04.26.23 Presentation Matters to HAB on Occupancy.kgOccupancy Reform
Housing Advisory Board discussion
April 26, 2023
Purpose
Housing Advisory Board discussion
and feedback on Occupancy Reform
Planning & Development Services | Occupancy
Part 1: Background on
Occupancy
Part 2: Schedule / Next Steps
Part 3:State Legislation on
Land Use
Part 4: Occupancy
-History
-Current standards
-Other communities
-Community Engagement
-Options / City Council &
Planning Board direction
Part 5: Discussion / Feedback
Questions for Housing Advisory Board:
Occupancy Reform:
1.Does Housing Advisory Board have any questions on the city’s
occupancy regulations?
2.Does Housing Advisory Board have any questions related to the
occupancy reform project?
3.What feedback does the board have regarding the options that
City Council has requested for further analysis?
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.
Recent local developments on Occupancy
Bedrooms Are For People Ballot Measure
(# of bedrooms + 1, new definition of bedroom)
Did not pass but close (48% Yes vs. 52% No)
Community interest expressed in statistical surveys for occupancy reform
City Council Retreat 2022
Objective / Purpose for Occupancy Reform:
Perform a comparative analysis from other communities, develop a model occupancy approach,
and solicit community input for ordinance revisions.
Schedule / Next Steps
•In person & Virtual Office Hours
•Reaching out to stakeholders
•Be Heard Boulder questionnaire beheardboulder.org
Engagement/Feedback Occupancy Reform
Housing Advisory Board (HAB)April 26, 2023
Ordinance Development Q2/Q3 2023
Matters Check-in at City Council June 15, 2023
Ordinance at HAB/Planning Board July 2023
Ordinance at City Council August 2023
Proposition 123 / SB 23-213
Proposition 123
•Colorado ballot initiative passed in Nov. 2022
•Created the State Affordable Housing Fund / dedicates state income tax revenue
(roughly $290M/year) to fund housing programs
Colorado Senate Bill 23-213
•Proposed land use bill currently in deliberation –May prohibit occupancy limits,
require ADUs on all single-family lots without discretionary criteria, and middle
housing (up to quadplexes) by right in single-family neighborhoods. Outcome
uncertain.
History of Occupancy in Boulder
•Pre-1950 –Per “Family” definition
•1950s –Family or 5 unrelated persons
•1962 –Family or 3 unrelated persons
•1971 –Same as above –Family plus two roomers added
•1970s –Rezonings created non-conforming occupancies
•1980s –City records kept on the non-conforming occupancies
•1993 –Nonconforming occupancies eliminated
•1998 –Prior action reversed
•2017 –Special occupancy regulations for Coops
•2018 –Updated occupancy regs for ADUs
Boulder’s Occupancy Limits
Definition of Family (Section 9-16) –No limit on number of family members
# 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;
(2)Up to three 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 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)
Boulder’s
Occupancy
Limits
4 persons = MU, RM, RMX, RH,
BT, BC, BMS, BR, DT, IS, IG, IM,
and IMS zones
3 persons = P, A, RR, RE, and RL
zones
Other communities-
What has been learned?
Peer community analysis
o 60 communities –Looked at Family definitions, occupancy limits in SFD zones and outside
SFD zones
o Alternative ways of regulating occupancy –Variations of coops, regulating through family
definition, specific occupancy limits
o Some communities do not limit occupancy or have eliminated occupancy limits (e.g.,
California, Oregon, Washington, Minneapolis)
o Some have reduced occupancy limits in areas around their universities (e.g., Austin, TX,
College Station, TX)
o Others have increased occupancy in areas around their universities (e.g., Charlottesville, VA,
Tuscaloosa, AL)
o One community (Madison, WI) had a 2 unrelated person occupancy limit in single-family
zones with an increased level of occupancy to 3 unrelated if the unit is owner occupied.
However, this was recently rescinded and changed to 5 unrelated citywide in recent weeks
1.Does Housing Advisory Board have any
questions on the city’s occupancy
regulations?
2.Does Housing Advisory Board have any
questions related to the occupancy reform
project?
Community Engagement thus far
Occupancy has been a community discussion topic for years in Boulder
Planning & Development Services (P&DS) Newsletter & City Website
Bedrooms Are For People Ballot Measure / Prior City Council discussions / Engagement level of “consult” based on prior feedback, but stakeholders and interested persons should be contacted
Conversations with interest persons and groups/neighborhoods
Feb. 22nd outreach event on housing related code changes with housing advocacy groups and neighborhood representatives
Community Engagement thus far
Viewpoints in favor of increasing occupancy limits:
Will increase more affordable housing opportunities for those struggling to
find housing or struggling to stay in Boulder
Consistent with the city’s Housing and Racial Equity goals
Potential impacts are not necessarily more than that of a large family
Any impacts should be addressed directly through enforcement and not
indirectly through occupancy regulations
Will help students who often need to live together due to high rental costs
More flexibility in occupancy regulations will equate to reduced violations
More housing supply options will address increasing cost of housing
Community Engagement thus far
Viewpoints in opposed to or cautious of increasing occupancy limits:
Increasing housing supply alone will not make a difference. Demand is so high
that adding housing will only add more expensive housing
Landlords will just charge the same for more occupants and make more
money
Boulder should significantly increase in lieu fees, commercial linkage fees
and/or do more to get deed restricted affordable units
Not every neighborhood should be treated the same. Many university
adjacent neighborhoods are more impacted
Increasing occupancy limits will increase enforcement burden on neighbors
(e.g., noise, trash, parking)
Proposed options to City Council:
(A)Increase maximum # of occupants in all zones by 1
(B)Increase to 4 or 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
City Council direction (March 9th)
1.Majority Support for Increasing the Occupancy Limit per unit to 4 or 5 citywide
(Option B):
8 supported moving forward with Option B, but that more engagement on
whether it should be 4 or 5.
1 member did not support increasing occupancy against the will of voters unless a
new well vetted option was put before the community for a vote.
3 expressed interest in Option F: Exclude some university adjacent neighborhoods
from an increase.
2.Community Engagement: All council members were in support of increased community
engagement on Option B and requested that staff try to reach out to and engage people
that are not typically engaged in the city’s engagement processes.
3.Family Definition: Several council members felt that the city’s definition of family should
be vetted in the community to inform whether the definition should be modified.
Planning Board feedback (April 18th)
Board was mixed on whether to increase occupancy limits or not
o 3 were firmly for increasing occupancy limits –gentle infill, increase of housing
options, addressing currently illegal occupancy for more housing security
o 3 found that more data should be presented to affirm the benefits and
avoidance of impacts
o 1 wanted a better understanding the impacts to city infrastructure should
occupancy increase
o 2 were firmly against increasing occupancy. One mentioned that it would not
protect neighborhood character, will make landlords more profit and not
guarantee affordability. Both were concerned about overriding the “Bedrooms
Are For People” ballot measure
o 2 members “in the middle” on the issue and felt that occupancy may need to be
tied to parking to avoid parking impacts
o 2 members felt that if occupancy were increased, it should be 4 unrelated not 5
3.What feedback does the board have regarding
the option that City Council has requested for
further analysis?
Additional Slides for
Occupancy Reform
Other communities-
What has been learned?
Other communities-
What has been learned?
Option A
Option B
Option C
(Recently rescinded)
Option D
Option E
Option F
Option G