder questionnaire. Results of
this outreach are summarized below:
Meetings with neighborhoods, interest groups and individuals: University-adjacent and
single-family neighborhoods could be the most impacted by changes to occupancy limits and
zoning types. Therefore, staff has continued outreach to neighborhood groups like the University
Hill Neighborhood Association (UHNA), Martin Acres Neighborhood association (MANA) and
others. In addition to meeting with individuals, staff has walked through University Hill with
concerned neighborhood residents, met with PLAN Boulder and the Hill Revitalization Working
Group and attended a block party event in Aurora East to spread the word about the projects and
receive feedback. These conversations are summarized below:
o University-adjacent neighborhoods – Many neighborhood residents, particularly those
living in university adjacent neighborhoods like University Hill and Martin Acres, are
concerned of what the changes will do to their neighborhoods with respect to parking
impacts, increased noise, and overcrowding that could happen if occupancy is increased
in areas that already have nonconforming density. Here are some of the points heard:
Skepticism about the option of increasing occupancy and allowing more housing
types because it will only negatively impact their neighborhoods without actually
solving the housing crisis problem.
Changes will drive out families as they create a market that is beneficial to
commercial/rental property owners instead.
Landlords will enable more people to live in their units and charge a higher rent to
increase their profits.
Impacts in university-adjacent neighborhoods will increase by allowing even
more people into units that already exceed current zoning limits.
One resident has given a firsthand account of how parties, disorder and other
nuisances necessitated their move from the neighborhood and ultimately the city
due to impacts.
The options will not help the homeless problem.
Attachment B - Public Feedback
o Aurora East –The Aurora East block party was on Apr. 29 and included a mix of student
renters and property owners. Opinions expressed at that meeting included:
Students felt that increased occupancy limits made sense.
Owners expressed that they weren’t necessarily against more people living in
each home but did have concerns about parking. Street parking in the Aurora East
neighborhood is often filled by students that live in Williams Village and cannot
afford parking passes or drive into Boulder and park in the neighborhood to take
transit or walk to campus.
Some noted that if occupancy is increased, parking enforcement should also be
increased. They also expressed a desire for CU to accommodate more on-campus
parking for students.
o PLAN Boulder – PLAN Boulder expressed the following viewpoints:
Changes will impact neighborhoods and questioned when the zoning changes to
the neighborhoods would end. For example, when will the city say that the goals
have been reached and neighborhoods won’t have to get the brunt of the
changes?
Additional housing will not be affordable unless it is deed restricted. Occupancy
should be tied to affordability.
Enforcement against nuisances has not been effective.
The city cannot build its way out of the housing crisis and the jobs/housing
imbalance but rather should limit both jobs and housing to work towards balance.
o Hill Revitalization Working Group – The Hill Revitalization Working Group is
composed of property owners as well as students and University officials. We heard:
Some in the group were supportive of the changes to occupancy given the cost
and leasing challenges for students and felt that student voices should be heard by
City Council. With most units being 3 or 4 bedrooms, there are opportunities for
those bedrooms to be occupied and this should reduce costs for students.
Some fear that the apartment rent will reflect the same cost per-room, effectively
resulting in the same amount of rent for each person instead of lowering costs.
Another viewpoint was that increased occupancy should be directly tied to
affordability (i.e., a landlord that wants to have an occupancy of 5 would have to
agree to rent caps).
Outreach to students, renters and others in need of housing: In response to City Council’s
request to expand the level of outreach to those that are typically not involved in the land use
code change amendment process and those that are most vulnerable to the cost and reduced
availability of housing, staff targeted additional outreach to include more students, renters, and
organizations. Notice of the projects has been sent to student organizations prior to the end of the
semester including but not limited to the University of Colorado (CU) student government, CU
Black Student Alliance, and the CU Basic Needs Center. Staff met with the Dean’s Leadership
and Values Committee and has also reached out to organizations like Out Boulder County,
Attachment B - Public Feedback
Emergency Family Assistance Association (EFAA), NAACP Boulder County, El Centro
Amistad, UMAS y MEXA, and the Indian Peaks Group. Consistent with the city’s Racial Equity
goals, staff also presented to the Community Connectors-in-Residence (CC-in-Rs) to gain their
perspective. Summaries are provided below:
o Dean’s Leadership and Values Committee – On Apr. 27, staff met with the Dean’s
Leadership and Values Committee which is composed of the Dean of Students and
student government members. Students in the meeting expressed the following:
Boulder is super unaffordable and thus, many find it challenging to live in
Boulder and there are many that break the occupancy rules.
Addressing the issue will increase the level of affordability and decrease the
number of violations.
Many are working extra to pay for housing and even then, the price of housing is
out of control and compounded with expensive tuition.
The group expressed that many students are too busy with schoolwork and jobs to
attend council meetings to get these points across, but that many share these
concerns and feel that the issue should be addressed as soon as possible.
o Community Connectors in Residence – The purpose of the Community Connectors-in-
Residence (CC-in-R) group is to “evolve a stronger relationship between historically-
excluded community and city government, identify barriers to community engagement,
advance racial equity, and serve as a bridge for continuing dialogue by surfacing the
ideas, concerns, and dreams of community members.” Community Connectors belong to
an array of communities and bring lived experience, including immigrant and mixed-
status families, Black, Latinx, Nepali, Indigenous and Arapahoe, low-income, older
adults, neurodivergent, artists, business owners, students, individuals of varying levels of
education, and multigenerational families. Community Connectors indicated general
support for increasing occupancy limits and creating inexpensive housing options but
expressed skepticism around allowing more “cheap” housing and concentrating smaller
sized housing as expressed in the sentiments below:
Occupancy limits and other policies were put into place to restrict who is able to
live in Boulder, effectively keeping BIPOC populations out. We need to be
transparent about this and clean up our language in the conversation.
Affordable housing is a dialogue happening all across the country. 85% of land in
the US is owned by white people. Why is there not consideration for the
indigenous community who has lived here for generations?
Zoning regulations in general seem to be limiting and targeted to specific people.
Younger generations are not able to obtain the “American Dream” and many can
only afford to rent.
Concern that adding more smaller units may create future “ghettos”.
Do people really want to live in such a small space?
Attachment B - Public Feedback
Taking away parking from affordable units doesn’t seem logical.
Larger concerns around state of economy and mental health from crowding
people into smaller spaces.
Have lived in public housing, you take away culture of people of color, we like to
gather, see our elders, eat together, we cannot congregate in small units, white
culture is not understanding of our communal practices, smaller units are seeding
mental health issues.
Concern about investment companies or people with money buying up properties
to take advantage of the increased density.
Many community members need affordable housing but do not qualify for
affordable housing because of their income is higher from working 2-3 jobs, they
are needing to leave Boulder if they are in-between rich and poor; may necessitate
quitting a job to qualify, but then can’t support their family.
o Community leaders’ conversations –Staff has reached out to neighborhoods and the
following groups to host meetings where people can ask questions and provide feedback:
Better Boulder, Boulder Chamber of Commerce, Boulder Housing Network, Boulder
Area Rental Housing Association (BARHA). Viewpoints heard were:
One attendee supported increasing the occupancy limit to five people and
described their experience with being in the middle of the eviction process due to
complaints of over-occupancy where they lived. They noted that students,
especially international students, are vulnerable and have an even harder time
finding housing. Emphasis should be on enforcement of nuisances, not how many
people live in a unit and their relation to one another.
Another attendee supported a uniform occupancy limit citywide rather than the
two tiers (i.e., 3 and 4) that currently exist. There was some concern about making
it 5 unrelated as 5 may be too many people for smaller units.
Two attendees did not support an increase in occupancy or duplexes and triplexes
in single-family neighborhoods and noted that families will be pushed out and
parking impacts will increase. There should be an overlay zone that exempts out
university-adjacent neighborhoods.
Office hours: Staff has also held two office hour meetings where members of the public met
with staff with their questions and comments on proposed code changes. Most of the attendees
were supportive of the proposed options, finding that occupancy was discriminatory against
students and that changes to zoning make sense to allow more housing. One attendee supported
communal housing from an efficiency standpoint of shared kitchens and facilities, but not more
housing as they believe it will only drive up costs and add to the population which should be
controlled.
HAB and Planning Board public hearings: One member of the public spoke to HAB at its
Mar. 22 meeting and indicated support of the proposed changes saying that the changes would
Attachment B - Public Feedback
support more middle-income housing in the city and that there should be a limit on luxury
housing in Boulder. The commenter noted that people should be more against cars than people.
Six people expressed opposition to the proposed changes at the Apr. 18 Planning Board meeting.
There were concerns expressed that the number of rentals will increase, there will be more
student “ghettos,” and that neighborhoods like University Hill and Martin Acres will be crippled
by the changes. Some indicated that enforcement needs to be increased. Commenters also
supported exempting University adjacent neighborhoods from any changes to zoning.
Be Heard Boulder questionnaire: The City of Boulder hosted an online questionnaire to gather
input from the public on several high-level questions to help inform the development of
ordinances for both the Occupancy Reform and Zoning for Affordable Housing projects. The
questions were designed to gauge support on several potential options for land use code changes
and to solicit additional ideas and feedback from interested residents. The questionnaire was
promoted by reaching out to key stakeholders, contacting all the organizations and groups
referenced in this section, via NextDoor and other social media platforms, and including links to
the questionnaire in public presentations.
Between Apr. 27 and May 26, 2023, 2,187 responses were submitted to the questionnaire. The
questionnaire is an engagement tool for collecting feedback from the public; it is not
intended to express a scientific, statistically valid representation of all of the city’s residents.
In addition, staff is not interpreting the feedback as “votes” for or against proposed
changes. The Be Heard Boulder questionnaire is just one of the tools the city uses to solicit input
and the city acknowledges the limitations with this type of questionnaire. Nevertheless, it is a
useful engagement tool to help identify trends and potential areas of commonality in the
community’s opinions on the subject and as a channel for people to provide anonymous feedback
without attending a meeting.
Attachment C contains the detailed results of the questionnaire including specific comments
submitted by the public. Attachment C also includes an acknowledgement that some people may
have completed the questionnaire multiple times. Records indicate there are over 300 responses
that came from the same computer, some of which may be persons from the same family or
facility (which is why we do not restrict this type of access,) and may also be an indication of
multiple responses from a single person.
Many common themes emerged from the feedback provided through Be Heard Boulder, which
aligns somewhat with what has been heard throughout this process and often with opposing
viewpoints as shown below. More detailed comments are found in Attachment B.
• Residents are struggling with the cost of housing in Boulder.
• Zoning changes will only help investors and developers. It will not lead to more
affordable housing.
• Increasing housing supply by removing zoning restrictions will improve housing
affordability.
• Occupancy restrictions should be loosened to improve housing affordability.
• Increasing occupancy will not improve affordability. It will benefit property owners who
will increase rental rates.
Attachment B - Public Feedback
•CU needs to build more housing for its students.
•Density changes need to be accompanied by transportation options and parking.
•Different areas of the city should not be treated the same.
•Amending parking requirements is supported.
•Density can impact pollution and climate change.
The following takeaways from the results are interesting to review:
More support shown for 4 unrelated than 5 unrelated citywide with a slight majority
indicating “Strongly Support” or “Somewhat Support”. Increasing to 5 unrelated saw
more evenly spread support and concern, as well a higher level of “Definitely Do Not
Support” responses among those who do not support the change.
There is less support for removing occupancy limits entirely with 57% of the responses as
“Definitely Do Not Support” and “Somewhat Do Not Support”.
More than half the respondents felt that the city should not leave the requirements as they
are.
Support shown for allowing additional housing units in commercial areas and
neighborhood centers (nearly 60%) and about 40% against. Nearly 55% of respondents
supported allowing duplexes and triplexes in single-family neighborhoods while around
45% were against that.
Reducing parking requirements received a roughly 50-50 split between support and non-
support.
Most participants in the questionnaire were property/homeowners
Renters represent nearly 30% of participants.
The responses showed significantly more support for changes among renters and younger
participants.
Attachment B - Public Feedback
Be Heard Boulder Questionnaire
Response Summary
Background. The City of Boulder hosted an online questionnaire on Be Heard Boulder to gather input from
the public to help inform City Council’s decisions about the development of ordinances for the Occupancy
Reform and Zoning for Affordable Housing projects. The questions were designed to gauge support on
several potential options for land use code changes and to solicit additional ideas and feedback from the
community. Between April 27 and May 26, 2023, 2,187 responses were submitted to the questionnaire.
Limitations. This questionnaire is an engagement tool for collecting feedback from the public; it is not
intended to express a scientific, statistically valid representation of all the city’s residents. As an
engagement tool rather than a survey, there are important limitations to this questionnaire that must be
acknowledged while reviewing the results. The Be Heard Boulder platform does not restrict multiple
submissions from the same IP address. This is because site registration, which can deter responses from
those not already registered, was not required to submit a response. However, the platform does use
cookies to identify each response with a unique User ID.
For this questionnaire, there were approximately 113 duplicate User IDs associated with 371 responses,
which can occur when different people use the same device, such as in a library or workplace or where a
family shares a single computer. As there is no way of determining whether duplicates are different people
using the same device or the same person, responses from duplicate User IDs were not removed from the
data set. For example, 97 responses were associated with only two User IDs, which gave almost identical
responses to each question and similar comments in the open-ended questions but provided different
answers to the demographic questions.
Demographics. Understanding the demographics of respondents through the optional questions helps us
determine whether we need to use additional methods in the future to hear from a wider range of people in
the city. While some demographic characteristics of respondents have been included in this summary, all
responses to demographic questions were optional. An overview of the demographics of respondents is
included in the following pages.
Communications. The questionnaire was promoted through various channels, including the city-wide e-
newsletter, Planning and Development Services, Housing and Human Services and Transportation and
Mobility department newsletters, the project website, the city’s social media accounts (Facebook, Nextdoor
and Twitter) and direct emails to community members and organizations that are active in housing and
occupancy policy discussions, including students, neighborhoods, nonprofit organizations and advocacy
groups. A QR code and link to the questionnaire was also included in presentations.
The remainder of this report documents the results of the questionnaire and provides observations about
the responses, highlighting some of the variations in responses by different demographics of respondents
by both percentage and number of responses. The responses from this questionnaire and other
engagement strategies will be used to inform the development of ordinances for the two projects.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
2
Respondent Demographics
The questionnaire included several optional demographic questions; most respondents provided
information for some of the questions. Overall, the respondents represent a wide variety of housing
situations, incomes, race and ethnicity, ages and geographic locations in the city. Note: all charts in this
document display both number of responses and percentage (#, %).
Do you own or rent your home?
Which race or ethnicity do you identify
with most?
What is your household income range?
What is your age range?
No
response,
126, 6%
Own,
1294,
59%
Rent,
600, 27%
Other,
34, 2%
I do not have
stable housing
right now, 16,
1%
I prefer
not to
say, 117,
5%
No
response,
156, 7%
White,
1357, 62%Hispanic or
Latino/a,
72, 3%Asian, 49,
2%
Black or
African-
American,
27, 1%
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native, 9,
1%
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander, 4,
0%
Two or
more races,
80, 4%
I prefer not
to say, 417,
19%
Other
(please
describe),
16, 1%
No
response,
141, 6%
Less than
$25,000 a
year, 105,
5%
$25,000 to
$49,999 a
year, 265,
12%
$50,000 to
$99,999 a year,
400, 18%
$100,000 to $149,999 a
year, 305, 14%
$150,000 a
year or
more, 480,
22%
I prefer not
to say, 491,
23%
No
response,
130, 6%
Under 18, 2,
0%
18 to 24,
125, 6%
25 to 34,
440, 20%
35 to 54,
549, 25%
55 to 64,
283, 13%
65 and
over, 366,
17%
I prefer not
to say, 292,
13%
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
3
In which zip code do you live?
Other zip codes represented:
02 80020 80030 80204 80221 80310 80393 80424 80504 81625
35763 80021 802 80205 80306 80340 80394 80466 80516 8304
78758 80026 80202 80214 80307 80343 80395 80501 80526 89305
80003 80027 80203 80220 80309 80392 80403 80503 80544
249
464
279
509
406
80301
80302
80303
80304
80305
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
4
Occupancy Reform
Rate your level of support for the following potential changes to
occupancy regulations citywide:
1. Increasing occupancy limits to 4 unrelated people per home or apartment
Observations:
• 55% (1,202) of respondents either strongly or somewhat supported increasing occupancy to four
unrelated people. 42% (923) definitely or somewhat did not support the change.
• 80% (484) of respondents who identified as renters supported the change. 47% (610) of
respondents who identified as homeowners supported the change.
• Older respondents expressed less support for increasing the occupancy limits to four unrelated
people, with about 85% (817) of respondents 34 or under expressing support, compared to about
40% (148) of respondents 65 and over expressing support.
• Respondents in zip code 80302 (generally south of Mapleton, west of 28th Street, and north of
Dartmouth) expressed the least support for the change, with about 42% (196) support.
Strongly support,
796, 36%
Somewhat support,
406, 19%No opinion, 62, 3%
Somewhat do not
support, 174, 8%
Definitely do not
support, 749, 34%
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
5
2. Increasing occupancy limits to 5 unrelated people per home or apartment
Observations:
• 50% (1,097) of respondents strongly or somewhat did not support increasing occupancy to five
unrelated people, and 48% (1,041) of respondents strongly or somewhat supported the change.
• 79% (475) of respondents who identified as renters supported the change. 37% (472) of
respondents who identified as homeowners supported the change.
• 83% (481) of people ages 34 and under expressed support. 25% (94) of people 65 and older
expressed support.
• Respondents from the 80302 zip code expressed the lowest (37%, 172) percentage of support for
the change.
Strongly support,
781, 36%
Somewhat support,
260, 12%
No opinion, 49, 2%
Somewhat do not
support, 110, 5%
Definitely do not
support, 987, 45%
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
6
3. Removal of occupancy requirements entirely
Observations:
• 57% (1,246) of respondents to the questionnaire did not support removing occupancy
requirements entirely. 39% (860) either strongly or somewhat supported the removal.
• Of the respondents who identified as renters, 71% (424) supported the removal. Of the respondents
who identified as homeowners, 27% (356) of respondents supported the removal.
• 76% (432) of respondents 34 or under expressed support for removal. 18% (68) of respondents 65
and over expressed support for removal.
• Respondents from the 80302 zip code expressed the lowest percentage (30%, 138) support of
removing occupancy requirements entirely.
Strongly support,
692, 31%
Somewhat support,
168, 8%
No opinion, 81, 4%
Somewhat do not
support, 114, 5%
Definitely do not
support, 1132, 52%
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
7
4. No change to current occupancy requirements
Observations:
• Slightly over half (52%, 1,148) of respondents did not support maintaining the current occupancy
requirements. 43% (931) of respondents supported maintaining the current requirements.
• Of the respondents who identified as renters, 83% (499) did not support maintaining the current
requirements. Of the respondents who identified as homeowners, 42% (543) of respondents did not
support maintaining the current requirements.
• 58% (211) of respondents 65 or older expressed support for maintaining the current occupancy
requirements. 5% (7) of 18 to 24 year olds and 11% (47) of 25 to 34 year olds supported maintaining
the current requirements.
• The greatest percentage of support (53%, 249) for maintaining the current requirements came from
respondents in the 80302 zip code.
Strongly support,
733, 34%
Somewhat support,
198, 9%
No opinion, 108, 5%Somewhat do not
support, 142, 6%
Definitely do not
support, 1006, 46%
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
8
Zoning for Affordable Housing
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements related to
zoning for affordable housing:
5. Boulder should eliminate zoning standards that are barriers to building additional
places to live in commercial areas and neighborhood centers.
Observations:
• 57% (1,242) of respondents indicated they either definitely or somewhat agreed with the
statement, compared to 39% (865) of respondents who definitely or somewhat did not agree.
• Of the respondents who identified as renters, 81% (486) agreed with the statement. Of the
respondents who identified as homeowners, 49% (638) of respondents agreed with the statement.
• Similar to the occupancy-related questions, responses varied among respondents who identified
their age. 88% (499) of respondents 18 to 34 agreed with the statement. 42% (153) of respondents
65 and older agreed with the statement.
Definitely agree,
865, 40%
Somewhat agree,
377, 17%No opinion, 80, 4%
Somewhat do not
agree, 197, 9%
Definitely do not
agree, 668, 30%
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
9
6. Boulder should allow duplexes and triplexes in areas that currently only allow
single-family homes.
Observations:
• Slightly over half (54%, 1,170) of respondents either definitely or somewhat agreed with this
statement, compared to 44% (966) who definitely or somewhat did not agree.
• 81% (488) of respondents who identified as renters expressed agreement. 45% (580) of respondents
who identified as homeowners expressed agreement.
• 86% (489) of respondents 34 or younger supported the statement. 38% (137) of respondents 65 and
older supported the statement.
Definitely agree,
912, 42%
Somewhat agree,
258, 12%No opinion, 51, 2%
Somewhat do not
agree, 173, 8%
Definitely do not
agree, 793, 36%
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
10
7. Boulder should reduce parking requirements for residential projects to encourage
lower housing costs.
Observations:
• About half of respondents (49%, 1,069) either definitely or somewhat agreed with this statement,
and 45% (994) definitely or somewhat did not agree.
• 76% (456) of respondents who identified as renters expressed agreement. 40% (519) of respondents
who identified as homeowners expressed agreement.
• 80% (455) of respondents 34 and younger agreed with the statement. 31% (112) of respondents 65
and older agreed with the statement.
• 80302 and 80305 (the area generally southwest of US-36) residents had the lowest levels of
agreement with this statement (about 42%, 365).
Definitely agree,
816, 37%
Somewhat agree,
253, 12%No opinion, 124, 6%
Somewhat do not
agree, 184, 8%
Definitely do not
agree, 810, 37%
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
11
Do you have any other thoughts or ideas to share related to housing
affordability in Boulder?
1,021 respondents provided additional thoughts and ideas in the final open -ended question. Many themes
emerged from the feedback, representing different and sometimes conflicting viewpoints. The most
common themes are listed below. Samples of verbatim feedback for each theme are also provided below.
Common themes
• Residents are struggling with the cost of housing in Boulder.
• Zoning changes will only help investors and developers. It will not lead to more affordable hous ing.
• Increasing housing supply by removing zoning restrictions will improve housing affordability.
• Occupancy restrictions should be loosened to improve housing affordability.
• Increasing occupancy will not improve affordability. It will benefit property owners who will
increase rental rates.
• CU needs to build more housing for its students.
• Density changes need to be accompanied by transportation options and parking.
• Different areas of the city should not be treated the same.
• Amending parking requirements is supported.
• Density can impact pollution and climate change.
Residents are struggling with the cost of housing in Boulder
“My partner and I make a solid 6 figure salary
combined. We both have jobs in Boulder. We
have no children. We can’t even consider living in
Boulder because of the insane costs.”
“I've lived in Boulder for 35 years, and have seen
our housing pricing escalate into a situation
where it is completely impossible for middle-
income residents to become established here.
Without addressing this issue, Boulder is not
going to be able to maintain the culture that
makes it so desirable to live to begin with. It'll
become a calcified retreat for the wealthy (ala
several of CO's mountain towns like Aspen where
the billionaires have pushed out the millionaires),
and will add an unacceptable environmental
burden to the environment as it drives up
regional commuting and car traffic in and out of
town.”
“We need to make it so people can actually
AFFORD to live in this wonderful city! Whether
that's rent control, tying rent directly to income
or another method we have got to make it so
living here is not restricted to the wealthy.”
“We need all of these changes. I am a 31 year old
renter with limited housing options inside my
budget. We really really need occupancy limit
reform, more housing development, and parking
reform to make Boulder a welcoming community.
(Have you read the high cost of free parking by
don shoup?)”
“As a lifelong resident who is close to being
forced to leave the city because of rising rents
and housing prices, I strongly support ANY
options for increasing affordability of housing in
Boulder! Including at the middle-income level.”
“Paradise isn't paradise if locals can't afford to
live there.”
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
12
Zoning changes will only help investors and developers. It will not lead to more
affordable housing.
“Housing affordability is not being driven by the
shortage of supply. We have a very desirable
community and an increase in housing
affordability will just attract additional residents.
Affordability and equity issues must be addressed
as a regional issue.”
“People keep proposing extreme
occupancy/density changes as if one-size-fits-all
neighborhoods. No. No. No. Density will not bring
housing and rent prices down.”
“High density/affordable/low income housing is
clearly the agenda here. While perhaps
appropriate in certain areas of the city, the
continuing crusade to make residing in Boulder a
"right" should not dominate the discussion.”
“The big problem that few people in Boulder
seem to understand (other than economists) is
that we have an infinite demand, inelastic
demand housing market. Because of that, the
measures you propose will do nothing to increase
affordability. Supply increases in inelastic
markets do not lower prices. The city would study
atypical inelastic markets much more
thoroughly.”
“None of these proposals will have any effect on
housing prices or affordability in Boulder. City
voters rejected the misguided Bedrooms
proposal. Don't overturn that vote.”
“Don’t ruin our city by trying to turn it into
Manhattan, it’s already too dense.”
“Unless the city facilitates more rental, income
qualifying rental property OR deed restricted
income qualifying for sale property the city WILL
NOT have more affordability because the
investment community will drive rents based on
the desirability of Boulder. US News and World
Report last week listed Boulder as #4 nationally
on Desireability as a place to live in the entire US.
We need RESTRICTIONS on new housing in order
to serve the population the city is trying to serve.”
“I feel like all of these changes will only benefit
landlords and developers. If you can split the rent
five ways then the rent will just go up making
homes more valuable for landlords but also
prohibition expensive for people wanting to buy
their home. These plans are short sighted - any
gains for affordable housing will be lost to market
forces within a year or two. Affordable housing
efforts needs to be focused on our seniors and
our first responders and our teachers. We should
not be creating more housing so more people can
move here and ultimately make housing more
expensive again.”
“I thought we already voted on this -? Why is city
council trying to ignore their constituents? I am
opposed to any increase in housing density.
Affordability has always been an issue here (I was
born here and my parents struggled with it). I
think any increase to density will only make
Boulder less desirable.”
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
13
Increasing housing supply by removing zoning restrictions will improve housing
affordability.
“The only way to actually increase affordability is
to dramatically increase construction and
population density to provide a larger supply of
housing to meet the demand. Almost everything
in the Land Use Code, from single-family zoning
to occupancy requirements to parking minimums
to the height restriction works contrary to this
goal.”
“I am a single family homeowner and change is
scary. But we are experiencing a housing crisis
that cannot continue to be ignored.”
“Look, y'all on city council and whoever else
reads this know: We have a problem with building
space in Boulder. You know we can't build
north/south/east because of open space, can't
build west because of lack of utility access, can't
build up because of views. What remains?
HIGHER DENSITY. Should we try to enable
Boulder to support a population of 1 million
without growing the bounds of the town? No,
that's insane. Should we try to do everything we
can to increase housing availability at multiple
price points to support the existing students and
low-wage workers? Yes!”
“Please develop more mixed use housing
development; please designate more housing as
affordable. The demand for housing is here, but
the supply is limited and it is crippling boulder.
help!!!!”
“Single-family zoning should be eliminated in
favor of high density housing throughout the City
of Boulder. Affordable housing and high density
development should be highly prioritized and
large square-footage single residences should be
heavily taxed and scrutinized as they are a waste
of land. Also the permitting and review process
needs to be simplified and streamlined and
lawsuits to delay and prevent development need
to be made unlawful. Local NIMBYs are
destroying the ability of younger, diverse people
to make a home in Boulder or raise a family
here.”
“I realize that allowing more housing in my single
family neighborhood may be a difficult
adjustment, but it is needed.”
“As a single family home owner in a very
traditional neighborhood, I strongly encourage us
opening up our neighborhoods to people. That
means denser neighborhoods with more people
and more creative answers to personal and
shared motorized transport options.”
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
14
Occupancy restrictions should be loosened to improve housing affordability.
“As a 26 year old living in Boulder, housing
affordability is very close to my heart. I wish I
didn’t have to break the law in order to live with
roommates and afford rent. I’d like to be able to
stay in Boulder for a long time and the measures
discussed in this survey would be a huge step in
the right direction.”
“Boulder’s current occupancy limits and
definition of family are inherently discriminatory.
They do not allow for polyamorous families or
other modern familial relationships. To the extent
that Boulder maintains any form of occupancy
limit, it should apply equally to all persons and
not be subjective to a government-controlled
definition of family.”
“Allow 55+ people to live together as we age. I
have many friends (all old time Boulder natives)
that are reaching retirement and we all want to
get out of our large single family homes and live
in a co-housing situation. Shared housing for the
aging community. I understand not allowing
college age kids to pack a house but I never hear
about options for the aging community.”
“It is discriminatory to tie any occupancy to
family status. Not every adult wants or is able to
get married. I plan to live as a senior citizen in a
Boulder home with 4 or more other senior
citizens when I retire. Family status is irrelevant”
“I bought my home in 2016. Taxes were 4400.
2022, taxes were 7800. Insurance costs have risen.
Why can’t I have more than 2 roommates in my 5
bedroom house to help me cover the rising costs
of being alive?”
“A 5 person occupancy limit would be fantastic!
There are 4 and 5 bedroom houses all over
Boulder that could safely allow for this, and allow
house sharing to be a viable option for those who
cannot afford $1200+ rental prices per month.”
“In my opinion the current occupancy limits
discriminate against single people. It makes no
sense to say that a family with seven children
including four who drive, like my niece's, should
be allowed to live in a house while four single
adults cannot. Lifestyles should not be regulated.
The related vs unrelated criterion should be
removed from any future regulation. Doing so will
be the progressive thing to do.”
“Everyone who lives in a college town and
complains about college students would do well
to remember that 1) You chose to live here, or
choose to remain, and 2) it's not just college
students trying to live here on low incomes. It's
your hairdresser, your waiter at brunch, your car
mechanic, not to mention grad students and
other academics who literally carry half the
Boulder economy on their backs and have very
little choice about living here or not (their grad
school choice is largely determined by where
they get in). So, if you want to have a vibrant,
diverse town, we need to reform occupancy limits
to at least be on par with other similarly-sized
college towns that are not having this
conversation constantly. If you want a retirement
community where the people serving you are
constantly stressed because they can't afford to
live here (encouraging workers to come in sick to
work to not miss out on money, or to quit and
drive constant staff turnover), then by all means,
keep the limits where they are.”
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
15
Increasing occupancy will not improve affordability. It will benefit property owners
who will increase rental rates.
“The NUMBER of people allowed/housing unit
does NOT determine the affordability of renting
or buying that housing unit. There MUST be
regulations that address COST.”
“Increased occupancy mostly benefits students
and will just push renting families out of Boulder.
Landlords will just charge more rent in a "per
room" system that will favor students and hurt
families. Students would also be more likely to
rent a 4-5 bedroom house with one in each room
if occupancy is increased which will again make it
harder for families who truly need the 4-5
bedrooms. Please don't change the occupancy, it
will really hurt the community of our
neighborhoods.”
“I have seen no evidence that increasing
occupancy limits would lead to lower housing
costs. Landlords are in a profit-making business
and have no incentive to lower rents if more
renters occupy their properties -- indeed, raising
occupancy levels would merely increase their
bottom lines. Absent solid proof that more
people = lower rents, you should do nothing to
alter current zoning that will only destroy our
neighborhoods and increase cars, noise,
pollution, and trash.”
“Occupancy reform will lead to students living in
crowded and hazardous conditions while doing
little address the restrictions that have been
preventing supply from meeting demand. We
need SUPPLY-SIDED housing reform for to reach
long-term affordability goals.”
“A house renting to 3 unrelated people for $4500
will just rent to 4 unrelated people for $6000, or 5
people for $7500. No affordability gain at all.
Meanwhile, you make that rental too expensive
for a family to afford. We're already losing many
families from Boulder, and you'll just accelerate
our declining local school enrollment.”
“It’s the same all over the country. Housing prices
are going up. Allowing additional unrelated
people in a home will only benefit the landlords.
My neighbor just added a bedroom in his rental
property in anticipation of the law changing, and
him being able to charge an addition $1000 for a
bedroom.”
“Landlords will continue to charge the same
amount of rent per bedroom/person, so their
profits will dramatically increase but savings and
affordability won't be passed onto renters. In
addition, parking availability and noise in
residential neighborhoods (such as University
Hill) will only get worse.”
“Changing occupancy limits does not help
teachers, firefighters, police, early-in-career
professionals, or young families. It serves, almost
exclusively, landlords. Please focus on the
population that you're aiming to enfranchise.”
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
16
CU needs to build more housing for its students.
“Why doesn’t the City force CU to start providing
housing for more of their students instead of
forcing the tax payers to build more affordable
housing due to a housing shortage that’s created
by CU not providing enough housing for their
students? My understanding is that CU only
provides housing for a small portion of their
student population, mostly just for Freshman. If
CU just provided an additional 10,000 beds that
would open up 10,000 beds in the City, which
would ultimately lower the cost of rent due to the
increase in supply.”
“During my lifetime, Boulder has always been
unaffordable for some people. I see Council's
solutions just a way to shoehorn people into a
space that will create an ugly crowded town.
Require CU to build more affordable housing for
its students instead of the City doing all the heavy
lifting.”
“Please look to CU to solve this, not the Hill
residents to take on the burden.”
“Students should be on campus and residential
areas for families”
“Manage investors better and cap CU growth
rates, or reduce CU populations!”
“Boulder's huge problem is the jobs/housing
imbalance. Boulder isn't able to keep bringing in
new industries. Secondly, the CU 's mission to
get bigger and bigger, causing an extreme
housing shortage. CU tells Boulder: we'll grow as
big as we want; the city can deal with the ever
increasing housing shortage. The city well knows
there are many dwellings with occupancies of
many students, not 3, not 4. Those dwellings are
often not taken care of, and there are often loud
goings on that disturb neighbors.”
“1. The city should work with CU to build more
student housing on campus and require that
more undergrad students live on campus. 2.
Moving students to campus would free up lots of
housing for other residents. 3. Moving students to
campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder
police who are constantly responding to
disturbances from students. 4. Moving students
to campus is also a good move for responding to
climate change. For example, it reduces the need
to tear down our current structures with all of
their embodied carbon and add strain to current
infrastructure and resources that are already
under stress from climate change.”
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
17
Density changes need to be accompanied by transportation options and parking.
“Most up zoning would be fine with residents if it
didn't cause parking problems. I would love to
see something that didn't allow dense
developments to offload their parking. With that
in place I think we could add a lot of density
without making residents angry.”
“Likewise, I worry about what reducing parking
requirements will do - our public transport is still
not good enough that people simply won't have
cars - so, if you're going to reduce parking, you
need to increase/improve options for public
transport.”
“I live in a single family home area. My next door
neighbors are 4 unrelated people. It's not the
number of people in the house that is an issue;
the issue is the number of cars from the residents
and their guests that our streets are not designed
to handle. For each of the 4 residents, there are
also guest cars. That is sometimes 8 cars for one
house. So, my primary objection to increasing the
number of people allowed to live in each house is
the number of cars that will clog the
neighborhood (and block mailboxes and
sidewalk ramps, which happens often).”
“Reducing parking requirements MUST coincide
with improving access to public transit and
making roads safer for bikers & pedestrians.”
“Reduction of parking requirements will be an
incredibly important tool (I'm strongly
supportive!) but must be planned accordingly
with a comprehensive vision of transportation
system improvements--namely more frequent
and geographically distributed public transit.
Think big! :)”
“Please stop trying to make Boulder into a large,
over populated, place with so many people
crammed in that the quality of life deteriorates.
Traffic is already more than our roads can
handle.”
“I'm all for duplexes & triplexes in appropriate
locations, but definitely not in single-family home
areas. Parking is already a nightmare on many
residential streets in single-family areas, and the
problems would only intensify with more density.
With the limited available land in the city, there
probably are very few 'appropriate locations' for
this type of housing.”
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
18
Different areas of the city should not be treated the same.
“Occupancy limits and affordable housing
policies need to be tailored to specific
circumstances in specific areas of Boulder. For
example, in areas where new development could
take place, density that would lead to lower
housing costs makes sense. In other
neighborhoods, such as University Hill, policies
that increased occupancy limits would not
necessarily lead to lower housing costs--rather, it
would enable landlords to make more money
without lowering the rental cost per student
renter. In general, I think we need to proceed
slowing and thoughtfully as we implement
policies that aim to lower costs by increasing
density--the policies we implement could have
negative unintended consequences that do not,
in fact, lead to more affordable housing.”
“We need to work towards more students living
on campus. The Hill neighborhood is reaching a
tipping point where it is either going to be
sustained as a Boulder treasure with families,
students, and faculty alike. Or, it will become so
rundown by student-disturbances that result in
families (like mine) fleeing the broken glass,
fireworks, and 2am disruptions for the Hill to end
up a landlord’s cash cow and wasteland. “
“Preserve single family neighborhoods zoning.
Under no circumstances increase housing
occupancy on the Hill or Goss Grove.”
“Yes, neighborhoods such as Goss-Grove, Uni-hill
and Martin Acres should be exempt due to their
current overcrowding and related demise of their
quality of life due to student rentals which out-
number owner occupied residences.”
“Parking needs to be done on a neighborhood by
neighborhood basis. I live on UniHill - we cannot
handle any more cars. But there are certainly
neighborhoods within Boulder where the parking
requirement might work. It is hard. as I find it
impossible to visit any of the commercial
establishments around the 30th and Pearl
developments because there is no where to park.
Those establishments will survive only if enough
people living in the area support them.
Also - CU needs to take greater responsibility for
housing its students and low income workers. I
don't know how you make them do that - but
their commitment to growth, i.e. more students,
just hammers us on the Hill.”
“People keep proposing extreme
occupancy/density changes as if one-size-fits-all
neighborhoods. No. No. No. Density will not bring
housing and rent prices down.”
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
19
Amending parking requirements is supported.
“It’s time to end exclusionary zoning and parking
requirements that work against Boulder’s equity,
climate, transportation, and livability goals.
Thank you for taking this on.”
“I believe eliminating parking minimums is one of
the best things (and among the lowest lifts) we
can do for our community and to curb the
affordable housing crisis. Eliminating single-
family zoning is also key, as is adopting a strong
equity-focused infill strategy.”
“We have enough cars! No more mandated
parking!”
“In addition to reducing parking requirements
across the board to encourage lower housing
costs, consider parking maximums or other
reduced parking requirements, especially along
corridors with frequent transit service and bicycle
connectivity.”
Density can impact pollution and climate change.
“Housing policy IS climate policy! R-1 Zoning
must be repealed, period. It is responsible for the
car culture and a terrible housing crisis.”
“I believe a denser Boulder will help to reduce
traffic and pollution.”
“Opponents to these reforms need to answer to
the pollution impacts when more and more
Boulder workers are forced to commute by car
because they cannot afford to live where they
work. It is not a neutral decision to do nothing.”
“Higher density housing will also address the
City's social justice, equity, as well as climate
change goals.”
“Boulder's economy relies on service sectors
workers and the university, but a lot of workers
and students need to commute in from outside
communities, driving up emissions and taking a
time and financial toll on two groups who are
strapped for cash and time. Allowing more
residences in the city would help with this
problem.”
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
20
Other frequent topics:
Several respondents shared additional ideas and concerns on related topics.
• Affordability is impacted by the increase in property prices with employers such as Google coming
to town
• Need to ensure that landlords are responsible for tenant behavior
• Need to focus on enforcing nuisance rather than number of people
• Concerned about impacts of parking or noise
• Supportive of greater densities along transit corridors/commercial centers for more walkable
neighborhoods
• Support increasing density within ¼ mile of transit corridors or east of 28th street
• Add occupancy/density in areas zoned for density (not single-family housing zones)
• Duplexes and triplexes are great for seniors to downsize and stay in town; and good for families too
• Moving too fast will lead to unintended consequences
• People living in affordable housing are the ones that need their cars the most – don’t reduce/make
parking stringent for these community members
• Concerned about allowing cash-in-lieu affordable housing instead of on-site units
• Interest in rent control option to improve affordability
• Incentivize developers to build more missing middle housing
• Convert office space to affordable housing
• Build affordable housing at the airport
• Tax absentee homeowners with vacant homes
• Concerned with the increase in AirBnBs/VRBOs
• Need to simplify zoning
• Frustrated that this is being considered again after the Bedrooms are for People vote
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
21
All written responses received:
• Construction of new market rate housing resulting in densification of Boukder will never result in affordable
housing. Developers are driven by the profit motive and will build luxury housing to maximize their return on
investment and landlords will charge the highest rent possible. Government subsidy of affordable housing is the
only way to provide it. The best way to achieve this goal is for the City to purchase declining multi family housing,
renovate it and add to the affordable housing stock managed by BHP. This should be funded through commercial
development fees so that residents do not have to pay for the oversupply of jobs in Boulder which is the cause of
the lack of affordable housing.
• ADUs, tiny homes - let's consider ALL the options to increase housing density!
• The most important problem is cars and other vehicles, not people. Ignoring this will deteriorate our
neighborhoods.
• Parking is the largest problem created by loosening housing standards.
• I believe that current requirement for 25% permanently affordable housing in new development is good, but
affordable units should be included in the development. Buy-out fees should be allowed only occasionally and at
much higher cost.
• I would be OK with eliminating single family zoning for new developments. I live in an old neighborhood with
duplexes, triplexes and some larger homes with 5-6 units--all converted when there was no zoning. It is
considered one of the most desirable 'hoods in Boulder. Maintaining "single family" preserves the status quo and
minimizes disruption in an established neighborhood. We actively down-zoned a portion of the neighborhood
when developers with deep pockets started buying any old house that came on the market and demolishing them.
Now we have the opposite problem with deep pocketed developers buying and gutting the conversions often
returning them to single family for new, absentee owners.
• Please stop destroying my hometown with your endless building. Boulder cannot support that growth due to
water and infrastructure issues. Triple linkage fees! Stop City officials from inviting more and more (tech)
companies to locate here!
• Boulder is adding huge amounts of dense housing in pockets around the city (such as Steelyards). The problem is,
TRAFFIC. People don't walk unless their amenities are right near where they live. That requires enough vertical
density in a small area to support businesses. All around 29th St Mall there are condos, but most people don't walk
to shops from there. The answer WOULD be to have residential above retail/commercial, but 29th St. is just
another mall. Everyone drives everywhere, and the roads can't handle more density, even if the housing came.
• Increasing density is a very bad idea when we are facing very poor air quality and potential water shortages. You
should be focusing on clean transportation and land preservation.
• Don't Be Dense, Boulder.
• I would like to see much more transparency around the funds that are and have been collected and distributed
when a builder ops out of building in affordable / low income units and pays into the city coffers for affordable
housing. Where has and does this money go and who decides how it is to be spent?
• Admirable to try to address housing inequities in Boulder, but these proposals will lessen quality of life here and
fall short of lowering costs. A very bad idea.
• Include density bonuses to create incentives for more on-site affordable housing
• Affordable housing is the single most important issue facing Coloradans today. The recent failure of state-level
measures for affordable housing is incredibly disappointing to me, but it's a great opportunity for municipalities to
step up. If the argument is that zoning and affordability should be handled at the local level rather than the state
level: let's prove it!
• Duplexs and Triplexs can be converted historic buildings, or new builds, and often allow for more housing without
any neighborhood disruption. There is not enough awareness of what neighborhoods that utilize this look like and
that's where mis-information can stem from. I highly recommend the public, council, and whomever it concerns
visit areas where historic buildings have been converted to multi-house units and ask neighbors/residents about
their opinions on how it is to live in that community.
• Duplexes might make sense in single-family zones. Triplexes might be too much.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
22
• Boulder is so unaffordable at this point from a lack of making any change over the past 50 years that Boulder
needs to allow a lot more than triplexes to get back on track.
