07.26.23 HAB Presentation Occupancy Ordinance KGuilerOccupancy Ordinance 8585
July 26, 2023
Karl Guiler
Senior Policy Advisor
Planning & Development Services
Housing Advisory Board Recommendation
1
Occupancy Reform project
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.
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.2
Purpose
•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.
•Hold Public Hearing on Ordinance 8585
•Discuss the Occupancy Ordinance 8585
•Housing Advisory Board recommendation to City Council
3
Questions for Housing Advisory Board
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?
4
Information of interest to occupancy
•Senate Bill 23-213 – Many iterations, middle housing, ADUs, occupancy; ultimately not passed
•National studies, commentaries & articles – Most suggest:
o Zoning restrictions greatly limit housing availability;
o Restricted housing supply (among other factors) drives up housing costs;
o Add housing to increase affordability;
o challenges even higher for high demand communities with limited land;
o no one option can solve the problem
•Washington, Oregon and California – State legislation and court rulings have made occupancy based on people’s relationship illegal. Most communities in process of making changes and as changes are relatively new, few have seen what outcome looks like
5
What is Occupancy?
•Building Code: Regulations intended for life and safety
to avoid dangerous conditions that could occur from
too many people occupying a space.
•Zoning Regulations: Some communities have opted to
have additional occupancy limits that are more
restrictive than the building or fire code limits to avoid
other impacts, such as parking and/or noise, that
could occur from having a concentration of people in
spaces. Some motivations rooted in discrimination
against people of color and lifestyles.
6
Boulder’s Occupancy Limits
Definition of Family (Section 9-16) – No limit on number of family members, includes
marriage (incl. same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships)
# of Unrelated per Dwelling Unit (Section 9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling Units”)
(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, OR
(2) Up to three persons in P, A, RR, RE, and RL zones, OR
(3) Up to four persons in MU, RM, RMX, RH, BT, BC, BMS, BR, DT, IS, IG, IM, and IMS zones; OR
(4)Two persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship, including foster
children, or adoption.
ADU, Coops, and Group Living Uses (Section 9-8-6)
7
Boulder’s Occupancy Limits
Definition of Family (Section 9-16) – No limit on number of family members, includes marriage (incl. same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships)
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.
8
Boulder’s
Occupancy
Limits
4 people = MU, RM, RMX, RH, BT,
BC, BMS, BR, DT, IS, IG, IM, and
IMS zones
3 people = P, A, RR, RE, and RL
zones
9
Proposed Options (March 9 Study Session)
(A) Increase maximum # of occupants in all zones by 1
(B) Increase to 4 or to 5 unrelated citywide
(C) Only allow increased occupancy in SFD areas within owner
occupied units
(D) & (E) Only increase occupancy in non-SFD zones or non-SFD
units
(F) Overlays/Maps to not increase occupancy in certain areas
around University
(G) No change
10
Occupancy Reform
Potential impacts from occupancy
•On-street parking availability / increased activity on sites / trash & weeds / house parties
/ noise
•Areas with nonconforming occupancy -increased accounts from concentration of units
and people typically in neighborhoods adjacent to the University
•Policy question about whether these impacts should be specifically tied to occupancy or
handled directly
Enforcement approaches
•Police handles noise and parking in the ROW / P&DS handles occupancy or illegal
dwelling units and property maintenance
•Active enforcement of occupancy has been paused due to the pandemic & staff
constraints
•Complaints about occupancy are addressed / instances of over-occupancy must be
remedied by the next leasing cycle / instances of life safety are handled immediately
11
Community Engagement
•Continued engagement with neighborhood groups – Uni Hill, Martin Acres
•Aurora East block party outreach
•PLAN Boulder
•Hill Revitalization Working Group
•Dean’s Leadership and Values Committee
•Community Connectors-in-Residence
•Community Leaders conversations
•Office hours (virtual and in person)
•Housing Advisory Board and Planning Board meetings
•Be Heard Boulder questionnaire
•See Attachment B and Attachment C of memo for detailed summaries
12
Community Engagement
Be Heard Boulder Questionnaire:
•Not intended to be a statistically valid representation
•One tool among several methods to receive feedback and
viewpoints on projects to understand sentiments and
identify trends in the community
•Promoted to key stakeholders, contacting multiple
organizations, neighborhood groups, via NextDoor and other
social media platforms
•Open from April 27 through May 26
•Over 2,000 responses and over 1,000 written comments / city
acknowledges multiple responses from same devices
(roughly 300 submissions)
•Responses per topic will be discussed in each section of the
presentation or see Attachment C of memo for detailed
summary
13
Community Engagement
University adjacent neighborhoods – Will drive out families / benefits only
landlords / will not help unhoused
Aurora East – Student support for more housing options / homeowners not
against more people, but do experience parking impacts
Hill Revitalization Group – Need to make things easier for students / occupancy
should not be increased without guarantees for affordability
Dean’s Leadership and Values Committee - Boulder is crazy unaffordable / need