• These changes make sense. Our community desperately needs them.
• Limit office space and employment opportunities within the City of Boulder in order to reduce the demand for
housing. Convert some office space to high density apartments and affordable housing. Reduce the square
footage limits for single-family homes.
• more density in boulder. allow for adu's. we can't do all of the following: keep open space, keep low density
housing, make more affordable housing. So if we want to keep open space we need more density! we can't say we
care about the climate as a city if 60k people have to commute into boulder for work because they can't afford to
live here
• Infill of existing areas with ADUs and permitting duplexes and triplexes that are not out of step with the bulk of
buildings in the neighborhood are important ways Boulder can develop more, and more affordable, housing.
• 1) We need more permanently affordable housing for families. 2) Increasing density will not make housing more
affordable unless the housing put in place is permanently affordable. 3) We still need zoning on occupancy for
homes because of the student population. We need to protect neighborhoods from developers buying up homes
and renting them to large numbers of students. Places like martin acres need to have some control of this...
• To make rezoning palatable, encourage that permitting these housing options across neighborhoods would allow
more neighborhoods that look like W Pearl St. That area is already home to many multiplexes and still looks
tasteful, maintains city character that suburban Boulderites could find satisfactory.
• I live in a single family neighborhood (Martin Acres) and I fully support allowing duplexes or triplexes so long as
new projects meet the FAR requirements and solar shadow regulations.
• Public transit also needs to increase if housing increases
• Yes. Start telling the truth. Eliminating relatedness requirements will de facto allow SF houses to be torn down and
dormitories built. Reducing parking requirements will just allow more development, but not necessarily cheaper to
the occupants. Same with duplexes and triplexes.
• Save our neighborhood character!
• I'd like to see Boulder change its building height restrictions, so that we can built up and not out, especially along
major corridors. This will help preserve our surrounding open space, which is why we are all here in the first place.
• I don't think that the present definition of "related" (marital or other kinship ties) serves the community very well.
It excludes many kinds of partnership, cooperation, and mutual care, and it is easily abused (for example, I know
two straight men who say they lied about being a couple, claiming a common-law marriage, to fit four friends into
a single-family dwelling).
• more apartments of all sizes, fewer parking spaces. Require new hotels to have a certain number of rooms
dedicated to long time residency.
• Reduce the allowable size of detached houses, to encourage duplexes etc.
Require higher energy efficiency standards for detached houses
Eliminate parking requirements for affordable housing
Also make permitting affordable housing easier
• Bike paths for people over more streets.
• I know many working young people who have been priced out of Boulder already; increased housing stock and
occupancy limits are the only viable way out of this situation. Any efforts that continue to restrict Boulder to the
wealthy on behalf of NIMBYs are hypocritical (and frankly, shameful) from the city's ostensibly liberal leadership.
• Reducing parking requirements MUST coincide with improving access to public transit and making roads safer for
bikers & pedestrians.
• This ecosystem cannot support the volume of humans being proposed by these changes! Where has sensibility
escaped to??
• I would like to see the complete removal of occupancy limits for Boulder City and Boulder County. I also think
Boulder should remove its restrictive zoning laws that make it difficult for people to build ADUs and other housing
options that increase density.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
23
• Loosening occupancy limits will not lower rents. I am a low income renter and I see zero gain from this.
• More should be done to allow ADUs, and the City should buy some of them down on an optional basis into
affordable programs.
• Group houses are a great way for people to live In community in expensive areas. I strongly support increasing the
options for people who want to live with others who are not relatives. Boulder is aging rapidly and we need to look
for ways to keep Boulder vibrant.
• Remove/Lower side and front setback requirements citywide, as long as the property would still meet fire/safety
requirements. Decrease minimum lot size, potentially to around 1400 sq ft. Implement a progressive transfer tax to
fund more affordable housing/transportation & planning staff/resources.
• Continue to Lobby for State zoning bill
• Possibly offer financial or other incentives for smaller housing units to people without cars (free RTD pass, etc.).
More E-bikes and bike safe storage in or near apartment/condo complexes. EV charging stations need to be
boosted city-wide to make them faster - at least 50 amps - and have them adjacent/accessible to all affordable and
middle income housing.
• I am stunned that I came up against the limits to unrelated people living in a house when I was a student and this
standard has still not changed. We need way more flexibility in housing options - from multiple adults able to share
a house, or people able to turn a single family house into two dwelling units. The people who want these options
are valuable members of our community. It should tell the city A LOT that 80% of city staff do not live within city
limits. How are we to feel we are a community when city and emergency staff can't live within the city. I'm now
approaching retirement age and the option that I see available, rather than moving closer to city services and
being able to live without a car, I need to live farther away or move from the region altogether. It's important to
remember that while some members of our community fear density, many of us recognize that a degree of
additional density adds efficiency of use of resources and encourages use of bikes and transit and other modes
that can reduce our carbon footprint!
• Middle housing up-zones that were part of the Governor's land use/housing bill were a good idea and we shouldn't
wait for the state to do them. Plexes and small apartments should be allowed by-right in all residential zones. Start
charging for parking in the public right-of-way to deal with parking issues.
• Density does not equal affordability. The city should stop pretending it does.
• Boulder's housing situation is completely untenable for young adults. I have a PhD and am a professional scientist
but live with roommates because I can't afford to live alone. I am not planning to stay in Boulder long-term (even
though I love living here) because I don't see it as a place where I can afford to have a family.
• People who work in Boulder should be able to live in Boulder.
• Boulder is not full... at all. Loosen the zoning and let Boulder become a true model for how an American city should
adapt to the climate crisis. Dense, walkable, and transit-oriented, city-wide.
Also, affordable housing stock loss prevention? I am continuously frustrated by average sized single-family homes
in my transit-adjacent neighborhood getting replaced by inhuman mcmansions that cost 2 or 3 times more than
the houses next door. No sfh demolition/expansion should be approved without unit increases. I would love it if
these houses were being replaced with duplexes or triplexes, not just seasonal mansions for the rich.
• Leave single family zoning alone please.
• The market is not going to create affordable housing in single-family areas, increasing density will just mean there
will be more unaffordable places and not satisfy the housing needs of those that already live here.
• I wish we had trained economists on Council. Council might then realize that Boulder is a textbook inelastic
demand housing market. Adding supply doesn't lower price in inelastic markets. Ask any PhD economist. Without
affordability requirements, merely adding supply and/or permitting more units such as Council desires, will merely
result in lots more expensive units (in this inelastic market), which will also open the door for national real
investment company speculators.
Sadly, Council is ignoring the proven tools it already has, that do actually work in inelastic markets: increasing
commercial linkage fees for affordable housing, and increasing inclusionary housing percentage requirements.
Very frustrated that Council totally ignores tools that do work, and only focuses on ill-conceived supply side
increases that won't work in our inelastic market.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
24
But here's what you will get, after you eliminate all ceiling limits to profit potential on formerly limited properties:
National real estate investment firms like "Invitation Homes" are buying up most of the residential properties in
highly-in-demand housing markets like Charlotte, NC...and soon, Boulder. They make cash offers $100K above the
asking price. Read up about that. Please. The zoning and occupancy limits you decry have actually helped keep
speculators at bay. But they can't WAIT for you to make this blundering error. They certainly won't be your friend in
keeping prices down. Prices will skyrocket. You’re about to create disastrous, unintended consequences.
How ironic that Boulder's Council majority are now Reaganomic supply-siders favoring total deregulation, straight
from the Republican playbook. History proved Reagan's deregulations to be disastrous, and his trickle down
theories to be total failures. But the rich sure got richer, as will Boulder developers, landlords and national real
estate investment speculator firms, in our soon-to-be totally deregulated market. It's incredible that our Council
doesn't understand that.
• We need more housing and higher-density housing, but it only works with a simultaneous commitment to mass
transit and a (safely) walkable city. I don't see any commitment to transit and pedestrian dignity from the city.
Also? With higher density housing, square footage is often smaller than needed, but building amenities are often
focused on a single demographic. Give us maker spaces, library offshoots, things that appeal to all ages.
• The housing crisis is the cause of exclusive single family zoning. More people will come regardless of what action is
taken and we MUST support all citizens if you want school teachers etc to thrive
• any changes to parking requirements should not be done across the board - they need to take into account the
width of roads and what makes sense for each development. Very concerned about emergency vehicles being able
to navigate some of the roads in town if more cars are parked on the sides of the roads (currently difficult for
regular cars to navigate down some roads when cars are parked on both sides). Also, feel less safe biking/walking
on many streets that have more cars parked (cars pulling in/out.
Adding affordable housing is important but it needs to be cost effective - the amount being paid (when land cost is
figured in) per person housed at the development at Alpine Hospital site is ridiculous. Much more housing could
have been built on lower cost land.
Too many projects are evaluated based on how many units are built, not how many bedrooms, which is creating a
push towards more efficiency units rather than 2BR+ which is needed by families.
• Boulder needs to focus more on design quality that generates livability and neighborhood ambiance and less on
density, occupancy, and zoning
• I have several:1) There are few decisions that are more private and personal than the voice of who you choose to
live with. Local government should not be regulating occupancy, distinguishing between friends, nontraditional
families, and traditional families. Please remove occupancy limits. 2) Our neighborhoods would be improved by
allowing duplexes, triplexes, and 4-plexes on existing lots, as a use by right. Currently, we are on a pathway where
existing modest homes get craped and replaced by multimillion dollar large homes. Allowing mu ltiplexes will
create housing that is much less expensive than the alternative, and will allow more people to live near work and
school. 3) If the city is serious about its climate goals, allowing more housing is probably the single largest action
not can take to reduce emissions. 4) We should allow substantially higher densities along our high frequency bus
lines like the Skip, as well as around our commercial areas.
• IPCC, and environmental organizations have been clear density is a necessary climate justice tool. Continuing the
long standing commitment to get Boulderites out of their cars is so vital and goes hand in hand with density.
Diversity in housing will help us in the 22nd century.
• We can't build our way out of whatever problem you try to solve by building.
• We need to stop building square uninteresting buildings all over town - like those in Boulder Junction. They are
hideous and take away views, do not offer street level interest which is proven to ruin the pedestrian nature of a
city. We need to be smarter about what we are building. Don't ruin the city just to add housing. Find another a way
to build that is in likeness to what we have. it is what makes Boulder special. The current architecture trend will
ruin the city and then we won't have a housing problem.
• Empty parking lots should be fast forwarded to housing
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
25
• Boulder is a great place to live and we should be doing everything we can to let more people do just that.
• Stop creating new jobs at the speed of light. Require CU to provide housing for undergraduate students.
• It’s the same all over the country. Housing prices are going up. Allowing additional unrelated people in a home will
only benefit the landlords. My neighbor just added a bedroom in his rental property in anticipation of the law
changing, and him being able to charge an addition $1000 for a bedroom.
• We have enough cars! No more mandated parking!
• I bet I have to move from boulder in the next three years due to rent increases. Not enough places to live so
landlords can gouge us for whatever they want.
• Vacancy tax for property owners who don't occupy or rent out their unit.
• HOAs and PUDs are a huge problem for affordability and for the climate.
• We need more housing, more affordable housing, and for people to actually be able to live in the housing that
exists! The current housing model is outdated and only works for the richest of the rich.
• Please ensure you are sharing this survey with a diversity of populations, not just homeowners. Share with people
who rent in Boulder and people who commute to Boulder because they can't afford to live here.
• STRONGLY SUPPORT ADUs including less bureaucracy
• I realize that allowing more housing in my single family neighborhood may be a difficult adjustment, but it is
needed
• Please allow more housing in Boulder so not as many people have to drive in from neighboring communities.
Thanks for letting me voice my opinion through this survey.
• Boulder needs to change. It is ridiculous how much land a rich family can get here, but the middle class to low
income people who make the city work can't afford even an apartment. No one who grew up here can afford to live
here. It is a tragedy that is slowly choking anything interesting out of Boulder.
• Please have serious, provable metrics in place that a change will actually lead to affordability befor e enacting it.
Then be serious about consequences of changes, intended or unintended. This poll seems to suggest to
respondents that these proposals will work, which is potentially misleading. Or worse, leading - like a leading
question.
• Provide direct support or subsidies for housing cooperatives
• Build affordable housing developments and stop forcing in-fill and removal of occupancy limits for single family
neighborhoods. You cannot just continue to try to shove more people into SFN and become a de facto CU dorm.
This is against public will. Even these surveys are unbalanced and don’t reach the same voters that continue to
reject this agenda. Perhaps permit 4 unrelated in non-CU neighborhoods for individuals over 24 years of age and
working in Boulder. This will insure students don’t overrun neighborhoods, raising rents and pushing out low/
middle income families. Also you must remove all HOA restrictions so that only non HOA’s get flooded. Stop
destroying SFN and letting developers buy out of affordability requirements. Start building smart density in non
SFNs
• Please move fast on removing zoning restrictions, the price of housing is out of control and current laws serve to
enrich current home owners at the expense of the rest of us
• Just build higher, and build more duplexes. A lot of e.g. graduate students do not own/need cars, so don't need
parking requirements.
• open up zoning but don't let every building be demolished. there needs to be a middle ground
• Boulders current occupancy limits and definition of family are inherently discriminatory. They do not allow for
polyamorous families or other modern familial relationships. To the extent that Boulder maintains any form of
occupancy limit, it should apply equally to all persons and not be subjective to a government-controlled definition
of family.
• Rental caps are a form of Affordable Housing for families with 1 or 2 incomes vs. say, 5 Workers or 5 Students with 5
Incomes or 5 parents footing the bill. Rental Caps limit $$$ a landlord can otherwise make on a rental. More
occupancy does not = savings or much savings for tenants - but definitely makes more $$ for landlords &
increases value of housing that can produce higher revenue via more occupancy. So some or many housing prices
would go higher at least by a bit.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
26
• The issue is more housing AND diversity? then we need to STOP building more expensive apartments and build
only for need - more permanently affordable housing. As we pack our busy streets with tall apartments we lack
infrastructure to support quality of living meaning we need more parks for kids, more walkable grocery stores,
more recreation centers - more pools, more tennis courts etc. We cannot sustain a high quality of life iwe were
accustomed to in Boulder if we don't balance our land use.
• Don’t ruin our city by trying to turn it into Manhattan, it’s already too dense
• Make the changes truly meaningful, not just a windfall to developers. Ensure that the changes force affordable
housing. For example, tie the additional density to rent caps, or allow it only for subsidized housing. We have
enough high-end housing. The additional housing that has been going up is not affordable for most people—it is a
huge disappointment. Please educate the city’s leaders that so far, the zoning changes have not brought us
affordable housing.
• I support co-housing. I also believe it's important have a parking permit system to help communities manage
increased occupancy and density.
• Boulder should introduce parking maximums and charge for street parking.
• Boulder should work with surrounding cities to create wrap around services for unhoused people and those with
intermittent housing.
• I have had exceptional opportunities in life that have allowed me to live in Boulder. People’s ability to live
somewhere should not be predicated on good luck.
• Rent control and all disincentives for the greedy investors and landlords ruining young people's lives
• Building affordable housing in commercial areas is a good solution but it impacts nearby residents so it should be
carefully planned and approved and not just eliminate zoning completely.
• Paradise isn't paradise if locals can't afford to live there.
• I feel that eliminating occupancy limits and zoning standards does nothing to ensure that housing becomes more
affordable in Boulder. It'll cram more folks in, yes. Look at places like New York etc. TONS of people, TONS of
housing (even super tiny closet sized apartments for the sake of adding housing) but it's still outrageously
expensive to live there. Landlords will not charge the same for 4+ unrelated folks as they would for 3 to live in a
rental. It's not rocket science. All of the new building that's happening in Boulder are insanely expensive
apartments and condos. WHY? Why not require more affordable apartment, condo and homes to be built?
• Council members please get in touch with the people you represent
• Give all residents who live somewhere the option to park around their homes for free even if the driveway doesn't
have space for the number of residents. Generally, increase the maximum number of occupants to the number of
bedrooms available. Make it clear to landlords what the safety standard requirements are so that they have no
opportunity to bring unnecessary safety risk to the tenants. Have a limit on reasonable rent prices. Apartments are
especially expensive in Boulder and the difference within one year can be $400 more per month.
• Experience in many cities has shown that building more and denser housing generally does not lower housing
costs.
• Boulder is a relatively hence city as is. The infrastructure does not support more density. CU needs to have more
housing for its student or institute a student enrollment cap.
• Housing affordability is not being driven by the shortage of supply. We have a very desirable community and an
increase in housing affordability will just attract additional residents. Affordability and equity issues must be
addressed as a regional issue.
• Eliminate single family zoning, allow for multi use residential -light commercial, eliminate minimum parking for
not just residential but also commercial
• I believe a denser Boulder will help to reduce traffic and pollution.
• Changes to zoning should be done by ballot measure ... NOT be unilateral action by City Council.
• As a single family home owner in a very traditional neighbor hood, I strongly encourage us opening up our
neighborhoods to people. That means denser neighborhoods with more people and more creative answers to
personal and shared motorized transport options.
• Rent cap
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
27
• Increasing the number of unrelated people allowed to live together by one or two people accomplishes NOTHING.
• Relax zoning to allow for redevelopment of commercial buildings into housing
• The City should buy current multifamily housing buildings, renovate and rent out units themselves (not contract
out) at affordable housing prices rather than relying on new development and density to lower prices. The City has
been allowing many new developments over years - has it reduced prices? It has NOT, prices have continued to
rise. Do you even have a target number where prices would plateau? Relying on third parties to supply affordable
housing has already shown not to work. Why continue to do more of the same? It's the definition of insanity - keep
doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. There are plenty of older multifamily housing buildings
the City can buy, renovate, and rent out at TRULY affordable rates. Whatever excuse the City may throw out to
negate this possibility, just remember this same City thought they could run their own utility company. Think
outside the box instead of doing same old same old - that's hardly progressive. FWIW, I am a low income renter
and do not buy this silly idea that building even more units will reduce prices. The only people this helps is
developers and landlords who will purchase and rent the new units, who have absolutely no incentive whatsoever
to reduce rents. This is a no-brainer! Also, what was ever the point in the code requiring X number of parking
spaces per units based on occupancy, only to allow more occupants (but no new parking), forcing those new
people to park on the streets? There is no data to back up the strategy of providing occupants with eco passes as a
method to reduce cars. You're kidding yourself and trying to kid Boulder residents that providing eco passes for a
couple years makes people not buy (and park) a car. Also, I would wholly support a % of affordable housing to go
to police officers and first responders. They deserve to live in the city they are protecting and this would also
encourage applicants in a country where there are police shortages everywhere. They would also be more likely to
enforce basic codes and laws in the city if they actually live in those same neighborhoods. Thx
• I strongly believe that Boulder, Colorado's housing policy should reduce zoning restrictions and occupancy limits
to make it easier to build and find housing in Boulder.
Boulder is facing a severe housing shortage, which has led to skyrocketing home prices and rents, making it
increasingly difficult for middle and low-income families to find affordable housing.
By increasing access to a wider range of housing options, Boulder can start addressing the housing crisis in our
own back yard. Zoning restrictions that limit the density and type of housing that can be built contribute to the
housing shortage by limiting the supply of new housing.
We're in the midst of a housing and climate crisis, and the best way to address both is by building denser, more
walkable cities. By allowing more housing units to be built in a city where people work (over half of Boulder's
workers have to commute in!), we can help to reduce traffic congestion and promote sustainable development.
Overall, reducing zoning restrictions is a necessary step for Boulder to take if it wants to address its housing crisis
and create a more equitable and sustainable city. If we want to live up to our values, we must increase access to
housing.
• We need more housing! More high rises away from the mountains would be great
• Boulder's economy relies on service sectors workers and the university, but a lot of workers and students need to
commute in from outside communities, driving up emissions and taking a time and financial toll on two groups
who are strapped for cash and time. Allowing more residences in the city would help with this problem.
• We should repeal single family zoning city wide so that our housing stock can grow to meet population growth
without pricing existing residents out or contributing to sprawl. A good model of this if more of the city looked like
the North Holiday neighborhood in NoBo.
• Increasing occupancy limits and eliminating zoning requirements is not going to result in more affordable housing.
If we want more affordable housing, we should build more affordable housing. And in our limited space, we
should not be entertaining projects like the one at 2700 Baseline that will build "boutique, high-end" student
housing units. Destroying neighborhood quality of life with increased occupancy limits all while giving developers
projects like 2700 Baseline....way to go planners!
• It’s time to end exclusionary zoning and parking requirements that work against Boulder’s equity, climate,
transportation, and livability goals. Thank you for taking this on.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
28
• Strong enforcement of trash, noise & nuisance properties.
• Boulder needs to be way more dense and way more mixed use. Design the city around walking and bikes. Cars
should be 4 or 5 on the list
• Zone for what you want - and I want more affordable housing. On the balance, I care more about new market rate
and affordable housing than I care about parking requirements, or development regulations.
• Please consider whom you need to serve here. City council does not pay for this, property owners do. The way this
has been handled shows no consideration to people that sacrificed salary levels and a lower cost of living to
making Boulder their home. Not everyone is wealthy here. Please give respect to those that have managed to give
up things to live here, not those that just think it would be great to live here, and then make it into something it
wasn’t when they arrived. Including those on city council.
• Boulder is entirely unaffordable. I work 3 jobs and am moving out of Boulder in 2 months so I can afford to make
enough to live and save towards my future.
• we need more affordable housing, but we also need to cap the % of rental increases allowed. Landlords will
increase the rent for their homes to match the market, but their mortgages aren't going up and each house/unit is
not requiring an extra $100/month or more for routine maintenance. So many emergency fund programs in
Boulder are running out of funds because more and more people are applying for rental assistance.
• So many home owners rent out individual rooms. Is that accounted for when you ask for household income? E.g., I
rent a room from a couple who make a combined $300k or more per year, but I only make $36k/year. Wages in
Boulder should be set to match median rents and house/apartment/condo costs. Boulders workforce should be
populated by Boulderites.
• I think CU needs to provide more on campus housing and require freshman and sophomores to live on campus.
• Plenty of space on north side. Don't ruin neighborhoods of your voters just to score points.
• Fix the planning team. It is much too expensive and way too long to get permits even for basic remodels.
• Allowing more types of housing throughout all residential zones relieves pressure to maximize building size along
arterials ; integrates more economic diversity in our neighborhoods.
If you only allow large apartment blocks in East Boulder, then it will self-reinforce the opinion that change always
has to be “drastic”.
• Housing is not affordable (to rent or to own) In Boulder. Reducing parking minimums and allowing mixed-use,
denser housing is essential to allowing more people to live in Boulder and to combat GHG emissions on a regional
scale. We need to be building dense, mixed-use, walkable and bikeable communities for people and planet. We
should not be prioritizing single family homes and private automobile parking. If Boulder wants to walk the walk
and truly be a role model for equity and environmental justice, Boulder should do away with single family home
zoning, occupancy limits, and parking minimums.
• Reduce parking requirements for new construction, require NPP for the area, and don't allow (or overcharge)
residents of the new below-parking-capacity construction to apply for parking permits.
• Implement the failed State land use bill on the Boulder side so that the bill can fare better next session.
• End the cash in lieu program. Make them include actual affordable housing.
• Please improve our housing affordability and allow for growth in our city. Our planet and our most vulnerable
neighbors need it! It will make Boulder an even better place to live.
• Government restrictions designed to limit housing supply are done for two reasons. The first is to inflate housing
prices, where it acts as a tax paid by poor people, students, and renters to wealthy homeowners, real estate
speculators, and corporate landlords. If corporations collude to limit the supply of some product to increase prices
that would be illegal pricefixing, punishable by 3x damages and criminal prosecution under the Sherman antitrust
act. So why is it completely legal for property owners to do the same through local government? The second
reason for these restrictions is to keep out undesirable people, which has a long and racist history in Boulder. I
would direct who ever is reading this to the recent documentary on the topic for more.
Research overwhelming shows that unaffordable housing drives poverty and homelessness. These restrictions, in
Boulder and across the country, are stifling our nation’s economic productivity, causing mass despair and misery,
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
29
and contributing to an acute cost of living crisis, and for what? I have to fork over half of my grad student stipend
to a corporate landlord every month just because homeowners have rigged the system? Personally I would
support abolishing all housing restrictions and zoning laws in the city of Boulder effective immediately, so we can
all cheer as housing prices and rents fall out of the sky like Icarus.
• I think there could be more infill in areas around Gunbarrel and east of 47th. West of 47th is getting too de nse. I
could see a city owned RV/Tent living area with bathroom and shower facilities for people who don't want to go
into shelters. Maybe allow for tiny homes there. Again, the area around the airport or toward Gunbarrel would be
great.
• I live with a polyamorous family. Although we do not meet Boulder's definition of "family", there are other
progressive cities (e.g. Cambridge, Mass) that recognize this legitimate, committed family structure. I call for
Boulder to do the same.
In general: families are important, in all their forms. Allowing a "family" of 4 or 5 to live together, whether they are
polyamorous, registered domestic partners, or even just close friends/housemates... is a huge positive for our
society. More reliance on family structure = less reliance on the state. And will make Boulder a more affordable
place to live for artists, musicians, and people who make this city vibrant and alive.
• Build more houses that create more density ASAP
• I know we love our quality of life but the community health is more important to me than having a parking spot on
demand and or dealing with more traffic. maybe it will reduce traffic when people live close enough to get to work
by bus and bike! there are many of us that believe in growth and affordable housing for our neighbor's, we are just
quieted by all of the NIMBY bullies...its a bit scary really how fervent they are!
• The clash I hear is between single moms with kids worried college students will price them out of existing options if
standards change. That’s a real concern I hope will be considered.
• I'm not a single issue voter, but increased access to housing and increased affordability are my top issues when
choosing what candidates to vote for.
• I couldn’t find a decent place to buy in my price range circa 2018 when my wife and I were planning on children.
Moved to Nederland where we could afford a SFH. Would have loved a place that was affordable for us in the city;
now we commute all over the place.
• Zoning changes are necessary or fewer and fewer people that make the city run will be able to live within city
limits. 60k plus people commuting in and out every day in cars is not good for us either.
• Because of zoning laws and occupancy limits, I can’t afford to live in Boulder. I am a 28 year old transfer student at
CU Boulder and Colorado is my home. I have to live and commute by bus from Longmont to Boulder every day
which is unreliable and takes hours of time out of my day and schedule to get to class. If Boulder had more
affordable housing, I would have more time to enjoy life outside of work and school and could live where I work.
• There should be a limit on how many rental properties one person/family or company can own
• Mixed zoning. Allow people to live where they work and shop and recreate. Results in denser, walkable,
sustainable communities
• In Madison, WI houses and some single story businesses were purchased (in city-block sections) to allow denser,
higher rise apartments & private dorms near the university and state street areas to limit students taking over
neighborhood housing. These dwellings were safer for the students and better managed. Might be worth
considering in Boulder where tensions run high between CU and it’s neighbors. Keeping single family housing
stock available for families can also help with affordability & school enrollment.
• As a 26 year old living in Boulder, housing affordability is very close to my heart. I wish I didn’t have to break the
law in order to live with roommates and afford rent. I’d like to be able to stay in Boulder for a long time and the
measures discussed in this survey would be a huge step in the right direction.
• Rent control. CU capping enrollment until it builds more housing.
• I feel like all of these changes will only benefit landlords and developers. If you can split the rent five ways then the
rent will just go up making homes more valuable for landlords but also prohibition expensive for people wanting
to buy their home. These plans are short sighted - any gains for affordable housing will be lost to market forces
within a year or two. Affordable housing efforts needs to be focused on our seniors and our first responders and
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
30
our teachers. We should not be creating more housing so more people can move here and ultimately make
housing more expensive again.
• Please stop spending tax payer dollars on this wasted effort. Boulder needs to be protected like a national park.
Stop wasting money on affordable housing projects. Why don’t you start with downsizing the city government,
lower sale taxes, and lower property taxes. This will make Boulder more affordable.
• Economists have proven repeatedly, rent control does not work
• I'm not comprehensively familiar with current code, but my understanding is that currently, developers are
incentivized to build units which are smaller in number but larger in square footage. I'd like to see this change.
• Always make sure infrastructure (services, roads) can adequately support any future development. Infrastructure
already stressed or failing in areas.
• In neighborhoods around CU the complete elimination of occupancy limits could result in homes being turned into
de facto dorms: with many rooms crammed into a ranch with a basement, or maybe a second floor put on top. A
1400 sqft ranch with a basement and popped top could contain 12-14 rooms and bring in $200,000 in revenue
annually.
This would be very bad for the city since these homes are most accessible to young families - which are being
priced out of the city. It would additionally, eliminate cheaper shared housing - which is exactly what people want
higher occupancy limits to support.
• Use existing zoning for increasing housing. Propose specfic zone changes to those area that fit with the
neighborhood (ie near shopping/downtown, multi-plex already in the area)
Lift height restrictions east of foots to allow 5 - 8 floor apartment buildings.
Consider east Boulder open space for public housing.
• Please stop spending public funds on any affordable housing items in Boulder. The City of Boulder Housing and
Human Services Department needs to be completely defunded immediately. Housing prices are driven by supply
and demand in the open market. Recently housing prices are dropping in Boulder which will help affordability.
The City should not be involved in housing by building cheap, crappy and poorly built housing that is affordable.
• I would also support allowing fourplexes on all single-family lots. All commercial and mixed-use areas should allow
much higher levels of density, like large apartment buildings, to encourage walking, biking, and transit use and
lower vehicle miles traveled.
• Ban investment groups and housing management groups from buying housing in Boulder. Even go so far as to
require existing companies to sell their properties within 5 yrs time. Housing is for living, not for profit. Housing
should go to people who own no more than 2 other properties, but really meant for those who own nothing and
want to live there full time. Demand is endless because housing is a necessity. Younger generations such as myself
are facing real homelessness because we can never save up because we are forced to spend half of our income on
someone else's passive income. The market will never correct if it's monopolized, and we are competing with firms
backed by millions who pay inflated housing prices because land is a limited resource and it will always pay off.
Neighbors also benefit from people who can, and want to, maintain their own properties, than slumlords who let
aging housing go to neglect.
• There should be affordable housing in Boulder…. But it should not be in areas zoned for single family homes.
Occupancy for unrelated individuals in areas zoned for single family homes should not exceed two individuals.
• Any change to occupancy limits needs to factor in infrastructure. Without adequate water, sewage, drainage, road
capacity, electricity, gas, internet, and public transit, adding more people will just increase traffic, congestion,
crowding, noise, pollution, and will endanger public health. It’s not realistic to imagine that everything will
magically run on electric power given the constraints of our infrastructure.
• I've lived in Boulder since 1986. Became a homeowner in 1994, and have *always* thought the occupancy limit of 3
unrelated people was NUTS. Occupancy should be based on safety and public health regulations, and that's all.
• 1. Reducing parking requirements is not a "one size fits all" solution to provide more affordable housing. Some
areas/neighborhoods have wide streets and can handle more on-street parking. But many neighborhoods do not.
Where I live, if a standard American made pickup is parked across from another pick-up truck, the street is reduced
to one lane. Many times a vehicle that is larger than a standard pick-up occupies an on-street parking space and
then drivers have to take turns to continue on their way. FedEx, UPS and other delivery trucks frequently do this
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
31
now. If the entire street had cars parked on both sides, it would have to be turned into a one-way street! Add a
delivery truck to this situation and you have a no-way street! Firetrucks, school buses and ambulances would be at
a standstill.
2. Allowing duplexes and triplexes in established, i.e. built-out, single family neighborhoods will only encourage
any marginally affordable houses to be bought up by real estate developers. Those lots will be scraped and multi-
family rentals will be built; these rentals will command higher rates as they will be more desirable because of their
location. More rentals only widens the wealth gap in this town, unless they are rent-controlled to be permanently
affordable.
• If we want to more affordable housing, we need to have MORE housing. In addition to building more housing we
need to have more space for people and less for cars, this means eliminating parking spaces and narrowing multi -
lane roads.
• Continued growth is ruining the city.
• Pass reasonable protections for renters that more explicitly prohibits unreasonable late fees, fees for unwanted
services, and utilities associate with unoccupied units.
• Adding the number of people who can live in a house will not increase affordability UNLESS YOU HAVE RENT
CONTROL. Without rent control it will just result in fewer single family homes since families cannot compete with
investors buying houses. My neighbor's house (family lived there since 1956) just went on the market and the first
two offers were sight-unseen from out of state investors! They would likely would love to see an increase in the
legal number of tenants they could rent to. This has the potential to destroy neighborhoods unless you add rent
control. Landlords will not voluntarily keep prices low. Thank you.
• Allow homes sold to be demolished and replaced with small apartment buildings / light mixed use development
areas. Will encourage less commuting and more sustainability
• Allow the construction of ADU's on all single family lots.
• increase affordable housing!!
• The affordable housing issue is more complex than the simple-minded fixes being proposed. Ideology and wishful
thinking will not get us where we want to go.
Examples:
-Ideology- density increases will provide affordable housing; the truth is that density increases only create density
increases unless there are regulatory restrictions requiring affordability. Boulder is already denser than many
major US cities (Phoenix, Atlanta, Salt Lake City)
-Wishful thinking- simply adding more dwelling units will provide affordable housing; the truth is that without
implementing regulatory restrictions and/or demand-side strategies, expanding the supply of missing middle
MARKET-RATE housing will not be able to offset the intense demand for Boulder housing, and will ultimately fail to
create anything affordable. We are well aware of how doing the same thing over and over again (ie. building
market rate housing and expecting it to magically be affordable) and expecting different results has been
diagnosed. The same wishful thinking is exhibited by increasing occupancy limits and assuming that somehow the
rent will stay the same, thus spreading a fixed cost over more tenants. Again, without intervention in the market,
the rents will increase and affordability will only be a fiction of the imagination.
It's long past time to keep looking for simple fixes in magical thinking and instead get down to the real work of
crating affordability!!!!
• So much wasted interior space in single family homes throughout much of Boulder, esp. in aging neighborhoods
where 1 or 2 older people live in a house.
• Require CU to house its students rather than crowding the city with them
• Boulder needs to support attainable housing and stop with the NIMBYS who are only concerned about their
perceived house values. If we want teachers, workers, servers, etc. to be part of our community, they deserve to
live here. In the current climate crisis we can not keep demanding workers commute into Boulder because it's too
expensive to live.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
32
• Remove the height limit. Stop relying on community input systems which advantage the retired and wealthy,
which encourage inequity in community planning.
• more density will not lower housing costs. Boulder is desirable and will attract people with means to live here.
Family assistance and transfer of wealth allow affluence to continue without diversity. Maids, bartenders, retail
clerks, trades people, roofers, grounds keepers, etc al. , will not live in Boulder except in subsidized housing. City
should buy apartment buildings and provide subsidized housing.
• New housing in Boulder will not be affordable unless there are specific requirements for permanent affordability,
as is the case for some homes. I understand that new developments which have been approved contingent upon a
certain percentage being affordable have not had that affordability requirement enforced, so I am wary of such
arrangements. Regardless of how many units are built, there will be people who will buy them at a high price. A
stunning number of people have huge incomes and choose to live here. So lots of new construction will not lead
to housing available to people making average wages. It just won't. It will not solve the issue of people in -
commuting to Boulder to work. It will just lead to a larger quantity of expensive housing, more congestion and
more load on natural resources and more money for developers. Boulder has ALWAYS been expensive compared
to neighboring communities. Many homeowners stretched to purchase here because of the 1% new construction
limit. We chose open space; we chose less crowded streets; we chose a more livable city. And we paid much more
for that than what a home would have cost elsewhere.
As for parking, we need housing to include that because for better or worse people will have cars. The rental do wn
the street has 6-8 unrelated people living in it. They park on the sidewalk regularly. My whole street in this single
family neighborhood is mostly parked up. Reducing parking requirements? That would make Boulder more like a
big city where parking is difficult to come by but people find a way to park somewhere.
• I do not oppose reduction of restrictions on ADUs. I strongly support starting with those. and gradually reducing
restrictions, with off-ramp if it doesn't help. Occupancy to 4 unrelated people is the place to start. If that doesn't
reduce costs, take another approach. I strongly support rent stabilization. Use that with leverage at State House
as that works and they are not loosening restrictions on that because they are co-opted by the real estate
development lobby. Make them answer for that unfair position.
• We will never make Boulder “affordable.” Higher density should be consolidated in areas like Boulder Transit
Center (ha) where services can be located. Also note, a higher population in a closed area like Boulder will lower
the quality of life: trails too crowded, more traffic, more cars, and based on our shared experience- more crime.
• CU needs top stop increasing student enrollment. We will never have enough housing if CU keeps increasing
enrollment. We have to get light rail from Boulder to Longmont, Lousville etc... WE need to stop encouraging
business like Google moving in and then forcing increased density in low density neighborhoods! WE need to stop
in lieu payment for affordable housing. Every development needs to include affordable housing period.
• 1. houses must be occupied. No second homes and pied-a-terre. If not using home, must rent it out or face
sizeable fines. See how the city of Copenhagen manages this concept. Works well for everyone, even property
owners.
2. No investment purchases of residential real estate. To purchase you must intend to live in the residence. The
city should not allow corporate or even smaller multiple-dwelling landlords to compete against normal citizens
who view real estate as a place to live or raise a family. Do we want a city or a REIT?
3. Just eliminate parking requirements altogether. What is the actual purpose? Its ugly, discourages public
transport and a waste of space in a small city like Boulder. Long-term growth in pedestrian and bike traffic is
simple to manage compared to cars.
These are common sense ideas. Many cities in Europe have stronger real estate markets, a much better supply of
housing and of significantly higher quality (not luxury junk) than Boulder and they already follow versi ons of these
ideas.
• Increasing occupancy only benefits the landlords to make add income. Our neighbor current rents his 4 bedroom
condo for $4,000 month. He made a comment in an HOA meeting about if the occupancy level is increased, he
would have no problem allowing 5 people live in his unit and charge $5,000 a month. We live off Tenino and
Manhattan. We have very limited parking in our complex. Each unit has a two car garage. All others are required to
park on Manhattan, which is already full. Manhattan Middle School often has soccer, lacrosse practice and games.
The streets in the area are full. I see this becoming a nightmare, with no benefits to renters looking for lower price
rents. Landlords will be the winners.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
33
• I thought we already voted on this -? Why is city council trying to ignore their constituents? I am opposed to any
increase in housing density. Affordability has always been an issue here (I was born here and my parents struggled
with it). I think any increase to density will only make Boulder less desirable.
• Please consider the realities of water limitations, our infrastructure, and negative environmental impacts of
unrestricted density. People will have cars whether Boulder wants them to or not. Boulder folks love getting to the
mountains, skiing, camping, etc. and they use cars to access those recreational opportunities. Further, our bus
system in most areas of the city is not adequate for most people to not have cars. It doesn't run on weekends in my
neighborhood. It's unrealistic to think otherwise. We can't build our way into affordability.
• Affordable housing is a serious problem in Boulder. Developers buy out their comitment to afforable by giving $ in
lieu which will never solve the problem or be enough $. What is difficult is the wealthy owning 2or 3 or more
homes which are taking homes out of the market that is competitive to affordability.
I'd like to know how many apartments are being built and if their count is in the formula of affordable availability...
There seems to be a lot of development of apartments in Boulder, not permanent afforable housing.
An example also is a developer who wants to make Boutique apartments for CU students off of Table Mesa and
South Boulder Rd, as if CU isn't building enough in South Boulder....It's confusing and contradictory actually and
not transparent.
• Less wasted space on empty parking lots = more space for humans
• Leave our single family residential zoning alone. We bought where we did because we wanted to live in that
zoning. You have a lot of gall deciding that what you want should take precedence. Remember BOFP was
defeated!!!
• Boulder's huge problem is the jobs/housing imbalance. Boulder isn't able to keep bringing in new industries.
Secondly, the CU 's mission to get bigger and bigger, causing an extreme housing shortage. CU tells Boulder: we'll
grow as big as we want; the city can deal with the ever increasing housing shortage. The city well knows there are
many dwellings with occupancies of many students, not 3, not 4. Those dwellings are often not taken care of, and
there are often loud goings on that disturb neighbors.
• I’m concerned about increased density in areas of higher flood or fire risk.
• Loosened restrictions on parking minimums means that the city needs to get better about transit, cycling, and
pedestrian access to things people need. While removing parking minimums for businesses, bike parking
minimums need to be raised.
• Work to repeal the prohibition on rent control
• Listen to the voters - there’s a new concept for all of you!
• Please look at removing or significantly reducing parking requirements; these requirements make no sense for the
current needs of the town and make by-right projects for middle income /attainable housing infeasible.
• Require designs that blend with a neighborhood despite being multi-family
Explore underground parking in new construction
• Thanks for asking. I am concerned with your questions because they don't seem to grasp the real issues.
Occupancy shouldn't be based whether or not people are related, certainly, but it should be determined by the
number of bedrooms as indicated in the county assessor's office. Subdividing for more bedrooms should not be
allowed without a process and without making those changes to the county assessors office. It is easy to manage
and fair to "families", "roommates" and neighbors.
Some neighborhoods, like mine, could have an accessory unit on every property and it would not be a problem.
However, it would be a huge problem in certain neighborhoods. This is a neighborhood by neighborhood issue.
Limiting parking is simply not viable until public transportation is easier with small vans and buses within
neighborhoods feeding into larger buses.
It is obvious that developers would like to limit parking because they can build more and make a greater profit, but
it doesn't address housing costs and it looks awful. It also eliminates open spaces and fills them with concrete.
The overall issues need to be revisited with healthy and respectful give-and-take dialogue to seek common ground
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
34
and develop better options. While lower and middle income housing needs to be preserved in Boulder, the size
does not need to be greatly increased. The population of Boulder County is not growing. The issue is housing for
more lower and middle income residents.
The reason why so many commuters drive into Boulder is because they want to live in affordable houses, not
condos or apartments. The middle-income housing programs are great and need to be expanded. The efforts to
provide services for unhoused people need to be expanded (as you seem to be trying to do), but you do not need
to change zoning or change occupancy in the manner you are envisioning. While they seem like good solutions,
they only make the situation worse and don't really address affordability while they do make our lovely city look
ugly.
If you continue down this road, you will turn all of Boulder into a place that looks like 30th street. If you increase
ADUs without careful planning, you will simply have developers buy houses, build more, and sell them for a great
profit for developers but not for the middle-class.
• Cost of housing hasn’t increased here as much as other cities since the pandemic. Median home price to income
disparity isn’t even a national top 10.
Boulders protection of open space and and density has made it desirable, now people are saying that’s unfair and
will ruin the thing that made it desirable.
• Please consider capping the % that rent can be raised in a given year, require 90 days' notice for rent increases to
current tenants (to allow time to relocate if needed), and limit the number of rental properties that can be owned
or managed by individuals or corporations.
• The NUMBER of people allowed/housing unit does NOT determine the affordability of renting or buying that
housing unit. There MUST be regulations that address COST.
• stop trying to push your densification agenda. It is not ours. No densification until we feel safe in public. Send
folks arrested with meth/fentenyl to 8 days of detox, mandatory.
• This is a BAFP redux
• Increased taxes on people/companies that own multiple properties in Boulder. I feel like part of the reason rent is
so high is because there’s only a few property companies that dominate in Boulder, so they kind of control rental
demand.
• The businesses along 28th should become a new mixed use zoned neighborhood
• Improving transit/bike options enables higher density and improves housing availability!
• Instead of parking, why not put in bike lanes instead, or use the extra space for the units in question. At least with
the bike lane, you're encouraging the new density to use more environmentally and healthy modes of
transportation. Just a thought. As long as there are less cars and more public transit.
• Housing should be allowed above businesses. There are lots of vacant and empty spaces that could be filled with
affordable housing. Also, all new housing developments should allocate an appropriate amount of units to be
rented at fixed and an affordable rate for lower income resident's of Boulder. Increasing taxes of the ultra rich
would also help to subsidize low income housing development.
• Remove parking minimums and focus on more transit oriented development
• You must have parking requirements in place! Ok to add ADUs, but don’t increase capacity in houses too much.
• Do not cater to the Boulder Chamber of Commerce and developers who want to maximize profits by increasing
density.
• Cash in lu seems broken, developers aren't building affordable housing in these massive complexes in town but on
the edges. Are you pushing people out??
• Consider the fact that Boulder is routinely ranked as one of the most highly desirable cities in which to live in the
US.
Then consider Boulder’s existing zoning, especially it’s low-density residential zoning that has yielded the most
livable and desirable residential neighborhoods in Boulder.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
35
Then consider Boulder residents’ historic votes to limit unsustainable growth as embodied in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, the Blue Line, building height limitations, City and County Open Space programs (including
BoCo agricultural land purchases).
Then consider urban planning recommendations made to the City of Boulder nearly a century ago by renowned
urban park planner Frederick Law Olmstead.
Then connect the dots.
Thank you for conducting this survey.
• Boulder is a desirable city. It is not the taxpayer job to make sure all can live here.
• NO MORE DENSITY!! TOO MANY PEOPLE ALREADY!
• (sharply) Increase tax on unoccupied properties.
• Stop building all the cheap and unused affordable housing. Considering you have unused units at market rate all
around Boulder that have sat empty for months even years
• Increase properties in affordable housing program and start an HOA assistance program to keep people in the
affordable housing. The HOA fees are ver expensive (like $500) a month
• Higher density, even though it brings lower pollution per Capita at NYC and Chicago densities, does not bring the
same benefits with less than maximal urban density. Lots of data on this. And regardless of impact per capita, it
still brings higher overall pollution exposure levels to every resident, in absolutely every city measured, and that
pollution exposure is directly related to population density. This pollution and other densification effects are
directly related to mortality and morbidity increases in densely populated areas in the US and beyond compared
to less density.
• Please allow more types of housing in Boulder, but especially around high demand areas. Areas around Pearl and
Spruce should not have single family homes. They should have apartments and stores abbe things that make the
city more affordable and interesting, not just a bunch of decrepit homes that still rent for huge amounts.
• These ideas are so great
• Reduce demand or have people accept that classic boulder simply will not exist in the future.
• The city should develop city owned land like the airport and planning reserve land with affordable housing. The
city should increase the fees on developers and to fund more housing and increase the number of affordable units
required in each new mult-unit building.
• Being from Berkeley, CA my experience is that density DOES NOT produce more affordable housing. Boulder
already has more density than has been documented because of unpermitted ADU's and duplexes, and violations
of number of residents per dwelling. City Council and Planning Board should not be re-zoning for density in single
family neighborhoods. I'd recommend taking a look at the golf course for development if the City of Boulder wants
to use the Affordable Housing funds to develop middle income housing. Affordable Housing funds could also be
used to support the mobile home parks in Boulder.
• The city should work closely with CU to build more student housing on campus, which has lots of unused space
and lawns that require lots of water. Undergrad students should be required to live on campus. Moving students to
the campus would free up lots of housing for more permanent residents. It would also be a better way to address
water resources and climate change. In addition, it would reduce the additional strain on BPD to respond to issues
related to student disruptions to the Boulder community.
• Rent doesn’t need to be 3,000 for a 2b/1b. That’s fucking bananas. People who WORK IN BOULDER should be able
to LIVE IN BOULDER. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
• Simplify the ADU approval process and allow them everywhere if not already.
• Limits on investment properties in Boulder County
• Increasing occupancy limits will have NO effect on affordability. The average price per room will remain the same
and density will increase.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
36
• Get a good education, work hard, save your money, and then buy a house you can afford and pay it off as quickly
as you can. Forego the ski passes, manicures, concerts, expensive coffe’s/meals out, and then you’ll have money
for your house payment.
• The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students
live on campus. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. Moving students to
campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from
students.
• Increasing occupancy will increase affordability. Boulder landlords are not stupid, rental rates will go up
proportionally to the number of potential renters. The result will be renters living in more crowded conditions for
the exact same rent.
• Possibly use the Chambers Farm land for affordable housing.
• The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that mor e undergrad students
live on campus.
Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents.
Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to
disturbances from students.
Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the
need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure
and resources that are already under stress from climate change.
• Stop building apartments and homes. There is a shortage of water and many transportation issues already, why
add to the current problems without fixing those first? If any homes should be added they should be condos or
townhomes, there are not enough of those. Boulder county was nice with plenty of open space - do not become
what Broomfield is now - a congested ugly mess of traffic and homes crunched together. We dont need more
people in Colorado
• Stop trying to densify Boulder.
• Density alone is not the answer. Think about what makes people want to live here, not just visit. Plan for what kind
of residents (commuters, students, long-term, families, young, old, etc.) and what kind of neighborhoods
(walkable, drivable, busy, quiet, etc.) you want, and make sure they're sustainable, e.g. no food deserts or traffic
nightmares. Try to have 2 and 3-story buildings with resident-serving shops (especially everyday food &
supply sources) below, apartments above. Utilize more land to the east and north for denser, family-friendly
housing, NoBo/Stapleton style. Respect the character & history of neighborhoods like Goss-Grove which have
an enticing mix of housing types & residents already; they can be improved without wiping out. Put a cap on
rent increases to retain a healthy percentage of long-term residents.
• None of these proposals should be a blanket city wide policy. Certain areas should be exempt especially University
Hill. The high rentals in homes meant for single families under this proposal opens a door to serious occupancy
problems and abuse of the system. Current ordinances are not being enforced due to lack of staffing and this will
open a serious Pandora's Box that will make areas such as The Hill an unpleasant place to live for long term
residents.
• We need more housing for regular working people, not more mansions for trust funders. Seriously, no more
massive houses, limit square footage or charge a premium for footage beyond 3k square feet.
• The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students
live on campus.
Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents, helping this issue and others
tremendously.
Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to
disturbances from students.
Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the
need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure
and resources that are already under stress from climate change.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
37
• I believe eliminating parking minimums is one of the best things (and among the lowest lifts) we can do for our
community and to curb the affordable housing crisis. Eliminating single-family zoning is also key, as is adopting a
strong equity-focused infill strategy.
• It’s ok if Boulder is different. If you want to fix housing, make it so that no one wants to live here.
• Adding unlimited duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes to my neighborhood while simultaneously lifting all
density limits on ADUs will completely destroy my neighborhood. It is already hard enough to find a parking place.
I live in the "cheap seats" in Boulder, Martin Acres, where developers are hungry for profits. If the city is that
committed to undermining our family-oriented and gladly-shared-with-students neighborhood (gladly, that is,
given current occupancy limits) then you might as well just raze all of Martin Acres and put up apartment and
condos in the entire swath of land. I was attracted to Boulder in the first place because of its commitment to
publicly accessible open space, limited growth, and limited build-out. Apparently that vision has been abandoned.
I am dismayed and disheartened by this proposal, following on the heels of last year telling me that my taxes will
go up because of "improvements" that will come from adding 100,000 or more vehicle trips per day to the soon to
be built South Campus - another change that lowers our quality of life in this neighborhood while forcing greater
density and traffic upon us. I do feel like Martin Acres is being thrown under the bus.
• Please do not take steps to reduce housing costs by reducing the quality of living (and therefore desirability).
Concepts like higher occupancy rates and tossing parking restrictions out the door will only serve to reduce the
quality of living for people who invested in residential living when they purchased. Focus attention on density near
transit centers instead. Thank you.
• Preserve single family neighborhoods zoning. Under no circumstances increase housing occupancy on the Hill or
Goss Grove
• Let’s build more long-term housing for folks coming out of homelessness and not include rules about substance
abuse. I also support banning camping in city limits, but not until we have housing and emergency housing for all
homeless folks.
• The primary pain we experience living on The Hill relates to the spill over of students from the lack of housing CU
provides. Trash, loud parties, fireworks and the degradation of the older homes in our community. To that end, we
would like to see the following:
1. The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad
students live on campus.
2. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents.
3. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to
disturbances from students.
• Our current zoning only favors one group in our community - single family homeowners. It's well past the time
that our policies address the obvious need for urban density in Boulder. By encouraging business development like
the Google campus in a city that was already housing-strained, we've created a disparate community and lost so
much of what made boulder special - it's people.
•
The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad
students live on campus.
Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents.
Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to
disturbances from students.
Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the
need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure
and resources that are already under stress from climate change.
• Require any density increases to have a mandated and enforced permanent affordability factor. ADUs being
added to increase density must follow standards for shade and view disruptions for adjacent properties.
Continuing to use shad/sun standard for solar access of neighbor homes.
• Higher density in the Hill neighborhood (where I live) will not equal affordability. Landlords charge by the person,
so this would mainly benefit landlords/investors. In addition, there isn't enough parking currently so parking
would become untenable for renters, families with small children, and the elderly. Do not increase density on the
Hill but look elsehwere where the infrastructure can support higher density (driveways for each home, more land,
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
38
etc.). The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad
students live on campus.
Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents, reduce pressure on the police
responding to disturbance calls, and support climate change. Please look to CU to solve this, not the Hill residents
to take on the burden.
• Impress upon CU the need to increase student housing on or near campus
• Also allow ADUs
• If the university increases enrollment, it should increase student housing. Increasing enrollment without building a
similar amount of new student housing creates pressure on local rental markets.
The city should also encourage the construction of more 3-4 bedroom units for families with kids. Not doing so
forces families out of the city and creates more vehicular traffic and dependency on cars as well as pressure to
build new schools in eastern Boulder County.
• The parking requirement is tough. As an rep for an apartment owner in Boulder our experience is that everyone
has at least one car and generally a big one to fit their recreational needs. Boulder itself is very walk able, but it
doesn't deter all the sports enthusiasts from still needing a vehicle to haul bikes, go skiing, camping, etc... Add to
that, that most units have more than one vehicle. You combine reduced parking requirements with more
occupancy from the previous topic and what you're going to wind up with is a parking shortage, a bunch of NIMBY
neighbors complaining about parking and a fee for guaranteed parking. If there is a way to lower costs to
encourage development without sacrificing parking you might strike a better balance.
• Find incentives for landlords to keep rent reasonable.
• Simply increasing density will not lower rent or housing costs. This will provide more profit to "investors" who are
already a large part of the problem with increasing costs.
I do agree with supporting smaller living spaces with perhaps duplexes rather than large luxury homes replacing
scraped smaller homes.
Perhaps "investors" who do not live on the property they own, or own more than one property should pay higher
taxes --thus allowing affordability for people who just want to live and work in the same place.
• The Hill *was* a beautiful and historic neighborhood, located in the PRIME downtown area with 2 schools
(University Hill and Flatirons) both are now struggling with numbers due to a lack of families with children and is
unbalanced compared to the demand in SOBO, NOBO which are packed with families. We need new housing
policies which make it attractive for FAMILIES looking for homes in Boulder to purchase and renovate these
dilapidated and poorly maintained properties on the Hill. We all want to see fewer cars parked on the hill, fewer
trashed homes, and more renovation and investment to bring these family homes and streets back to life. We are
homeowners and live next door to a house with 4xoccupancy on the Hill and we experience weekly distu rbances
mainly caused by the flow of so many people (and their guests) such as drunk shouting, loud music, car alarms,
ubers arriving, offensive chalking, bad language, smoking weed in back garden at 2-4 am etc. The solution is
building more apartments/units ALL OVER Boulder, so we can disperse the student population among the
community. Boulder has a terrible reputation for being a student party town and we should create housing
policies that reduce the student ghetto (and the landlords who are profiting) and encourage more families who will
live respectfully with their neighbors.
• A 5 person occupancy limit would be fantastic! There are 4 and 5 bedroom houses all over Boulder that could
safely allow for this, and allow house sharing to be a viable option for those who cannot afford $1200+ rental prices
per month.
• I am against changes that impinge upon solar access of neighboring access. I am against changes that increase
density and therefore decrease the quality of living in neighborhoods.
• Boulder cannot be Denver or any other high rise area. It's already ruined from the cute small town it was - it looks
ridiculous along 36 and Canyon. The mountains must preserved at all cost!! There's plenty of attrition that
happens here and everywhere else for people who want to move in. Boulder is NFS!! Where there have been high
rises built, they should have been duplexes or more-plexes. With environment getting worse rather than better
anytime soon, we cannot turn a blind eye to using up all our natural resources for the "more/bigger" mentality. It's
not that more is cheaper, nor more affordable - that's being used as an excuse for the developers. We are Boulder,
let's keep it Boulder! Work around keeping Boulder bolder!!!! Let's bring our small businesses back as well and
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
39
support the small businesses that are left NOW - which help affordability for everyone living here! People are
healthier living with some space - not like sardines!
• Increased occupancy does not necessarily lead to cheaper living, unless the City plans to simultaneously
implement a restraint on the cost of rent and/or cost of housing. Simply put, with the current model, more people
in a dwelling will lead to more money to the landlord. As a landlord my goal is to maximize profits, so more people
equals increased wear on a property, thus requesting higher rents for the property as a whole.
Keep in mind, the type of person/household that lives in an apartment is different than the type who lives in a
house. Families tend to go the route of a home with a yard (added privacy). The way it stands presently, people
move to Boulder to check it out. Those who wish to stay longterm and have families, tend to move to the
surrounding communities where a home can be obtained for less money. Increasing occupancy limits within
Boulder will not fix this loss of families, and families, both nuclear and compound, are what shape the greater part
of a community.
• Build an affordable, human-scale city. Just do it. The NIMBYs will learn to love it or move. We have nothing to lose
but our hypocrisy
• In my opinion the current occupancy limits discriminate against single people. It makes no sense to say that a
family with seven children including four who drive, like my niece's, should be allowed to live in a house while four
single adults cannot. Lifestyles should not be regulated. The related vs unrelated criterion should be removed from
any future regulation. Doing so will be the progressive thing to do.
• increase sales tax to reduce private property tax and afford government expenses
• Boulder needs to provide more housing options to our students. Unless we only want the super rich students, far
too many are sacrificing their financial future to go to college and live in Boulder.
• Boulder is growing, yet it cannot expand upward, to the north, east, south, or west. It is time to take serious steps
to improve housing availability
• My problem with solutions to the lack of affordable housing is nearly always in the details. For example, more
people in my neighborhood means we need a plan for the increase in traffic and parking. And if you plan to build
up the infrastructure, then be honest about how we will pay for it.
• Affordable housing and diverse housing options support our community's essential services, creative spirit, and
overall vibrancy. As a homeowner and Boulder resident, I *strongly* support these proposed zoning updates.
• The city voted last fall about this very issue (Bedrooms are 4 People) and turned it down. Now city council wants to
end-run the voters. Not cool.
I don't object to, say, two single moms with kids sharing one house; I do object to every house in Boulder
becoming a flop house filled with too many renters. Long ago, I lived on Uni Hill when it was purely student ghetto,
and it was hell. I chose my neighborhood for calm and quiet and fewer cars.
• I think increasing occupancy limits will be enough, no need to change zoning or parking requirements.
• Freeze class A office development, pressure CU to build dorms to house their students. Focus on root cause of
demand rather than just supply.
• The impact of these changes will not be the same in every neighborhood of Boulder, therefor the application of
any changes should not apply universally. In student-heavy areas, changes in occupancy will not result in any
change in housing costs; they will simply increase the profits of landlords, and increase problems related to
crowding, noise, dangerous driving, etc. These are things that our current enforcement capacities can't keep up
with at current occupancy limits. I am also curious to know how much effort has been put into understanding the
capacity of resources including infrastructure, water, and law enforcement. Further, if there is a plan to densify,
then what is the corresponding plan to assure that evacuation routes can handle the extra capacity. As recently as
the NCAR fire, roads were at a standstill filled with people who were told to evacuate at-risk areas. Fire and flood
risk is not decreasing. Increasing the population of Boulder means more people need to get out on the same roads
that can't handle current evacuation traffic. And if the intention is to create more car-less options, then what is the
plan to aid the car-less during evacuations?
We have several problems that have gone un-addressed for years related to the impact of the student population,
absentee landlords with no accountability, and appropriate management of the unhoused.
Show the citizens of Boulder that you have real plans to manage a larger population appropriately, and then bring
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
40
it back to the ballot for a proper vote. Until then I do not support any changes that only benefit wealthy property
owners, and council members personal aspirations of do-goodery.
• Not everyone can live where they want to. A home is one of the greater investments. To buy a single fam ily home
and then have an ADU or duplex built next door is not something the home owner should have to deal with. They
bought a home in a specific area to accommodate their needs, and then someone who does not live in that area
decides the neighborhood should have drastic change. Don't think so.
• The city is denying the reality of climate change by ignoring the need to address water issues BEFORE considering
any increases in population growth. There is nothing in the proposed increases in occupancy that will create
affordable housing, and thus there will be absolutely no social justice benefit. The only effect will be to increase
the fraction of available housing that is occupied by students, thus reducing the housing for non-students. This
will inevitably result in GREATER commuting be long-term residents and greater development of low-density
housing outside of Boulder, exactly the opposite of the desired outcome. The University of Colorado has the
available land and resources to build efficient, high-density housing for undergraduates and to require greater on-
campus residency. The city should use its policies to shift student housing to on-campus not off-campus, which
these proposed occupancy increases will achieve. The proposal to reduce parking requirements is able-ist and
elitist. Low-income people and people with reduced mobility have at least as much need to drive as other
residents, and reducing parking favors only the most physically fit and those who can telecommute - not service
workers.
• Open up ADU and tiny house permits!
• I live in a single family home area. My next door neighbors are 4 unrelated people. It's not the number of people in
the house that is an issue; the issue is the number of cars from the residents and their guests that our streets are
not designed to handle. For each of the 4 residents, there are also guest cars. That is sometimes 8 cars for one
house. So, my primary objection to increasing the number of people allowed to live in each house house is the
number of cars that will clog the neighborhood (and block mailboxes and sidewalk ramps, which happens often).
• Occupancy total allowed should depend on size of house, number of bedrooms, and amount of parking (on street
as well as garage/driveway) not a general number for all.
• The affordable housing program (rent or buy) does nothing for someone in my position. I earn less than 40% of the
AMI, but have an amount of assets (retirement, savings, and investment) that discludes me from qualifying. I don't
understand why being financially responsible counts against me, or why there would be an expectation that I
would drain my savings or retirement in order to make a rent payment. Under the current rules for affordable
housing, there's no upward mobility for me. I'm "too wealthy" to qualify, but too poor to rent a decent apartment
or ever own property here.
• My perspective is that with ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT that is happening in Boulder there is nary an option that
includes affordable housing. You guys missed the boat by not requiring all of these developers to include
affordable options. Now, you want to further encroach on our space by further densifying our land by allowing
more people to come here. You are crazy! You cannot keep up with the roads and crime as it is ... and you want to
cram even more people into here. No way! Let the occupancy of the current builds tell the story. You need to
pause and wait and see in another 18 months when all of these projects are full - what that does to our community
before you add one more single person into this overpacked city. You keep allowing for more and more dense
development and you continue to erode the quality of living. On top of which ... NOT ONE SINGLE development
project in this community is about single family homes - market rate or affordable housing. The fact that you
cannot build a single family home like the Holiday Neighborhood in any of these other areas blows my mind.
Where are all of these condo living people supposed to go when they are ready to have a family? I'm never moving
from my home because I cannot afford to ... and I'm not the only one in this predicament. And that means nobody
can move into my single family home. So what is this condo loving generation going to do next? They'll take their
families outside of the community which then erodes BVSDs enrollment and has huge implications on other facets
of our community. There will be no diversity of young families anymore in Boulder. You are so thinking short term
it blows my mind. There are PLENTY PLENTY PLENTY of new condo options in this community. It's time to think
about affordable options for families. Forget about allowing for more single people to move in together.
You missed the boat in making sure affordable clauses were included in new development.
• Rather than eliminating zoning, why not create new zones that better capture the intended use? E.g., a new zone
for singe family or duplex.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
41
• Reduction of parking requirements will be an incredibly important tool (I'm strongly supportive!) but must be
planned accordingly with a comprehensive vision of transportation system improvements--namely more frequent
and geographically distributed public transit. Think big! :)
• All of these density-creating measures are just going to drive up rents, and land/home costs. You are going to
create an investor's dream and forces the rest of us moderate and low income people-- especially those of us with
families to compete with house loads of students or young professionals (who can all pay more than we can) for
places to live. This density is not tied to affordability and it will force us out of Boulder.
Did Council note the recent scientific Rasmussen poll that showed 92% of Coloradans oppose more growth? THAT
is a poll you can hang your hat on, because it was done scientifically. Unlike this goofy self-selected, non-scientific
Be Heard survey. Any statistician will tell you how easily Be Heard can be gamed, and it's therefore worthless. Do a
real scientific survey of randomly selected (not self-selected) residents, That will guarantee balance of all relevant
demographic and socio-economic factors. Your survey here only asks for optional, non-verified self reporting. That
ain't the same, which you'd know if you ever consulted people who actually know this stuff. The silent majority of
residents who have no idea this survey exists,. Even if they did, they're too busy raising families, working, cooking
meals, etc. It's THEM you need to hear from.
• Existing capacity of the infrastructure (power supply, water, sewer, gas services) should be a high priority in
determining zoning. Increasing housing options is great... so long as the City need not have to drastically upgrade
the basic services to do so.
Given the higher density scenarios reduce environmental concerns of long automotive commutes and better
access to public transportation, bike and walking paths, could some of the current build requirements (electric car
charger capacity in new builds) be eliminated in order to keep the cost of building these deed restricted buildings
lower?
• Zoning restrictions on protected homes (i.e. the huge number of unsightly, falling-apart, "landmark" homes) and
light commercial (i.e. zoning ordinances against small shops in "housing" neighborhoods) should be relaxed. While
there are some reasons for protecting specifically notable homes and for ensuring that commercial doesn't
entirely overtake residential neighborhoods, both of these zoning laws have reduced the walkability of
neighborhoods in Boulder.
1. Allow people to live in homes. Occupancy laws are secondary laws that are unnecessarily duplicating the laws
people actually want enforced against excess noise, trash, home upkeep etc. Remove occupancy limits and
enforce only the laws that actual impact neighbors.
2. Allow small commercial in residential neighborhoods so that we can have mom and pop shops, small cafes and
markets, salons, etc. This would allow more commercial and job opportunities and increase the number of people
walking in town.
3. Re-assess the number of landmarked buildings and the restrictions on them. While certain buildings deserve to
be protected, many homes are simply old but not necessarily contributing more to their neighborhood than an
updated, more energy efficient, nicer, and more matched with current needs home might be. Landmark
restrictions should serve the needs of the city overall, not just the needs of a few surrounding neighbors who
currently live there and have concerns about their own property value but minimal concerns about the long-term
viability of Boulder's community, affordability, and neighborhoods.
• I think it's important to remember that when you remove these requirements it opens an even wider window for
landlords to exploit them. The profit motive undeniably exists and the city of Boulder doesn't do a good job of
enforcing the regulations it has. I live in the Goss-Grove neighborhood, which has become a hotbed for outside
nonresident investors who charge exorbitant rents. We also have CU parents who create LLCs and name their
students as the resident-occupants. This situation also does not offer affordable rents to anyone; instead party
houses are created, leaving trails of red Solo cups and airplane liquor bottles in their wake. Additionally, we
recently had an ADU built to provide "affordable housing" on Goss Street. Who is living in the affordable unit? The
owner, who had the capital to remodel the existing house and build the ADU. The original house, a one-bedroom,
is currently listed for $4,200 a month on Zillow.
• Boulder is so expensive because of our myriad unreasonable throttles on building appropriate housing types and
amounts. Our neighborhoods will be changing with or without reform to occupancy and zoning standards. If we
keep the standards we have, we'll get more of what we are currently getting, which is replacement of older
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
42
modest-sized homes with very large, expensive single-family homes and no affordability for middle class working
people and families. That type of luxury neighborhood is not Boulder's history or tradition. If we want affordability
for families and middle class workers, we need these reforms and more!
• I live in an affordable housing 4-plex in Northfield Village in Boulder. This neighborhood should be a model for
future growth as it contains single-family homes and attached dwellings, has a small park, and is a terrific example
of having wonderful neighbors and diversity. Additionally, Northfield Commons is a similar example and another
great role model. More of these neighborhoods, that are well-maintained as these are, would be welcomed by
residents, I should think. They are wonderful neighborhoods.
• Please listen to us as a democracy. We’ve already VOTED on this. Our collective voices were heard.
• Reducing parking requirements is crazy thinking. Everyone in this town seems to have at least one car per
household, if not three. Increasing occupancy limits will mean increasing cars. Parking requirement must not go
away in any of the zoning categories. This is Colorado, people own vehicles to travel to the mountains to ski and
camp and fish and hike. In the single-family areas with a 50 foot or 65 foot or 75 foot lot width, it’s very hard to park
more than two or three cars in the street. Not all lots have off street parking becau se not all lots conform to the
zoning code.
The city enacted a zoning rule about occupancy years ago because this is a college town. We have a large
university with a plan to increase student enrollment. The university does not house all of it’s studen ts. Because of
this, Boulder is one of the top 3 real estate investment locations for rental housing in the entire nation; we are a
very profitable location. Boulder also has a run away ( not well enforced by the City) Airbnb industry, which
reduces our housing stock available for long term rentals. Please do not make it easier or more profitable for
investors to earn money here. You will inflate the housing costs even more than they already are. Please wake up.
• Boulder has become overcrowded and unpleasant. The city council should not try to overturn the will of the voters
on the occupancy issue. Rather it should leave the current laws in place. That is how democracy works b
• Let people camp outside or have truly affordable housing
• More density, affordability and diversity - while preserving our open space - please! It's not rocket science, we
know how to do this, but it involves ignoring the protests of a vocal minority of anti-change homeowners.
Speaking as a homeowner whose property value has appreciated 45% in in 4 years, I think that we need to
prioritize affordability even if (and I think it's a big if) increasing density and affordability hurts our property values
a little bit.
• CU needs to build more student housing and have more extensive requirements for students to live in that
housing.
• *The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad
students live on campus.
*Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents.
*Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to
disturbances from students.
*Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the
need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure
and resources that are already under stress from climate change.
• Home-rule city
• In Arizona there are a couple of bills being debated that will allow housing options to be increased based on
income levels - I think you could expand the income limits (that are currently used with Boulder Housing Partners)
to homes - such as: if you are under x dollar amount you can have up to 4 people in a home (max 2 people in a
room) - and also include an age clause such as if you are over 65 you can also have an increase of people in a
home.
I think there should be a limit to the number of duplexes/triplexes in each neighborhood - some how we have to
combat these folks who can afford to buy multiple houses and then rent to a ridiculous fee - If your average city
employee income is around 60k (for one person) there should be adequate housing that can be found in the 1500
range. This is NOT the case - how can you fight for equity when your own employees have to live out of the city in
order to afford to work for the city?
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
43
There should also be housing programs for veterans - anyone with a DD214 - we should consider how to support
them. The housing programs for veterans focus on BUYING houses, yet most suffer from ptsd and cannot work full
time and/or are trying to get qualified for disability - you shouldn't have to be disabled to get those benefits.
Boulder would be a shining example of patriotism if they could figure out a program that allows a dd214 to be used
for some sort of housing benefit for renting.
• Boulder's density is already out of control - we voted against all these changes you are proposing and now you
want to go outside the vote and force single family neighborhoods to densify - add congestion, parking woes,
carbon footprint, noise lighting pollution and everything else that goes with densification just because "we want to
pay less and live in Boulder" NO!!@@!!
• I am all for increasing density but not in current single family residential areas. Density works well when it is
planned for and the appropriate infrastructure can be put in place, i.e, water, parking, roads, sewer, etc. To try to
force density into single family residential areas where the infrastructure is not in place will cause problems such
as road congestion, lack of parking and sadly, reduction of home values. Please let’s not sacrifice our
neighborhood communities for the sake of density where it is not wanted and not practically functional.
• When ever the City increases entitlements for property (ie upzoning, occupancy) it should leverage permanently
affordable housing including permanently affordable home ownership and also leverage the City's climate goals
and initiatives. Examples for leveraging Landuse changes could be additional units on single family lots were
allowed if 50% (pick a %) were permanently affordable -and any occupancy changes would include a way to make
sure that adding additional people actually reduces the rent per person. With all the corporate and private equity
involvement in housing the City should not rely on the public sector to provide affordable housing unless the City
regulates for the out come they want to see happen which should be adding more permanently affordable
housing. It simply is not equitable to expand housing opportunities if it does not address opportunities for low to
middle income residents. Examples for leveraging climate goals would include all new housing on single family
zoned lots, including ADUs, would be served only by electricity and not gas. Another example would be any
reduction in parking would leverage more planting areas including green rooftops. Add a criteria to the site review
code to meet certain climate initiatives in site design. All of these suggestions should also apply to area plans as
well as sub area plans.
• Boulder is special because of its open space to population ratio. Do not ruin that by increasing the population.
Don't San Fran Boulder.
• The idea that upzoning our RL-1 neighborhoods will solve a middle and low income housing shortage doesnt make
sense. I will simply be a windfall for speculative development and additional high end housing.
• Please, can we stop thinking that restricting occupancy and density will solve the problems of parking, noise, and
trash, etc.. We need to police behavior that impacts others, not the act of being, not the act of seeking shelter.
• There are racial justice and labor justice components to this. For instance, graduate workers at CU Boulder (who
teach classes, do research, and keep the university running --- a very different demographic from the
undergraduate students) are among the most diverse workers in the city, coming from all over the world, yet are
often priced out of living in Boulder.
• Solutions should apply to entire city regardless of zoning. We don't want to create a segregated Boulder by only
having affordable housing located along transit corridors. There should be a question about ADUs on this
questionnaire. ADUs should be allowed by right.
• You must have actual mechanisms to afford affordability, not pretend the magic market will do it. These could
include more commercial development linkage fees, rent control, etc.
• We should focus on converting existing housing stock to affordable. Adding new units or increasing occupancy will
not increase affordability until demand to live in Boulder declines due to a lower quality of life.
Additionally, landlords will earn more income from renting 4 bedrooms than three and the second order effect of
this is simple - rental house will sell for a higher price and price is a reflection of rental income.
Ideally there are programs in other communities where affordability is increased with increasing population in a
way that stresses infrastructure (schools, water, parks, libraries, etc.) and the quality of life for the residents.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
44
Adding more population thru density adds more service jobs and we just keep chasing our tail w/o making
progress on the affordability question.
• Current zoning and occupancy laws are blatantly protections for Boulder's richest m embers and can be used as-is
for selective enforcement driven by prejudice or "nuisances" as determined by those with power and money.
• Properties with increased occupancy limits should be owner-occupied and should have parking requirements.
• I'd like to see different levels of affordable housing options, based on one's income and assets. I am in the process
of divorce but after divorce will not qualify for affordable housing in Boulder and cannot afford to live in Boulder as
a single person yet I have lived in Boulder County since 1995.
• Please examine and gain insight from evidenced based research in similar cities to see what worked there before
making so many assumptions about what measures will lead more affordable housing. There is much debate
about this and important decisions should not be based on just assumptions. Thanks!
• More infill development is ok but the scale of projects currently are a blight. Zero set backs. No realistic tree
canopy. Huge traffic increases. Truly ruining Boulder.
• Please keep Boulder a community for families and increase single-family home building. Encourage the building of
small, starter homes rather than tall, ugly condos that block the view of the Flatirons and increase pollution and
stress on our infrastructure systems.
• Restricting housing development during a housing shortage is like banning bakers during a famine.
Let’s be realistic and liberalize our zoning and development rules so that developers can build more homes. I
believe in giving people housing choices.
• More community oriented housing options should be allowed, like cohousing, coops, and coliving. If 50% of our
population can't afford to buy a home, they should have sustainable high quality environments in which to live.
• We often hear from upset homeowners who don't want their neighborhoods to change. Increased density is the
only equitable way forward.
• Parking needs to be done on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. I live on UniHill - we cannot handle any more
cars. But there are certainly neighborhoods within Boulder where the parking requirement might work. It is hard.
as I find it impossible to visit any of the commercial establishments around the 30th and Pearl developments
because there is no where to park. Those establishments will survive only if enough people living in the area
support them.
Also - CU needs to take greater responsibility for housing its students and low income workers. I don't know how
you make them do that - but their commitment to growth, i.e. more students, just hammers us on the Hill.
• We and our neighbors already experience over crowded streets, parking and noise issues.
• The Residential area of the Hill should not have increased occupancy. The Hill commercial area should have
increase occupancy by 1.
• affordable housing should be near or close to public transit
• We should do everything we can to make Boulder a more affordable place for ALL families and not just try to
preserve a sanctuary for those who can afford single family homes. We should prioritize people over cars and get
rid of antiquated parking requirements and encourage other modes of transportation.
• 1) Allow existing ADUs to be converted to separate units and allow newly created 2nd unit to have its own utility
address/connections, allow 2nd unit to be rented without the requirement of primary owner to live in one of the
units and allow for sale, helping struggling homeowners to capitalize on part of the property without having to sell
the entire asset.
• Subsidize rent for students and families.
• We need more housing and the ability to live in Boulder if we work in Boulder. As a preschool tea cher, for about 8
years I lived with a group of other preschool teachers. There were 4 of us in a four bedroom house in Martin Acres-
meaning we were living illegally and secretly in order to afford to live in the town where we worked. Never once did
it bother any neighbors and never once did it cause any problems at all except that we had to hide it. Not all low
income people who need higher density housing in Boulder are rowdy college kids. MANY of us are doing
important work for the community that is not paid what the work is worth.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
45
• Why are more high end student housing projects being allowed over affordable housing? Maybe the city should
look at the projects that it’s approving instead of trying to force non-single family homes into neighborhoods that
people bought into years ago, with the understanding that they were single family homes.
• I work in Boulder and am seriously considering leaving my job and moving out of the region, a decsion that is
heavily influenced by housing costs. Better public transit options would give me more housing options in the area
• Please consider the impact on existing, historic family neighborhoods before changing the rules. Enforcement of
existing rules would quickly bring about improvements, then affordability can be addressed. Destroying existing
neighborhoods is not a solution.
• We really need a larger stock of affordable options, and to be able to use our existing single family homes in more
flexible ways.
• Reduce the building requirements for ADU's. I have waited seven months for a building permit on a finished
existing unit that needed a shower and kitchen sink. I will spend $35,000 on fire sprinklers, plumbing, and
electrical work to add a kitchenette and shower. I had to pay an architect to navigate the system, and the City
required CAD drawings of the main house and ADU which was another $3500. So much for affordable housing!
This is a 420-square-foot building! I will need to charge more rent to try and pay off the expenses to meet the
requirements.
• Higher occupancy is a bad idea, good luck with parking
• Reducing parking requirements doesn’t reduce cars. It just makes those cars everyone’s problem.
• I strongly oppose increasing the occupancy limits for single family homes and apartments, as I do not think this
will increase affordability for residents in the least. Landlords will continue to charge the same amount of rent per
bedroom/person, so their profits will dramatically increase but savings and affordability won't be passed onto
renters. In addition, parking availability and noise in residential neighborhoods (such as University Hill) will only
get worse.
• Boulder should permit the addition of ADUs on residential housing lots. Boulder should increase and improve
transportation options to encourage denser housing without adding traffic (adding bike/ped infrastructure,
increase the availability of low/no cost bus passes for students and seniors, deeply disincentivize parent drop off
and pick up of students from schools and/or incentivize carpooling, public and school bus usage, and biking and
walking.
• cu should provide more on campus housing
• I think square footage (not bedrooms) and perhaps the number of bathrooms should be considered when applying
rules about number of occupants. A big house could have five unrelated people living happily, while a small house
or apartment would be uncomfortably cramped. We have 4 people in our 1000-sq-ft, 1-bathroom house (we're a
family) and there are constant bathroom negotiations going on and fights over the space and noise. Regarding
parking, 10 years from now people may have significantly fewer cars, but right now (in my neighborhood) parking
is really a problem and reducing parking requirements for apartment complexes just makes it harder on everyone
else, because the tenants just park on the street in front of someone else's house.
• Invoke high per-employee taxes upon businesses to encourage them to leave the city. Require companies to pay
all employees a wage high enough to live near them. Both of these would help reduce employment in Boulder,
thereby reducing housing demand.
• remove ADU certification standard, Short term rental license certs, long term rental license certs
• There are so many huge empty parking lots along arapahoe and along 28th among others. It’s so depressing.
Would love to see this land utilized.
• I do not mind the idea of the number of students in a house going to 4 BUT the number of people in the house
needs to match the number of parking spaces. Martin acres is out of control. It must be required that a landlord
(and I have been a landlord) increase the driveway size to for more than one car. Two cars on street, two cars in
driveway.
• The mixed density zoning areas are practically single family zoning districts since the lot size constraints are very
strict. These districts could be a good place to test the effect of less strict zoning laws.
• Give out free bus passes so that people who work in Boulder can commute in without adding to the air pollution.
We don't have infrastructure for more people - rec centers, hiking and trailheads, swimming pools, schools, roads.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
46
It is too crowded and growth does not pay its own way. If it did, it would not be so profitable for developers. I
would also like to see a 1-2% transfer tax payable by the seller on all real estate.
• Higher density housing will also address the City's social justice, equity, as well as climate change goals.
• It is very important that some significant change happen. A change has been needed ever since I started working
on this like 25 years ago when I had to go to court for having 4 people in my North Boulder home.
• Housing is a complex issue in Boulder and I look forward to seeing how it is addressed. I think in areas where it
makes sense there should be higher density but I also think there needs to be more public transportation options
to address traffic, protected stream corridors, and open space. The entire 75th Street neighborhoods
(heatherwood, Gunbarrel areas along 75th) were cut off from easily accessible public transportation during COVID.
I am still a fan of limitations on square footage of new construction/reconstruction for single family homes to
something reasonable (3000/3500 ft2) that do not have actively rented ADUs or other living spaces.
• I would really love to be able to afford housing in Boulder. If I could afford housing in Boulder, I would not need my
car as much and would mostly use my bike and buses to get around.
• The city should invert parking policy to set a maximum parking allowance for new developments rather than a
minimum requirement, similar to Minneapolis. This would be in line with the TMP, promote sustainable modes of
transport, create more livable public space, and be a big step towards meeting the city's mode share, VMT, and
climate goals.
• The 3 bedroom no basement houses in my neighborhood are never a rental issue. It's the "as many bedrooms as
can be shoehorned in the basement" houses that are a problem (and most of the bedrooms are not conforming).
This will only impact certain neighborhoods. 4th street, Mapleton, Bear Creek, Devil's Thumb etc. won't be
affected. Buying a $3 million dollar house to rent to 5 people is going to stay unusual. Neighborhoods with
families, like Martin Acres, Majestic Heights, Table Mesa will see even more financial pressure on renting. A number
of houses in the neighborhood have gone from a house rental price to a per bedroom rental price. More
bedrooms, more rent. Families with children used to rent next door - the last family with kids moved out 5 years
ago because they could no longer afford it. In 3 years, 15 different people lived next door (based on cars that were
parked for more than 30 days). People were moving in and out every few months. How do you build a relationship
to fix issues (noise, open fire pits, flood light violations of the dark skies ordinance) when everyone is temporary?
Constantly filing complaints with the city is no win, things got better temporarily until the entire house population
turned over in a ~12 months. A couple of years ago a couple and 2 friends moved in and it's been stable and quiet.
Essentially lifting occupancy limits means areas like Mapleton remain exclusive and areas like Martin Acres
disappear as family neighborhoods and become like Austin where "stealth dorm" neighborhoods have virtually
zero permanent residents. Austin actually implemented an occupancy limit to address the issue. Or like silicon
valley where you have bedrooms full of bunk beds with everyone paying by the bed (young high tech workers).
Not to mention that without occupancy limits Boulder becomes much more attractive to private equity rental
companies snapping up houses because the rate of return on the investment goes way up.
The end result is incredibly unlikely to be cheaper rent. Gee - if I pop the top on my modest ranch w/ basement I
could get 10 bedrooms in my ranch w/ basement. At $800-$1000 per bedroom..... I could move out of Boulder and
more than over the mortgage on a new house with the rent, further destabilizing my neighborhood, which I never
expected to love and become as committed to as I have (I have 2 degrees from CU and opted to stay over going to
Silicon Valley back before Boulder was as full of high tech companies) - despite the continual stream of proposals
that would undermine it. And that's not even addressing how much of Boulder's urban canopy is space around
houses which supports our treasured urban wildlife - songbirds, bobcats, foxes, hawks, even the rabbits and
raccoons etc. that will disappear if it's all paved over for backyard tiny homes. If I wanted to live in Venice Beach
(where damn near every bit of space is a concreted ADU), San Jose (with bunk beds at $1200 a month) Austin
neighborhoods with 100% turnover etc. I would live there rather than turn Boulder into them. I regard this as a
make landlords even richer proposition, and I start to think - if I can't beat them join them - why continue a futile
fight to keep my neighborhood a mixed community of long term and shorter term retired, renters, professionals,
students, singles and families. Just give up the ghost, take the money and find an existing community elsewhere.
Why is no one looking at redeveloping underutilized commercial space (post COVID) or upzone 30th street with
larger apartment buildings between Arapahoe and Baseline? Better yet - do what Denver has done with Speer and
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
47
a chunk of I70 - underground US 36 between Table Mesa and Broadway for intermediate housing and green space.
That would create more housing, not increase financial pressure on families with children, and it's an area that
already has commercial development, is Will Vill adjacent, has lots of bus service, the new underpass at Colorado
and connects to grocery stores, services, etc. in a short distance. Why is the answer cramming as many people as
possible in a few neighborhoods without any regard to maintaining a balance of residents, lifestyles, and the
things that still make Boulder different than so many other high tech towns?
References:
https://centralaustincdc.org/fair_affordable
_housing/Family_Displacement_in_Central_Austin.pdf
https://truthout.org/articles/developers-aren-t-going-to-solve-the-housing-crisis-in-san-francisco-the-definitive-
response-to-supply-side-solutionists/
https://truthout.org/articles/yimbys-the-alt-right-darlings-of-the-real-estate-industry/
https://303magazine.com/2021/05/colorado-central-70-project-update-viaduct/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/09/silicon-valleys-answer-to-the-housing-crises-charging-
1200-for-a-bunk-bed-in-a-shared-house
• I do not want to implement any changes before November. I do not trust the current City Council majority with any
sort of long term planning. This is an abrupt change to my normal trust in our leadership because I have witnessed
the Council majority behave in a flagrantly negligent fashion when it comes to managing our community's
resources. They cannot be trusted to act in the interest of the community. They are currently robbing resources
from those in need of affordable housing to subsidize the unsustainable habits of people with significant mental
health problems.
• We live in Boulder due to the quality of life. If you decrease that, it will lead to Boulder losing it's actual charm and
quality and becoming just another suburban city.
• I appreciate zoning reform that reflects the importance of making communities where things are within reach,
instead of large suburbs where you need to drive a car to reach a store. I like the proposal to remove barriers to
building more homes in commercial areas and neighborhood centers.
Reducing parking requirements is also good. If someone needs a place to live with parking, they can find a place
with parking, but anything that can discourage usage of cars is a benefit in my opinion.
And if removing occupancy restrictions can help Boulder become more affordable, I think that's great. I don't
necessarily want people to live in cramped spaces, but I definitely don't want people to be homeless because they
can't afford to live in a Boulder apartment or house. It's better for someone to be in a cramped house than in no
house at all.
• Encourage CU to support students by building more on campus living and requiring more students to live on
campus
It would free up housing for people who are working here in Boulder.
The number of incidents of police having to respond to noise issues in residential areas might decrease.