more housing security for students / students often too busy to get involved in city
business
Community Connectors-in-Residence – Support for removing occupancy limits
Community Leaders – Firsthand account of eviction / support for 5 unrelated /
University adjacent neighborhoods should be excepted out
14
Community Engagement
Be Heard Boulder responses on Occupancy Reform
•In general,
o 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”
o Majority of respondents did not support removing occupancy requirements
entirely
o Most respondents indicating owning their home - about 1/3 indicated
renting their home
o More support for changes among renters and younger participants
o More than half of respondents felt that regulations should not be left as is
15
City Council (June 15)
•City Council considered the data, studies and analogues that staff provided including
the information on peer communities that have either relaxed or eliminated
occupancy limits
•Council received public comment and reviewed the summaries of public sentiments
and feedback from Planning Board and Housing Advisory Board
•Direction:
o Proceed with preparing an ordinance to increase the number of unrelated
occupants to 5 citywide
o Prepare two code language options that would address occupancy increases in
nonconforming uses
16
Planning Board (July 25)
•Extensive discussion on:
-Required affordability
-Increasing occupancy for ELUs
-Whether the increase should be 4 or 5
•Motion to recommend approval (4-3) with the following conditions:
o Remove the nonconforming language of Section 9-8-5(d)
o Increase efforts to address nuisance behavior in the city
o The city should explore mechanisms for guaranteed affordability through deed
restriction for increases in occupancy from 3 or 4 up to 5 through the city’s rental
licensing program
17
Proposed Ordinance 8585
Occupancy increase (Section 9-8-5(a)):
•5 persons (from 3 and 4 unrelated persons depending on zoning district) on a citywide basis.
•2 to 3 persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship, including foster children,
or adoption.
•from 2 occupants to 3 occupants in efficiency living units as proportional increases to the five
unrelated citywide.
Nonconforming occupancy (Section 9-8-5(c)):
• Where the occupancy limit within a dwelling unit is greater than that permitted above
• Some occupancy limits will become conforming as a result of the changes above
• Would be subject to the existing limits in Section 9-8-5(c)
Nonconforming uses (Section 9-8-5(d)):
• Where occupancy per unit may be conforming, but the density or housing type on the lot is
nonconforming
•Neighbors and members of council raised the concern about allowing an increase of occupancy per
unit on such lots
• Council requested at least 2 options for prohibiting an increase in nonconforming uses
18
Proposed Ordinance 8585
Section 9-8-5(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) Unless the occupancy was established meeting the requirements of subsection (c) of this
section, the occupancy of a nonconforming use per dwelling 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).19
Proposed Ordinance 8585
Section 9-8-5(d): [Option A in Attachment A]
Option A (Citywide Nonconforming Uses):
(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.
Option B (Zones adjacent to the University):
(A) 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, or
(B) Two persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship, including
foster children, or adoption.
20
Staff Recommendation
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.
21
BVCP Policies
Growth Management Policy 1.11
Jobs: Housing Balance
Built Environment Policy 2.10
Preservation & Support for
Residential Neighborhoods
Housing Policy 7.01
Local Solutions to Affordable Housing
Housing Policy 7.08
Preserve Existing Housing Stock
Housing Policy 7.10
Housing for a Full Range of
Households
Recommended Motion for
Approval
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.
Schedule / Next Steps
•Office hours
•Upcoming City Council meetings
Upcoming Meetings Schedule 2023
Ordinance at City Council (no public hearing) August 3
City Council public hearing August 17
23
Questions?
Questions for Housing Advisory Board
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?
25
Scenario 1 –Conforming to conforming occupancy
(SFD & MFD)
26
Single Family Multi-Family
Scenario 2 –Nonconforming to conforming
occupancy (SFD & MFD)
27
Single Family Multi-Family
Scenario 3 –Nonconforming to nonconforming
occupancy (SFD & MFD)
28
Single Family Multi-Family
Scenario 4 –Nonconforming Use but conforming
to occupancy
29
Occupancy increase to 5 unrelated
per unit is NOT automatic as it would
be considered an “expansion of a
nonconforming use”. Current code
would require a Nonconforming Use
Review.
An increase up to 4 or 5 unrelated
per unit could be approved with
Nonconforming Use Review if the
criteria of Sections 9-2-15(e) and (f)
are met.
Section 9-8-5(d) is proposed to
prohibit such increases. See
Attachment A.
Occupancy Reform
Statistics:
% of rental licenses per occupancy zone
33.4% are in the 3-person zones
65.6% are in the 4-person zones
% of rental units per occupancy zone
3-person zone:
81.3% of the units are owner-occupied
18.7% of the units are rentals
4-person zone:
42.5% of the units are owner-occupied
57.5% of the units are rentals
30
Occupancy Reform
Building Code occupancy limits
•Zoning occupancy limits typically more restrictive
•International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC)-
o Minimum size of unit based on clearance requirements – 320 sf
o Minimum size for efficiency living unit (ELU) – 220 sf – No more than
3 people in an ELU
o Minimum bedroom size – 70 sf for 1 person, additional 50 sf for each
additional person
31