• Mixed zoning using like in Boulder Junction!
• Explore housing cooperatives!
Projects that encourage people to live an interact as a community living together rather than as homeowners or
renters or landlords.
• Annoyed that this topic has been voted on and rejected and YET here it is again. Does the City think we are
Ok with being hounded until they get their way? Move on!!!
• Occupancy reform will lead to students living in crowded and hazardous conditions while doing little address the
restrictions that have been preventing supply from meeting demand. We need SUPPLY-SIDED housing reform for
to reach long-term affordability goals.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
48
• I would love to see the reclassification of tiny houses on wheels as legal homes, as well as the legalization of
renting a driveway or property from landowners/homeowners to park them on.
• People in Boulder want their green spaces and parks. But they don't want higher density. You can't have your
cake and eat it too. Most importantly, it's all about the DESIGN. Changes the zoning but beef up the Design Review
Process.
• It should be obvious that the growth of CU is the problem. Time to grow CU in other cities that need the revenue.
• The exclusionary zoning Boulder implemented in the 1970s is the reason Boulder is so lacking in economic and
racial diversity. With detached single family homes averaging over $1.5 M only the very wealthiest percentage of US
population can afford to buy. Yet 80+% percent of Boulder residential land area is zoned exclusively and only for
single family residential. Low density single family zoning is inherently car dependent since origins and
destinations are required to be far apart because they are sprawled out by parking requirements, floor area ratio
limits, setbacks, residential single use mandates, height limits, etc. If Boulder is serious about addressing climate
change and allowing working people to live in town, then single family zoning in Boulder must be replaced with
flexible multi-use multifamily zoning that allows a diverse range of building types and usages. Allowing a diversity
of building types will allow a diversity of inhabitants (and of course the converse is also true).
• Please consider a visionary design approach to housing. So much of this policy feels reactive and driven by
property developers more than designers. It would be much easier to strongly agree with these propositions if
there was a systems approach that considers impacts on multi-modal transportation, environment (especially
water use), and the impact on the broader urban fabric. I have seen so many cities lose their character by rapidly
adding poorly made new urbanist developments and letting property developers drive the future vision.
• Changing occupancy rules would be a slap in the face of the voters who turned this down when it was on the
ballot.
• To think that increasing occupancy in existing homes will provide more affordable housing is a pipe dream. All you
will do is increase the cash flow to rental owners. To assume they will reduce the rents per occupant because they
can have more occupants is nuts in a non-competitive housing market like Boulder.
In addition, all you are doing is removing CU from the responsible of providing on campus housing for students.
You need to put pressure on them to build more on campus housing.
• Build baby build.
• During my lifetime, Boulder has always been unaffordable for some people. I see Council's solutio ns just a way to
shoehorn people into a space that will create an ugly crowded town. Require CU to build more affordable housing
for its students instead of the City doing all the heavy lifting.
• Relaxing restrictions only creates more congestion. People will always keep coming until it becomes chaotic LA or
San Fran and then boulder will be ruined. Right now people want to come here!!! Keep it that way.
Not everyone can live in a city. Not everyone can live in Honolulu. At some point boulder needs to stop adding
more housing. Keep it desirable
• Increasing density will turn Boulder into another big city. Many of us choose to live in Boulder over big cities
because the lower density.
• For a change, Council should consider measures to help homeowners. It focuses too much on affordability instead
of developing safe neighborhoods that have easy access to a decent transportation infrastructure. The council
seems obsessed retrofitting neighborhoods to add more people. When will they be satisfied that boulder has
enough residents.
• there should be an additional city credit to university students and employees who qualify for affordable housing.
• Research has shown that high density living increases crime and decrease quality of life....and increases issues /
problems about parking density, noise, crowding, barking dogs, and marijuana smoke that often accompany
dense living.
• RTD seems underutilized. More people doesn't have to mean more cars, and more working-class people will work
in Boulder and use transit. (Non car owner talking)
• Reduce minimum lot sizes in RL1 for small single family homes
Revise or eliminate solar access ordinance - most solar is on the roof anyway
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
49
• I strongly support eliminating the ADU saturation limit and other rules that restrict the construction of ADUs,
especially in areas like University Hill (where I live) that have excellent access to public transportation.
• Housing affordability is like the weather. Humans can't control either one. Governmental standards and
requirements should put quality of life for current residents (those living in buildings, not tents) first. More people
use more water, air, and space resulting in congestion and environmental stress.
• The county ought to impose strict regulations 1) limiting the number of properties owned by landlords (both
corporate and private) and 2) capping rent at x% based on assessed property value. This is an issue of supply and
demand, wherein the supply is directly limited by property hoarding and indirectly limited by landlords pricing out
"undesirable" populations in the name of profit. Both forms of limiting are gouging, plain and simple. It would also
be worth investigating potential regulations on property investors at large (not simply residential) who own idle
property for the sake of long-term speculation as opposed to productive property utilization.
• It would be beneficial for there to be more public access to resources and parameters for affordable housing
particularly for one-bedroom or studio apartments which often cost the same as a two-bedroom apartment.
• Please develop more mixed use housing development; please designate more housing as affordable. The demand
for housing is here, but the supply is limited and it is crippling boulder. help!!!!
• Students should be on campus and residential areas for families
• Single-family zoning should be eliminated in favor of high density housing throughout the City of Boulder.
Affordable housing and high density development should be highly prioritized and large square-footage single
residences should be heavily taxed and scrutinized as they are a waste of land. Also the permitting and review
process needs to be simplified and streamlined and lawsuits to delay and prevent development need to be made
unlawful. Local NIMBYs are destroying the ability of younger, diverse people to make a home in Boulder or raise a
family here.
• I have seen no evidence that increasing occupancy limits would lead to lower housing costs. Landlords are in a
profit-making business and have no incentive to lower rents if more renters occupy their properties -- indeed,
raising occupancy levels would merely increase their bottom lines. Absent solid proof that more people = lower
rents, you should do nothing to alter current zoning that will only destroy our neighborhoods and increase cars,
noise, pollution, and trash.
• As a lifelong resident who is close to being forced to leave the city because of rising rents and housing prices, I
strongly support ANY options for increasing affordability of housing in Boulder! Including at the middle-income
level.
• The only direction that increased occupancy will go to create more affordability is directly into the landlord's
pocket.
• I hope that you are ensuring a good sampling of renters in your data. I'm a renter and this market is rough. Please
don't let the homeowners dictate whether we can live here
• Allow more development east in the industrial areas as has been discussed previously. Do not require so much
mixed use with retail on the bottom floor. Retail stores are dying! Not good use of the space and killer for the
developers
• I haven't worked 40 years of my life to have a home in a peaceful neighborhood so the city can destroy it!!! DO NOT
CHANGE OCCUPANCY zoning or numbers. This will only benefit the developers (and city council in their pockets)
and will destroy this town as we know it. If you like LODO so much, please move there.
• I would love to see single family zoning eliminated altogether and have it lumped into a residential zoning category
that allows up to three or four units per lot (duplexes, triple deckers, look to Cambridge or Somerville for housing
styles that don’t scream density, work for families (still get a backyard, etc.), and blend into current single family
neighborhoods). I also think that there seems to be a bit of room for infill development and allowing housing in
commercially zoned areas. We can’t keep growing the city’s employment areas and jobs without building enough
housing for the people who work here.
• Boulder land is expensive, thus cannot make affordable housing - see Aspen example. Affordable housing is in Erie
= cheap land. Run a bus line like the Roaring Fork Valley.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
50
• Charge tolls on Diagonal and increase toll on I-36.
Increase parking costs for out of Boulder city drivers.
Residents of Boulder with approved address get discounted parking fees.
• Individuals who are needing housed can't always live with other tenants due to mental illness, addiction, etc.
These people are interested in leaving this part of their life behind and housing them with other individuals who
are experiencing homeless might make it extra difficult for them to move forward in their life.
When building affordable housing, consider that these people needing affordable housing don't typically have
transportation, so consider housing in places where there's grocery stores, etc.
If we are concerned about land and property here in Boulder, wouldn't take up less space if we considered building
tiny homes. Recently a affordable tiny home community was built in Longmont for veterans. Maybe that's
something to consider.
• discourage rentals for homeowners who don't own the home they rent, incentivize home owner rentals if living in
the same house, low-occupancy tax (big house, small number of residence) and use that tax $ to provide rental
control
• The Bedrooms are for People initiative was not passed by Boulder voter. These zoning proposals seem like a work
around the community's vote.
• Another approach to occupancy limits that is used in other jurisdictions is 2 people per legal bedroom +1. Meaning
a 3 bedroom house could legally have 7 people.
• Incentives for landlords to rent at lower rates than the average rental rates in Boulder.
A fee on home sales (based on appreciation?) to fund affordable housing.
Allow more density (if developers agree to provide affordable housing) along main transportation arteries and
commercial areas.
• Density bonus for affordable housing, the lower the AMI the higher the bonus. Rezone office park zoning, its the
worst in America, all areas are live work. Eliminate growth and height restrictions. Eliminate single family zoning.
Go further on ADU's no restrictions, off the shelf preapproved building plans for ADU's.
• As a former CU Boulder student who is currently working in Boulder, it has been a struggle for me to find suitable
and affordable housing within city limits both during my time as a student and afterwards. I work full-time in the
medical field and it is difficult to find housing that is within commuting distance and fairly priced. I strongly
support removing unrelated occupancy requirements in Boulder, as the current legislation hinders diversity within
the city and makes it inaccessible to lower-income occupants and minority populations. Boulder cannot both
claim to support diversity and inclusion in the city and continue to uphold these rules that make it impossible for
more marginalized groups to find housing. Thank you for your consideration!
• Drake poll in '21 showed 3/4s support for BAFP measure. It only failed because an odd year electorate was voting
on it.
• Bedrooms for people is so much better, I'm worried this will lead to unsafe crowding.
Also, no duplexes/triplexes in single family areas!!!
• Increasing occupancy will primarily help landlords to make more money from a house they own. That will also
increase the prices for single family homes by forcing families to compete with landlords making Boulder even less
affordable to families. Boulder has allowed developers to fill the central area with luxury apartments and condos.
Require all future housing that is built to be affordable until the balance of affordable vs luxury housing is restored.
• How can the city be affordable when transplants to Boulder buy $2.8 million dollar houses, tear them down, and
replace them with $8 million dollar houses or more? The planning board is complicit in creating the extreme of
large, wealthy houses for a select few and then citizens who have been here for a long time and aren't wealthy are
the ones who are going to have to live with houses that are over crowded, possibly a triplex put in next door to
them? The CC loves throwing out the word "equity" but the city is really creating an uber wealthy class structure
here in Boulder.
• Increasing occupancy limits will NOT increase affordable housing in Boulder's non-competitive rental market. All
it will do is increase the cash flow to existing rental owners. To assume that landlords will suddenly see the "light "
and reduce their per occupancy rental prices is nonsense. Unfortunately, landlords will always maximize cash flow
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
51
and this proposal will only add to their profits.
Also, this proposal removes CU's responsibility to provide housing for increasing enrollments. It is time to force CU
to provide adequate housing for ALL students. Imagine the beautiful impact to The Hill if the majority of homes we
owner occupied. The improvements from owner occupied homes would once again make The Hill a
neighborhood, instead of a ghetto.
• The idea of allowing additional buildings to lots that are now single residences will increase fire danger.
• Dialogue with CU to encourage the University to provide more student housing on campus and obligate students
to use it.
• Demand CU provides more on campus housing. No increase in student population that cannot be housed on
campus
• 1) The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad
students live on campus.
2) Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents.
3) Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to
disturbances from students.
4) Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the
need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure
and resources that are already under stress from climate change.
5) Make exceptions to height restrictions for new developments in commercial areas of east Boulder. There are
many locations where increased height of buildings would not impinge on nearby residents.
6) Changing zoning rules in a way that negatively impacts neighborhoods is a form of theft by the city. If I buy a
home where a certain zoning is in effect I expect it to remain that way and not have my quality of life or home value
reduced by decisions made by city council unless I am compensated.
7) There is plenty of undeveloped vacant and commercial property in east Boulder that can be developed into high
density housing. Allow variances to height restrictions so that taller structures can be built. This is more
economical and reduces the carbon footprint per housing unit. New retail centers can be created along with these
higher density housing units.
8) The city council should also consider that it's not a requirement that the city create affordable housing
everywhere in the city when there is more affordable housing available in the communities east of Boulder. For
example, when I worked on Park Avenue in NYC I didn't ridiculously assume that it was my right to have a home on
Park Avenue, I commuted an hour by train where I could afford the housing. So don't make policies that will
destroy existing neighborhoods, make policies that will develop undeveloped areas or underutilized commercial
areas into new vibrant neighborhoods. Then it's a win-win for everyone.
9) The fabric of the existing neighborhoods that have developed over the last century should be valued and are
part of what makes Boulder an attractive place to live. Please don't unnecessarily destroy that value. There are
plenty of good options besides changing occupancy rules and zoning of existing residential neighborhoods.
• Rent control
• Start representing people who have worked long and hard for years to live here. We’re not rich, privileged, left or
progressive. Work to assure people are paid enough to make their own decisions about where and how to live.
• The current definition of 'family' is limiting and inherently discriminatory. Additionally, this limitation of housing
availability goes against Boulder's claims to both equity and climate action, and should be eliminated as counter-
productive to Boulder's goals. These are the topics on which I choose how and who I vote for in Boulder politics.
• Adding occupants will help landlords and not reduce rents.....
• The idea that increasing occupancy limits will reduce the cost of rent or home ownership in Boulder is illusory.
Google "inelastic demand."
• 1. The new CU South campus should be a car-free zone with only loading and unloading zones.
2. Boulder should build more apartment buildings, preferably with onsite managers, instead of dividing up single -
family homes rented out by absent landlords.
3. CU should take responsibility for housing more of its students. Palo Alto has become so expensive that Stanford
has built a lot of graduate housing. It was already housing all of its undergrads. CU should, at a minimum, provide
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
52
housing for all its undergrads.
4. I'm in favor of owner-occupied duplexes or triplexes.
• Tiny houses to gradually replace old trailers should be considered, as well as adding more cooperative housing.
Those low income living and working in boulder for a certain number of years should have priority for housing. I
don’t know any millennials who can afford a house in boulder, meanwhile you have elders who are isolating and
living alone.
• We shouldn't make blanket changes but make considered changes on case by case basis.
• Manage investors better and cap CU growth rates, or reduce CU populations!
• Last time the occupancy limit was increased it resulted in no increase in affordability. The landlord simple divided
the rent by the old number of occupants and used that as a 'per occupant' rent, i.e. $3,000/mo for 3 people went to
$4,000/mo for 4 people. This resulted in benefit to the landlord and not the community.
• The Planning department needs to review what happened at Goss Grove neighborhood when zoning was allowed
to include apartment buildings. The neighborhood was changed into a very noise and trashy place. If we increase
density we must provide for safety, cleanliness , health and quiet. How about allowing housing on a limited basis
on land zoned for commercial or industrial? How about eliminating the estate zone? How about reducing the
setbacks ? To address parking how about allowing driveways again? How about incentives for developers to build
small townhomes like the affordable houses that were built on Valmont? Finally CU must be stopped from
increasing their enrollment. Since 2000 they have added 15,000 students. They have not provided nearly enough
housing for their students. Students are suffering.
• Living in my car.
• Identify some discrete areas, including commercial areas, that can be better used for high density residential and
open to developers to build more total number of units so that the results of the total number of below market
units is increased, allow even higher density if the developer provides more than the currently required ratio of
below market; define affordable so we tax payers can understand whether building affordable housing is even
possible, or at what subsidies
• Changing occupancy limits will not make Boulder more affordable. It will enrich more investors and destroy any
hopes for families to purchase homes in lower density neighborhoods. CU needs to build more housing for
students to take pressure off working families and people to afford a home. I am absolutely against any changes in
occupancy limits. Have lived on the Hill for many years and this would ruin the Hill for future families.
• Not sure why you would reduce parking requirements. Boulder is NOT a city anymore where most don't have cars.
So, where would all those cars be parking???
• Allow more affordable homes to be built especially on transit lines near buses and bike paths. For example, the
Broadway Iris new town houses should be a big building of more afford apartments verse luxury condos.
• As we go for more density in our city, I would like to see the data that shows that increased density leads to more
affordable housing for our particular context. I am committed to more affordable housing in Boulder, however I
am not convinced that more density has a direct link to more affordable housing in our context. I think more
denisity benifits developers more than it benefits our community and people in need of housing.
Here is an example,
For rent, after a full renovation, for $10,800 to students close to 17th and Baseline: "Fully Leased for Fall 2018 with
options for following school years. Beautiful new home, luxury student housing on the South Hill, 6 private suites,
each suite comes with its own full bath, flex space for an office. Wood floors, open floor plan, over-sized kitchen,
deck area with views, garage and plenty of parking. Zoned RM2 4 unrelated occupants as rental. License #
RHL201700836. Current lease with 4 students and 4 parents as cosigners"
I see many properties being developed for the wealthy, not for the working folk. How do we get developers on our
side, so that they will develop for us regular people? Unitil then, I am watching the density bandwagon skeptically.
We want affordability, inclusivity, and community, so lets move to the conversation there.
• You have to show evidence that these proposals serve our goals of increasing affordable housing. From all i have
read, they do not have that effect they definitely increase real estate investor profits. With lots of negative climate
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
53
and other impacts
No wonder Polis was surrounded by real estate /dev. moguls when he unveiled similar plans at the State level.
Give us evidence?l Not hype/empty promises, please. We all want solutions Why isn’t Boulder lobbying for rent
stabilization??? It works. Look who the nay-sayers are: real estate moguls! Renters deserve better.
• Possibly open to supporting some changes if Unihill, Martin Park and Aurora East neighborhoods are excluded
• Adjust zoning to disallow McMansions and outlaw new lawn seeding and leave native plant borders untouched for
use by pollinators. Allow Xeriscaping with restrictions on planting invasive species. Save land and water for more
vital uses
• Build out Area III to your liking then ask me these questions.
Until then, leave us alone.
Thank you very much.
• The questions are leading. There are a lot of ways the City can increase density without these zoning changes.
Increasing occupancy does not decrease rent. Real life examples abound. Hill is a perfect example of what
happens when occupancy is increased (rent increases, affordability does not improve).
There are great places in Boulder for dense growth - allow taller buildings in central areas (downtown, Basemar,
29th street) - but if Boulder wants to have diversity in terms of resident (young, old, families, etc.), maintaining
zones that are low density, single family homes is needed.
In-fill with duplexes in places like 29th street, Basemar, etc. make good sense - but not gutting existing low density
zones by allowing a mish mash of high density next to low density.
The way the city is looking at this is as if increasing occupancy in low-density areas is what will make a difference in
affordability - that's just not true. There are a lot of ways to increase density without gutting variety of character of
city -- that includes low density zones.
Lastly: CU should be required to provide more on-campus student housing. CU should have to house the increase
in students population over the past 30 years -- such a requirement would free up housing for people that work in
Boulder but have been priced out due to student rentals.
CU Population 2022 = 36,000. "Enrollment and Graduation Rates - CU Boulder's fall 2022 enrollment was 36,122.
The undergraduate enrollment was 29,583 of which 7,106 were entering first-year students. The number of new
undergraduate transfer students who enrolled in fall 2022 was 1,422." See https://catalog.colorado.edu/about -cu-
boulder/#:~:text=Enrollment%20and%20Graduation%20Rates,in%20fall%202022%20was%201%2C422.
CU Boulder Population 1990 = 24,000 - see: https://www.colorado.edu/registrar/sites/default/files/attached-
files/ucb_1990-91_catalog.pdf.
CU Should have to be required to build hosing for the 12,000 additional students that have resulted in the loss of
neighborhoods. CU should further be required to provide housing for all new University growth.
• Please allow for more ADU or apartments to be added to existing single family houses.
• We have houses in our neighborhood that consistently rent to seven or more people in a single family home.
Parking in the neighborhood is becoming difficult. Code enforcement hasn't done anything on my street to slow
this down, either.
I've lived in this neighborhood for over 50 years and it's sad to see so many crowded rental houses that are not
maintained by the landlords.
So if the City increases occupancy in the city are they going to increase the water and sewer lines to serve the
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
54
additional people in the neighborhoods?
Thank you!
• When Kate Raworth spoke at the City of Boulder’s Forum on Economy, Community and Climate, she spo ke to
denser housing in a beautiful way. I’d love that to get shared around when talking about these issues. Prioritizing
housing and affordability is essential. Make it harder for developers to scrape houses!! Prioritize people who are
going to live in houses buying them, not developers. Include Indigenous land tax as part of reparations for the
stolen land we’re all living on here. Thank you for your efforts!
• Parking requirements go against Boulder’s sustainability goals. They are outdated and should be removed
entirely.
• None of these proposals will have any effect on housing prices or affordability in Boulder. City voters rejected the
misguided Bedrooms proposal. Don't overturn that vote.
• Abolish cash in lieu. It does nothing towards affordable housing. All that empty office space could be converted
into affordable housing or whatever is considered “affordable” in Boulder.
• The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students
live on campus.
Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents.
Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to
disturbances from students.
Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the
need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure
and resources that are already under stress from climate change.
• Limit new employers moving/expanding in Boulder; focus on rezoning of business/office zoned land to residential
uses. Focus on family friendly permanently affordable housing.
• We need to work towards more students living on campus. The Hill neighborhood is reaching a tipping point where
it is either going to be sustained as a Boulder treasure with families, students, and faculty alike. Or, it will become
so rundown by student-disturbances that result in families (like mine) fleeing the broken glass, fireworks, and 2am
disruptions for the Hill to end up a landlord’s cash cow and wasteland.
• Eliminating zoning no matter if the area is commercial or residential is a dangerous idea. I wonder what the city
council envisions commercial areas will become if all zoning is eliminated.
• I am a fan of gentle upzoning on larger and busier streets, at larger and busier intersections, and in some cases
near transit stops and corridors. I’m less supportive of upzoning across an entire current sf neighborhood,
generally. I like ADUs by right, including larger ones. I like a mix of low-intensity housing types in residential areas
and small convenience stores/breakfast places. I like subdividing giant lots for more, smaller middle income
homes or duplexes or townhomes.
• Along with this, let's get mass transit working. RTD pass for all residents.
• There are a few single-family zoned areas that would be obvious areas to increase density, like University Heights
and the area just west of Scott Carpenter Park.
• Force CU to build more student housing so that more housing in the community is available to people working in
the community.
Increasing occupancy is a giveaway to developers and investor owners who will profit massively. It will not lower
rents. It will increase density of students in neighborhoods leading to increased law enforcement costs, increased
traffic and parking problems for existing residents.
Cars will remain the primary transportation in Boulder. Only when the city has a mass transit system as extensive
as NYC will you get people out of cars. So stop allowing developers to not have the required parking per unit.
• We should be building more moderately priced housing, a lot of the current housing being built is very expensive,
so it adds to congestion and does not help the housing crisis at all.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
55
• Lower all city fees associated the development of all new housing and the improvement of existing multifamily
housing.
•
1. The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad
students live on campus.
2. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents.
3. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to
disturbances from students.
4. Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the
need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure
and resources that are already under stress from climate change.
• Quit meddling with what people voted for. There is never going to be enough housing for everyone to live in
Boulder. Rezoning only makes people more crowded, thus making them angrier! This council is so slanted against
single family homes, which is what people really want.
• Unless mass transit improves, increasing density is a horrible idea, and only serves the real estate agents and
profiteers. Transit keeps getting WORSE and has for decades now -- fix that first!
Also, the idea that if we add thousands of housing spaces it would reduce in-commuters by the same number? It's
naive (some would say: lies by profiteers) - that only reduces commuting if EVERYONE works/schools in Boulder.
• Give more attention to calming down student party houses.
• Incentives to discourage car ownership in favor of public transit, bikes, scooters, ride share. Forced purchase of
bus pass. Allow scooters west of 30th. Etc
• People still want cars even if they only use them on weekends. We need permeable surfaces to absorb water.
People need quiet; the more people the more noise and light stress which negatively impacts health.
Thank you for considering these points
• What a piece of deceit this push poll is! I guess you just want to lead survey takers down the development path. I
guess that's what you want to hear.
• Regional coooeration and coordination is essential to effectively address the affordable housing/transportation
challenge. Boulder can't do this alone or by focusing within our own city limits.
• The stated objective for reducing/eliminating occupancy and zoning restrictions is to lower housing costs. There is
no reason to believe these proposals will have the desired effect. I think the proposed changes would make single
family homes unaffordable, change the character of our neighborhoods and have severe, negative impacts on
quality of life. Rental prices for houses and apartments would not go down. The only result of allowing higher
density and unrestricted growth is higher density and unrestricted growth. It won't magically reduce commuters
on 36, lower rental rates, reduce cars/traffic/parking issues, or create low-income housing. It won't result in
housing for the homeless or create programs to treat the mental health and substance abuse problems that affect
our community.
• Increasing occupancy will not make Boulder more affordable. It will just increase landlords profit margins &
allowing more affluent people to move in.
If you want affordable housing build it, manage it or have rent control.
• Where to begin? Sacrificing quality of life in the name of density based on specious arguments having to do with
supposedly increasing affordable housing supply is a shopworn subject. Look around. What we get are hideous
housing projects that are unappealing to most everyone and are certainly not affordable. (Never mind the monster
spec homes popping up in North Boulder and elsewhere) I don't buy that people are ditching their cars or
clamoring to move the family and dog into an efficiency unit at 30th and Pearl or Old Tale and Arapahoe. ( And
count me as one who was recently run down on my bicycle by a motorist while using a crosswalk to cross
Arapahoe at 13th). Tampering with zoning is a bad idea. We all know that no amount of development will
ameliorate the perceived housing problems in Boulder. If you choose to do only one thing, get serious about the
in-commuting problem and excessive automobile use in general that results in great harm to the livability of our
community and recognize that what you are suggesting by way of solutions will likely do nothing (And has done
little in the past) to address this fundamental problem.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
56
• Boulder has a housing crisis. To reduce emissions, increase the diversity of our community, and improve the long
term viability of Boulder, we need to rapidly increase our housing stock.
We can do this without reducing our quality of life. In fact, I believe a more diverse community will make Boulder a
more fun place to live.
So please prioritize increasing density in our beautiful city so we can share it with more neighbors.
• The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students
live on campus.
Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents.
Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to
disturbances from students.
Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the
need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure
and resources that are already under stress from climate change.
• Require CU to build housing for it's students.
Prohibit student rentals in single family zones,. That would make thousands of properties available for workforce
rentals or families to purchase.
Prohibit short term rentals in single family zones.
• Increased density will negatively impact infrastructure and utilities as well as increase traffic and noise. There are
already too many cars and trucks on our roads and current restrictions are not being enforced, for example, semi
and box trucks on 55th Ave between Arapahoe and Baseline that has a pound per vehicle limit and trucking
companies are using 55th to avoid the traffic on Foothills. Road damage and noise and air pollution!
• Please stop trying to make Boulder into a large, over populated, place with so many people crammed in that the
quality of life deteriorates. Traffic is already more than our roads can handle.
• Parking will be a challenge for incremental residents. We count on tourism for much of our revenue and in the
Pearl St. Area. If People cannot access and park easily, they will not come.
• This issue was voted on. The citizens of Boulder said no increase on occupancy. What don't you get about NO more
than 3 unrelated occupants living togeather.
• Housing shortage is in part due to the practice of enticing busineeses to locate in Boulder. Stop enticing
businesses to move to town bringing more employees lacking housing & concentrate on the housing
imbalance created by short sighted growth in the commercial sector. Required builders to actually build affordable
housing & end in lieu contributions that don't always go towards creating additional affordable housing, or
make them so high that it becomes the less attractive/affordable option to the builders.
• One story commercial units, eg. Pearl St., should be allowed to have a second story added on as rental units. That
would add some additional units. Lower real estate taxes so that renters can lower there rents .. making it less
expensive for those with low incomes.
• I get it! This is designed to support the preconceptions of the 'progressives.' Who knew Karl was such a skewed
mind that he could foist this on the public as a legitimate poll.
• What a deceitful push poll--you ought to be ashamed!
• I specifically choose to live in a low density neighborhood and in general avoid crowds and crowded areas for my
own emotional health. Why are my needs for low density living not respected at least as much as others'
preferences for high density? Why is it acceptable to sacrifice my lifestyle and CHANGE where I have chosen to live
as well as, in all likelihood, reduce the value of my home which I have worked hard to afford and maintain? This
essentially takes away from savings meant to sustain me in older age.
Where will the cars go with no parking requirements? It it NOT realistic to expect that more people will not bring
more cars. Where high density developments have been allowed with no parking requirements, such as in the area
of 55th/Arapahoe, the existing neighborhoods have been taken over by cars from the apartment complexes. I'd
like for my family and friends to be able to visit without circling for blocks looking for parking. My street will not
accommodate cars parked on both sides as that leaves only one lane for traffic. Our neighborhood streets were
not built for high density.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
57
I have grave concerns about the availability of water and other resources, as well as infrastructure, in transitioning
from low- to high-density.
Speaking from personal experience, renters as a general rule (as well as non-local landlords) do not have the same
interest in maintaining neighborhoods as do long-term residents and homeowners. Allowing high-density building
in single-family neighborhoods sacrifices the interests of long-term residents in favor of people with little or no
interest in the long-term health of the neighborhood.
Boulder is in the process of permanently ruining what makes it such a special place to begin with. There are now
many places in town where the foothills are no longer visible due to buildings that seem to violate the height
restrictions. The entire community is being permanently degraded. Are you going to make the same terrible
changes in residential areas that can not be reversed? Your proposed changes will impact those of us currently in
the middle economically because we can not afford to insulate ourselves in the same way the wealthy can,
essentially increasing the wealth/lifestyle gap for those of us in the middle.
I have worked hard throughout my life and tried to save responsibly while contributing to the community. WHO IN
CITY GOVERNMENT IS ADVOCATING FOR ME?
• I am fully opposed to LARGE ADU construction in residential lots. These will obstruct views, encourage
overcrowding, and destroy the quality of life in residential neighborhoods. A very small ADU might not be
disruptive, and appropriate for a mother-in-law or older parent type of residency, but an 800 square feet ADU is
almost as big as many homes.
• Do not allow Boulder to turn into a megalopolis with Denver and surrounds. What has made Boulder so unique is
its controlled growth and neighborhoods. Do not destroy this feature! If housing is an issue, figure it out some
other way but do not change zoning or occupancy laws.
• Can you rewrite the survey to provide evidence for and against so we can respond on the basis of the evidence??
These approaches haven’t really worked in other areas, from what I Re read and all rmtvr community voices we
heard during Bedrooms campaign. Those opinions of people of color for instance. Though these proposals are
different, I think they apply for similar reasons. These will help housing providers but only add to the burdens if
people who want to live here. Apply some of them I. Commercial corridors as a test. In not opposed to some there
but you have lumped everything into the questions and that seems to be insufficient. Makes people feel you don’t
really want Boulderites to BeHeard. Sad state of affairs, indeed. Discouraging trust in our institutions.
• Boulder's density is good as is.
• Seems to me you have a preconceived answer and are just trying to lead me into your way of thinking. This is not a
legitimate poll in any sense. What's wrong with you?
• Push polling at its finest! How can you pretend this is an actual opinion survey? It's pure bs.
• I resisted your effort to lead me down the development path. I guess you want only to confirm what CC members
want to hear. Worthless polling.
• The City should make it dramatically easier and cheaper to build modest homes e.g. 800-2000 sq ft, not just
efficienies. Most new SF builds are absurdly large. Roads are far too wide and way too much land is dedicated to
parking lots and car based infrastructure. Tighter, walkable mixed use areas with green space are vastly superior to
parking lots.
• The problem with occupancy limits are the profit motive currently driving student boarding houses. So I would like
to amend the limits with an 'owner occupied' condition which would allow some controlled boarding house
instances without eliminating the upsides of increasing density through occupancy. I understand the obstacle may
be enforcement, but I think stiff penalties would remedy that situation: the threat of high costs for violations would
curtail 'gaming the system'.
• These measure should at LEAST be considered on a neighborhood basis. I currently live on University Hill, and
more occupancy in this area will be disasterous.
Student living rental costs are inelastic, so if occupancy limits are increased it will ONLY benefit out of town/state
rental property owners as they will just add more people to a house, charge the same (or more!) per person and
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
58
get wealthier.
The neighbors and the city will pay the costs for that increased occupancy. More parties, fireworks at night, trash
outside, etc. More police calls. More cars, etc. And why? Just to enrich rental property owners who don't live here?
If the goal is to create more affordable housing options, then more students (esp undergrad) that can live ON
campus would solve many of these issues. It could potentially allow for non-students to afford to live in those now
vacated rentals, working closely with CU on this kind of initiative seems most likely to reduce housing costs and
not drive up the costs of everyone else dealing with more students.
• DO not let the Boulder or the University ruin our single home neighborhoods near the University. This is
unequatible! as other neighborhoods in Boulder will not be as dramatically impacted. Modest neighborhoods in
proximity to CU will suffer! CU must cap enrollment in Boulder- as they cannot house the students in Boulder
already. They know there is a shortage of student housing - so why compound a problem that already exists.
Students also squeeze out modest income workers who must live elsewhere and communte. Stop trying to attract
more business - like you did with Google - those who do want to be here must pay for their inpact on schools,
services, schools with the increase of people moving here - causing housing cost to rise. Just stop it
• The existing infrastructure (electric, sewer, etc) is old and inadequate in many parts of Boulder. Adding more stress
without proper infrastructure is irresponsible. Also, we already have small streets clogged with cars; adding
density and changing zoning will reduce livability. We already don’t drive thru U hill due to overcrowded streets
and glass bottles broken—the overcrowded hill area is dangerous.
• Why the push poll? I take it you really don't want people's opinions unless they coincide with yours. How
autocratic!
• Current utility infrastructure is outdated and will not support growth in current neighborhoods. This is not an
urban center where a majority of residents can both live and recreate without cars and parking. Boulder has been
historically special for a reason…. Keep Boulder unique.
• Experiments that down-grading zoning space and parking requirements have not done so well. In addition, there is
no feedback pointing to the long-term success of affordability as a result of removing or drastically altering current
zoning ordinances.
• I like the idea of duplexes and triplexes in addition to relaxing occupancy limits, because duplexes and triplexes are
typically more attractive to families than roommate situations. Also good for seniors who want to downsize but
stay in town.
I live in a neighborhood (east aurora) with a lot of student rentals. Most students are great neighbors, but many
years there have been groups of students that threw parties several nights a week, consistently left bottles and fast
food wrappers on the curb, etc. I also worry about SFH becoming an even better investment if you can put more
people in one house, making homeownership even more unattainable.
Here's what I'd like to see in increasing occupancy:
* Keep on the path of greater accountability from landlords and management companies. From what I've seen, the
landlord and the management company have a big impact on how neighborly the tenants are. Thoughtful
landlords seem to have thoughtful tenants. If your landlord doesn't really care, you get the message that there's no
need to respect your surroundings.
* CU doing more education around how to live on your own and be a good neighbor. As a mom-friend who moved
out of the neighborhood said, "it's like freshman orientation every year." That's not the neighbors' job.
* Disincentives (high taxes/fees?) for wealthy individuals or companies to own several rental properties. This goes
back to having thoughtful landlords, and also keeping homeownership in neighborhoods like mine a possibility for
people who aren't already multimillionaires.
• The City build affordable housing. Developers will only do it if they can build market-rate and above units so they
can make a profit. Eliminate cash-in-lieu; make developers build affordable housing. Make developers pay for their
impacts with higher linkage fees. Rent control. Permanent affordability.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
59
• Stop ruining Boulder
• How will Boulder ensure that affordable units are indeed leased to people who need them rather that get rented
out as VRBOs?
• Pretty shocking (not) that this is being pushed again by the likes of the "progressive" majority on council. We
already voted on BAFP- and don't tell me this is different. How to improve housing affordability? Stop the growth
of high tech/ high paid employees in this city- that is the root of this. Tell Polis enough is enough with tax
incentives for companies to come to CO. Make it very expensive for any company who wants to establish itself
here- should have been done esp with the Google campus.
• The city is already inundated with plenty of apartments. The coty taking cash in leu of forcing developers to
include affordable apartments was a huge mistake. There could have been units but cash seemed to be the
answer. Cash isn't housing anyone and it is getting more and more expensive to buy up and build or remodel for
affordable housing. Also, the cash in lieu has not created diversity in these new developments. The city wants to
stick all affordable housing in one building/ area. This makes for a financially homogenous area. Neighborhoods
used to be filled with people of various wealth where I grew up and we all got along. Now the city is separating.
• Enforce the noise ordinance better n these areas & require public space in new higher density areas!
• More density does not guarantee affordability. It is obvious that more housing leads to more investors, many from
out of state, paying what the market can bear; more Air BNBs (that are not monitored for compliance) so that the
already-wealthy can have more income; more empty units because residents own homes in multiple locations
(currently have 3 such homes on our block). Real estate in Boulder is a safe investment for the "haves"...and will
continue to be just that without other controls, like rent control and deed-restrictions.
• Consider ways to encourage developers to build for middle and low income, and seniors needing smaller places to
live. Encourage CU to house all undergrads on campus, maybe allow seniors to move out of CU housing. This
would free up a ton of housing in Boulder for residents. Further, limit CU growth, they are an ever bigger
proportion of our community.
• Affordable housing won't happen all by itself. Developers will simply rush in to fill the void if limits are lifted. I
would welcome affordable housing for families or young professionals, or CU staff, on the Hill, but not more
apartments for party animals (the serious students by and large leave the Hill for North Boulder and other places).
A lot of our traffic problems would be solved if students could have housing on campus built by CU. Strengthen
our transportation, build protected bike lanes where you don't have to risk your life to cross an intersection.
• Ask more pointed questions so actual opinions on the issues can be easily expressed.
• We need to remove single family housing across the state, now. This is one of the fastest ways to stabilize rental
costs and create additional housing. It does not require any person who wants their house to stay single family to
change.
• Boulder voters expressed their opposition in the last election cycle. City council should absolutely not try an end
run to the defeat of this issue.
• Did we not go through this in the last election when BAFP was voted down?
WHY ARE YOU AGAIN TRYING TO PUSH THIS THROUGH IN SPITE OF THE WILL OF THE CITIZENS OF BOULDER?
• Boulder is at max capacity. Boulder has 4,000+ residents per square mile and that doesn’t include the homeless
encampments. Maybe your efforts would better placed in making Boulder a safe place again for those of us that
already live here.
• Do not build on open space. In the last few decades there have been waves of infilling houses. For instance Bluff
street near Folsom does not look anything like it used to with houses build behind and between. Newcomers to
Boulder do not appreciate how much infill has already happened, so please do not approve more infill. How are
you going to enforce occupancy limits?? Of course there are already plenty of “illegal” 4-5 unrelated people houses
here, so you don’t need to raise limit it’s already effectively here.
• What made Boulder special is its tight controls on growth to protect this beautiful natural environment. If Boulder
is to remain special, it needs to stay that course.
• Increase unit count/ acre within 1/4 mile of major transit routes.
• Rent cap ?
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
60
• City Council- the people have voted on keeping zoning and occupancy the same. Why do you insist on trying to
subvert the voting process? This is undemocratic and makes me think you are taking hand outs from developers.
Stop trying to manipulate the voters of the city.
• Recognize that the neighborhood objections arising from higher occupancy in single family homes are (1)
excessive noise and (2) street crowding due to excessive cars not excess people. Remedies: area permits for cars
like downtown area and more vigorous noise response teams from the city.
Create a process that allows people who have excess parking permits to easily license them to those who need
them/
want them and allow the people who are transferring them to charge the people receiving them.
• Parking should be decoupled from housing so that people who live without cars are not subsidizing people who do
not and to avoid over building parking infrastructure. It is better to have too little parking than too much parking
to incentivize decreased car usage and storage.
The city needs to think creatively about how to manage parking as it allows denser configurations in single family
zones. There are good reasons not to increase the number of cars parked in our neighborhoods.
• Housing affordability (or unaffordability) is a function of how popular an area is to live. Unfortunately everyone
can live in one place. Adding more housing units will likely have a negligible impact on demand and prices may
not fall - look at New York City. My feeling is that if people want to live somewhere with higher density they should
consider living elsewhere. I love my quiet neighborhood. Making it busier won't make it less expensive, but it will
make it busier.
• Boulder housing is seen as an investment for non-resident buyers and so many houses and apartments remain
unoccupied while residents have a more difficult time finding affordable places to live. I suggest instituting a
substantial vacancy tax to encourage the sale or renting of these unoccupied housing options.
• Keep “single family “ areas off limits to rezoning. Create higher density areas on the outside perimeter of town.
• Loosening occupancy restrictions will have no impact on affordability. Particularly in areas adjacent to the
University, where there is no question that rents are based on a per bedroom rate. Adding additional units in
existing single-family areas is highly unlikely to increase affordability as well due to the fact that demand for
housing in our community is essentially unlimited, it is insatiable. Allowing more dense residential units in existing
commercial areas or neighborhood. Shopping centers would help densify at areas, supported with public
transportation and would not have a negative impact on existing single-family communities for the most part
however, affordability will only be solved by providing subsidized affordable units.
• Reducing parking areas to lower the prices of affordable housing should only ensue IF more and more variable
types of public transportation are made available as part of the building agreement, and/or if the new
development comes with a number of shared vehicles for residents. The transportation piece must be part and
parcel with the land and building development piece and be put in a binding agreement before building.
My family and I live in Keewaden Meadows, which is single family housing that abuts condos and rental buildings
along Manhattan St. There are no issues with this intermingling of types and pricing of housing. We meet one
another in the local parks, at the school and walking in the neighborhood
• Existing multi-unit houses on the Hill produce trash, noise, loose dogs, cars parked across sidewalks, ... A complete
mess. No more, no more!
• Duplexes, probably ok, triplex too much in single family zoning. We have seen what happens to our neighborhoods
when there is not enough open space on a lot. It’s ridiculous how big some single family houses are. It’s sad when a
big house takes the entire lot - there goes our view of the sky. I’m very concerned new zoning won’t apply to HOA’s.
Please don’t let this happen.
• Increasing density by increasing occupancy will never lower the cost of housing or increase the availability of
affordable housing. Increasing occupancy will only raise the price an investor is willing to pay for a property based
since the gross income will increase proportionately and therefore price out families and permanent residents
wanting to purchase a home for owner occupancy.
Only predominately owner occupancy will ensure the long term liveabity of a neighborhood. These are givens.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
61
• Start giving Meth addicts housing and you'll be remediating meth contamination forever!
• I fully support making ADUs easy in single family but density of multiplexes should be measured with volume of
cars taken into account
• Opponents to these reforms need to answer to the pollution impacts when more and more Boulder workers are
forced to commute by car because they cannot afford to live where they work. It is not a neutral decision to do
nothing.
• Sadly, adding more housing is not going to make it more affordable. I think you would be better off controlling
rent on properties that are owned by the city (and built by the city).
• Boulder has a TON of housing. However, it's in Boulder, which has been and always will be unaffordable for most
people. There's no changing that, and the Bldr Chamber of Commerce is the entity to thank for it.
• Utilize unused office space by converting it to affordable apartments.
• Affordable housing is a laudable goal, however, adding density will have no impact on the cost per renter in
Boulder. This is a case where increasing supply will have no impact on demand or rental costs!
• The neighborhoods boarding cu should be excerpt from the two measure. These changes would only allow
landlords to take advantage of students and not really reach any more affordability goals
• Occupancy limits and affordable housing policies need to be tailored to specific circumstances in specific areas of
Boulder. For example, in areas where new development could take place, density that would lead to lower housing
costs makes sense. In other neighborhoods, such as University Hill, policies that increased occupancy limits would
not necessarily lead to lower housing costs--rather, it would enable landlords to make more money without
lowering the rental cost per student renter. In general, I think we need to proceed slowing and thoughtfully as we
implement policies that aim to lower costs by increasing density--the policies we implement could have negative
unintended consequences that do not, in fact, lead to more affordable housing.
• Instead of changing the zoning for entire neighborhoods, which is likely to get a lot of pushback, might want to
consider allowing increased occupancy and/or duplexes/triplexes only along busier streets such as 9th, Baseline,
Broadway, Arapahoe, and Canyon. The argument about more traffic and noise doesn't really apply to streets that
already have a lot of traffic, so this would be a middle ground option that would allow some gradual infill. Also,
there are already duplex/triplexes along most/all of those streets, so there's a precedence for it.
• Increased density in established neighborhoods changes character and livability for current residents. Increased
number of people raises noise level and decreases comfort in hanging out in your yard. I'm a landlord AND a
longtime resident in a neighborhood with student rentals. I know for a fact increasing units on a lot or increasing
occupancy per unit will not lower rents per person. Four unrelated persons per unit in any part of town makes
sense.
• Where would those people park their cars? Please leave all this ALONE. We voted on it and it was decided to leave
everything the way it is.
• Leave the rules as they are. I can't afford to live in Aspen or Hawaiian beaches and I don't bitch about it and scream
that I am entitled to live in those desirable places. If you start allowing triplexes or more on tiny single family lots
in Newlands or Old North or SOBO, the price of what gets built on them is still going to be FAR beyond affordable
limits. You all were nuts about the municipal power crap, and you all are completely nuts that cranking up
occupancy limits will do anything but make developers and landlords a crap ton of money. And if you hadn't
wasted 20 million+ on the municipal power crap and then reframed the outcome to "declare success" you would
have had 20 million to spend on affordable housing. I do not trust city of Boulder and county of Boulder
government at all. And you really need to explain to the uber-progressives on council and county commissioners
that they are not helping. They are hurting Boulder. They have allowed the decline in living standard and the
increase in drugs and crime. They have made it unsafe to walk and bike the bike path network. They have made
Boulder public spaces crappy to hang out in for folks who are not criminals or druggies. They all need to be
removed from office ASAP. There is going to be a wave that removes you all, get ready for it you incompetent cult
members. You all are as bad as MAGA on the other end of the spectrum and you don't have any sense that you are
just as cultish and bad actors. And reasonable normal people in the community see through all your crap.
• WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PERIOD. I shouldn't have to live with 6 people to have affordable rent! This place
has already turned into a super upper class, white population and have driven out people that have lived here for
way longer than we've been here. We need affordable housing so BIPOC and lower socioeconomic status people
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
62
can actually live here~~!!!! It's almost impossible to rent here as a student unless you have student loans or rich
parents~!
• The current affordability crisis harms so many people. I want the city to change zoning laws to legalize denser
housing projects, remove parking minimums, and make it easier to permit ADUs.
• 1. Increasing unrelated occupancy limits (especially in areas of heavy student housing, eg, the Hill, etc) will not
result in lower cost to students. Landlords will simply crowd more students in a unit and continue to charge high
rates for sub-par conditions.
2. Re-zone some commercial buildings near mass transit to allow affordable housing near resources or access to
resources. This would help eliminate food deserts, and would increase access to health and recreation resources
as well as provide an opportunity for resident's to decrease our carbon footprint through increased utilization of
mass transit for work and recreation purposes.
• Please do not allow further densification of areas of the city where it is very difficult to park (e.g., downtown).
• Exempt properties in CU-adjacent neighborhoods from any discussion of increased density.
• Take some time to read about the unhoused community and people already in low income housibg
• Keep current zoning!
• We should look to other cities that have had success with their College and implement some of their standards to
have set up better situations with the school and city for student housing. This will create more situations for
others to be housed.
The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students
live on campus. At least 2 years would be smart.
Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents.
Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to
disturbances from students.
• I would like to see CU provide more housing for students which would free up existing housing
• I am also in favour of exploring options to change the height limit (perhaps especially in east Boulder) and am
*especially* in favour of lots of public housing!
• We need to do everything we can to make it more affordable to live here
• Building has boomed over the years with this claim to reduce costs, has not worked. It has driven out so many
people and now caters to those with money. It has not worked and it won’t work. This boom has made developers
and investors very happy and rich.
• Housing here will never be reasonable, but increasing density WITH increasing patrol and control might reduce
homelessness for those who have been gentrified out of lower-cost housing. It seems especially desirable to help
with stability and proximity for city and county employees.
• Stop putting up all the apartments. It’s awful what has happened with the densification. Stop!!!
• I'm sorry but bottomline is we can't keep destroying our city to try to be all things to all people. There will never be
enough housing/affordable housing to meet everyone's needs. Radical accpentance sometimes needed instead of
grow baby grow, build baby build. I'm not going to move to CA bc I can't afford it and wouldn't expect a home to be
built for me so I can live there. I live where I can afford and thankfully moved to Boulder decades ago. On a public
educators salary. And I keep watching the sprawl and now density growth year after year. Yet when the building
and growing is all over and done with (which is never) and no one no longer wants to live here because of it, we will
still be left with the same problem, in the same place. We will never have enough housing to meet the
desires/needs. But we keep doing it anyway. Other solutions please. Increased incomes so people can affor to live
here? Let's use what we already have in place. And use it wisely.
• I strongly disagree with densification of Boulder. Use current housing and stop increasing size and density of new
buildings. Especially west of Foothills. You are ruining Boulder. More isn’t the same as more affor dable. Look at
NYC. People who call themselves “progressive “ in Boulder are in bed with the developers. Keep investing in
subsidized housing.
• Stupid zoning requirements got us a new 4400 sq ft house in Goss-Grove. It is completely out of place in Central
Boulder. This should have been a 4 plex or 4 separate 1100 sq ft townhouses. Eliminate Single Family Zoning.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
63
• Mixed housing builds a diverse, local community while encouraging the local economy. Most people will gladly
walk to a local store versus drive out somewhere.
• I'm all for density, including modest sized dwellings to give people more options. In my opinion, the cars are more
of a problem than people so don't require parking spaces. Owning a car in the city should be expensive. Plus,
everyone needs access to green & quiet spaces nearby. Thankfully we have many wonderful bike paths
& parks.
• Do not reduce parking- if anything, the people who need affordable housing, need their cars more specifically - for
work which they actually go to, then do people like us who write or participate in these surveys. if anything you
need to put more parking into new developments particularly if they include affordable housing
• I support adding a format and standard for including cooperative housing category in the inclusionary housing
standards. (s.a. micro-units that have shared living, outdoor and cooking spaces in one building). This would pair
well with allowing the increases in number of un-related people in a home.
• It is not a legitimate objective of government to make it affordable for a person who wants to live in an expensive
place to live in that expensive place. I want to live in Aspen, but I accept the fact that I cannot afford to do so.
Therefore, I must compromise and live elsewhere. This is a fact of life. Instead of destroying existing beautiful
communities, the solution has always been to create new beautiful communities. A percentage of workers in
Boulder commute into Boulder to work, due in part to incentives provided by the public sector to create jobs in
Boulder. I suggest that Council consider these incentives. Also, look at the percentage of workers that commute
into all cities in the Metro area, for perspective.
• zoning change to allow for 15 minute neighborhoods (eg small shops) so people dont need to own and pay for a
car.
• Fees should be increased on construction of large inappropriate trophy homes.
• Not sure what you meant by “neighborhood center “. This question really should be separated into two.
• Please do not try to overturn matters already decided by elections.
• We need to reduce the single-family home zones in Boulder. I am a Boulder native and the home prices and
restrictive and exclusive policies of the town right now are not the policies that I remember of the town I grew up
in. We need to create a more affordable and dynamic place to live, stop prioritizing cars and single-family homes,
and recognize that our current policies only benefit the uber-wealthy. Occupancy limits, parking requirements,
and single-family zoning need to go.
• Obviously there is a lot of nuance to the “how” for changing zoning to allow duplexes, more adu’s etc. so my
somewhat agree could become definitely agree if I saw the actual policy.
• Why bother with the survey when the BAFP council members are going to ignore it anyway since they're so sure
they know better than everyone else?
• Every effort across all aspects of governance should be made to allow people to live in places they can largely
operate their daily lives (live/work/play) without the need for a motor vehicle.
The built environment directly influences these choices people make, and as long as we prioritize cars (and single
family zoning that forces people to live distances from work and play that require cars to get around), Boulder’s
traffic and the climate crisis will continue to get worse.
• The City should work towards encouraging a developer to annex land north of 28th Street (36) in the planning area.
To solve the affordable housing and jobs to housing imbalance the City needs to approve hundreds of new lots in
new subdivisions, not trying to change existing single-family zoning to allow duplexes and triplexes, which won't fit
on single-family sized lots. The City can then approve larger lots for duplexes and triplexes in the Planning Area as
the Boulder Vallely Comprehensive Plan suggests annexation is appropriate. I don't want to see three-story tall
triplexes next to my single-story single-family home. The City already doesn't enforce occupancy limits so that's a
waste of time and won't help provide more affordable housing, it will just allow slum lords to pack in college
students legally in houses that then don't have enough parking. In most cases, every college kid at CU has a
vehicle, so you can't fit five kids and five cars in a single-family residence.
• Make more affordable to live in the city by all means
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
64
• Start representing the people. You are way too far left. People should live where they can afford to. Like we did 45
years ago.
• Owner occupied homes should have occupancy limits removed. Any and all developer owned residential homes
should continue to have limits on occupancy. It has been shown that developers will continue to charge exorbitant
rates per room regardless of how many rooms there are. Whereas if the owner lives in the home then they should
be able to buy a 6 bedroom house and rent out 5 of the rooms while living in the 6th to keep costs down.
• The fact that Boulder is a university town complicates everything. We don’t want the unintended consequence of
changes to be greedy landlords taking advantage of students desperate for housing. We have rentals in our
neighborhood that families just starting out can rent. If the occupancy laws were to change to allow a landlord to
put even more people in such a house, they may turn their rental into a student rental just to capture all the extra
income potential. This has already happened to a few of the rentals but could happen to more. I love the diversity
these rentals bring to the neighborhood. This diversity would be lost as the students (even if diverse) stick to
themselves more and don’t interact with the neighborhood as much as families do. Also landlords already allow 4
unrelated people in one house, if this were to change, the landlords would then allow 5 or 6. Getting CU to invest
in housing is probably the best thing you could do for this town. Also, one question you should ask in this survey is
“are you or do you plan to become a landlord,”
• With all the huge apartment buildings being built, if the city is not meeting their affordability goals, they are being
stupid. No more cash in exchange. Withhold certificate of occupancy if developers squelch on their commitments,
mapleton academy, for example
• In addition to reducing parking requirements across the board to encourage lower housing costs, consider parking
maximums or other reduced parking requirements, especially along corridors with frequent transit service and
bicycle connectivity.
• High density housing at the junction and expanding east (like the proposed build at 28th/Iris) seem reasonable.
Rezoning, or adding high density housing, west of 28th will likely cause more issues ecologically and between
neighbors than we have now.
• You won't solve more affordable housing by increasing the occupancy based on the number of bedrooms in a
residence. Especially on the Hill. Most rentals are owned by out of towners and they could care less about the
added stress to the area; the noise, pollution, parking, parties etc... for them it is just another 1500$ per month
income stream. In the current model, there is almost no re-enforcement of breaking the occupancy requirements.
We never hear about folks breaking the law and the repercussions. Taking away occupancy requirements will be
the last resort where us, regular citizens feel we can still legally do something ( even though it is minimally
enforced _) . From a creative point of view, there seems to be a growing number of empty office space and every
2nd floor on pearl street mall once was residential and now is either an office, empty office or storage... Make areas
in Boulder more mixed use and allow for living and working in the same zone at more locations. This will increase
safety ( no dead after hours office buildings ) and promotes multi use of parking ( spread out over 24 hours instead
of 8 hours) lower commute traffic and increases the standard of living and community as a whole.
• I would love to see minimum lot sizes decreased or eliminated!
• The current zoning code is entirely too complicated. Because of the way requirements are written, the only thing
that is easy to build in this city is single family housing for wealthy individuals. Zoning code needs to be revised so
that more affordable housing options are easy to build, and single family mansions are hard to build. Currently the
City excessively taxes affordable options and subsidizes wealthy options due to the difficulty of navigating the
process of getting permits.
• Areas such as the west of 30th street are already providing lots of new apartments. If there are concentrated areas
of apartments & new developments on land such as near the diagonal & CU South won’t that suffice? I
don’t see the need to add density to single family home neighborhoods. We already see what it looks like when
multiple people share a house in areas such as the Hill with student housing: difficulty parking, lots of trash, noisy
parties & negligible attention paid to the outside of the houses & yards by landlords. People who care for
their properties in other parts of town don’t want that right next door. Who exactly are we trying to help with these
initiatives? Young people with families don’t want to live sharing houses. So, they go live in mor e affordable places
in east county. If the idea behind these measures is that getting more people in existing houses will help the
unhoused; I doubt that. They need more addiction rehab centers & counseling.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
65
• As it is, occupancy rules are not followed in so many cases. There are certainly more than 3 or 4 unrelated persons
in many residences, i.e., many more students in a rental. Many rentals are not maintained with trash, weeds, many
vehicles, etc.
• Please take a drive on Eisenhower just south of Arapahoe to see the effect of already reduced parking
requirements for residential projects. Instant congestion.
• First off, the Boulder City Council ahould stop trying to attract corporations from establishing major centers here
without a plan in place to build more affordable housing. Second, when outside real estate interests and hedge
funds want to buy up residential properties for multi-unit dwellings, they should be required to ser aside a greater
percentage than the current 25% for affordable housing. Finally, building more office space without a
corresponding plan to build more affordable housing is a losing game. Why not try to build complexes that include
office, retail, and housing co-located so at least some people can live within walking distance to their work?
• Boulder is way too expensive and something has to be done so people can afford to live here again.
• If the council pushes through plan to put duplex and triplex plus allows increased occupancy I will support
removing current members from their positions !
Also do not rot do not increase property taxes more than 5%!
• I support building more housing in urban corridors, Broadway, 28th, 30th with the existing height limit. I think
extending density to single-family home neighborhoods will ruin Boulder's character. There's more we can do to
have more people live in Boulder. For example, restrict AirB&Bs and turn them into ADUs with full-time
residents. Require full-time residency as part of ownership, or charge and extra tax that would go toward an
affordable housing fund if the owner does not live in the unit full time. I notice many new condos are only occupied
as vacation homes for part of the year. Also, you can't throw a stick in our neighborhood without hitting an
AirB&B. These units are taking away from the housing stock in Boulder.
• I have seen houses with 5-6 bedrooms being zoned for less people than there even are bedrooms and houses that
have 3 bedrooms only being zoned for 3 unrelated people, etc. The list goes on. There are empty bedrooms where
people legally aren't allowed to live or people breaking the rules and fearing eviction just so they can afford their
rent... I went to college in Boulder and struggled to pay rent with these zoning restrictions. I feel like they push
Boulder to become even more for only the super wealthy and strongly takes advantage of college students/young
people especially. It seems like these rules expect student's families to front their rent for them, but there are many
people like me who were forced to work practically full time while being a full time student just to keep up because
of these ridiculous zoning laws and the ridiculous rent prices. I am especially strongly in favor of getting rid of
occupancy in general because it isn't anyone's business how many people live with them. If that's what they need
to do to afford the rent prices here, I feel like that is only fair and is inclusive to people's differing situations.
• The college housing is crazy and I am confused as to how the current laws even apply to people who rent to college
kids. We are turning a blind eye to housing and CU just keeps admitting more students and there is a crisis.
Additionally, the housing in this county is SO EXPENSIVE, young families can not afford to live here. This is
shrinking the school age population which impacts school funding. Housing issues also create problems for lower
wage workers living and working in our town - they leave. I envision managing housing as being a catalyst for
improvement for many of Boulderś systems.
• I think we need to figure out housing options for individuals that have a hard time living in apartment situations...
people with mental disorders that may disturb the neighbors. Please have some regulations around dogs (or just
sounds in general) being loud in apartment buildings.
• Please tell us how many people should live in the city when built out! Have your teeth to drive around town
recently?
• Please, do not over densify our neighborhoods! We implemented the 3 unrelated rule because neighborhoods
couldn’t handle both the density, but also all the parking. Our Colorado lifestyle IS CAR DEPENDENT. We love the
mountains, and everyone needs a vehicle to get there. You’re dreaming if you think mountain lovers are going to
go carless. EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST 1 VEHICLE, if not more. AND, if you simply increase density without deed
restrictions, you’ll just get more market rate development…. and AirB&B’s…. that’’ll never be affordable! Not
Rocket Science… it’s just good old capitalism at its best.
• Boulder should require a higher real estate tax rate for non primary residence dwellings, and provide tax
reductions for these properties if they are rented out at reasonable prices. We've seen affluent people purchase
houses and only come to Boulder occasionally, leaving their houses empty most of the time.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
66
We've also seen apartments going up such as the one at the northwest corner of Broadway and Balsam, but the
prices of each (of the 5) unit (~ $3 million) does nothing to help alleviate the affordability issue.
It is plainly a supply and demand imbalance that is at the root of the housing problem. Boulder needs to limit
growth and put more thoughts and effort into moving toward an equilibrium state with what the society,
economy, environment, and natural resources could support.
• We can't build ourselves out out of this problem. We could build skyscrapers and increase density until we become
New York City and guess what? NYC is unaffordable and so would Boulder be.
We CAN put more pressure on CU to stop expanding until they can house more of their students.
• The people voted on whether to increase occupancy in 2021 - nothing has changed. This is just an end run against
the popular will and should not happen.
• Please take into consideration that more people means more congestion, more demands on water and
infrastructure, more wear and tear on road, and in general puts more strain on Boulder County Resources. As a
result, next thing we know you'll want to raise property taxes (again!) to support all these people's housing who
can't afford to live her otherwise. Many of us have lived her for decades -- in my case, 50 years -- and have
contribute to this County through hard work and effort. I do not see why you want to change our vibrant
community into something different. People want to come here because of what it is but this plan will turn Boulder
into something more like Denver, Lafayette, Louisville, Broomfield, ARvada. There are plenty of places for people
to access "affordable" housing not too far from our area. Please reconsider making these suggested changes.
• Density needs to be considered in terms of water usage, trash generation, street congestion, noise, preservation of
neighborhood character, and a host of like considerations. Don't just "change the rules" on those who paid $$$$
to buy into single-family neighborhoods.
Here's an idea: sharply reduce VRBO-type types of licenses; communities like Telluride are already doing this.
Many folks who have extra rooms (or in some cases who bought entire houses) are now "renting" those
accommodations to tourists via VRBO or AirBnB or the like, whereas they used to take in full-time renters. Seems
like zero consideration has been given to this phenomenon.
• Utopia is not possible…even in Boulder.
• Most up zoning would be fine with residents if it didn't cause parking problems. I would love to see something that
didn't allow dense developments to offload their parking. With that in place I think we could add a lot of density
without making residents angry.
• Instead of policing occupancy limits, increase enforcement of existing rules on noise and nuisance issues. The
problem are not extra people, the problem is bad behavior that goes unpunished.
• Why doesn’t the City force CU to start providing housing for more of their students instead of forcing the the tax
payers to build more affordable housing due to a housing shortage that’s created by CU not providing enough
housing for their students? My understanding is that CU only provides housing for a small portion of their student
population, mostly just for Freshman. If CU just provided an additional 10,000 beds that would open up 10,000
beds in the City, which would ultimately lower the cost of rent due to the increase in supply.
Boulder is too dense with 4,000+ residents per sq mile. Not to mention the increase in crime. Does the City have a
plan to create a safe living environment again? And does the City have a plan to ensure public safety with the
increase in population with this additional development the City is proposing.
Perhaps the City’s time and my tax dollars could be better utilized on taking better care of the residents that
currently call Boulder home instead of fattening Developers’ wallets w/ unnecessary builds.
• The email preamble to this survey to students and landlords was very biased, and full of misinformation. Students
will not see a reduction in the cost of living by eliminating occupancy limits, landlords will simply increase number
of persons in a house/apt and still charge the same or more per month for rent. Changing occupancy in a college
town does not lead to affordability. This is a totally false assumption and has been proven in other college towns. It
will only drive out more families from the neighborhoods surrounding the university, especially mid-income
families in neighborhoods like Martin Acres. Requiring CU to add more housing would be better for students. The
University Hill neighborhood already has a wide diversity of housing and this has not led to affordability! Other
approaches have to be taken.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
67
• Housing affordability is not something that can be achieved with market solutions in a place like Boulder where
demand is insatiable. It seems Council wants its cake and eat it too; more housing and preserve
investors'/property owners' ability to maximize returns. That is a formula that will never result in affordability.
Why is that so hard for Council to absorb?
A landlord neighbor of mine enthusiastically supports occupancy limit increases and she declares she wants to see
housing affordability. Even so, she admits she would not decrease the rent paid by current tenants if she could add
a tenant. Instead she would pocket another $1000. This is a common perspective of landlords I hear from friends
with landlord friends.
If my neighbors and I wanted to live in higher density we would doing that already. There are many places in
Boulder (without touching the Planning Reserves) that have not maximized density. There are many areas outside
single family zones where increasing density is more appropriate, for example, along transit corridors. Why then is
Council so eager to jump on single family zones?
Council needs to back up, put the horse back in front of the cart. Has Council answered the questio ns - Why
accommodate people who aren't here yet at the cost of disrupting the lives of people who are already here? How
large do voters want Boulder's population to be? How large can it be before resources, such as water, are
stretched too thin?
There has been study after study showing, given a choice people prefer to live with a bit of space, a yard, between
them and neighbors. Mental health is better when people are not crowded together. What happened in dense
cities during Covid? People who could left cities for suburban and rural areas.
Is Council fearful of being called rude names because these days there is a popular fallacy that zoning is bad, single
family zoning is racist? Yes, in some places zoning was used to control people considered undesirable. However, if
you ask black families what kind of setting they would like to live in, the most common reply would likely be in a
detached house with a yard, like everyone else. Most of the time in modern times zoning has been used for the
greater good, to keep toxic industry away from housing, dangers away from children in schools, collect services
and retail for convenience and economic vitality,... If Council members feel Boulder's zoning is so deficient why do
they live in Boulder, why not move to Houston where there is no zoning, your single family house can be next to a
high rise, and council members can save huge amounts of time not trying to change a place where most people
like it the way it is?
• I don't have any problem with increasing occupancy limits, although I hesitate to support any blanket number,
because it depends on so many factors, including the size of the house and the lot. (and the existing density of the
neighborhood.). I do STRONGLY feel like any increase in occupancy limits MUST be accompanied by much
stronger efforts to advocate for tenant rights, in order to avoid an increase in predatory landlording practices.
Having lived in two other major "college towns" (Iowa City, IA, and Madison, WI), I am very concerned that
unrestricted landlords will turn the neighborhoods closest to campus into "student slums" - where students have
little choice but to pay too much to live in unpleasant and unsafe conditions.
Given the current fight, statewide, making it difficult to advocate for renters, I hope the city doesn't rush into only
half of the solution, ignoring the important other half.
• Our condo area already tight on parking and the adjoining public street is very often full. People forced to park
illegally on yellow curbs which reduces visibility and safety coming on to the street which also has a feeder path
with no crosswalk! Crazy unsafe. See juniper avenue by willow springs. Imported progressive ideals have taken
over Boulder. One mandated solution can destroy what is already a stressed community. Annex more land and
build out. Why does everyone have to live near Pearl Street? Enforce parking laws. We almost never see police
drive by to check out the situation!
• I don't think that any of housing developments in recent years have improved the housing options for lower and
middle class folks, and I don't think that any of the above will either. Developers always find a way to build low-
quality and high cost housing.
• I strongly support more affordable housing and believe that easier access to housing is one of the key ways we can
bring in diversity to Boulder, support more demographics, and reduce homelessness. I am 30 years old and am
very saddened by the attitudes of those who bought houses when they were more affordable and now want to
restrict those opportunities for those around them now.
• I hope the legislature makes the occupancy element of this survey irrelevant.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
68
• Boulder is outgrowing itself and is becoming way too crowded. The roads are not built to handle the massive
developments that keep getting approved. And the condition of the roads is deplorable - potholes everywhere.
Boulder is changing and NOT for the better. I do NOT support more massive, high density developments to pack in
more people.
• Boulder cannot accommodate everyone but their efforts could be increased to help more folks. I've lived here
since the 70's and it's always been expensive.
• Why is City Council discussing unilaterally changing occupancy standards? I'll be surprised if you guys aren't sued.
Also the BAFP people are insufferable. Don't they all have jobs?
• Boulder city Council is trying to change something that the voters voted down. This is no t good representation of
citizens' votes. The City of Boulder is naive if it believes that adding numbers of or reducing zoning on "granny
flats", duplexes/triplexes in single family neighborhoods is going to increase the availability of affordable housin g.
Has the City, City Council or Staff studied the density of short term rentals (not all legal) in the neighborhoods the
City is trying so desperately to fill with "affordable" housing? If this had been studied, the City would see that in
some areas, Whittier for example, some blocks are made up of up to 50% short term rentals. Putting granny flats in
those areas is only going to increase the number of short term rentals. Same for adding duplexes and triplexes.
They will be bought up by investors before the middle income, diverse citizens Boulder seeks. This reality is driven
by an already extremely productive way to make money---more money that long term rental or even selling to a
"family" could ever achieve. I don't understand how the City, City Council and Staff don't see this for the reality it
is.
• Id like to see more varied housing including smaller homes (1,200-1,800 sf) which is suited to 1st time home buyers,
and empty nester/move down buyers
• Please do not change the character of existing neighborhoods. Despite best intentions, people do not ride bikes
and houses are overcrowded in single family home neighborhoods
• There needs to be senior housing, so seniors can sell their homes!
• Density will not improve affordability. It will clog roads, even more so if there is limited parking where the housing
is Look at the whole picture!
• Part of what is making Boulder so expensive is the building code and requirements. Simplify and make them the
bare minimum required for safety. It is also a travesty that the National Association of Realtors has become
essentially a monopoly and our city is not exempt from it. Every house sold has to be %6 more to pay for realtors -
think about that. I would like to see more cities fighting against NAR's monopoly on the real estate market- they
are driving up prices for little value add.
Also- I think we need to expand more affordable housing to East Boulder and other parts of Boulder.
Lastly, while I hate the high costs of living here, I also don't think it is up to Boulder tax payers to solve this
problem. Not every place can have a lot of affordable homes. Not everyone that wants to live here can afford it.
There are more affordable options 20 minutes east of Boulder. I think what should happen is employers here
should pay more for employees to commute in but stop trying to force affordable homes in a market that doesn't
support it.
• Encourage ADU's by incentives in the code and permit process
• Why is this survey so biased? Really couldn't be more obvious.
• Require developers to build a higher percentage of affordable housing to bexallowed to build at all.
• I believe the current regulations benefit landlords at the expense of the renters. Low income housing on bus routes
is helpful but developers should be able to build affordable housing and increase traffic without providing needed
parking.
• Something has to be done. More flexibility is needed for more housing for more people. The same people who
don't want to expand the parameters of housing availability and location, occupancy, etc. They are the same
people complaining about homeless individuals. Well you can't have it both ways.
• Why are neighborhoods, such as the Hill, asked to bear the brunt of the student housing problem? The University
fails to build student housing and the City fails to protect us from this failure. For years I've watched the
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
69
neighborhood degrade and now these regulations would decimate what is left of the Hill. How can a city, in good
conscience, do this?
• We already voted on this. No change to occupancy limits. Put limits on enrollment at CU instead.
• Explore the idea of requiring builders/developers to include affordable housing in their projects rather than “cash
in leu”. Get the Mapleton developers to work on their promised affordable housing at the Fruehauf site.
• Boulder is so inhabitable by anyone other than people in upper middle class which is a significant detriment to the
culture and community of Boulder. Not to mention the way it is impacting our public school system.
• Allow more ADUs than currently allowed, allow legal ADUs in zoning areas where they are not currently allowed.
• Utilize existing structures for housing. Boulder Community Hospital on Broadway and Balsam as well as The
Millennium Harvest House would have been perfect solutions for housing hundreds of people. Instead both will be
torn down so developers can spend millions to create either offices or housing that is WAY out of affordable range
for 99% of hard working folks. Congratulations!!
• This survey is unnecessary. The voters already spoke on the issue of occupancy changes and voted it down. This
City Coucil needs to listen to the public and stop waisting city resources to fulfill an agenda that is not the voters
will.
• Yes thank you so so much! This all should have been done years ago! There is no reason boulder should be zoned
in such an exclusionary manner. Why do people want to make the city a retirement home for wealthy white people
rather than a thriving place with families and a diversity of ages, incomes, and backgrounds? We could be the
Innsbruck of the US but instead we're a big low density retirement community that happens to be in a nice spot.
We should eliminate parking requirements entirely and also allow small scale commercial use by right on any lot:
coffee shops, small restaurants that close by 10pm or something, offices for less than three people etc. You know
what I mean. Dense walkable mixed use neighborhoods are better for everyone.
• Stop trying to make Boulder into a mini LA. Jambing ADU's in neighborhoods that were meant for single family
living will only help destroy the flavor that was Boulder. Developers will scarf up the available properties and build
as many units as possible and then, charge premium prices to rent or purchase. This will not help the people
working in Boulder to afford one of these units and thus live in Boulder, but only enrich the people that are already
wealthy enough to own large chucks of Boulder and prevent any of their properties be zoned for ADU additions. It
only helps the rich!
Wish I had a better idea, perhaps stop building million $$ condos, but something more reasonably priced around
the areas where construction of places like Pelaton (sp?) are being built. Stop the money grab in Boulder!
• The objective of the study is completely bogus, non scientific and worst of all it is against the will of voters. There
was a referendum and it was voted down
• This survey is a joke because it can be taken an unlimited number of times.
• We specifically moved to Boulder to live in a single family house neighborhood. We will move out if the density of
occupants increases.
• This is a huge proposed change and I don’t agree with almost all aspects of it. The local government and people
should decide what happens to their community.
• Removing parking requirements is way to optimistic about people using public transit; most people still have cars
even if they don’t use them daily
• More affordable housing and options for non traditional units is essential to maintain a vibrant community in
Boulder.
• Be radical, think and act for long-term benefits, do not let NIMBYs dominate the public realm, get out there and
educate the community on affordable housing, find a way to reach parents and young professionals who typically
aren't involved in the conversation
• I don't think the answer is to change the character of existing neighborhoods.
• The biggest question about whether Boulder can or should accommodate more people is the water resource and
the environmental impact.
Is there enough water resource? Can this environment take the hike in population? My personal opinion is NO.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
70
• Add density in occupancy and multiple dwellings in areas zoned for density. Pro-actively acknowledge deed
covenants.
• How is increasing the number of people allowed going to create affordable housing? No one is regulating what
landlords can charge. My neighbor has illegally been renting rooms in her home for years, charging up to $2,500
per room rental. The price of the housing should be legislated, otherwise, this is an exercise in futility and angering
people who live in single-family neighborhoods.
• Parking is an issue in single family home neighborhoods that include a large percentage of student housing. 5
unrelated people sharing housing with 5 cars add up real quick.
• Quit building apartment buildings, condo units all over town. What's happened to Boulder is ridiculous and a
shameful ruin to a beautiful place!
• I live in Aurora 7, a neighborhood surrounded on 3 sides by CU. While I actually do support ADUs and even
duplexes, I do not support the blanket ideas in this survey because we already have par king issues with zoning as it
stands now, as well as frequent noise issues from loud parties. Houses in our neighborhood currently rent at
~$1200 per bedroom, which is fine for students/childless folks who are subsidized by their parents or who each
have jobs, but it's driving families with kids out of Boulder because who can pay 3600/month or more on rent, not
even an investment, on just one or two incomes?. I would hope that council could consider the concerns of each
neighborhood separately, and come up with not a blanket solution, but one that addresses the unique issues each
neighborhood faces. We often hear that the Hill and Martin Acres will suffer from these proposals - so will Aurora
7. I would personally support more ADUs and duplexes with designated parking on owner-occupied properties
and also a return of the neighborhood parking passes. I do not support turning our neighborhoods to investor
paradises, which is what increased occupancy and duplexes/triplexes does without additional boundaries. Our
schools are losing students because the single family housing is being snapped up by investors and turned to
expensive rentals! I would like to see solutions that prioritize affordability for all, but these proposals seem like a
handout to investors and CU housing.
• Despicable that the city council seeks to change what the voters made clear as it relates to occupancy levels.
• Changing occupancy limits does not help teachers, firefighters, police, early-in-career professionals, or young
families. It serves, almost exclusively, landlords. Please focus on the population that you're aiming to enfranchise.
• Single-family-home ONLY zoning is discriminatory and should be eliminated throughout the entire city.
• Reduce parking; encourage biking on Boulder's best-in-class bike paths.
• Consider allowing backyard homes.
• Allow increased occupancy based upon a sensible metric like house square footage and number of bathrooms.
Increasing occupancy regardless of square footage leads to tenament housing.
• Don’t make it look like the recent ballot issue results concerning this topic are being ignored by the current City
Council
• Make the tough decisions needed for current property owners/residents. Do not crowd our homes nor exacerbate
the significant parking problems which currently exists. Stop building expensive housing!!!! If land exists, insist on
affordable housing, not enrich developers’ pockets.
• Put a restriction on the number of homes an individual or corporation own in Boulder. If you are a Boulder
resident, meaning you actually live in your home 7 months out of the year, you can own two additional rental
homes. Corporations can own only two single family homes and unlimited apartment buildings. This would put
more single family homes on the market to house Boulder's workforce.
• There are difficult tradeoffs to consider no matter the option.
• The voters already made our voice clear. Why does the City keep pushing a non-issue? Take changes to the ballot,
not the sanctimonious lying City Council.
• It is discriminatory to tie any occupancy to family status. Not every adult wants or is able to get married. I plan to
live as a senior citizen in a Boulder home with 4 or more other senior citizens when I retire. Family status is
irrelevant
• The requirements surrounding affordable housing are difficult to understand. There are also certain seasonal
positions that make more than the qualifications for affordable housing but have difficulty through the rest of the
year. I don't know if increasing the number of occupants in a household will help with affordable opportunities
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
71
fully. With the increased cost of living and demand in the area it might help to look into other options for finding
housing for seasonal employees or shortening lease requirements. There could also be a waiver for breaking a
lease for term employment specifically.
• The only proposal with some potential for reducing living cost might be allowing duplexes and triplexes
• Without a mandated affordability requirement, most of these efforts will it reduce the cost of housing. In fact, they
most will only increase the cost of housing.
• Dear Comrade - We voted on this during previous election cycle, and the increased occupancy constraints were
“defeated”! For the city council and staff thinking they can consider that vote as non binding guidance, or
whatever justification language being used, is Wholly Non-Democratic. I’m thinking the council should be
renamed Politburo. At some point, if these manipulative techniques persist, there will be natural political impacts
(and constraints) formalized against the city bureaucracy and the council (aka referendums) as the only civil
response left. Please stop, let the citizens lead peaceful lives!
• There are two really significant issues that impact affordable housing that aren't being addressed.
CUBoulder has to build student housing. The wealthy parents that will always pay whatever they need to so their
kids can go to CU have been a major factor for decades in Boulder having unaffordable rents and purchase prices.
Then, as airbnb became popular in Boulder that eliminated a ton of housing stock from landlords who previously
wouldn't have rented to students because they wanted tenants that would take better care of their property. When
a landlord can get $12,000 a month from airbnb or $6500 a month from students or rent long term to a family or
young professionals for $3500 the financial incentives are just too strong for them to rent reasonably. There are no
limits on airbnb permits, and CU has been allowed by the city for decades to not offer enough housing to their own
students. Until these issues are fixed we will continue to have unaffordable housing.
If you are seeking solutions to affordability and increasing housing stock, please do so in a multi layered approach,
not only increasing occupancy. Downtown commercial real estate (that is massively empty) would be amazing as
residential especially since being downtown eliminates some car usage and won't negatively impact traffic as
much. There are so many extra large homes in west and north Boulder that could be turned into duplexes with a
minimum size (like 600 sq ft as an example) to increase 1 to 2 bedroom properties in Boulder for young
professionals, small families, couples (who often can't find great housing in town), and please let people build
ADUs and enforce long term rental permits for them. Increasing density in neighborhoods strategically would be
awesome. As an example, cars pack the streets of the Hill, Goss Grove, downtown, around north Boulder park, and
west and east Pearl, but other neighborhoods - east, north, west of 9th, and south boulder have loads of parking
space. Point being is that those neighborhoods could be better areas to specifically increase density and leave
some of the other neighborhoods out because they're already maxed out (often because students are already
living over occupancy in the former neighborhoods I mentioned). With how business dense Boulder is already, any
commercial space could be transitioned to residential and Boulder businesses would still easily thrive.
Sorry for the lengthy message! I just want to illustrate that housing could be hugely improved by making changes
in multiple areas, whereas only increasing occupancy won't really solve the problem long term. Thank you!
• Please embrace democracy; represent the constituents that elected you: 52% do NOT want you to destroy family
neighborhoods.
• If any zoniung changes were to occur, I ask that special consideration (overlay) be given to neighborhoods
surrounding CU as they already carry a heavy burden of unaffordable housing. In these areas, CU Students fall
victim to low living standards, safety concerns, and more times that not, outrageous rent.
Investors around CU have figured out Students are willing to pay $1500-2000 per bedroom in a shared housing
setup. When multiplied out across a 4 bedroom home the total rent is staggering $6000-8000. There is no way a
long term resident would consider these rates for themselves nor for a family.
Here are several examples on Uni Hill where the property is rented at exclusionary cost levels. Increasing the
allowable occupancy will only make this disparity worse. Visit Zillow to see the Rental history.
889 14th Street
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
72
4 bd / 3 ba
Listed for rent $7,500
944 13th street
5bd / 3.5 ba
Listed for rent $6000
877 13th Street
4bd/ 2 ba
Listed for rent $5,200
927 12th street
6bd / 2 ba
Listed for rent $7400
1040 10th Street
6bd/4ba
Listed for rent $11,600
• Boulder is a demand driven, supply inelastic housing market. It will always be a relatively expensive place to live.
Basic economics 101.
• DIDN'T we already VOTE for the housing occupancy levels? Why is the City pushing for us to agree to increase the
levels? AND it should NOT be done without the City resident's approval (not just the City Council voting on it).
The call to make housing affordable isn't by way of increasing the occupancy levels.
Residential areas and the increase of commercial and condo/apartment projects around the ENTIRE city will put a
strain on the quality of life due to more traffic, and more cars wanting to park (there is limited parking as it is).
There is a SHORTAGE of parking for residents and people coming into the City. The increase of Williams Village
complex that increased students, thus increased cars coming in and out of this area is too much! The students
either don't want to pay for parking or if there isn't enough parking available park in the adjoining neighborhood
Aurora 7 and take parking spots for the residents that actually live on these blocks. CU needs to step up and take
responsibility for their students and provide adequate parking for them, not have the long-time residents feel the
strain of all the students. So, the increase in the number of people living in one place will ONLY enhance the
shortage of parking!!! As a person living in a single-family home, I don't want to have an apartment building adding
density, people, cars, and noise disturbing my quality of life! Right now, if I have guests come to my home, there is
limited parking for them. What do I pay taxes for anyway? I have worked, shopped, and lived in this community for
over 14 years and all I see is growth and not more services! CU needs to pay its share of the added. Adding more
occupants in a dwelling will just give more students a place to live and NOT necessarily single people or families.
We have a shortage of workers and businesses suffer. I believe that most high school and college students aren't
looking to work and don't NEED to, the families pay their way. I think increasing the limits will only generate MORE
headaches for the people already living here and provide CU to grow, grow, grow AND not have affordable housing
for NON-students.
We have bigger fish to fry than increasing occupancy levels - substance abuse, mental illness, and non-working
homeless people that couldn't afford ANY type of housing in Boulder, nor do they want to be confined in an
apartment. How about putting money toward mental health and substance abuse facilities NOT creating more
space for CU to increase their enrollment?
I am opposed to City Council passing any kind of ordinance without a VOTE from the residents! STOP letting CU do
whatever they want AND STOP the developments. SLOWER growth, not this madness of build, build, build.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
73
• The market will not create affordable housing. All new housing should be 50% affordable or cash in lieu at a high
level.
• Make affordable housing a higher priority! Sick of luxury developers paying their way out of providing affordable
units.
• Allow way less commercial building to happen in Boulder and convert some of it to housing.
• I haven't seen any of the current initiatives substantially reduce costs for new Boulderites, only the development of
a lot of very expensive housing. Is it even possible?
• Have city require that developers build low-rent apartments with parking garages
• Incentivize home-owners, not developers or investment funds, to convert their very large single family residence
into a conforming duplex. We have lots of large homes w/ 2-3 folks living in them. Subsidize the cost of the process
& remain flex on codes in order for large houses to be divided into duplexes.
• Open space defines boundaries of boulder city.
Current rate of rampant growth needs to take into consideration infrastructural and resource needs
commensurate with that growth.
I live in the Holiday neighborhood in N. Boulder where housing density and affordable/moderate priced housing
was played with when built. The noise, light at night, congestion, disruption, traffic makes for frustration, anger,
defensive behavior and acting out (always escalating in subtle and not so subtle ways), devisiveness and reduction
of safety. You can only smash so many people into a neighborhood area because beyond the tipping point is a
misery for everyone. Lots of police activity here.
• Some neighborhoods can take some gentle infill and some can't. Some will see nothing but negative impacts from
more density. Yet people keep proposing extreme occupancy/density changes as if one-size-fits-all
neighborhoods. No. No. No. Density will not bring housing and rent prices down.
• The city's stated goals of inclusivity, vision zero, and environmental friendliness are starkly at odds with the city's
actions -- bending over backwards to protect antiquated, exclusionary, and environmentally disastrous zoning,
particularly single family housing. The affordability crisis in Boulder right now is just the beginning of the chickens
coming home to roost. You need to allow for more housing. I always vote and this is the most important issue to
me.
• I greatly encourage this Council to eliminate occupancy limits based on family status as they are fundamentally
discriminatory. I strongly support elimination of parking minimums - our priority should be housing people not
cars. ADUs and 2-4 unit buildings should be allowed in all zones currently restricted to single-family detached
housing. Having grown up here I despair of my children being able to live here and we must create substantially
more housing to avoid being a town for the rich and students.
• Boulder needs to institute rent controls and enforce habitability standards for rentals. Boulder should also limit
the number of rental units a single owner or corporation can control with the city providing a public housing
option.
• ADU regulation should be more flexible
• I'm in favor of adding more housing, as long as the current rural areas are kept in Boulder.
• Areas near campus should be zoned for Student housing with lighter restrictions on unrelated people and parking
requirements.
• Boulder should set up an expedited approval process for standard designs in ADU's, duplexes and triplexes seeking
city permits.
• It’s so sad that City of Boulder lacks the transparency to make surveys like this widely available and visible to the
people that live here. Lack of transparency gives the impression that major decisions around planning and zoning
will not take public opinion into account at all.
• Please save Martin Acres.
• People don't always want little tiny apartments. We need more duplexes, townhomes and single family space with
some yard.
• It’s all bs I live in a trailer park in north Boulder and the Hispanic community there has up to 10 people living in a
Mobil home
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
74
• How about stop allow permits for building more affordable housing for the rich. Stop taking money in Lou of
actually incorporating affordable housing.
The proper infrastructure (water supply, roads & maintenance, safe public transportation, electrical grid
updates, sewer, pedestrian friendly parking lots, neighborhood sidewalks, etc.) needs to be in place BEFORE
allowing even more citizens to live in the city of Boulder.
Also, stop building where the view of the mountains are being blocked. What kept Boulder sane for so long (before
2000) was the ability to have a clear view of the mountains by anyone almost anywhere around Boulder from the
ground level. Now we are just being forced to look at roof tops and not mountain tops. The collective psyche is
becoming damaged and going down a dark path deprived of the healing view of nature.
• Longmont has just changed to eliminate all parking minimums. Other cities have eliminated single-family zoning
altogether.
• Impose sanctions and growth caps on the university.
• It is very urgent that we make it easier to build affordable housing in Boulder. In my neighborhood, old (small)
houses get demolished and replaced by multi-million dollar single-family, large buildings. There are also new
building lots that were created when our neighborhood got annexed several years ago. Those are being bought by
spec builders, who construct large single-family structures that sell for between $2.5 and $3.2 Million. Not only
low-income, but also middle-income families get totally priced out of the market.
I am concerned that Boulder is rapidly losing its character as a fun, diverse, and semi-affordable community, and
instead becoming a collection of investment properties for the ultra-rich. The pressure to achieve maximum profit
is permanently changing our neighborhood.
If we don’t take every opportunity to preserve and create more affordable housing, we will get buried under an
avalanche of unattractive mansions.
• I have heard that there are discussion about redeveloping the airport for affordable housing units. I think this is a
terrific idea and should be pursued immediately.
• Something needs to be done about the real estate costs skyrocketing making it hard for middle-class families and
young people to afford to live in Boulder. I guess this goes back to the economics of supply and demand in our
capitalist market. A more comprehensive well thought long-term plan needs to be created. We all need to just take
not too much but not too little. It's impacting our schools and community. This idea of affordability in Boulder
needs to be addressed on a spectrum of needs within the community. Teachers, firefighters, the police, employees
of the city, etc. all need to be able to afford to live here. People need to be able to afford to buy here and not just
rent from the landlords. Having housing for 4-5 unrelated people isn't going to solve the cost of living issues for
people with families and then what about the quality of life for these 4-5 people that aren't related all having to live
together? What if they meet someone and want to start a family and then are forced out of Boulder due to its
costs? How is cramming more people into a home or apartment considered affordable? This just seems like a
band-aid on a much bigger issue that is happening all over the US. I come to you more with concern than a share
on how to solve this issue. I just don't see this as the way to solve the affordability in Boulder.
• This poll seems very biased for the build, build, build crowed. How about another poll that is biased toward long -
term residents, retirees, non-students?
• Yes. Single-family and larger residences are preferred by almost everyone for many reasons, but a few of them are
(1) space & privacy, (2) security, and (3) affordability. If we can preserve those elements in making allowances
for new high-density housing options, I think you'll have a happier community and people that actually want to
live in them, rather than seeing them as a last-resort potentially run by a slum-lord.
(1) Space and privacy: Housing allowances should go by square footage per person, or by number of bedrooms.
There's a balance between available space in a home and how many people live in those spaces. We don't want to
enable predatory landlords who have two leases per room, trying to fill each bedroom with multiple people, which
might occur in a 2 bedroom house with the 4 or 5 unrelated persons rule. If duplexes/triplexes are allowed, then
building codes should stipulate sound/privacy levels between units. Older single family homes tend to have
hollow/thin walls/floors that let sound transmit pretty easily. This is usually not an issue with a single family unit or
people who have all signed a lease together. But when a single family house is modified into a du-/triplex, those
issues aren't fixed and tenants in each unit have less privacy. Each bedroom should have its own lease if it's a
house/room rental to ensure multiple leases aren't levied upon vulnerable populations. It also acknowledges that
families require (rightly so) reasonable space for all family members. It's been shown several times over that
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
75
crowded living spaces are a detriment to a child's ability to learn, study, and succeed in school. Space and privacy
allowances must be considered in high-density housing options.
(2) Security: people have cars, bikes, and/or other modes of transportation. Boulder also has a massive bike theft
problem. Boulder is also trying to reduce dependence on cars. If higher density housing is allowed, which it
absolutely should, tenants deserve some amount of safe storage space for their non-car transportation. This can
either be locked/enclosed storage spaces with enough room for each tenant to have a bike(s) and others, or
enough space inside the residence for bikes(s) etc. But, this means that the minimum square footage required per
tenant needs to be higher to reasonably accommodate them.
(3) affordability and cost. Housing is not a luxury one can choose to purchase to enhance their life, it's an absolute
necessity and human right. Rents in Boulder sky-rocketed, but most mortgages don't go up at those rates and the
rent increases are higher than what's necessary for maintenance, even with inflation. Landlords who are renting
out second, third, or more homes as an additional source of income need to have the amount of rent they charge
capped to some % of the mortgage plus reasonable deposits for wear and tear. With housing becoming so sparse
and in such high demand, it cannot be a source of profit anymore. Homeowners with multiple homes are already
way ahead of the game and are building equity just by the fact that they own multiple homes. Rental increases
must also be capped. There has to be a greater level of control over the housing market because safe and
affordable housing is a *right* and *necessity*.
In short, I don't think it's enough just to increase the number of units. Renter protections have to be put in place to
prevent poor, crowded, unsafe living conditions, and to prevent landlords from profiteering.
• I am filling this out again because I think you need more/different questions in your demographics section. They do
not provide enough nuance to this issue.
(1) You ask if I rent/own my home. I rent a room in a home. Many people rent single bedrooms from homeowners
and I think that's an important distinction to be made about the true diversity of housing in Boulder.
(2) You ask what the combined household income is. My landlords make a combined $500k or more per year. I
make $40k/year. Their mortgage is $1700/month and I pay $850/month in rent. I pay half of their mortgage while
making less than 10% of what they do. While that rent is below market rate in Boulder, isn't it crazy th at these very
wealthy (well, middle-class for Boulder) people are able to pay half their mortgage just from a renter? Anyway, my
larger point is that combined household income is not a good marker of affordability in the context of rent vs own.
• As a wheelchair user, and non-car owner, zoning negatively impacts my ability to live close to areas I need to get to
easily. I would like to see more housing options closer to stores and businesses.
I strongly support reducing parking requirements for residential projects. I believe this aligns with the overall
transit centered focus of our city.
• Some of the things you think will make housing affordable don't work out as intended. When my daughter went to
college here, there were 10 unrelated people living in a small house on the hill. The landlord made a boatload of
money, but it did not reduce the cost to the renters. Her room appeared to be a converted mud room. There was
barely room for the twin mattress, there was no room for a dresser or desk. Based on what we paid for that room,
the landlord was getting about $10K/month back in 2001. Increased density does not equal affordability.
The fact is that more people want to live in Boulder than can ever live in Boulder. Do not undo zoning standards;
they are in place for good reason. Please do not ruin neighborhoods in Boulder by making changes to increase
density. Do not allow housing without parking. Please do not destroy what makes Boulder a place that everyone
wants to live. Most of my life I could not afford to live in the towns I'd like to live in. That is life. There are nearby
towns that make very nice homes.
Housing affordability is complex with many unintended consequences. Where we lived in the past, the city
increased building heights to allow greater density and it was a disaster. The apartments and condos were still
unaffordable and blocked out the sun to the streets below. Builders who promised to include affordable units in
exchange for all the things developers love, included a few units that made no differrence on the issue of
affordability but made our town a worse place for all, including increases in traffic.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
76
• About 60,000 persons commute to Boulder and most of those live with other persons. That's far more than the
number of existing housing units in Boulder. So even if we doubled the number of housing units in Boulder,
destroying Boulder as we know it, there would still be unsatisfied demand and upward price pressure. The one
single measure that would make the most difference is to demand that CU limit the student census
to 60% of the number of students can can live in CU housing.
If these densification measures are passed, there will be a conservation revolution against the current Boulder
government.
• Please, please allow us as tax paying members of Boulder to VOTE on this matter again. Please do not take away
our democratic rights in Boulder.
• Every neighborhood in Boulder should feature some affordable housing, and there should be more opportunities
for middle-class families to own homes in Boulder, especially if the head of household has lived and worked and
raised his or her children in Boulder for at least five years.
• occupancy limits are bad bc they prevent roommates from sharing rent costs, but good because landlords could
bump rent higher since theoretically 10 people could cram and share rent costs. i think we need some form of rent
control or bedroom-number-based occupancy rules to prevent the latter case.
• Parking requirements and single-family zoning are significant barriers to Boulder’s climate goals and reduce the
quality of life in our city. I feel very strongly that Boulder needs to make these changes to achieve a sustainable
future.
• I work at CU Boulder and housing affordability is a real barrier for us to become a more inclusive University. ANY
help with moderately priced housing will be better for the community and the University.
• It's appalling that Boulder's leaders fought to have Boulder carved out from SB 213's occupancy limit reform. I'm
beyond disappointed, and that move signals to me that the city cares more about the small, wealthy, vocal
minority in Boulder rather than what is best for all in Boulder and along the Front Range.
• Please increase the occupancy limit. 3 unrelated people is very limiting to those of us who need to live with
roommates to be able to afford Boulder at this point. For the vast majority of us young professionals, we are not
going to throw loud parties. We are just trying to live our lives in an affordable manner.
• Make tiny houses on wheels legal as accessory dwelling units and full-time residences!
• Duplexes - Not triplexes - let's start out slowly with Duplexes only to avoid citizen anger or abrupt change.
Definitely try to change the Unrelated adults from Family (2 adults with or without 1 - 5+ kids) who can legally have
2 more roommates.
Makes no common sense.
Taking out parking requirements will just increase the price of the land to build whatever anyway. Whoever
doesn't see this has no common sense.
• Boulder should improve bike and walk infrastructure, and deprecate car infrastructure, in conjunction with
increased density, to reduce in-commuting and city traffic.
• Plenty of underdeveloped commercial/industrial areas that could accommodate more residential. Would be
especially interested in focusing on centers/corridors where we could eliminate parking requirements and focus
on transit/walking/biking mobility.
• I live in Martin Acres, and this plan will negatively impact me and all other homeowners. Currently most student
rental houses already are illegally over-occupied and nothing gets done when reports are made. Why should we
expect city council to act when 7,8,9 students cram into a house? They park on the yards since there is not enough
parking, making our neighborhood looks like the slums when houses are close to a million dollars. What about the
fact that landlords will just raise rent, so it’s not actually affordable? I realize you feel the need to make good on
some campaign promises, but this is not really taking action. It’s reducing quality of life for people who have spent
years and their savings in this town. What about the environmental impact? Sewer lines that haven’t been
updated, original energy-sucking fixtures, and now you want to add more people to a 5 gallon flush toilet? Will you
do anything at all to make improvements to the neighborhood, such as filling potholes? Speed enforcement?
People drive 40-50 miles an hour down Moorhead Ave, including non-emergent police cars. A photo radar car once
a month during 8-5 is not going to stop the evening racers. When will you show you value us as citizens and
neighbors? Will you let 5 or more students live next to you on both sides, across the street, and the house behind?
Would that affect your quality of life if they started parking on the yards by you, leaving garbage cans out to
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
77
become ground missiles on windy days? Think of us as people, too. You delegate some of us as less worthy of what
we have worked for just to make it look like you are working on your campaign promises. Do something real.
• Why is the city totaling disregarding the votes against the bedrooms for people initiative?
• I’m strongly opposed to treating higher density in single family neighborhoods and increasing the number of
people occupying a single family house. One of the proposed is just making us re-vote on Bedrooms Are for People,
which feels illegal. Seriously, I have too many college students in my single family neighborhood and am not
interested in more density in south Boulder. As a homeowner and a Boulder voter, stop wasting your time with
trying to make Boulder bigger. No Boulder homeowner I know want more people here. Keep the slow growth
strategy and stop trying to defy the laws of economics.
• I grew up in Boulder. So I have lived here on and off for 40 years. The building and development I have seen in the
last ten years is high density, uncreative and frankly short sighted. If I had confidence that changing these zoning
rules the character and integrity of Boulder’s nature and family friendly neighborhoods would be maintained I
might be open to zoning changes. However all the development and cement jungkes I’ve seen built in the last 5-10
years do not provide me with that confidence. So I remain againt lifting zoning laws and restrictions. Boulder is
special because of the green belt and height limits. If you disregard what makes Boulder special in favor of
increasing city occupancy you run the risk of losing what is special and unique about Boulder. At some point the
reality of a smaller town/city like Boulder does reach capacity. The population has grown so much in the last
decade. If you don’t continue with thoughtful city planning, I fear that what has made Boulder special for decades
will disappear. Boulder is jot a big city. It can’t be unless you infeinge on nature, height limits, and population
density. If you change those foundational characteristics of Boulder you will have marred what has always been
integral to the character of the landscape and people who want to live here; forward thinking, environmentally
conscious, local community minded residents and developers.
• Many people who comment about this issue on the internet seem to be concerned that landlords will somehow
add 10 bedrooms to existing houses, rent them out to unsuspecting students, and thus fill neighborhoods with
cars and trash. I really don't think this argument holds any water. The number of people that would actually want
to live in such conditions is not some unbounded value, it's finite, and I would guess it's much smaller than these
people think. Even if landlords went ham and somehow were able to add tons of bedrooms to existing houses,
despite the natural restrictions imposed by their property size and the price of building materials right now, they
would only be filled by people willing to live with a huge number of people, which as I postulate, isn't large. This is
one instance in which I do think the "market" will be somewhat self-correcting.
Furthermore, Boulder homeowners seem to imagine that upping the occupancy limit to 4-5 from 3 will be the end
of days. All they have to do is simply look at any other college town in the country to see what the result is. I come
from the Pacific Northwest where a lot of occupancy limits are around 5. Several points about this: 1) I lived in
Eugene, OR for 11 years, as a college student, worker, and then student again from 2006-2017, and never, not once,
did I hear anyone complain about occupancy limits, so it seems that 4-5 is a good value that will meet the needs of
the vast majority of people. For those it doesn't, co-op living exists in Eugene as it does in Boulder. 2) Is Eugene a
trash-ridden hellhole, a wasteland of cars cluttering streets and raging parties? No. It is a normal college town (in
fact, homeowners complain about the homeless population less than those in Boulder, despite the problem being
arguably worse in the Eugene/Portland area). The amount of college-student-driven-mayhem is a direct function
of the character of the students, not their density. Shitheads gonna be shitheads whether they live 3 or 5 or 10 to a
house.
Look, y'all on city council and whoever else reads this know: We have a problem with building space in Boulder.
You know we can't build north/south/east because of open space, can't build west because of lack of utility access,
can't build up because of views. What remains? HIGHER DENSITY. Should we try to enable Boulder to support a
population of 1 million without growing the bounds of the town? No, that's insane. Should we try to do everything
we can to increase housing availability at multiple price points to support the existing students and low-wage
workers? Yes!
P.S. Everyone who lives in a college town and complains about college students would do well to remember that 1)
You chose to live here, or choose to remain, and 2) it's not just college students trying to live here on low incomes.
It's your hair dresser, your waiter at brunch, your car mechanic, not to mention grad students and other academics
who literally carry half the Boulder economy on their backs and have very little choice about living here or not
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
78
(their grad school choice is largely determined by where they get in). So, if you want to have a vibrant, diverse
town, we need to reform occupancy limits to at least be on par with other similarly-sized college towns that are not
having this conversation constantly. If you want a retirement community where the people serving you are
constantly stressed because they can't afford to live here (encouraging workers to come in sick to work to not miss
out on money, or to quit and drive constant staff turnover), then by all means, keep the limits where they are.
P.P.S. Enough with the giant luxury high-rises to support Google workers. Do homeowners and city council people
even know how much e.g. students are making? I just got my PhD in the best-paid department at CU (Astrophysical
& Planetary Sciences). By the end of the degree I made gross $45k a year, which is about HALF the MEDIAN
income. Other grads and undergrads (that aren't on their parent's dime, anyway) are suffering far worse, not to
mention untipped service workers. We need more affordable housing!!
• Relax ADU easement requirements and provide tax incentives to existing homeowners to encourage them to
contribute more affordable housing inventory. ADUs can ensure Boulder character of neighborhoods while
alleviating some of the housing pressure, and reduce drastic measures like rezoning.
• My partner and I make a solid 6 figure salary combined. We both have jobs in Boulder. We have no children. We
can’t even consider living in Boulder because of the insane costs.
• Allowing duplexes and triplexes and ADU's in areas that currently only allow single-family homes is really
important to built up medium density housing. Living with 4 roommates because that's all you can afford should
not be illegal.
• While I could afford housing a few years ago I am close to being priced out of boulder entirely and having to move
even though my job and friends are here. It has gotten so difficult and something needs to change. In addition I
think you should consider changing the retirements for affordable housing since most people I know who are
struggling actually don't make enough to qualify for affordable housing, even though they always pay rent on time
and have good credit.
• Start taking action. We need more housing options for people who can’t buy a $1M+ home!!!
• The City continues to redevelop and rezone areas resulting in rents increasing and industries that pay lower wages
to leave town, think steel yards. Google and Microsoft move in and Ball expands after threatening the city to leave
if their expansion wasn’t approved. High paying jobs especially bringing in employees from real estate rich area
like the Silicon Valley drives housing threw the roof. This current approach of rezone and develop out of high
housing costs hasn’t worked and will never work to bring housing prices down. Instead long-time residents are
getting run out of town by increasing property values and their associated taxes. I suggest the City start thinking
about the people who live here now and not providing opportunities for more people to live here at the cost to the
existing residents.
• High density/affordable/low income housing is clearly the agenda here. While perhaps appropriate in certain areas
of the city, the continuing crusade to make residing in Boulder a "right" should not dominate the discussion.
• My main concern with changing occupancy limits is how the city wil address the additional demand for
infrastructure (water demand, power, etc).
• Increased occupancy mostly benefits students and will just push renting families out of Boulder. Landlords will just
charge more rent in a "per room" system that will favor students and hurt families. Students would also be more
likely to rent a 4-5 bedroom house with one in each room if occupancy is increased which will again make it harder
for families who truly need the 4-5 bedrooms. Please don't change the occupancy, it will really hurt the community
of our neighborhoods.
• I am definitely in favor of increasing affordable housing in Boulder for all. It would be great to support the
expansion of the Boulder permanent affordable housing program. It is non sense to make housing a profit activity.
Everyone should have access to a home/intimacy/comfortable space on their own that is affordable. We are
talking about human need and right, not about privilege.
Thank you.
• I bought single family housing in what I thought was a democratic not socialist community.
Please protect the hard earned single family home property values and financial foundations of families, maintain
single family zoning.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
79
If you wonder why Boulder population versus other towns and cities is not growing you need only look at your
socialism based housing agendas. It is about democratic choice, not unfavorable zoning decisions forced upon
others after they have bought into the city and their neighborhoods of choice.
City Council and the Planning and Development agendas are quite simply driving property owners out of Boulder
at the expense of those who do not live here and think they are Entitled to live here at others’ expense without
earning their way in like those who saved for 10-20 years to do so and have.
Wake up and be responsive to the people who actually live here and pay the majority of the taxes!
The massive state wide opposition to bill 23-213 should be evidence enough. This is NOT what voters want here or
anywhere in the state.
• It’s discriminatory. Don’t be an outlier in the state. Remove occupancy limits. If a house has 6 bedrooms, 6-7
people should be able to live there.
• Stop the Robin Hood housing policy economics of stealing property value at the literal life financial expense of
those who have worked hard, sacrificed, and saved to have a home of their own to create housing for others who
have not earned their way into already established single family neighborhoods and communities.
Boulder is and has been building 25% of all new large scale housing developments for 20 years now with low
income housing? What percentage is low and moderate income housing NOW on a unit percentage basis of total
cumulative housing?
Forcing neighborhood disruptive short term rental ADU’s with no parking and low income duplexes/townhouses
into existing moderate and higher value single family neighborhoods destroying single family property values does
make a dent in addressing low income housing scale issues, IF we even need a higher percentage.
Has anyone calculated the total cumulative current percentage of low and moderate income total housing
community wide. Let’s determine and assess this question first!
Thought I lived in a city of democratic choice not imposed socialism. No wonder lots of people are leaving Boulder.
• Increased occupancy for existing dwellings or via ADUs for existing lots encourages absentee investors to pump up
housing costs and decrease owner oversight of property/tenants, degrading quality of life for Boulder renters and
homeowners alike.
• Exempt CU-adjacent neighborhoods from any increase in occupancy.
• Care should be made to not make traffic worse - e.g., clogging up Arapahoe eastbound, which is already a
nightmare at certain hours.
• Make the permitting process smoother and faster for those that want to build new housing or renovate existing
housing. “Time to approval” should be a metric that is published daily so we (the citizens) can see how quickly
people are getting their permits to build.
• I am a single family homeowner and change is scary. But we are experiencing a housing crisis that cannot continue
to be ignored.
• Housing regulations are already not enforced. The rental next door is to allow only 3 unrelated people in front
house and 3 unrelated in small ADU that was grandfathered in as a separate address. The front house always has 5
to 10 unrelated people in it (4 bedrooms & a basement that has been used as an apartment). If the city is able
to inspect it, with the 3 to 5 day notice given, the renters pull out all extra mattresses & lie to the city regarding
occupancy because the property management (four star) threatens to hold their deposit if they make them look
bad to the city. This was told to me by the renters who felt bad about lying to the city. If changes were made to
occupancy, how many renters would get crammed in to support the high rent for the property?
• “Last one in shut the door” policy in Boulder. What’s with you people?
So entitled.
• Thank you for considering these steps to create more housing and help make Boulder more affordable to live in.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
80
• Wake up, smell the coffee city council and land use planning department your voters who actually live here and
own property here do NOT support your aggressive goals to create neighborhood disharmony, add more crime,
and lower single family home owners property values in neighborhoods they have invested in and built financial
equity in.
• Housing units in Boulder vary widely in capacity. Number of occupants in a home should *only* be related to
home size, expressed either as number of bedrooms or as square footage of the unit. Using a single number
regardless of size has always been nonsensical.
As for parking requirements, I’d suggest offering transit passes in lieu of parking spaces. There’s an innovative new
neighborhood in Phoenix that has no on-site parking but provides walk/bike/transit options. This is the sort of
thing that Boulder should be doing!
• Too much density impacts quality of life and finite natural resources. All systems have carrying capacity.
Overcrowding in Boulder just because people want to live here affects the entire state and beyond - air, dimishing
water, traffic and ridiculous crowding and irresponsible use of backcountry and trails. Please address job/housing
imbalance - no more incentives for companies to move here. Developers and wealthy must pay their fair share.
• Real Estate Taxes on residences are already too high, as well as other taxes in Boulder.
Therefore, I am outraged at the Boulder City Council members who expect responsible persons like me, on
relatively lower incomes, to subsidize those whose income is
much higher. I MADE NUMEROUS SACRIFICES TO PURCHASE MY MODEST CONDO
IN SOUTH BOULDER. LIKEWISE, THOSE DEMANDING SUBSIDIZED HOUSING CAN
DO THE SAME. FORGET ANNUAL VACATIONS, MULTIPLE VEHICLE OWNERSHIP,
IMBIBING ALCOHOL & USING MARIJUANA PRODUCTS, ETC. MOST OF THE PERSONS DEMANDING
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ARE IRRESPONSIBLE. AND THE BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL IS ALWAYS ENCOURAGING THAT IRRESPONSIBLE CONDUCT!!!!!!
• I believe the move to mass transit and more sustainable transportation is the future. Increasing density either
people or cars in established communities removes, temporarily, a pressing transportation need housing is
plentiful in surrounding areas at value prices for home ownership. This should be our goal as a community access
through affordable sustainable transportation to affordable housing options. This is Colorado not a sardine can
like NYC or SF.
• I understand the development called Mapleton Academy recently declared they could not meet their affordable
housing OBLIGATION and was ALLOWED to take a buy out. That kind of allowance by the City is EXACTLY why we
dont have enough affordable housing. STOP THE BUY OUT and force these deep pocket developers to honor their
obligation.
• Should allow adu’s
• Remove requirement that owner must live in house with ADU
• Why are there only options to build, build, build????
• Seems like you already know the answers you want to see. Bias much?
• If people can't afford to live in Boulder, they can't afford it.
• Eliminate the building height restriction east of Foothills Parkway. Three over One framed buildings (three floors
above a single concrete podium for ground-level commercial and vehicular parking; and which fit within the City's
55ft height limit) are difficult to make financially feasible due to high construction costs. If a developer chooses this
construction method then the outcome must be rental housing. This is because the developer will be more willing
to hold the project to just beyond the 8-year Colorado construction defects statute to avoid a class-action lawsuit.
In order to build more for-sale residential condominiums (smaller and less expensive) a developer must use light-
steel framing (Infinity System, etc.) which is a superior and more robust framing method than light-wood framing.
The steel framing reduces the chances of a construction defects lawsuit. Stop requiring new residential
developments from having to pay inclusionary housing fees. This only makes housing more expensive as the costs
are simply passed on to buyers. Affordable housing is a necessity for everyone living in the City of Boulder and thus
inclusionary housing fees (actually an affordable housing tax) should be paid from property taxes of all property
types in the city. Allow much greater housing density along Walnut, Pearl, and Spruce Streets (the City's core) to
allow more residents to choose between walking and/or bicycles for ease of mobility. These housing units should
be kept small (not greater than 800 SF) and have no parking requirement in order to serve the employees who
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
81
work in downtown Boulder. Given the high cost of housing in Boulder, there should not be any single -story
structures in the city except those existing in single-family residential zoning and structures that have regulated
hazardous materials (gas stations, automotive-related businesses, chemical-related businesses, hospitals, etc.).
For-profit developers can not build affordable housing at current HUD-determined sales prices without being given
subsidies. Affordable housing can be built by non-profit developers. There are some fantastic groups in the City
with excellent abilities to add affordable housing units. They have a lower cost of capital than for-profit
developers. They should be given reduced building permit fees and expedited permit reviews. The time to get
building plans reviewed and approved in the City is far too long. Time equals money spent (carrying costs in a
project) and reducing the time for building permit approvals will reduce housing costs. Build housing above
grocery stores and stop requiring residents to drive automobiles to grocery stores. Significantly reduce student
rentals on The Hill. Additional owner-occupied housing units can be reclaimed by forcing CU to manage its own
housing needs on its own property. The city is effectively giving CU free land to house students. Eliminate any
future historic preservation designations. The City has several excellent historic districts. These should be
preserved and respected. However, the age of a building does not justify a historic review. The City does not need a
historic " Martin Acres" in order to preserve the single-level ranch archetype. Instead, this neighborhood is an
example of promoting more duplexes and triplexes. How many more free ideas do you need?
• Parking requirements in public transit corridors should be reduced. In car-dependent areas the amount of
available street parking should be taken into consideration.
• Boulder should adopt occupancy as in 213--so-called unrelated people or definition of family should be eliminated
(it is from gender discrimination "blue laws " of the last century, ethnically, racially and FULLY intended for
discrimination) and if there is an occupancy limit, it is applied to all individuals. Family of 5, 3 children 2 adults be
treated the same as other individuals. Current restriction is preposterous in a University town where single-family
dwellers are trying to make money off of their properties with the college, and not let the students have affordable
housing to live there.
• The number of unrelated people in a house should be at minimum the number of bedrooms in the house.
• Affordability is a function of supply and demand. The cost of real estate in Boulder is a clear reflection of supply
and demand. Only when the amount developable land exceeds the demand for same will we see land prices reflect
this in balance.
• Please re-offer the questionnaire with separation of un-like proposals so people can actually respond
meaningfully. Many people here support changes in commercial areas (as long as neighborhood commerce is
preserved for walkable neighborhoods!) and transportation corridors. I do not like seeing these ideas lumped with
changes in single-family neighborhoods. The concerns in these zones differ radically and this feels like a useless
poll if our goals are actually as stated -- to increase affordable housing and not just enrich real estate developers,
landlords, banks . The latter undesirable results are all that I've seen studies show. Along with other results that
conflict with our community's shared values. Let's follow the data.
This is a plea to improve your community input / engagement methods so that all can Be Heard and Council's
actions can actually help us move toward solutions. We will all benefit from that.
• I guess you know the answers you want.
• Some duplexes in R-1 SF zone districts are OK. ADUs should be allowed on all SF lots if the lot coverage does not
exceed what is permitted now.
• This is a battle I am not sure we can win and in the end some people won't be able to live here. We have limited
space, zoning height rules, open space, etc. There isn't enough room for everyone. Forcing changes on to current
residents which will make their homes now in the middle of over-built, over-developed neighborhoods doesn't
seem like a fair answer either.
• OCCUPANCY: Boulder's current rules are stupid: four unrelated can legally share an apartment but if they want to
move that same household to a detached house (that's probably at least twice the size), that is illegal in most of
Boulder; current rules also discriminate against single resident owners with respect to total occupancy allowed.
Adams County rejected occupancy rules because they determined that they were racially discriminatory (different
cultural standards). ZONING: I've spent over two decades trying to get my neighborhood directly between and
virtually adjacent to both Main and East CU Boulder campuses rezoned for higher density but have been
unsuccessful at City Council level; former CC member Lisa Morzel who used to live here says it's the one
neighborhood in Boulder that should probably be upzoned given its proximity to both CU Boulder academic
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
82
campuses (it's mostly student residents). PARKING: Current rules don't count parking spaces within front yard
setbacks toward required parking places even though in practice they are used by residents; changing rules to
count these toward required parking spaces would increase reported parking spaces more than any other single
change to the rules (we have NPP Neighborhood Parking Permit Program in my neighborhood adjacent to both CU
Boulder academic campuses).
• destroying single family neighborhoods by allowing high density building will not make Boulder more affordable
unless you increase the density to the point that the quality of life declines and no one wants to live here. I saw
how well high density affordable housing apartment complexes worked in Detroit, MI when they beca me slums
that no-one wanted to live in and eventually were torn down.
• Changes increasing density should not be applied city wide. Only do it in areas that truly can support it. Leave
single family zoning alone. Repeal the recent loosening of ADU rules in single family neighborhoods.
• We do not needs to make it more affordable.
• Just wanted to make sure that any changes can impact the house next-door to anybody that sits on city council
• Increasing occupancy allowances will not lead to greater affordability in Boulder, a city in which demand for
housing is inelastic. It will only crowd out families and encourage real estate investors to maximize rents.
• I think the mandate of a fixed percentage of new construction be designated into the affordable program (homes
selling for less than market rate) has a short term gain, longer term pain affect and should be eliminated. My
opinion is these programs do not afford lower income people to gain wealth and keeps them poor.
• I'm not sure I've understood the first part of question 2 correctly. By answering "definitely do not agree," I mean to
indicate that: 1) historic neighborhoods should remain intact and not be subject to redevelopment, and 2) zoning
restrictions such as the height limit on buildings in the downtown area should remain in place.
• Reduce environmental requirements for new builds to encourage lower housing costs. Rework flood zone maps
and flood insurance requirements to reduce costs.
• Developments without parking should be prioritized along major bus routes (such as the SKIP and 205). Road and
parking congestion problems are also public transportation availability problems, not simply housing. It makes no
sense to change zoning requirements without taking into account the size of the dwelling and the septic system
allowances. 5 people in a 2 bedroom apartment is very different than 5 people in a 5 bedroom house and
occupancy limits should reflect that.
• In general I strongly support exploring creating more affordable housing in Boulder to reduce the amount of
driving done into Boulder every day. Parking policies should discourage single person car use and encourage use
of mass transit and alternative modes. I would make sure the "non-affordable" projects pay for some of the
affordable. Discourage more new employee generating businesses until this is under control.
• Boulder desperately needs a rent stabilization board. Especially after the Marshall fire, rent gouging has been
rampant. I myself experienced a 25% rent hike at 2 week’s notice, something that would be illegal in many parts of
the country. At rates like this I will be priced out within the next few years.
• Create affordable housing specifically for graduate students! We are not normal students and should qualify for
affordable housing options! Build a tiny home community! Allow backyard tiny homes! Anything and everything to
reduce housing costs for people in need that can't live too far from the city (ie. necessary workers, graduate
students, etc.).
• This issue has already been voted on by the citizens of boulder.
• I think maintaining standards that include open space requirements is important to the character of our town, but
I don't think that should stop us from updating our existing zoning standards to allow for more affordable housing
options.
Likewise, I worry about what reducing parking requirements will do - our public transport is still not good enough
that people simply won't have cars - so, if you're going to reduce parking, you need to increase/improve options
for public transport.
• If Boulder wants to be an inclusive and welcoming community, there simply has to be more housing!
• Fully support the idea to make occupancy equal to number of bedrooms, plus 1!!
• Don't SF or PDX Boulder, please!!!
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
83
• Affordable rentals should be built and owned by the City of Boulder.
• The citizens of Boulder already voted against the Bedrooms Are for People Referendum and City Council should
honor the wishes of its constituents rather than find work-arounds.
• We are in a housing crisis. We should be doing as much as possible as quickly as possible
• Rent control, and affordable housing in different city areas to avoid "red line" systems.
Livable communities. Community education.
• Change zoning regulation and occupancy levels making sure that big real state companies and corporations don’t
start buying single family homes to rent out. Allow zoning changes, and allow new builds only if developers are
willing to add affordable, and I mean really affordable housing for rent and for sale at below market rate.
Developers should incluir affordable housing for sale on their development, housing that is allowed to grow resale
value at regular market rates.
• While some people like to pretend that a "close" majority of roughly 52% in the BAFP vote is a "weak" majority, the
legality of it is clear. The voters spoke and the Council and city staffers are obliged to honor the people's choice.
This is not even a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the vote results and may result in legal action. The Council
and city staff need to quit spending time, which is tax money, on trying to defeat the will of the people. There is a
large and want to be vocal part of Boulder that does not want density. The "want to be" vocal element is that
those folks don't seem to be the demographic elements that the city surveys. For example, if I read it right, the
majority if not the totality of households surveyed for the ADU proposal were in fact only homeowners with ADUs
already in place. In another example, the survey group for the working group on the airport, which is charged with
finding a way to get housing on the airport property, included homeowners in the two mobile home parks and
Gunbarrel - completely and deliberately ignoring the 200 - 300+ single family and townhome/condo owners
between Airport Road and 47th Street. The Council wanted "lower income" input, but equity works both ways.
Single family and multi-unit housing owners should have been included.
• Please do the will of the voters
• This issue has been voted upon by the citizens of Boulder previously. This is a gross misuse of City Council
authority to circumvent the democratic process for deciding change.
• Rent in the area is extortionate. We're in Boulder, not New York or London, so why is rent so high? We need
restrictions placed on property management companies regarding how often they can raise the cost of rent, how
much of the rental market any one company or landlord can control, and on how soon before a tenant's lease
expires a unit can be listed for "pre-leasing". The "pre-leasing" practices here, especially near the university, are
ridiculous and pressure tenants to renew a lease 8-10 months before their current lease expires.
• Will any potential changes be put in front of the voters of Boulder? It seems an over reach to potentially implement
changes that impact tax paying citizens and not give them an opportunity to vote on the changes. The type of
changes surveyed on this form were just unanimously pushed down/blocked by the state legislature. The voting
citizens of Boulder need to have a voice and not just on an obscure survey.
• Whew! Bias much?
• Let’s call the planning and development low income and multi-unit housing agenda infill agenda for what it is:
1) Questionable on all levels as the planning commission and city council continue to claim we have a “housing
crisis” while recent Boulder high density developments remain not fully rented or occupied and yet demand we
allow developers to profit by building more high density housing all while these developers do not pay their way in
terms of service and city infrastructure needed expansion/city impact based on a developments’ per person
contribution to the population (which transfers most of this tax burden to single family and larger land tract
owners).
2) Since when do we as a city need to aggressively need to compromise the property value of planned family
middle income communities with low income multi-unit infill housing? How do we justify this as a housing solution
when it compromises the net worth of so many families and neighborhoods for the benefit of few, which also has
almost no net impact on the solution or goal.
Lets call these low income infill measures what they are an aggressive agenda for commercial real estate
developers to make money at every single family home owners expense cloaked in the fraudulent claim of
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
84
improving the community. What a load of bull.
Maybe we should develop a city oversight committee for the planning and development department of single
family home owners and voters since the department and city council continue to push agendas unwanted in the
community.
• Reducing or eliminating parking requirements for ADU’s reduces/obstructs emergency vehicle access, eliminates
driving sight lines for playing children, adults and pets and creates neighborhood parking disputes and
disharmony, all for what—--one more person to live in an ADU?
Where is the community benefit here?
Why can’t increased housing types remain as the ongoing goal that it already is in new development with 25% of
all new development planned, as designed and being built, to accommodate a variety of housing types.
Stop forcing low income multi-housing into already existing planned single family zones.
Also don’t think the public is unaware or approving of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive’s plan progressive zoning
creep and neighborhood “areas” re-definitions the city uses to advance a housing agenda that works to entitle
commercial developers and those who do not live here versus those who do and pay the bulk of city taxes.
• Boulder's stringent and time consuming approach to planning review makes everything HARDER and that is a real
drag on being able to make progress on building a better community
• Build more affordable housing that can be owner occupied
• Reduce job growth to match housing growth.
• We already had a ballot measure in the last election that was not approved to expand more residents. Listen to
your voters.
• Boulder is famous for its downtown near Pearl Street which has an amazing mix of both commerical and
residential buildings allowing for a vibrant community. We should expand these mixed use areas and increase
density to improve supply of housing in our city. There's a reason some of the most expensive housing is in
walkable dense areas like Pearl. We need more of it
• The overarching goal should be to address the issue of affordability when it comes to affordable housing in
Boulder. I support doing almost whatever it takes to accomplish this goal. I am in complete agreement with the
proposed change of increasing the total number of unrelated people living in a living space.
• Rental caps, occupancy floors on residences
• Remember 15 years ago when everything had to be low density and green? These proposals are no where near a
“middle ground”! It’s disingenuous to frame it that way.
• I think helping the unhoused, along with climate mitigation, are the most important things for the city to address.
• Stop scrap-offs or remodeling of affordable homes that change them into homes that are no longer affordable.
• We need to focus on wealth disparity. People with greater wealth should be paying much higher taxes. People
should be paying additional taxes on luxury goods and services.
• Boulder does not need to grow any larger. There are many bedroom communities close to Boulder to absorb
people who wish to be close to Boulder.
• Commercial development needs to be restricted in order to reduce the demand for housing.
• In favor of Bedrooms are for People revision.
• The giant parking lots (along 28th especially) are SUCH a waste.
• Please take action on occupancy reform. You rejected BAFP because you said you want to handle it legislatively, so
handle it, please.
• There should be lower or no minimum lot size. Lot-size minimums effectively just exclude people who aren't rich
from owning a detached house.
• Do more to support co-ops, remove requirement that co-ops cannot be closer than 500 feet apart, reduce fees for
co-op application, reduce length of application.
Implement more programs that support the missing middle.
Create additional incentives for homes to enter the permanently affordable program.
Tax unoccupied or low-occupancy living space higher (i.e. two people inhabiting a 7000 sq foot home)
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
85
• une ville plus dense, avec de meilleurs transports publics et des modes de transport souples (marche, vélo,
scooter) et moins de voitures, permettrait une meilleure cohésion du territoire et de ses habitants, mais aussi une
meilleure utilisation de la voiture, ce qui empêche aujourd'hui les liens sociaux, l'entraide, la consommation locale
et augmente le bruit, la pollution visuelle et chimique. This change also involves the affordability of housing in
Boulder, which today is too individual and too expensive, with too much land use for individual and not shared
happiness
• I believe that the simplest solution is to limit people by the number of bedrooms.
As more people age-in-place, there will be a greater need for using large houses more effectively to provide
housing for caregivers, I believe...like, for example, two elderly couples and a live-in caregiver or two sharing care.
Most big houses that now have families that will in time house two people, and still have 4-5 bedrooms that could
be used. I now have a 7 bedroom house that can only house 3 unrelated adults!
• There are many benefits to people of all socio-economic levels living near each other. City planning and policy
(and developers seeking permits) should embrace more affordable housing options throughout the city.
• You can not put 10 pounds of mud into a 2-pound bag. Boulder is a 2-pound bag. We need to FIRST define☆ a
desirable community, then write our laws to support that.
☆Clean air
☆Clean water
☆Freedom from too long waiting lines
☆Freedom from too much ambient noise (cars, planes, people too close together, ...)
☆Freedom from too much population pressure on clean water supplies
☆Freedom from too many pets
☆Freedom fewer places to walk
☆Freedom from having to haul trash further (& pay more) because close landfills are full
☆Not everybody has to live on top of my head.
☆Boulder is desirable, but not the whole world has a right to live here. We do't want to Californicate the place.
☆To hell with the Real Estate and Business Growth-Mongers. This is my home!
☆If you love NYC so much, move back there and build skyscrapers to the moon; don't come here and try to make
Boulder into NYC.
• Housing supply is too low. It's absurd to expect people to fill all the jobs in Boulder from their apartments in
Dacono while also expecting them to walk and bike to work. Please please please start aligning the zoning and
housing rules and the lofty carbon and sustainability goals with at least a little bit of reality.
• As a property manager I reserve the right to impose my own occupancy limits in order to maintain quiet
enjoyment, reduce wear and tear, and keep utility bills such as water usage under control.
• A consideration that I don't see being addressed is that large, old trees are being destroyed by all the ADU's that
are added in these old neighborhood yards. The trees stay alive for about 5 years and then die because their roots
get so severely damaged and then the trees end up smothered by landscaping fabric being wrapped around the
base of them, covered with several inches of gravel or stone and the tree suffocates and dry up. It is horrible!! I
have lived here for more nearly 50 years and just yesterday I noted how many trees, young and old, are suffering in
our neighborhood due to dwellings stuffed in next to them. Maybe the council needs to look at high density living
in other neighborhoods where there is not what is basically urban old growth forest. And this is all at a time when
our wonderful Climate Initiatives Programs are trying to increase tree canopy that helps with the Heat Island effect.
I think our short-sighted view is going to really harm the climate and these old neighborhoods!
From the 'outside' it appears that the only changes that the Council is looking at are in the neighborhoods that
already carry the burden of student housing. And it is a HUGE burden. We can only rarely park in front of our home,
old sewer systems back up because multi-dwelling units were built where there were once single family homes--
and sewer systems were not updated. TRASH!!!! Some of the blocks downtown do not have alleys and so there are
ALWAYS overflowing trash cans in the street. Code Enforcement tries but they are severely understaffed.
Money talks!! The wealthier nearby neighborhoods have dedicated parking places in front of their homes, trash is
always in its place. Such inequity in priorities is unfair. Spread the pressure out and include these neighborhoods
so that so much of the pressure doesn't fall on the same neighborhoods over and again.
Lastly, is anyone in the City government aware of the fact that people who need this housing are not actually living
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
86
in these ADU's that are built? They are all rented out as VRBO's!! Are there not enough hotels in town? So mething
feels very amiss about how all this is being handled. Thank you for listening to my point of view.
• This needs to be a priority. Most people with influence in this area are being sheltered from the reality of poverty
and are hence unable to make conscientious decisions. We need to stop raising the ceiling the start raising the
floor.
• Boulder should make public transportation cheap/free, and parking EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. Like it should cost
$30 an hour any time of day to park within 2 miles of pearl Street, but boulder should ALSO provide frequent free
shuttles from the park and rides, free ebikes, and something akin to Uber but only in city limits and super low cost.
In my residential neighborhood, people drive in from out of town to park here for free and walk to the university.
The extra cars aren't because of the people who live here, it's because of the people who can't afford to live here
because of our discriminatory occupancy zoning.
• provide more affordable housing. rent control/cap should be introduced (too many wealthy investors speculating
on Boulder renters). require homes to be permanently occupied (someone living at the address, with proof of
utility bills etc.) rather than being used as second homes and left vacant. discourage/prohibit building of single
family mansions (a minimum occupancy rate by square footage would be as beneficial as the maximum
occupancy rate - too many 6000 sq ft homes occupied by 1 or 2 people while there is not enough housing for lower
and medium income families)
• I think building affordable housing in commercial areas and industrial areas is a good idea; and, might need to also
increase the number of grocery stores, hardware stores and gas stations. There was an affordable project slated for
the industrial area of NE Boulder. It was shot down due to zoning for industrial use only. Building affordable units
in neighborhood centers is problematic because these are already congested.
• We should abolish single-family zoning entirely and focus on building social housing for low income folks and
more middle class homes to reduce house prices for middle class people, as well as implementing a Land Value
Tax.
• A study of low and middle income housing development on City-owned property (e.g., Boulder airport or the
Planning Reserve) could be explored. A public/private partnership would be one approach on achieving a fiscally
responsible development to achieve an increase in this segment of of housing.
• Please do the right thing and eliminate Boulder's exclusionary zoning policies.
• How about anti-hoarding rules and penalties for leaving homes and land vacant? How about encouraging
individuals and not corporations to own housing in Boulder?
• duplexes and triplexes should be allowed in single family zoning, but all new buildings should have to meet
rigorous environmental standards
• As a student, it is very hard to see a future here. I would love to stay in Boulder after college but with the exclusion
for lower income housing, I would have to find a high paid job that is not offered much around Boulder.
• BAIT AND SWITCH: I HATE the bait and switch of changing zoning in SF residential neighborhoods. I invested in a
single family home home after renting in Boulder and saving for 15 years. I liked the Danish Plan with low growth,
the building height limits, and the open space. I decided to invest and live in a Boulder home and decided to buy
in North Boulder after checking the North Boulder Comprehensive Plan. How do you expect people to make
decisions about where they live iif Council can just ignore the city's Comprehensive Plans, on which people rely to
make major life decisions?
PARKING: If you add people without requiring more off-street parking spaces you make parking in neighborhoods
a nightmare. The vehicles of more occupants, plus the vehicles of their visiting friends and family, sows discord
between neighbors. Despite decades of encouraging people to use alternate modes of transportation, people want
the convenience (and for many, the necessity) of cars.
NOT WHAT PEOPLE LIVING HERE WANT: The people voted NOT to increase occupancy levels in the Bedrooms are
for People Initiative. You should not be able to ignore this.
IDEAS FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
How about partnering with employers to help subsidize workforce housing?
How about the City and County subsidizing their employees' housing? Let's give our police, firefighters, teachers,
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
87
and others a better opportunity to live here. I would be happy if real estate taxes went to this purpose. Or perhaps
there are bonds, grants, other things we can do to. Focus on increasing affordability in the areas that are not yet
developed so that parking, solar access and other needs can be accommodated.
Also, folks, please remember that growth cannot be infinite. If they haven't already, have planners and Council
members listen to Al Barlett's oft-repeated lectures on growth.
• Please consider pilots and also housing that specifically caters to people with children. I would also support zoning
changes for affordability and ownership for lower income people.
• Rezone SFH areas along 36 and other high traffic roads to allow row house development
• PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUING IN BOULDER
• Tip from an AICP-certified planner and Boulder renter currently working in affordable housing development: do
not publish any visual communication/presentation to residents, council, etc. around missing middle housing that
does not include pictures! It is so important to demystify "density" and show people real buildings, especially
examples of duplexes, triplexes, etc. already within Boulder. If people see an example from a neighborhood they
recognize, they will be more open to discussion. Here are a couple relevant articles with missing middle messaging
tips from the PNW: https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/01/talking-triplexes-missing-middle-messaging-tips/ and
https://www.sightline.org/2019/11/04/lessons-from-oregons-missing-middle-success/
• The people voted DOWN bedrooms are for people!
• Close the airport!
Change zoning to allow for small shops to neighborhood allow for 15 min neighborhoods.
• Increasing density has been proved “not” to reduce affordability. Only trashes up neighborhoods. We already
voted this down so go away.
• Basically the voters said to keep the current occupancy level guidelines in place (although the city council did not
agree with the results) in the last electionThis is a work around of those results by certain council members who
control the majority of the vote This should not be allowed to proceed.
• Changes should also allow neighborhood coffee shops, restaurants, and groceries but area parking should be by
permit. Saturation limits should restrict the number of such shops. Co-housing should also be allowed.
• I think the only way to make housing more affordable is to build more housing (either in the city or surrounding
areas). Housing in other areas would reduce demand here. Occupancy law changes do not build housing.
• Any new ADU regulations need clear and strict requirements to ensure affordability and not just produce
speculative high-end developments.
• Above all else, no greater density of any kind--whether of habitation or construction--should be allowed in the
residential / rental sections of University Hill, which is already overflowing. Packing any more people or units into
the University Hill area will just increase the already extant problems of noise, trash, parking, crime, vandalism,
and periodic rioting.
• Give up some open space for housing
• You should be focused on green transportation options instead increasing density. Boulder has terrible air quality
and a looming water crisis which increasing density would only exacerbate these issues. And clearly you're naive
about landlords not increasing rents when more people are living under the same roof.
• We've reaped what we sowed when we passed the Danish Plan, and (although I was in favor of it) now it is
imperative that we fess up and move to remedy its unintended consequences.
• How can our City Council ignore the voice of the people when we voted No to Bedrooms for People!!!!
Irresponsible!!
• I realize that you are trying to go with 4 or 5 unrelated individuals regardless of current zoning. I suggest that you
move current 3 unrelated area to 4 and current 4 unrelated areas to 5. You will gain more density overall but
mitigate the risk that the 5 unrelated option brings to a current 3 unrelated individual neighborhood. I am thinking
Martin Acres. And I am thinking parking, noise, traffic, neighborhood character.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
88
• Changing occupancy for apartments with no qualifiers as to size of the apartments is a terrible idea. Raising the
occupancy has to have s some relevance for size of house or apartment. Also, some neighborhoods. ( eg
University Hill area and Martin Acres) are already full or too full of housing with lots of extra people. They should
be able to vote to be excluded from the changes. My neighborhood with its huge 4,000 - 10,000 sq ft houses could
easily handle more people per house as well as duplexes and triplexes.
• Landlords who own homes and rent to students will not lower their rent, they would love to have more renters per
home so that they can charge each occupant $1000 per bedroom.
Curtail sales to investors who are buying homes to rent to students and who do not even live here.
Allow neighborhoods to make decisions about how to increase density. Do not make this city wide!
• in unison with these changes- we need more oversight of rentals-- simply increasing occupancy without increasing
care of properties could be bad... thinking of landscaping, basic maintenance etc...
• In the last election a majority of Boulder voters voted to NOT increase occupancy limits. The city council should
respect this vote and not increase occupancy limits
• The only way to actually increase affordability is to dramatically increase construction and population density to
provide a larger supply of housing to meet the demand. Almost everything in the Land Use Code, from single-
family zoning to occupancy requirements to parking minimums to the height restriction works contrary to this
goal.
• Even though the ballot issue was Bedrooms are for People, in truth it was a vote to increase the occupancy limits.
The Boulder voters rejected the ballot issue, so why is the increase in occupancy limits being discussed again? We
have lived on the Hill in a single family home with multiple rental homes behind us on 9th St. I am not sure if they
were identified as SFH or other for 4 unrelated, they were invariably rented to students who probably signed their
lease as 3 unrelated but then others moved in as well. Four Star Reality was especially bad about this outcome.
The over occupied homes resulted in 4 or 5 cars parked where two were probably the limit, their trash containers
overflowed and were never properly shut, the weekend noise was intolerable. Other the Grant Place went from a
desirable street for families to one with owners dealing with uncaring renters. We even went through a court
required restorative justice exercise with the renters, with Four Start sitting in on the process, and with no
meaningful results or satisfaction. We advise other families to not bother with Boulder's restorative justice option
when it involves over occupancy and renters.
• Reducing occupancy limits means landlords and corporations will be empowered to buy up homes that would
formerly have been unsuitable for roommates and then rent them at an unreasonably high rate. That takes homes
off the market for individual (not corporate) buyers and makes rentals even more expensive than they already are.
Cities without occupancy limits are also struggling with housing shortages because landlords and corporations
then become the largest group of homeowners in town.
• We already voted on this issue and determined no increase to occupancy. Please stop playing this game.
• Additional housing ignores the glut of cars that accompanies multi family and increased occupancy. People who
work downtown Boulder often already fill neighborhood streets during the day to the extent that you cannot see
around corners. And you want to add more cars and exhaust? Biking is not an option because unless you can bring
a bike inside, it will be stolen either at home or work. Use some open space for housing and parking and stop
denigrating what was once a peaceful, clean city.
• Having lived in Boulder since 1982 and having a significant other who lived (and now is deceased and I live) near
the Academy, I have great concerns about the condition of housing that students live in in the hill area. I am a
retired CU administrative staff and have walked to work and walked leisurely in that area since 1998. Definitely
restricting rental housing in that area is a must. The rental agencies/families who use this for mak ing alot of
money, deprive those people with families who could live there (e.g. CU faculty, staff). That area is become
debased, filthy and unbecoming for our community. that includes some, mostly, fraternity housing. THE CITY
NEEDS TO TAKE A HARD STAND TO KEEP THIS AREA DECENT, CLEAN, ETC. I was an undergraduate at Ohio State
University from 1967-71. I lived in a sorority house that was quiet, clean and neat. Of course, some fraternities
were terrible. Having been there and lived (done) in off-campus housing, I have the experience and view that what
is happening in Boulder is appalling. I am also appalled at all the vehicles that students bring to campus is
ridiculous. In my 4 years a OSU, I was fine without a car and when one was needed a local Columbus
student/sorority sister could use her car. Talk about parking problems, driving, environmental impact on the
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
89
many, many gas guzzling vehicles who need to drive short distances....it's insane. I don't expect anything can be
done but it is contributing to global warm, quality of life for anyone. I would suggest that all rentals be required
to make a certain significant percentage of their units as affordable housing, first and foremost, for people who
work in Boulder. I can't believe the amount of greed, etc. I would also , begin restricting the size of high end
residences with the goal of living simply, so others can simply live. The privilege and greediness of Boulder, is
awful. Allow only 1 car per household, and exceptions must apply and fill out a yearly form in order for them to
have a second car. Wow! People would have think they are being crucified.
• Single-family homes can be a good fit for certain neighborhoods but they are an extremely inefficient use of space.
• Allow tiny homes in backyards
• Boulder needs to increase housing access and affordability. Occupancy limits are absurd. While I recognize there's
a large percentage of students, there's also a large percentage of non-student renters who should be allowed to
live in 4,5,6,7+ bedroom homes (of which there are many in Boulder) without consideration of their familial
relationships to limit occupancy.
• Increase density in single family districts near transit corridors.
• More housing along frequent transit corridors! And raise the height limit to 5-6 stories everywhere — it will still
keep the building heights manageable but significantly drive down costs per unit (above this level per unit costs go
up again anyway because you can’t use wood framing)
• Underground parking
• Expand ADUs even more than the recent changes, expedite planning applications & building permits for
affordable housing
• Duplex's seem like they'd be ok, but triplex's seem like they'd really disrupt the feel of our neighborhoods. Duplex's
seem like they might be owner occupied, triplex's seem like they'd most likely be investor owned and rented out.
Owners usually care more about the neighborhood. Issues with trash, yards, noise, neighbor conflicts are more
likely to come with renters than owners. I worry investors/ landlords/ developers will be the ones who benefit from
new codes- and leave existing owners (and the city) with hard to solve problems of renters who don't really care.
Another concern is about HOAs. We must include them in new codes and regulations.
• Boulder likes to sell itself as an eco-friendly town that cares about the environment, but the environmentally
friendly facade Boulder likes to put up is completely destroyed by the amount of air pollution created by the tens
of thousands of people who have to commute into town for work every single day, we need more affordable
housing because the number of people who commute into town is a travesty.
• You are never going to make Boulder affordable for everyone. You should protect our neighborhoods instead of
destroying them. If you want affordability you need build up multiple floor complexes with services and
transportation availability. I would look at Hong Kong model of subsidized housing as a start.
• I live in multi unit housing, that has no where near enough parking for the cars, creating conflict. I have called the
police and not received support for noise concerns/partying issues (non-emergency) and do not find it remotely
comparable to single-family living. I am a professional who works hard but doesn’t make six figures, and renting
here is brutal. Building more luxury units and low-income housing is not making this community more livable for
me. I do think we need to explore solutions, but I think they should be much more tailored so neighborhoods like
mine don’t continue to get people crammed in with no parking or support. Maybe controlling % owner -occupied
homes might help. I would love to own a home but will never compete with landlords here.
• We need more mixed commercial and residential areas, especially more residential units in current commercial
zones — to create more walkable neighborhoods. This is critical to meet climate goals and reduce energy
consumption.
• The question about reducing parking requirements to encourage lower housing costs doesn’t seem like that
simple of an option. We also need to look at what is available near those potential sites for transit, bike/walking, or
if they are in areas where it is difficult to not have a car.
• I did not like question 1. I do think we need occupancy limits, but based on the size of the unit (the original BAFP
proposal), not the location. It is absurd that due only to location, a Table Mesa house with 5 bedrooms is limited to
3 unrelated people and a studio apartment in a dense zone could house 4! I also think that no developer should be
allowed to buy out of affordable housing--all developments should include affordable housing not money to build
them elsewhere (which is where?)
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
90
• Please keep in mind affordability, accessibility and inclusion for people with IDD (Intellectual Developmental
Disability).
• *DITTO(USA,007,WVMHS-1970,Etc.Etc.):”OK,DONE,Etc.Etc….THANKS/NO-THANKS,AMEN…!?!?!
>
>
>
🇺🇸🇦🇦🇮🇱🇮🇵🇬🇦🇦🇺🔫🔫❤️🥃🤠😉🐼🙏👎👎👎✌️
• Businesses and residences have different needs (parking, security, etc.) and mixed-use projects should be carefully
planned to consider these differences (speaking as one who lives in a mixed use community and finds it an
ongoing hassle). Also, significantly increasing occupancy numbers changes the nature of a community (negatively,
I would argue). More density, more noise, more crime, more traffic congestion--I have already seen these
unpleasant changes to Boulder. I support affordable housing; but it should be done thoughtfully and without
completely sacrificing the integrity of existing communities.
• Leave it alone.
• Increased occupancy and increased housing density do not result in lower rents or lower housing prices. The
opposite has been well-documented in other US cities.
• It does seem logical, both not to demand more space for cars per unit, and to reduce the numbers of cars in town.
This only works if public transportation is made comprehensive enough, and is seen as safe, and "nice", i.e. not
just for poor people and the homeless. Personally, I really don't care who the other passengers are, but I am
finding through reading NextDoor that folks are wildly judgmental here, far more than they were pre-gentrification.
I prefer not to drive; it terrifies me.
• Permitting gentle mixed use development, ie coffee shop or mini-grocery, within residential neighborhoods can be
extremely beneficial towards reducing VMTs and revitalizing active and engaged communities.
• Stop with this affordability topic and bringing more residents to this overloaded city.
I would love to have a house in Malibu, CA but I cannot afford to buy there… then I will choose somewhere else,
where I can afford, and provide the best quality of life to my family.
Why Boulder makes exceptions causing more traffic, places full of people plus making us live on a crowded
town?!?
All for showing that Boulder is an inclusive place!!!! 😂
Please….!! LOL
• Boulder needs to fix their permitting and inspection process. This leads to big delays on projects. We want safety
but expediency.
• We’ve already voted on this. Leave it alone, please.
• After living here for 40 years and seeing that the tens of thousands of commuters has remained the same, the
affordable housing crisis still remains, the un-housed have increased and the ‘boxes’ of unaffordable and ugly
apartments lining our roads, I don’t believe we can build or density our way out of this.
Take the corner of iris and 28th and use it for affordable housing with access to groceries, laundry and
transportation. Do it with the old community hospital. Do it at the boulder airport. Be bold and get some amazing
neighborhoods built. Stop trying to change neighborhoods —you’re not going to get the buy in, but act now to fix
the four decade backlog.
We want to use our parks. We want safe walks and rides to schools. We love our community. Build the mental
health facility, the rehab facility, the day center. Please act without sacrificing those of us who have paid property
taxes, given lives of public service, worked our way into homes, lived here since 1983 and want to see others
helped.
• Allow one occupant per existing bedrooms in all residential dwellings.
• Do not push out "affordable" commercial by making commercial areas more desirable for developers to develop
as housing and apartments. If parking requirements are reduced and housing occupancy is increased,
charge/regulate number of cars per dwelling so that traffic and congestion is not worse. Please please take in
consideration the amount of water available now and in the future before over densifying Boulder. Not everyone
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
91
can live here even if all of us want to. Not everywhere needs to be a gross dense city like Denver. Take into account
character and carrying capacity.
• 1) Increased number of ADUs are disproportionally unfair to the lower lost neighborhoods (Martin Acres, Park
East). The affluent Boulderites that live in nicer neighborhoods will never be impacted by 1000 sq foot two story
ADUs in the backyards of their neighbors - which completely destroy the privacy of the 3-5 adjoining neighbors.
Therefore, it is way too easy for the City Council to vote for ADUs (or far worse dublexes, triplexes replacing
houses). What long term homeowner would want to live next to a corner house that has been scraped and
replaced with a duplex, triplex or COOP with 6-12 renters? Not one person on the City Council I bet.
2) The homeowners who have lived in these starter home neighborhoods would like to continue to enjoy some
semblance of privacy in their backyards. Also, the increase of ADUs will transform the neighborhood further from
starter home single familes to more renter class lower income people that have zero long term invested interest in
maintaining the quality of the houses and landscapes. If you have any doubts, visit the Martin Park and Park East
neighborhoods with the highest concentration of rental houses and ADUs on that street, and see if you would ever
buy a starter home there. The starter home families are being further excluded from Boulder, and the current
homeowners are losing the long term community of their neighborhoods.
3) However, I do think 4 unrelated persons per house is fair.
• Parking is a major issue. Houses which have no off-street parking and have older and aging residents like ourselves
find it a challenge to park a block away from our house b/c parking is so limited. Loosen up the code which
requires new off-street parking to be no less than 25’ within front property line setback. This way, more houses can
have parking in “front” yard area
• The voters made it clear in voting down bedrooms. It is WRONG to try and go around us.
• On Sumac Ave in north Boulder between Broadway and 19th I don't understand how two very large new homes are
being built (8,000 sq feet?). the original owner died and 3 acres were sold and on a street with much smaller houses
the city allows a builder to use these 3 acres for 2 huge houses to be built - isn't that exactly going backwards. How
is that possible in 2023 in Boulder? Maybe this is a good visual example of using up resources in an unsustainable
manner, how many people will live on this 3 acres in the city, two families. I cry inside just looking at them being
built. I hope you can get by and take some pix and use them in your education of the residence the negative
impact of this on so many levels! thank you for all your hard work.
• sb23-213 would destroy Boulder as we know it. it is impossible to build enough housing for everyone (60000) who
might want to live here. everyone does need to live in Boulder; there is affordable housing elsewhere. We don't
want to become Houston!
Stop gifting/grifting real estate speculators. Limit CU census to number housed by CU.
• I bought my home in 2016. Taxes were 4400. 2022, taxes were 7800. Insurance costs have risen. Why can’t I have
more than 2 roommates in my 5 bedroom house to help me cover the rising costs of being alive?
• I think there's a strong but unvoiced desire for housing such as the "Housing Hill" pattern (pp. 209 -214 in "A Pattern
Language" by Christopher Alexander, et. al.) and the "Row Houses" pattern (pp. 204-208 in same). Both patterns
create high-density, pedestrian-oriented housing in which each unit has its own outdoor green space and the
possibility of having rooms with windows on more than one side. The Housing Hill pattern creates the possibility of
having parking for non-polluting electric vehicles at the ground floor center of the "hill," or underground. Row
Houses creates the possibility 30 homes/acre with 1200 sq. ft., two-story homes on 1300 sq. ft. of land, with each
home having its own ground-level garden measuring 15x30 feet but no driveway, parking, or garage. The city of
Boulder has used a number of patterns from "A Pattern Language" in past urban planning; these two patterns fit
well in today's context because they offer individual green space that apartments and condos don't, and they
create higher density than having individual homes surrounded by yard on all four sides.
• Well, I took the survey but I don't feel it will have much impact on the outcome. It sure didn't when it came to the
day shelter! I initially opposed the day shelter then realized it might be OK if placed in the right location and with
strict rules because the City seemed to support it. Apparently, you are now placing it directly near residential and
commercial properties which pretty much everyone opposed.
• I support aggressive and innovative change to the zoning code. We have a housing crisis and an opportunity to
make a more sustainable and equitable city. I would encourage the city to try a variety of measures
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
92
• We must not let statements about lack of potential parking determine building. See new book "Paved Paradise".
People respond to constraints and some will choose not to have a car, some will take the bus and some will find
that they don't need a car as much as they thought they did.
• Rather than pushing for higher size limits for ADUs, allow for smaller ADU option (i.e. efficiency style units) which
are currently hot possible.
• I do not believe you can build your way to affordability without seriously (negatively) impacting congestion, air
pollution, quality of life, etc. I also do not believe that new housing units will be affordable, landlords and
developers will rent/sell at market value.
• Thank you for reaching out like this. I really appreciate having my voice hea rd.
• Boulder has added an enormous number of apartments and condos in the past few years (on the 30th St. corridor
area and on Folsom)--we are hitting maximum density for a town with the infrastructure we have and for
remaining a pleasant community. Not everyone can live in Boulder just because they want to. If I lived in the L.A.
area, I would not expect I could afford a house in Brentwood or Malibu. Boulder has lost a lot of its character since
1971 when I came here and we can't turn back time but we need to recognize that things are on the verge of
becoming unlivable due to density, traffic, downtown tourism, crime, etc.
• Unless the city facilitates more rental, income qualifying rental propert OR deed restricted income qualifying for
sale property the city WILL NOT have more affordability because the investment community will drive rents based
on the desirability of Boulder. US News and World Report last week listed Boulder as #4 nationally on Desireability
as a place to live in the entire US. We need RESTRICTIONS on new housing in order to serve the population the
city is trying to serve.
• The occupancy limits should 1 person per bedroom plus 1. A landlord should be allowed to rent a legal bedroom
with closet and window to one person. If the home has 5 such bedrooms, 5 people should be permitted plus 1. The
current standard of 3 unrelated people in certain areas of the city is causing a very restricted rental market for
students and individuals in their early twenties. It also makes it more expensive for individuals as sharing is not
allowed by law.
• One person per bedroom plus one should be allowed. Restricting occupancy is making rents more expensive for
everyone and creating a tighter rental market.
• Bedrooms are for people plus one would make rents more affordable for everyone.
• As a resident and parent in the area of a CU student it's incredibly difficult to find housing and expensive due to the
occupancy restrictions.
• Boulder is already too dense in population. Don’t add to it. Build more affordable housing.
• Allow 55+ people to live together as we age. I have many friends ( all old time Boulder natives) that are reaching
retirement and we all want to get out of our large single family homes and live in a co-housing situation. Shared
housing for the aging community. I understand not allowing college age kids to pack a house but I never hear
about options for the aging community. I can be reached at 720-234-6390.
• Continued easing of ADU restrictions, consider lots of re-zoning to allow old commercial buildings to be turned
into residential, or some unused retail spaces to allow for office or residential, and/or popping the top on single
story strip malls to include affordable housing units
• Zoning restrictions, especially occupancy maximums and parking minimums, are one of the main reasons that
Boulder's fastest growing age group is 80+. It's vital to the health and safe growth of the city to reduce restrictive
zoning requirements as they are a key part of why the city is so white, so old, and so deeply small-c conservative.
Not to mention that high density housing and zoning is far more beneficial to environment than either a) forcing
people to leave the city or b) forcing people to live in single family homes. Be an example of how growth can be a
positive, climate friendly, and multi-generation change and remove zoning restrictions
- A Homeowner and Disappointed Life Long Boulder Resident
• Stop Growth. Save Nature.
• Having more than 3 unrelated people in a home is called a commune . They were popular with the hippies in
the late 60's and 70's. They were generally unorganized, too crowded, not enough bathrooms, and basically
they didn't work. Why should we go back to that mentality?
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
93
• I think if we want Boulder to be any kind of a place to live we have to make living here affordable. People who
work here should be able to live here.
• I have heard about how to solve affordable housing in Boulder since the 80’s. Forty years plus have past and the
issue continues. I have lived in areas where specific communities were not affordable. That is capitalism.
Capitalism is a free market economy or free enterprise economy.
If the Boulder community has housing concerns for community workers then provide housing with the position or
additional pay for workers/professionals to afford living in the community or in nearby communities that could be
affordable.
• Ban airbnb/ short term rentals. Spend money earmarked for affordable housing for families; not drug addicts.
Limit business/ commercial expansion in Boulder. Ban more high tech firms from moving here (thus their highly
paid employees).
• Add ADU's to single family zoning area , but restrict to two unrelated people.
remove owner occupancy requirements.
Add a lot coverage ratio.
• I do not own a home, but hear from the Nextdoor Social App that increased property values are at the base of
increased rent (higher property value = higher property tax). The dramatic increase of rental unit costs over the
past three years has got to stop! Is Boulder County going to do anything about this?
• The average new home built in Boulder could easily be a triplex based on its size. Its kind of crazy we make that
kind of excess the only thing possible. Changes are long overdue!
• How about let the number of unrelated people equal the number of legal bedrooms in a house.
• Boulder needs more housing opportunities for all age groups, not just college students.
• Rent controlled apartments
• I feel we need to encourage density over sprawl and increased occupancy for those that decide to have more
people in their home. Real action on housing in Boulder starts with removing archaic zoning barriers that are
rooted in perpetuating inequality and racism. I'd much rather live in a dense, public transit oriented community
that was readable access to greenspace than a sprawling area of low density and occupied single family homes.
Boulder is closer to this vision than most American communities but still has a long way to go in being ideal. Please
reconsider the barriers to affordable housing, as progress in this regard will also make climate and reduced
commuter goals more achievable. Thanks.
• I've lived in Boulder for 35 years, and have seen our housing pricing escalate into a situation where it is completely
impossible for middle-income residents to become established here.
Without addressing this issue, Boulder is not going to be able to maintain the culture that makes it so desirable to
live to begin with. It'll become a calcified retreat for the wealthy (ala several of CO's mountain towns like Aspen
where the billionaires have pushed out the millionaires), and will add an unacceptable environmental burden to
the environment as it drives up regional commuting and car traffic in and out of town
• A 4 bedroom home should be allowed at least 4 unrelated people. The current restiction to 3 is bad policy. I would
support number of bedrooms plus one for unrelated people.
• I'm all for duplexes & triplexes in appropriate locations, but definitely not in single-family home areas.
Parking is already a nightmare on many residential streets in single-family areas, and the problems would only
intensify with more density. With the limited available land in the city, there probably are very few 'appropriate
locations' for this type of housing.
• I don't think you can solve the affordability issue by simply cramming more people into Boulder. I met a person
that had never been to Boulder, and did not plan on working in Boulder, but he moved into an affordable unit near
downtown because he heard the city was a cool place to live.
I would like to live on the beach in Hawaii also, but I don't expect the people of Hawaii to subsidize me doing that.
IF, and only IF, the person works in Boulder, and their income is below a certain level, (like nurse or fire fighter) am
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
94
I in favor of helping them with affordable housing. In that case, a need definitely exists. But just trying to say that
anybody that wants to live in Boulder should be able to, is crazy. That appears to me to be what the city wants.
• Housing policy IS climate policy! R-1 Zoning must be repealed, period. It is responsible for the car culture and a
terrible housing crisis. We don't need another tax or any new regulations - just the opposite - remove these
regressive regulations and let the market work.
• I think adding occupancy to reduce housing costs is a great idea. I do worry about lack of parking but if we take
away parking requirements in areas that have easy access to public transportation and bike trails that may help
reduce the number of cars as well. I also think my biggest fear with adjusting zoning is that developers may come
in to buy single family homes only to rip them down and create triplexes. I also worry about the loss of habitat if
that were to happen but if provisions were put in place to prevent these things from happening I would be more
likely to support adjusting the zoning.
• Boulder harms low income people
• The Boulder Airport land would be a good place for affordable housing along with a grocery store, gas station
restaurants and a green park.
• Boulder should eliminate or change the height limits of buildings east of 28th Street. The emphasis should be on
quality of design rather than simply how tall the building is.
• Because Boulder is SO expensive to live in, we need more affordable housing options. We also need more
accessibility to alternative transportation and reduced cost for bus, trains, etc. If folks can't afford to live here how
will they be able to work here, especially those in the service industry? Does Boulder want to turn into Vail, where
the workers can't afford to live nearby?
• Let apartments go higher than 3stories and build atop non view blocking office buildings
• Occupancy limits for unrelated parties should be common sense. If the housing has 4 bedrooms, then 4 unrelated
parties, 3 bedrooms-3parties. What doesn’t make sense is a 2 bedroom that allows 4 parties and a 4 bedroom with
a 2 party constraint. The city council should either allow 1, 1.5 or 2 parties per bedroom. I think 1 person per room
is the most common sense.
• Our city needs to rebuild its missing middle! Adding density to developed regions will help preserve the open
spaces we love
• The zoning requirements place unnecessary burdens on renters in boulder making housing unaffordable. At a
minimum, if the zoning ordinance is maintained, it should reflect the number of available rooms in a house. Too
often is a house zoned for 3 but has 5 bed rooms which unnecessarily inflates costs for renters in boulder.
• Transform the noisy Boulder Municipal Airport into housing, low income housing and build shopping centers parks
and open space for residents. I would be kind to allow high density, affordable housing in areas zoned for
industrial use.
• Stop the opt out (pay to avoid) option for builders on affordable units.
• Why is your only consideration how to pave over more of Boulder? Ridiculous survey!
• The big problem that few people in Boulder seem to understand (other than economists) is that we have an infinite
demand, inelastic demand housing market. Because of that, the measures you propose will do nothing to increase
affordability. Supply increases in inelastic markets do not lower prices. The city would study atypical inelastic
markets much more thoroughly.
A house renting to 3 unrelated people for $4500 will just rent to 4 unrelated people for $6000, or 5 peopl e for $7500.
No affordability gain at all. Meanwhile, you make that rental too expensive for a family to afford. We're already
losing many families from Boulder, and you'll just accelerate our declining local school enrollment.
Also, if you upzone single family neighborhoods to allow duplexes or triplexes, you'll just get 2x or 3x the number of
really expensive units per lot instead of one. You propose full-priced, market rate supply side solutions, which do
not lower prices in inelastic markets.
If you really want to increase housing affordability in a runaway inelastic market, you should increase your already-
existing programs, like commercial linkage fees and inclusionary housing requirement for new residential
construction, both of which actually create deed-restricted permanently affordable housing. That's the only thing
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
95
that helps affordability in this market. What you're proposing will just increase the number of expensive rooms
and/or dwelling units. You propose to torpedo single family neighborhoods, for nothing - an absolute fool's errand
that will not increase affordability.
• It seems to me that the unrelated people issue could be handled by enforcing noise and nuisance Ordinances. If
you have 5 folks in a home, and they are well behaved, more power to them. If they are messy, and loud, and
drunk, they should be enforced accordingly.
I think changing zoning densities in residential areas pulls the rug out from existing residences retroactively and is
a bit unfair. the folks who lived there made a decision based on certain criteria, and that should be respected.
• Limit CU student enrollment increases until they build commensurate student housing. Increasing occupancy will
not help low income households live in Boulder. It will increase rents and increase students living en masse in
single family neighborhoods
Build high density in city limits out East on appropriate land
• The City fails to understand that we have an infinite demand, inelastic demand housing market. As such, what you
propose will do nothing to increase affordability. (Supply
increases in inelastic markets do not lower prices.) Boulder houses renting to 3 unrelated people for $4500 total
rent will just rent to 4 unrelated for $6000, or 5 unrelated for $7500. No affordability gain at all. Meanwhile, you'll
make that rental too expensive for a family. We're already losing many families
from Boulder, and you will accelerate our declining local school enrollment. Also, heed your own City of Boulder
survey of 60 peer college towns, which all have occupancy limits to prevent student party mayhem. 60% of them,
like Boulder, limit it to 3 (or fewer) unrelated people per rental. And 38% (23 of the 60) limit it to 2 unrelated.
Boulder is not an outlier, at 3 unrelated. Even that is challenging, when it's 3
nineteen year old sophomores partying every night next door. To your 2nd question: If you upzone single family
neighborhoods to allow duplexes or triplexes, you'll just get 2x or 3x the number of really expensive units per lot.
Boulder, astoundingly, is proposing Reaganomic, free-market, supply-side solutions to our inelastic housing
market. Reaganomics failed. It merely made the rich, richer. Similarly,
your proposals will just line the pockets of landlords, realtors, and builders. To increase housing affordability in our
market, you should increase your already- existing programs of commercial linkage fees and inclusionary housing
requirements for new residential construction. These government interventions create deed- restricted,
permanently affordable housing, and are the only things that actually create affordability in Boulder. Whereas
what you're proposing will just increase the number of expensive rooms and/or dwelling units. You'll torpedo
single family neighborhoods for
nothing - a fool's errand that will do nothing to increase affordability.
• I object to the wording of these questions. The answers are not black or white. Maybe in some areas duplexes
would be appropriate. Maybe in certain situations increased occupancy would be ok (in exchange for affordability).
Please reconsider how these questions are presented.
• (1) If you want more affordable housing, increase the stock of income capped affordable housing units. All other
measures will only benefit landlords and negatively impact neighborhoods. (2) Not all neighborhoods in Boulder
should be treated equally. Protect campus adjacent neighborhoods from the disproportionate impact that they
will experience with increased occupancy limits. (3) Imagining that by reducing minimum parking zoning rules is
wishful thinking. Such reductions will only create parking problems.
• Try see is no quarantine thst any of this housing will be affordable. Unless it is built with those affordable
requirements people will rent for whatever they can get. Adding stress with parking traffic noise increased water
needs isn’t the answer for Boulder
• This survey is completely flawed. What parking requirements encourage lower housing costs? What zoning
standards are barrioers to building additional paklces to live? Without that information, the City cannot
reasonably expect informed reliable responses. The only reliable measures to increase affordable housing are to
work to eliminate the prohibition of rent control and for the City to own and administer affordable housing.
• We have an infinite, inelastic demand housing market. As such, what is proposed will not increase affordability.
(Supply increases in inelastic markets do not lower prices.)
Boulder houses renting to 3 unrelated people for $4500 total rent will just rent to 4
unrelated for $6000, or 5 unrelated for $7500. No affordability will be gained. Meanwhile, the rental will become
too expensive for a family. We're already losing many families from Boulder. What is proposed will accelerate our
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
96
declining local school enrollment.
We should heed the City's survey of 60 peer college towns, which all have occupancy limits to prevent student
party mayhem. (Austin, TX, is a particularly apt comparison.) 60% of them, like Boulder, limit it to 3 (or fewer)
unrelated people per rental. And 38% (23 of the 60) limit it to 2 unrelated. Boulder is not an outlier, at 3 unrelated.
Even that is challenging, when it’s 3 19-year old sophomores partying every night next door.
If we up-zone single family neighborhoods to allow duplexes or triplexes, we'll get 2x or 3x the number of really
expensive units per lot. Boulder is proposing Reaganomic, free-market, supply-side solutions to our inelastic
housing market. Reaganomics failed. It merely made the rich, richer. Similarly, the current proposals will just line
the pockets of landlords, realtors, and builders.
To increase housing affordability in our market, we should increase already existing
programs of commercial linkage fees and inclusionary housing requirements for new residential construction. We
should also eliminate cash-in-lieu; make developers actually build affordable housing as part of any development,
residential or commercial. These government interventions create deed-restricted, permanently affordable
housing, and are the only things that actually create affordability in Boulder. Whereas what is proposed will
increase the number of expensive rooms and/or dwelling units. We'll torpedo single-family neighborhoods for
nothing - a fool's errand that will do nothing to increase affordability.
• City Staff MUST provide evidence and be more specific when making claims about housing costs. For example:
Boulder should reduce parking requirements for residential projects to encourage lower housing costs. needs to
state for whom costs will be lower: developers/buiders? home buyers? renters? AND provide data to back up such
statements.
My perception is that decisions are being made to lower costs for builders. I think we need to be focused on
affordable housing for renters and home buyers --- and collect data on how their costs are effected using various
strategies from increasing impact fees to implementing rent control (with changes in state laws) to building more
permanently affordable housing.
• You're barking up the wrong tree with these approaches, except perhaps for allowing some housing in existing
shopping centers that are in some disuse, like the Diagonal.
Boulder's housing demand is better met with a substantial increase in linkage fees which should also help offset
infrastructure costs--water, wastewater, streets, police and fire, parks, etc.--how will these additional cost needs
be met? Not by taxes collected on multiple dwelling units. Boulder's housing prices just keep rising, we cannot
meet demand--much less affordable demand--with the measures proposed by the current council.
• The city has been increasing density now for a decade, building new apartment blocks and redeveloping old ones
and every time the housing becomes less affordable.
And now the plan is to bring this same magic to single family neighborhoods. The results will be the same:
landlords will set rent based upon the number of people in a house and rents will increase.
Increasing occupancy and changing zoning to allow multiplex developments in single family neighborhoods will
not reduce prices. It will increase capacity to accommodate CU's lack of willingness to build student housing
and/or moderate enrollment numbers.
If this passes Boulder will again have taken a suckers bet and D'oh, lose again.
• Increase the jobs-housing linkage fee, increase the inclusionary zoning requirement, don't allow significantly more
job growth, and get the Legislature to stop CU's expansion in Boulder.
• I am middle income and rent. If you increase occupancy, the property manager will increase rents and the only
people left will be student who are willing to cram into a small single family home like the one we are renting.
Then where do we go??
• Build east with higher density, Stop infill and destruction of single family neighborhoods. If you do increase to 4
unrelated, put an age requirement (over 24) so that this does not become yet another situation where students
just cram into small houses and drive out middle income families. Your "analysis" is so biased and changing
zoning on 60 year old neighborhoods is unfair, impractical (we are on top of each other already)...and will DO
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
97
NOTHING to lower rent and create affordable housing. Those duplexes and triplexes in Denver's formerly small
SFN, are selling for $1.2M each or more. You have got to be kidding me? How many city staff live in Boulder? How
many Council members live in a protected HOA?
• We need more AFFORDABLE housing. What you are permitting now does not help us reach our goals. Building
ugly tall apartments does not meet the needs of families. WE NEED PARKS and natural places, tennis courts, pools,
trees not more people. Sometime we are at buildout and will have to say "no" to more. We need to P:LAN for the
future not just build
• You are going against the will of the people. We voted down Bedrooms already. You may think this is different but
it is not. This should be put to a vote; City Council is already overreaching!!!
I feel my voice is not heard. I pay taxes and I want my voice heard.
• This poll seems severely skewed to the answers you want to receive. Disgraceful!
• I guess you guys really need to establish that Boulderites want more density. Sadly for you, that's not true.
Densification is AWFUL I hate the destruction you've already done to Boulder.
• Bogus poll
• How about questions like: Boulder should INCREASE parking requirements for residential projects? Why is this poll
so skewed?
• The people of Boulder have already voted these ideas down. You should be listening to the people of Boulder that
you are supposed to represent, instead of running ahead full speed into the destruction of what makes Boulder a
great place to live. You act as if the only concern is more development. More money. More greed.
• The people of Boulder voted on all this and said NO! SO, please, leave it alone.
• Increasing occupancy will not guarantee affordability. In student neighborhoods, it will not increase affordability
because landlords charge by the tenant. The rents went up in Goss Grove when the occupancy went up to four.
• Encourage shared bedrooms for college students
• Affordable housing is so important! Why are we wasting time with these proposals which don't do that? Boulder
has infinite demand! This is an inelastic demand housing
market. This proposal will do nothing to increase affordability.
Boulder houses renting to 3 unrelated people for $4500 (total) rent will just rent to 4
unrelated for $6000, or 5 unrelated for $7500. No affordability gain at all. Who have you helped? And now, that
rental will be too expensive too expensive for a family. We're already losing many families from Boulder.This will
accelerate our declining local school enrollment.
A survey of 60 peer college towns, which all have occupancy limits to prevent student party mayhem. Most of
them-- like 60% of them, like Boulder, have limits of
to 3 (or fewer) unrelated people per rental. And 38% (23 of the 60) limit it to 2
unrelated. Boulder is not an outlier, at 3 unrelated. Even that is challenging, when it’s 3
nineteen year old sophomores partying every night next door.
If you up-zone single family neighborhoods to allow duplexes or
triplexes, you'll just get 2x or 3x the number of really expensive units per lot. Boulder,
astoundingly, is proposing a free-market, supply-side solutions to our
inelastic housing market. Reaganomics failed. It made the rich, richer. Is that what we need or want?
These proposals will just line the pockets of landlords, realtors, and builders.
To increase housing affordability in our market, you should increase your existing programs of commercial linkage
fees and inclusionary housing requirements
for new residential construction. These government interventions create deed restricted, permanently affordable
housing, and are the only things that actually create
affordability in Boulder. You are proposing will just increase the number of
expensive rooms and/or dwelling units. You’ll obliterate single family neighborhoods for
nothing . I really care about affordable housing and these ideas will not give us that. Tie some affordability
standard to is and maybe...
• Many houses on the Hill don't currently provide parking, as far as I can tell. Are they violating code?
Putting more housing on top of commercial buildings would be great, but is that what is being proposed? More
detail in the questions would be appreciated.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
98
Occupancy limits should be related to the capacity of the house and whether or not the residence is owner-
occupied. If the residence is owner-occupied, then having 1 or 1.5 unrelated people per bedroom would be okay.
Removing parking requirements makes more sense when the residence is located near public transit.
• Do not turn neighborhoods into dorms for CU Boulder. We need to reduce the number of non-related individuals in
single family homes.
• Do not allow neighborhoods to become de facto dorms for CU.
• Do not encourage in-lieu agreements to affordable and attainable housing. Livable housing is available in Boulder
County and City. Developers and investors have a long history of "specking" and turning around and selling
perfectly livable homes into investment and building opportunities for making $$$ and not for making home more
livable and affordable. How do you control this? This continues to create this housing and economic gap and
wedge to affordability and attainability. I don't know the answer to this...It's very complicated and this has
become a mecca and for investors not really interested in the issue of affordablity etc.
• Don’t use your heart or personal financial agenda to write our zoning laws! Use research and evidence of what’s
working in cities globally. House all of our people! My young adult life I lived with up to 6 adults in small and large
spaces in San Francisco and it’s how I could afford rent.
• Zoning changes would only benefit investors and landlords. Please don’t do this.
• You seem to know the answers you want. Badly biased poll.
• You are ruining Boulder with the densification-STOP!!! It’s starting to feel like a crowded rat situation where soon
the rats will start eating each other because of too many rats crammed in a tiny space.
• Yes, neighborhoods such as Goss-Grove, Uni-hill and Martin Acres should be exempt due to their current
overcrowding and related demise of their quality of life due to student rentals which out-number owner occupied
residences.
• Why do we have to keep repeating the same information. We do not want to change the current occupancy
standards
• We need to recognize the historical infrastructure investments made in our existing housing stock and leverage
them. For example, in places like the Hill, we have a housing infrastructure designed for families (e.g, Flatirons
elementary, University Hill Elementary, New Vista/former baseline middleschool). These schools are seeing
declining enrollment because so much housing is consumed by student rentals. We need to encourage family
occupancy here so that we don't need to build new schools on the outskirts of town to accommodate all the new
housing being built. We need balance and to use the resources we have. We need the university to build more on-
campus housing for students otherwise all homes will be overrun by the demand for student rentals. I feel our
housing development plans are so focused on attracting young professionals who may love to come to boulder for
a while, but when it's time for them to settle down they are forced to move out of town to find affordable homes.
We need more single family homes to build a long-term community, not more high density apartments to line the
pockets of developers.
• We need to make it so people can actually AFFORD to live in this worndeful city! Whether that's rent control, tying
rent directly to income or another method we have got to make it so living here is not restricted to the wealthy.
• We need to create policy to target the unsociable behaviour from students and spread this housing density across
the city to encourage families to purchase the single family homes on the Hill and restore community and utilise
the 2 schools in this area. The current behaviour is unacceptable and does not and should not represent Boulder.
• We need to balance incremental changes with stability. Please avoid any radical changes. There will be tons of
unintended consequences from significant changes. Please do not destroy single family neighborhoods.
• We need an overlay zone for Uni Hill - our neighborhood is unique as we already have lots of duplex/ triplex and
grandfathered "over" occupancy. Three unrelated is critical for Uni Hill.
• We need all of these changes. I am a 31 year old renter with limited housing options inside my budget. We really
really need occupancy limit reform, more housing development, and parking reform to make Boulder a welcoming
community. (Have you read the high cost of free parking by don shoup?)
• We must preserve the heritage of our unique neighborhoods in Boulder. Without them Boulder will not be Boulder.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
99
• We must have zoning guidelines in neighborhoods near CU. If not investors will merely stuff more students in and
there will be no positive impact for permanent residents looking for lower rental options. This would be an
absolute disaster for Uni Hill and Martin Acres.
• We are building and building and building in Boulder, but I feel like this addresses the symptoms and not the
problems. Many of these newer apartments sit empty because they are still too small and expensive. Families who
want single family homes or larger apartments move out of Boulder. The amount of rent without option of owning
apartments in Boulder doesn't equal what is needed. So these apartments draw short-term rental needs for adults
without children and families move away. Mark Wallach said in a meeting that in the buildings on 30th, only 4 -7
families moved in so while we build and build, we aren't meeting the needs, school populations are dropping and
we approve anything, regardless of it meeting the actual affordable housing problem. Developers constantly
stretch the truth (aka lie) about their plans, the proximity to amenities and how their high end rental apartments
will build community, and we just let them lie because the prevalent idea appears to be that we can build
ourselves into affordable housing. We cannot. The prices continue to climb so percentage does not meet need.
Density in the urban center along 28th and 30th is great, but again, high priced rental housing is treating the
symptom. What about forcing the developers to come through on affordable spaces like Freuhaufs? We are as
empowered as we want to be as a city. We should hold them accountable to their word.
• Very tilted towards development. You really can't present an objective poll?
• until higher capacity transit is available parking must be planned for
• Unrelated-occupancy limits do not only impact affordability -- they also impact flexibility for people who want to
live together co-operatively but are not legally related.
• This questionaire uses a lof of leading (i.g., not neutral) questions that greatly reduces it's statistical validit. For
example, it repeatedly frames relaxing occupancy requirements as a measure that would increase affordability,
which is a dubious assumption at best. In Boulder relaxing occupancy limits likely does nothing to increase
affordability and instead is likely just a windfall for landlords as they will likely keep the rent per person the same
and increase the total rental income per property. This increases the value of properties and thus property taxes,
ultimately putting pressure on low to middle income property owners. Net result: 1) Rental costs likely similar, 2)
Taxes for owner-occupied properties increase, and 3) Absentee landlord income increases. So in the end one can't
help but wonder if this is all being pushed by absentee landlords at the expense of owner occupied properties. For
these reasons please do not increase occupancy.
• This has been done in a number of cities in our country and it has been unsuccessful and note supported by
residents living in single family homes.
• This had been voted on and failed to pass.
• This campaign to over-rule the clear results of the community vote results is not honest or democratic.
The result of forcing through and justifying these illegal changes will cause more problems for all and greater
profits for developers and non-local investors.
• These proposed options are all black and white.
There are many other ways to help the community adapt to increased density
• There is no protection against predatory practices against renters. While living in the area for the past 10 years I've
been scammed out of thousands of dollars on "application fees" & "processing fees" & the like while
attempting to rent. Often times if you are not selected for the apartment they keep your $500+ fee. I've also had
landlords & apartment complexes request additional deposit money (saying it will be returned at move out)
that they then claimed I never put down towards renting. This is without any damage to the property. I've also
never lived in an apartment where the rent was not increased by $100+ every year. This keeps renters on the move
to be able to afford where they live. It's predatory & absolutely unregulated. Renters need laws &
services to protect them from these practices.
• The use of the word barriers has a negative connotation & appears to lead one to answer in favor of
eliminating zoning standards "Boulder should eliminate zoning standards that are barriers to building...". The
question is misleading, in my opinion.
In terms of increasing non-related occupants, duplexes & triplexes along with reducing parking requirements
to produce more affordable housing is wholly fallacious. Boulder's inelastic real estate market, like many desirable
cities, will not drive down prices. In fact, it will have the opposite effect of increasing the cost of land and
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
100
improvements, driving out families only to enrich landlords and developers. There are much more sound
approaches in providing low and middle-income housing stcock.
• The opposition concern about noise complaints has no validity in comparison to the racial & economic
disparities that have historically and presently take place in Boulder
• The City cannot treat all neighborhoods the same. Increasing # of unrelated residents is not the same for
professional and employed individuals as undergraduate students. Increased student housing cannot come at the
expense of family housing. Find a way to distinguish between populations and encourage CU to help develop more
student housing as they continue to have increased enrollment.
• The changes currently proposed by City Council will do more harm than good. Unintended consequences can be
difficult to reverse.
• The areas adjacent to the CU campus should be treated differently than the rest of the city, since student housing
does not serve the same purpose or goals as housing in the rest of the city. Housing costs to price-insensitive
college students are unlikely to reduce as a result of increased occupancy limits.
• Thanks for looking into ways for building more housing and letting folks legally inhabit spaces (because it's
happening whether it's legal or not)
• Thanks for all your outreach to students and trying to exclude neighbors! I am really angry. I want affordable
housing, I don't want my neighborhood further devastated by student rentals, the process ignores residents'
concerns altogether, what about excluding CU adjacent neighborhoods, but I guess that's not your plan! Sorry, but
I am really mad!
• Take the smallest lot size of a current single family home and allow larger lots to be subdivided to that size.
Families want single family homes.
• Studies show exclusionary zoning to be detrimental to the development of social capital for those who have less,
making it harder for them to advance. Boulder should do all it can to end those practices that stand in the way of
people's advancement.
• Stop with the pro-growth, density. We have established single family neighborhoods (SFN). This will destroy the
quality of life without helping low income/middle income households stay. This will only help students and
property owners who will charge more at the expense of SFN. Martin Acres is a small neighborhood with small
homes and modest property. We already take the brunt of students impact (trash, unkempt yards, noise, parking,
parties, over occupancy). This re-zoning is an attack on Martin Acres...where else are you thinking people will
go...this was the last bastion of sanity for affordable housing and now folks are being pushed out of the rental
marker. Students will fill that gap. Many of Boulder's other neighborhoods will not be impacted due to HOA,
restrictions, or exorbitant rental costs. No one will rent a home in NoBo that is $5M. This is going to impact Martin
Acres and the Hill disproportionately. Stop it!
• Stop ruining residential zoning. This survey is tricky. If it had said “In new building areas.” I might have answered
yes on some of the questions. But the problem with allowing more unrelated people to live in homes in established
residential areas is that in reality each one of them has a honey and you end up with 8-10 vehicles zooming in and
out from each house all day long which is not pleasant. Also, nothing will reduce housing costs in Boulder as long
as the University adds more and more freshmen every year. Boulder has built extensive apartments recently and
costs have gone up not stabilized.
• Simply putting more faces in each boulder single family home window WILL NOT MAKE HOUSING MORE
AFFORDABLE. It only makes more housing at exactly the same price (or more) and will attract more investors to
outbid single family buyers of single family houses even more than the OUTRAGEOUS 36% increase in valuations
that we had this year!! How could a thinking person make that OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE STATEMENT? Obviously,
you are NOT thinking. Very obviously!
• Put a cap on rent that can be charged
• Preserve parking requirements in single family neighborhoods
• Please put any changes on to ballots for citizens to vote on these adjustments to zoning and o ccupancy. Because
Boulder is a college town and tourist town (with almost no maximums of airbnbs) any changes have a massive
impact on long-term residents, families, and non college students.
These surveys are very incomplete because they propose ideas that are not holistic enough to solve the issues.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
101
Raising occupancy will not make housing more affordable.
Please consider overlay areas where an increase of occupancy won't occur, especially where there are many
historic homes whose historic contribution to the character and enjoyment of the town are not allowed to be split
up and have increased occupancy. Those most often become student housing and they aren't kept up and then we
lose history along with housing for non students. And please please make CUBoulder provide more, much more,
housing for it's students. If they provided an adequate amount of housing so many issues in the town would be
solved.
• Please publish data in similar cities where increasing occupancy limits has led to lower rental rates. If Boulder is
going to increase occupancy, it should be accompanied by an increased number of inspectors who can ensure
compliance.
• Please have the political courage to move past the NIMBYs.
• Please allow for ADUs, especially in rural Boulder County where there is a high need for rentals.
• People love to live in walkable, quiet cities; it's why Pearl Street is loved so much. By increasing townhome
construction, and decreasing parking lot requirements, Boulder can not only improve the quality of life for its
citizens but make our town safer, nicer, and more affordable. Boulder should be a place where all people who
work her can live here, and eliminating single family zoning and eliminating minimum parking requirements would
be a step in that direction.
• Occupancy laws are not being enforced and my neighborhood is packed to the gills with student houses with 4-5
students, each with a car, so I can't park on my own street, noise from parties and late night shouting wakes me
and my family up at night, and in the summer there is overturned garbage in the alley every night. The Hill was not
build for college students. CU needs to house their sophomores.
• NOTHING mentioned in this questionnaire GUARANTEES affordability. It is all theoretical based on rudimentary
economics (supply/demand). This view sadly ignores the outside influence of the City's appeal, which is being
directly driven upwards by the Chamber of Commerce. There is a price to pay when the Chamber sets a goal of
reaching the published Top 10 Places to Live each year, and that price is higher costs of living. Stop promoting and
the demand will decrease. Increasing density does not create a solution by itself, but it does create a disruption to
the community.
Regarding new multiplex projects, the City should take the following steps to GUARANTEE affordable housing is
created.
- Increase the affordability percent required with each new project
and/or
- Increase Cash in Lieu Of. Presently this is a dollar per dollar of build costs. The silly thing is the cash payout does
not take into account the payout money starts deflating the moment the city receives it. If the City receives
1,000,000 today, it will be worth 900K when time actually comes to build an affordable unit 2-5 years down the
road. As you can see, the Cash in Lieu Of option is short changing the affordable community.
• Not having adequate infrastructure, safety measures, resources, and police presence to address the impact of the
additional cars, people, congestion, and noise is a significant problem.
• No increase to occupancy on the hill.
• Neighborhoods like Uni Hill and Martin Acres should be exempt from any occupancy rule changes. Those areas are
already overcrowded and cannot possibly deal with more student rentals. Let’s not kid ourselves and pretend that
allowing landlords to pack in more students, into homes in those neighborhoods wil lead to more affordable
housing. Rents will not go down. Landlords will charge the same per person rate and just put more people into
each house.
• Need to have carve out places that a plagued by high density housing such as Uni Hill neighborhood, Martian acres
and similar places.
• My feeling is that if you increase occupancy, it will not result in affordability. Landlords will simply raise rents to a
per-person charge and get what they can get in this market of constant demand. I expect it would maybe help CU
house students (they don't provide ample housing for their ever-increasing enrollment), but for families with kids,
let's say, it will push the rent out of even the realm of possibility further diluting the purpose. There should be more
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
102
emphasis on creating permanently affordable housing. The developer/linkage fees should be increase to support
this directly, and should not to be diluted or negotiated away.
• My boyfriend and I work in Boulder and have rented here for a long time. When our current lease is up we are
moving out of Boulder because it is too expensive to live here. Anything we could afford is too small or not in very
good condition and is not a good value for the money. We don't want to live with roommates, definitely not 3 extra
people. I'm not sure who would want to do that except for students. I'm not sure how having more peo ple allowed
will help anyone looking for more affordable housing, it doesn't seem like it will be less expensive that way,
landlords will just charge more for extra people. It also seems like a bad idea in general - too crowded, too many
cars in neighborhoods, etc. Maybe a better idea would be to get stricter with landlords who take advantage of
people, don't maintain their properties, that kind of thing. It also seems like a terrible idea for areas with lots of
students that already have tons of problems.
• Multi family outskirts where more land and cheaper
• Loosening requirements for ADUs and additional occupants doesn't just make housing more affordable but allows
more middle class people to afford to live here in their own houses by renting out bedrooms or ADUs. As a 40-year
renter and homeowner in Boulder, renting out a section of our family's house has always helped us financially and
has helped I and my children to expand our community of friends.
• Loosening parking requirements is an absolute necessity for maximizing potential for lower cost housing. For
example not allowing parking in front yard setbacks disqualifies many people in South Boulder from converting
garages to living space. Just that one simple zoning change could do a lot. Even more preferable would be
eliminating parking requirements in all residential areas as every driveway takes up two street parking spots.
Comprehensive parking reform is necessary to affect zoning change as well as looking at unnecessary setbacks on
building envelopes.
• limit HOA reach, they do a lot of harm to low income families and the climate(grass lawns and certain other
requirements
• Less fascism, more housing for the 50-60% of us that can’t afford to buy a single family home.
• It’s too crowded now. Cramming more people into small spaces isn’t a solution
• It’s obscene what rent is here. NIMBY is everyone’s anthem. I want to leave. But I know Boulder can be better. Now?
It looks like a California Silicon Valley town. Enough ! Change is needed.
• It would be helpful to make it more affordable for people who actually work in Boulder to be able to live here. The
cost of living I.e. rental prices as well as buying options are not friendly to those of us that actually work here.
• It all depends on WHERE the housing is located. I am very against what Boulder City & County tried to do in
Gunbarrel, which was to change the zoning (and intention) of land in order to build a massive number of
apartments in an area that couldn't support that kind of traffic and was far from transit and shopping. Meanwhile,
there is available land across the street from both that is sitting vacant. There are single-family neighborhoods that
should not be converted to more density, while there are more urban areas that would be fine for greater density.
This survey doesn't focus enough on where. One rule doesn't fit all.
As well, stop having everything be built as 'luxury'. Nothing is just a regular dwelling any longer. So when the rent
or sales price is set, it is already unaffordable. The biggest obstacle seems to be the developers who don't want to
build if it isn't upscale, so they can make greater profits. And cash-in-lieu isn't working. Research shows that
integrated-income apartment/condo neighborhoods are better for communities than segregated (like a ghetto).
What happened with Diagonal Crossing was shameful.
• I'm for more affordable housing options but not at the expense of open space reduction or habitat destruction (ie
stop wiping out our endangered species just to build housing).
• I'm being priced out of the city I love. I've been in my current home for 9 years but the landlord passed away and it
feels like the world is ending because every other comparable place on the market is $1500-2500 more per month
than what we were paying. It's legitimately destroying my life, and our small handmade jewelry business is being
forced out to move to some other city with more affordable rent. I keep getting denied on housing applications for
having too many roommates even though we only have a married couple and 2 roommates (legal in Boulder).
Something has to be done :(
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
103
• I think any changes you make are going to be met with as much support as you'll find detraction. The only real
answer to the housing crisis is to build more inventory but there needs to be limitations or restrictions put on who
can purchase and own. Many small resort towns have deed restrictions (which are a terrible idea if they only allow
small increase in values per year) or they require people to work a minimum number of hours within the city or
county limits. That's a much better idea. Building more inventory doesn't help in a super wealthy area where
investors have the cash to outbid the working class and buy up the properties to turn around and rent out as an
investment property. Also, don't allow this conversation to get derailed by people who want to focus on the
homeless population. These proposed changes are not affecting whether there is a place for a crackhead to live in
a house, this needs to remained focused on the working and aging populations of Boulder and to make things
more sustainable for them.
• I think allowing duplexes and triplexes could be the most useful zoning change. Areas like Whittier are centrally
located and well-served by public transit, but are currently forced to remain at suburban densities. Relaxing zoning
to allow commercial establishments like corner stores could also greatly increase the appeal of these kinds of
neighborhoods.
• I support changes that encourage homeowners to build ADUs on their property
• I strongly feel that lifting occupancy limits will not make rent more affordable, especially for CU students and
workers. Rents will remain high and more occupants will be stuffed into an old home. We will have more
congestion, especially around campus.
• I live on the Hill with my wife and three kids. All my non-student neighbors strongly oppose expanded occupancy.
Student overcrowding in residential areas is a major issue on the Hill, and will drive families to move away from the
area. If expanding occupancy is improtant for affordable housing projects in Boulder, please include an
amendment to this change for the Hill and other neighborhoods adjacent to the university that would exempt
them from occupancy increases. This is crucial to the health, safety, and affordability of these neighborhoods.
Otherwise, this change will destroy multiple neighborhoods, cause families to move farther out into Boulder, and
put more pressure on the housing market in Boulder. Ironically, this will increase Boulder housing projects before
any positive impact may actually happen. In addition, a version of this change was voted down by Boulder voters
in 2021. Please add this proposal to the November ballot. To enact this, after a negative vote, directly is not a
democratic way to move this issue forward and will erode trust in the Boulder City Council.
Thank you
• I have lived on The Hill since 1998 and I really enjoy living among students in addition to families, young
professionals, and retirees. While I am in favor of the loosening of rules to allow more ADUs in owner occupied
homes, I think it would be a very big mistake to make blanket increases in occupancy requirements. As I'm sure
you know, there are a lot of people who profit greatly from their investments in student housing near the
university. Unfortunately, many of those investors make clear by their actions that maintaining the cleanliness and
livability of our neighborhood for all of its diverse inhabitants is not a concern for them. There is no reason to think
that they won't increase rents along with occupancy thus eliminating the intended benefit for students, let alone
permanent residents (or those who would like to be). Perhaps I and others would reconsider my opinion on
occupancy limits if they come with more guardrails and CU and the city hold students to a higher standard. While
many students are wonderful members of our community, there is also a significant number who behave without
regard for others and there doesn't seem to be a desire by either the city of CU to hold them accountable for being
decent neighbors and community members. Please reconsider changing occupancy limits at this time and, if you
decide it's appropriate to go forward, please exclude The Hill and other areas surrounding CU. Sincerely, Julia
Hellerman
• I doubt that increasing occupancy limits will reduce the price per tenant cost in any case. I fear such an increase
will simply benefit investors and increase the rental homes/owned homes ratio which is detrimental to
neighborhoods.
• I don't believe raising occupancy limits will increase affordability at all. I think raising occupancy limits will only
benefit landlords and have negative impacts for established single family neighborhoods. I would like to see more
city/CU sponsored initiatives that make Boulder more affordable for families and CU employees. I think CU needs
to commit to providing more affordable student housing rather than making affordable housing for students a city
responsibility.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
104
• I believe that an overlay zone for the Hill and other neighborhoods adjacent to the university that would exempt
them from occupancy increases is crucial to the health, safety, and affordability of these neighborhoods. I also
believe that the current city council should place on this November's ballot any increase in occupancy they
propose.
• I am a resident of the Hill. I do not support increasing occupancy limits in residential homes because I have seen
what overcrowded tenancy does. In too many cases, revolving door tenants do not take care of the building or the
garden and they do not take care of their trash. In years past we had an over occupied house near us, with six
students. They had six cars, three dogs, and because they did not all share the same friends, twice the parties. At
move-out, the excess furniture was left in the alley. It is not a situation that encourages the families of teachers,
police officers, health care workers and other infrastructure folks to want to live nearby.
Meanwhile, it is a false assumption to believe that more tenants means more affordability. In a tight, University-
based housing market, landlords set rental rates per tenant, not by square footage. Thus, increasing residential
occupancy simply enriches landlords by $1200 per additional tenant per month.
Meanwhile, your questionnaire mis-states the reality of what is legal currently. Two families (or sets of unrelated
people) can already live in our residential neighborhoods, in the case of an ADU. ADUs are much preferable to over-
occupancy. An ADU must be permitted for construction. The ADU therefore is set out to appropriately address the
space needs of somewhere near ten people. In our neighborhood, most ADUs are well maintained, affordable, and
tend to draw longer term tenants. The original owners tend to stay, thus keeping a multigenerational community.
Families are not dissuaded by the dilapidated appearance of a poorly managed rental next door. Thus the impact
on the neighborhood from ADUs is entirely different from over-occupied rentals.
This is true also of duplexes and triplexes on lots of appropriate size. The repurposing of single family homes on
30th Street between Bixby and Colorado is a great example of this change. One could imagine similar changes
along Moorhead. There is a triplex being retrofitted out of a single family home at 9th and Cascade, right across the
street from a rental home plus ADU. These are both very appropriate housing options for those corners. Multi-
family housing fashioned from older homes has also been successful along Baseline at Tenth Street for decades.
These are the kind of occupancy infill projects that are sensitive to the neighborhood and do not drive families
away.
There was an excellent article in the New York Times this week about affordable housing in Vienna. (“Vienna:
Renters’ Paradise”) The article made a number of good points that smaller sized individual living spaces can be
quite appealing when they are well located, are in multi-generational communities, and are well maintained. It
talked about creating housing stock with limited equity options so that the market remains affordable, as is true
with Boulder’s affordable ownership housing developments. I can’t figure out how to insert the link to the article
but hope some of you may look at it.
On another topic: in 2019, the Boulder Housing Authority issued an excellent White Paper on solutions to the issues
of unhoused individuals. They proposed secure parking lots for people who live in cars or campers, tiny house
villages, and dispersed campsites for tents, with sanitation provided. What has happened to those good ideas?
Right now our most marginally capable folks are living in our most prominent public spaces, and instead of helping
them build supportive community, our enforcement activity disrupts what might be viewed as supportive
relationships. I hope Council will revisit the White Paper solutions and begin to implement them. The day center
being built on Folsom is a good start, while building stand-alone, unobserved bathrooms (as at 9th and Canyon) is
just an invitation to vandalism.
I hope Council will take actions that will effectively address the City’s affordable housing needs while supporting
the desires of many families to live in well maintained walkable multigenerational neighborhoods. Repeating the
mistakes of housing on The Hill is not a good strategy.
• Federally, the standard is no more than 2 people per bedroom - If it works, federally, I think it could work for
Boulder. That said, no one is taking bathrooms per person into account - For my family (and most humans, I would
think), bathroom access matters just as much if not more than bedroom space. Finally, I would also look into
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
105
square footage; I have read that ~170sq ft/person is the "happiness space" requirement; The Engineering Toolbox
states that it is 100-400 sq ft/person.
• Exempt CU-adjacent neighborhoods from any change to occupancy or parking.
• Exclude CU-adjacent from any discussion of changes to occupancy or zoning. These areas are already
overcrowded. Please don’t make me carry bags of groceries 2 blocks due to lack of parking. It would be nice if the
city would fund enforcement of the noise, trash and occupancy ordinances.
• Duplexes on SF lots only
• Do not increase occupancy on The Hill. Do not reduce parking requirements. Focus changes to occupancy and
affordability in areas which are suitable. Be sensible and act responsibly.
• Clearly no one on the city council lives in a student area (e.g., the hill) like I do. If you did you would see what
overcrowding has done to the neighborhood and would probably be concerned with what expanded occupancy
would mean for the non-student residents of these area. The voters rejected increasing occupancy limits recently.
THE BIGGER PROBLEM IS THE STUDENTS ARE ILLEGALLY SUBLEASING TO OTHER PEOPLE TO FILL THE HOUSE IN
BLATANT DISREGARD TO THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS MEASURE IS ONLY GOING TO
BENEFIT THE OPPORTUNISTIC LANDLORDS WHO DON'T LIVE IN THE HILL AND ARE "MISSING OUT" OF INCREASED
RENTS NOT BEING PAID TO THEM!!! 😡😡😡😡😡😡
• Clearly no one on the city council lives in a student area (e.g., the hill) like I do. If you did you would see what
overcrowding has done to the neighborhood and would probably be concerned with what expanded occupancy
would mean for the non-student residents of these area.
Plus, didn’t the voters reject this increase occupancy initiative in the past? Oh wait, how silly of me to think that
you people care about the vote of the people you allegedly represent. Strange view of democracy if you ask me.
• Boulder is going to ruin the reason people want to live here by increasing occupancy limits. Forcing CU to house
their students with actual CU owned building complexes would open up the market for homes that the city of
Boulder could purchase and utilize for affordable housing.
• Boulder is DENSE enough... it cannot support CONTINUAL influx and increasing density at the expense of current
and long time taxpayers - just because "we want to live in Boulder"
• Areas near there campus are already too dense with people who have no interests in being members of the
community. A short stop on their life journey, already experimenting with breaking the limits of property and
neighborhood respect.
• Any increase to occupancy will be exploited by landlords and rental companies on the hill and not result in lower
cost of living but more bedrooms at the same price and a lower standard of living. Many renal agencies are
neglectful at best and in many cases predatory. Broadly increasing occupancy is not in Boulder's best interest.
• Allow ADUs without restriction
• Affordability for housing is needed. However, not at the risk of compromising single family neighborhoods. This is
a betrayal of the people who bought their homes with the assurance single-family zoning would persist.
• ADUs should be allowed in all residential zones if the primary residence is owner occupied and if there have been
no complaints filed against the address in 5 years- they should be required to be licensed every 5 years or when
property ownership changes.
It should be understood that while it will increase the number of rental units, the property with the ADU will
become more valuable thus less affordable.
• Adding housing will not make Boulder more affordable unless there are explicit affordability provisions attached to
that housing. See, e.g. New York City, San Francisco, any dense city.
• Add density ONLY if the changes can be concurrent with water, sewer and road/transportation needs. Eliminating
parking requirements makes sense close to transit/bus lines. But adding more cars on the road with density
requirements without increasing capacity on roadways will negatively impact quality of life for residents. - PS - I
started studying infill housing and been a part of this discussion since 1999, beginning in Seattle. Please study and
use west coast examples if affordable housing policy.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
106
• 1. Who is it other than students that would want to live 4 or 5 to a house? Certainly not most couples or families. I
was there, once. Now as a senior, I would like a smaller home, but not to share. None to be found in Boulder. 2. I've
lived in a home on a corner on the Hill, in theory there were 8 parking spaces, my husband and I could rarely find
one nearby. 3. Let's stop building McMansions, please. So wasteful in so many ways. Give incentives to sellers to
encourage splitting lots. Putting 2 or 3 cottage homes on such lots would be my suggestion. 4. Have CU house all of
their undergraduates in campus housing. How many homes would that free up for working folks? It also would
abate the 'student- slums'. And get rid of out of state investor mania that has harmed many neighborhoods. 5. As
we learned during COVID, cramming too many people in places is harmful to all. 6. Stop promoting the very poor
public transportation. Buses in a small city are difficult to access for many. If you have kids, grandkids, pets,
groceries, or home projects, impossible to use. Plus, too scary to ride now.
Ask the residents. A survey with proposals from city 'staff' is the worst way to engage in solutions, that are
beneficial to those that live here.
• *You have lumped together options that I feel differently about. So there is ambiguity in my answers (and
everyone's) because of these constraints in your questionnaire. **Where is the evidence that either of these issues
(occupancy, parking, duplexes, triplexes, (which your survey should be asking about with separate questions) will
make housing more affordable? People in my neighborhood are already occupying above the limit and that has
had absolutely no visible effect on the affordability of their housing. If you add occupants, that seems to simply
increase the amount the co-housed people will pay for the same space.
***The 'no zoning' approach bombed all over the state. I suspect it would bomb here, too, if you had objective
ways of collecting people's opinions. Boulder's co-opted housing dreamers, heavily funded by real estate
profiteers, were a lone voice in the state-wide discussion of these issues. But the need for real evidence that these
proposed changes would provide the desired result is a first step. Before you start asking people for their input,
you need to do your homework and get the data.
Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary
From:M Woolley
To:Guiler, Karl
Subject:ADUs and Occupancy Limits
Date:Friday, March 31, 2023 12:48:38 PM
External Sender
Hi Karl,
I am a property owner on the Hill, and my house is currently used as a
licensed rental. The address is 912 9th Street.
I am writing today to ask that my voice be heard in the deliberations concerning
occupancy limits. Currently, my house’s occupancy is limited to 3 unrelated
persons, but I have 4 bedrooms, and enough space to accommodate a 4th person
easily.
My concern is that the use of my property is being limited, while others are
encouraged to build out or construct ADUs to add more living space. It doesn’t
seem fair to allow others to invite more people in, or ask others to spend money to
make more space, while limiting the use of my space, which could easily
accommodate another person. While the debate about ADUs and trying to
increase housing options for those who need it swirls around, my 4th bedroom
remains empty. It doesn’t seem fair, nor logical.
Can the City relax the occupancy limit on the Hill to allow for 4 unrelated
persons, instead of 3? This would allow me to make the empty living space I
currently have (at no further expense to myself or the City) available for use for
someone.
If a blanket change from 3 to 4 persons for the area is not possible, could the City
at least address this issue on a case by case basis? I feel it is unfair to allow my
neighbor to build an ADU to make more living space, while I have great space
already available that cannot be used.
I hope this makes sense, and am hopeful that my voice will be heard in the
ongoing deliberations regarding occupancy limits.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Best,
Margaret Woolley
626-298-3001
Margiewoolley@yahoo.com
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From:tony smith
To:Guiler, Karl
Cc:Bob Yates; Stanek, Cate
Subject:COMMUNES
Date:Thursday, June 29, 2023 12:55:02 PM
External Sender
Hello Karl;
3 unrelated people in one house in residential neighborhoods is plenty
If this limit is increased it will mean up to 5 cars parked at one house,
more noise, more drug use, more dogs etc
This increase should be allowed in the county but not the city
This should be called the commune amendment because that’s what it is
Just like the hippies had in the 60’s
If this amendment is to be approved, be sure to have restrictions
like only in neighborhoods with bigger lots, room for more dogs, room for more cars, no
neighbors too close
Basically it will not work in central Boulder where the houses are close together.
Make sense?
Tony Smith
In God We Trust
From:R. Porath
To:Guiler, Karl
Subject:Fw: Occupancy
Date:Thursday, May 4, 2023 4:19:38 PM
External Sender
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: R. Porath <porath005@earthlink.net>
Sent: May 4, 2023 4:14 PM
To: Brockett <brocketta@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Fw: Occupancy
I had planned to attend, sign up, and speak tonight, but your sign-up firewall has prevented that. This is my take on
occupancy and ADUs.
I came to Boulder as a bright-eyed freshman in 1964. 59 years is a long time. Time does fly by. In those years
Boulder and the University have changed exponentially. I recently had a small personal epiphany that CU and the
Boulder of my memory and imagination no longer exist. Commerce completely rules the roost. As Kurt Vonnegut
put it, "So it goes." Change is inevitable, but I believe we can influence what that change can be. Such is the essence
of democracy. As I see it, the impetus of change here simply boils down to gentrification, the power of money to
dominate property transactions. I live in Martin Acres and we, and other neighborhoods bordering the main campus,
feel under siege from the University's constant expansion, Our current quality of life and community integrity are
threatened by the influx of student rentals, "student-ification" if you will. The Council's proposed changes to
occupancy and ADU regulations will only make this worse. We are also inundated by queries and offers to buy from
"pop the top" speculators and LLC landlord companies hoping to expand their hold on the neighborhood. Bye,bye
single-family homes, hello multi-occupancy "landlord-ification". This is what happens when money becomes a
community's driving force. That this is a Democratic Party policy initiative fronted by Jared Polis is beyond
saddening, the lack of imagination staggering. Believing "affordable housing" will result from a libertarian land grab
is a Don Quijote quest for fool's gold. Rents will only come down when landlords reduce them, and that isn't going
to happen. Profit is ever the motive, however community well-being should never be marginalized. Hard as it may
seem these days, there are life considerations and concepts beyond the God almighty dollar. Robert Porath Boulder
303-499-9889
From:Susan Jeter
To:Guiler, Karl
Subject:Increased occupancy
Date:Thursday, June 29, 2023 12:40:53 PM
External Sender
N O!!!!!!!
Sent from my iPhone
From:roland madden
To:Guiler, Karl
Subject:more than three unrelated
Date:Monday, May 22, 2023 9:02:25 PM
External Sender
sorry i missed the deadline. just in case ears
are still open, i would like to add my opinion. I live
in martin acres where parking and noise can be a
problem. things are fine on my street (s. 38th), but
i fear if our 1050 sqft houses are allowed to have
more than three unrelated persons my situation
could worsen and the situation on streets where
parking and noise are already problems will get
more difficult.
further i think we need evidence that higher
density in rental houses will make rent more
affordable. i suspect the cost person will remain
the same allowing investors to make more money
with no improvement for renters. This more
favorable money making opportunity can easily
increase the rental/ownership ratio which is
always at the detriment of a neighborhood.
thank you, roland madden
From:Peter Barlerin
To:Guiler, Karl
Subject:Occupancy Limits
Date:Thursday, June 15, 2023 12:35:37 PM
External Sender
Karl:
Forwarding to you my draft comments to City Council this evening. The
subject matter notwithstanding, I found the report you did to be quite
informative.
Peter Barlerin (2400 665-2962
Good evening. Members of the council, city of Boulder staff: with
respect, the renewed drive to relax occupancy limits is not your finest
hour.
November 2021’s Ballot Question 300, whose proponents labeled
Bedrooms are for People, lost by 52 to 48.
If you want to re-open the question, the proper course of action would
be a new ballot initiative, introduced in a subsequent election.
Some may have seen the recent New York Times piece about the
favorable climate renters enjoy in Vienna, Austria. The article refers to
upzoning in many countries, including the United States, saying – and I
quote – “Often the benefits of allowing greater density are captured by
developers, who price the new units far above cost. It doesn’t offer
renters security or directly create the type of housing most needed:
affordable housing.” What is true for upzoning is also true for
increasing occupancy limits.
The City could do more of what it’s already doing, working through
Boulder Housing Partners with not-for-profit organizations like Thistle
and through the Emergency Family Assistance Association to renovate,
build, and maintain more affordable housing.
The City could use some of the receipts from revised property tax
assessments to buy more real estate. It could hold commercial real
estate developers to a higher standard: if they want to build, they
should be required to contribute more to affordable housing.
And if the University wants to keep adding more students, let it use
some of its choice land to build more on-campus housing.
Revisiting occupancy limits so soon after the voters have spoken is a bad
idea.
Thank you.
From:plarts80@comcast.net
To:Guiler, Karl
Subject:Occupancy limits
Date:Monday, July 3, 2023 10:17:03 AM
External Sender
Karl,
My wife and I firmly believe that allowing the increased occupancy in low-density zoned
housing is not going to solve anything. Without rent control or the elimination of cash-in-lieu
and the requirement of affordable or low income units in developments, the prospect of
affordable housing is all but lost. Market forces will always prevail, and as long as Boulder
remains as popular as it is then prices will remain high.
Sometimes we feel that single family homeowners such as ourselves are being discriminated
against. We chose to live in a low-density neighborhood and now if some people have their
way, we will be forced into a higher density living situation. It took us 45 years of loan
payments to achieve our goal of single-family ownership in a low-density area.
I like to use the example of Boulder being like a popular restaurant. If I go to the restaurant
(Boulder) and want to eat there without a reservation (down payment) I will get told that the
restaurant is full and to come back when I have a reservation. I am not allowed to demand that
the restaurant force a couple that is using a table for four to allow me to use that table as well.
This is what we feel is happening with the increased occupancy.
We feel that the continued build-out east of 30th street is a better way to increase the density
of Boulder.
Thanks for your time,
Peter Arts
1975 Glenwood Drive, Boulder
From:tanya saarva
To:Guiler, Karl
Subject:Occupancy Reform Review
Date:Thursday, June 29, 2023 2:16:19 PM
External Sender
Hi,
Didn’t the voters vote any increases in occupancy down?
How is it that city council representing the voters by doing exactly what we voted down?
I don’t understand…
If that’s how things work, maybe you could cancel the CU South development plans.
Thx,
Tanya
To : Boulder City Council
Date: June 12, 2023
Subject: Occupancy Reform and Zoning for Affordable Housing
Increasing occupancy limits or changing zoning regulations will never result in affordable housing if decisions are left to the real
estate, development, and rental investment markets without government oversight and intervention to ensure permanent affordability.
Boulder’s steep housing costs are the result of strong demand due to our high quality of life, as well as the imbalance between the
ever-increasing number of jobs and students in Boulder and the limited availability of affordable workforce and student housing.
To increase affordable housing, we must understand how much of each housing type we need, that we can build, and that we can
ensure is permanently affordable. However, there is nothing in the proposals the council is considering that will ensure increased
housing at prices low-, medium- and middle-income people could pay without being cost- or seriously cost-burdened. What they do
ensure is unnecessary impacts that will not be offset by any greater community benefit. This entire effort could potentially have
beneficial results if undertaken with more careful consideration of what will be required to achieve the desired results. Boulder needs a
housing study to understand what we have, what’s on the way, and what we need.
PLAN-Boulder County recommends the following actions to limit the harm the proposals you are considering could do to our city
prior to undertaking a more constructive approach:
Housing Study
• Conduct a housing study that quantifies all housing that exists in Boulder, all housing that has received development
approval, building permits or is under construction, and what housing gaps currently exist.
Occupancy Reform
• Apply an overlay zone prohibiting occupancy increases in neighborhoods surrounding the university, where the student
housing market threatens to squeeze out long-term renters and prospective homebuyers.
• Prohibit further occupancy increases for legal nonconforming properties that already allow increased occupancy.
• Place your preferred Occupancy Reform ordinance on this November’s ballot so citizens can vote on it. Although the
flaws in the 2021 Bedrooms Are for People ballot measure were apparent to everyone, voters also debated whether a one-
size-fits-all approach to increasing occupancy limits across the entire city with no mechanism to ensure affordability was
appropriate. This is the overly simplistic approach you are now considering. An opportunity to vote on the new ordinance
would assure citizens that this council is not attempting to overturn the will of the voters.
Zoning for Affordable Housing
• Do not support staff’s suggestion that duplexes and triplexes be introduced into low density zones on lots that are large
enough to subdivide, unless this entitlement is exchanged for a cap on the rent or purchase price that would make the units
affordable for middle-income earners. This is supposed to be zoning for affordable housing, and without this stipulation,
the result would be multimillion-dollar attached housing in exclusive low-density neighborhoods.
• Maintain the current Use Review for buildings with more than 40% Efficiency Living Units (studios <475 square feet) to
ensure that new construction includes housing types suitable for families, not just single people or couples who can live in
ELUs.
• Revise density calculations and introduce Floor Area Ratios for residential construction in Business zones only when
compatible with existing structures.
• Revise density calculations and introduce Floor Area Ratios for residential construction in Industrial zones only when they
do not present a threat to industrial businesses.
• Revise density calculations and introduce Floor Area Ratios for construction in High Density zones only when the
infrastructure of the area can sustain increased density and population growth.
Future Reforms to Ensure Affordable and Equitable Housing Options
• Support permanently affordable and family friendly housing for the middle-income bracket.
• Support Boulder’s down payment assistance program to encourage homeownership that will allow more people to build
generational wealth.
• Maintain the current requirement that ADUs be owner occupied to ensure that ADU rental income helps make home
ownership more affordable and does not increase speculation by investors, which would result in more unaffordable housing.
• Support the rezoning of currently underutilized business and commercial properties to encourage affordable mixed-use
developments with housing and parks that would appeal to families. The commercial space should prioritize businesses that
would also serve surrounding areas, enhancing walkability.
• Ensure that a mechanism to significantly increase affordability is tied to every land use change.
• Enter into negotiations with CU to limit the growth of the student population unless the university can provide adequate
housing and parking. Consider mechanisms to limit student growth if negotiations with CU are not successful.
Respectfully,
Peter Mayer
Allyn Feinberg
Co-Chairs, PLAN-Boulder County
June 13, 2023
Dear Mayor Brockett and City Councilmembers,
The University Hill Neighborhood Association is surprised and alarmed to see that you still favor one
inflexible increase in occupancy limits citywide, completely dismissing the issues facing neighborhoods
adjacent to the university. We request: 1) you reconsider an overlay zone exempting our
neighborhoods from an increase in occupancy limits and 2) you seriously consider including a
citywide prohibition on occupancy increases for legal nonconforming (grandfathered) properties
that already have much greater occupancy than the surrounding area.
The Hill is the most densely populated neighborhood in the city of Boulder due to the large number of
legal nonconforming properties that have been grandfathered in over the years. Single-family homes
were subdivided and fraternity and sorority buildings were built before zoning was introduced in 1928. In
the 1940’s many University Hill families added a small apartment in the basement or attic of their home
to accommodate World War II veterans studying on the GI Bill at CU. These homes were later sold to
investors as multi-family dwellings. A home for a family plus one tenant became a house with six
unrelated students. Raising occupancy limits to four or five people will result in eight or ten students in
each house.
For a clear example of the effects of higher occupancy, compare the blocks north of College Ave. that
were once lined with family homes to the area south of College Ave. where there is still a mix family
homes and student rentals. The houses to the north, which have been subdivided into multiple units with
a legal occupancy of four people per unit, are virtually all student rentals. Many homes to the south of
College Ave., where the occupancy is only three people, have not been subdivided and are owner
occupied. We encourage you to walk the neighborhood and imagine how closely the blocks north of
College Ave. once resembled the ones south.
The lucrative student rental market has attracted national investors with no ties to the community, who
pay cash for houses, outbidding prospective families and disrupting the tenuous balance between long-
term residents and students. The bottom line is: student rental rates are per student and not per unit or
home, with rates upwards of $1,500/person, and raising occupancy limits will only drive rents up further.
To assume investors are going to reduce what they charge is not realistic, and will merely make them
richer and make houses on the Hill even more unaffordable to families. The city council had a chance to
preserve the only affordable housing on the Hill at Marpa House, but chose to support the redevelopment
to 16-3BR luxury student rental units at $2,000/bedroom. THIS IS NOT AFFORDABLE TO
ANYONE.
A few years ago, Austin Texas, home of the University of Texas, instituted higher occupancy limits
across the board and it decimated the neighborhoods adjacent to the campus. Families moved out, only to
be replaced by more lucrative student rentals. Planners in that city have admitted these neighborhoods
will never recover. We face that same outcome if you do not take action to prevent it.
Over the years, the Hill has struggled with alcohol-fueled riots, out of control parties, deaths and serious
injuries due to intoxication, shootings, and by far the highest number of police calls for service in
Boulder. Please revisit the HRWG presentation made to you 2 years ago documenting these
alarming statistics. The city continues to allocate time and money into sponsoring the Hill Reinvestment
Working Group, comprised of city staff, CU staff, the Boulder and CU police departments, neighbors,
students, and landlords who have devoted countless hours to improving the physical and social
environment on the Hill. The group has just introduced ordinances to mitigate some of the most
widespread problems our neighborhood faces. These measures have taken years to craft, and are still too
new to evaluate. Increasing the population density before we have seen how these ordinances will
function makes no sense.
Again, we request you create an overlay zone that exempts the Hill and other university adjacent
neighborhoods that are currently struggling to find and implement solutions to current overcrowding from
even higher occupancy rates. If you really want to provide affordable housing for students, require the
new student housing developments that are asking for exceptions to the land use code to provide
affordability in exchange for special permitting. It will benefit the students and the greater community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
The University Hill Neighborhood Association Executive Committee
Nancy Blackwood
Stephen Clark
Mary Cooper Ellis
Elise Longbottom
Lisa Spalding
Valerie Stoyva
Evan Thomas