Boulder City Council approves new occupancy limit after deluge of public testimony

Aug. 17—Boulder City Council on Thursday evening approved a new citywide occupancy ordinance that will change the number of unrelated people who can live together.

The new ordinance, which was passed on a 6-3 vote, will allow five unrelated people to live together citywide. Up to three people and any of their children can now live together, as can three people in efficiency living units.

However, the maximum allowable occupancy may not automatically increase for properties with nonconforming occupancies or uses.

Nonconforming occupancy limits refer to dwelling units that existed before updated zoning regulations and were allowed to keep their initial occupancy limits. By contrast, nonconforming uses of a residential lot include densities and housing types that don't conform to regulations.

Mayor Aaron Brockett and Councilmembers Matt Benjamin, Lauren Folkerts, Rachel Friend, Junie Joseph and Nicole Speer voted in favor of the ordinance.

"Increased occupancy is going to be a way to provide legal stability and diminish anxiety, stress and fear and economic hardship for our community members," Friend said.

Mayor Pro Tem Mark Wallach and Councilmembers Bob Yates and Tara Winer voted against the ordinance.

"Today we overstep our authority — not our legal authority, but the moral authority that comes from respect for elections," Wallach said.

The vote came after hours of impassioned testimony from dozens of Boulderites on both sides of the issue.

Karl Guiler, a senior policy advisor for Boulder, said in a presentation that studies, commentaries and articles from across the country have concurred that zoning restrictions limit housing availability and that a limited housing supply is one factor that drives up the price of housing. High-demand areas with limited space such as Boulder can face extra challenges. Adding housing is one strategy that can increase affordability, but it's not enough on its own to solve the issue.

Generally speaking, he noted, there are two types of occupancy limits. One type comes from building code and is meant to prevent dangerous conditions and overcrowding from too many people being in a space. The other type comes from zoning regulations, which are in addition to building code limits and can be more restrictive. Some motivations for these can be "rooted in discrimination against people of color and lifestyles," according to the presentation.

Currently, Boulder's zoning-defined occupancy limits allow family members plus two additional people to live together, and two people and any of their children are also allowed to live together. In lower-density zones, up to three unrelated people can live together, but up to four unrelated people can cohabitate in higher-density zones.

City Council previously expressed an interest in increasing the occupancy limit to four or five unrelated people, with a majority of councilmembers expressing a preference for five unrelated people to be allowed to live together. City staff were asked to prepare an ordinance to allow five unrelated people to live together citywide, but also to create two code language options addressing occupancy increases in nonconforming uses. There was also a suggestion to look at changes to the the provision "two persons and any of their children."

But most remarkable about Thursday's public hearing was the showing of passionate residents who came to speak, with a total of 84 people signed up to speak at the public hearing. Although some who had signed up were not present, dozens of speakers still came, and a large number of them strongly supported increasing the occupancy limit to five unrelated people.

Several of those who spoke were current or former students at the University of Colorado Boulder. Many said they'd been forced to live over-occupied in Boulder just to be able to reside there as a student.

"Everyone wants to (live here) legally, but affordable, comfortable and legal housing options are very limited in Boulder," said resident Kristin Hollingsworth, a graduate student at CU Boulder. She called the new occupancy ordinance an "important step to make the Boulder community that we all care about a little more inclusive."

Chase Cromwell, external affairs tri-executive with CU Student Government, said, "This issue is the government saying that groups of certain people cannot live together. This impacts university faculty, staff, students, but also community members who have no connection to the university."

Added recent CU Boulder graduate Mikey Jay, "I implore you to consider revising these unjust laws and declare an unwavering commitment to the welfare of students in these types of challenges. ... Anything short of endorsing this initiative could be perceived as an affront to the youth, a clear indication that climate and equity are not prioritized within our city and a call for change in current leadership."

Other residents had different reasons for supporting the occupancy ordinance. Blake Stone, who is a member of the LGBTQ+ community, said, "The right to live with my chosen family is equally important to me as anyone else's right to live with their family. ... It would be dangerous for me to return to my home state of Tennessee where I could be arrested for using a public bathroom."

Rosie Fivian, who supported getting rid of occupancy limits altogether, said, "People are people. Five is five. If we don't question a conventional family of five moving into a house, how much trash they might generate, how much noise they make, how many cars they have, how many times they flush the toilet, then why would we question any other five?"

One Boulder resident of more than 20 years who supports raising the occupancy limits, Kevin McWilliams, addressed the Bedrooms Are For People initiative that was voted down by voters in 2021.

"People have said that a change in the occupancy limit would be overturning the voters of Boulder. And I would like to rebut that statement," he said. "The Bedrooms Are For People measure narrowly lost in a low-turnout, off-year election. And we helped support three members of this council who were vocal advocates of of upping advocacy limits."

But the ordinance also had a number of vocal opponents. One resident of the Hill said he understood the desire to increase occupancy limits, but that "Unfortunately, for as long as I can remember, the city has demonstrated an inability to deal with the problems that result from high occupancy or high density." Those problems include noise and fireworks, he said.

Joel Marks, another Hill resident, said, "Sadly, there are whole neighborhoods that are littered ... with homes that have turned into decrepit eyesores" in his area. He also said there is noise and partying "at all hours of the night."

Some expressed anger that City Council was considering whether to pass the ordinance after voters rejected Bedrooms Are For People. Resident Emily Reynolds attempted to equate the council's revisiting of occupancy limits after the Bedrooms vote to former President Donald Trump's indictment for trying to overturn the 2020 election.

"How is your vote to overturn our last election on occupancy different from Trump's attempt to overturn the results of his losing?" she asked. "Boulder voted down Bedrooms in 2021. ... Our votes don't count and can be disregarded because you disagree." She also asserted that the council was attempting to "disenfranchise" voters.

Nevertheless, a majority of councilmembers supported the new ordinance. Addressing Reynolds' comments earlier in the meeting, Friend added, "I want to briefly address the allegation that we are somehow disenfranchising people, which is a really strong and loaded word, and that is absolutely not what we are doing," Friend said. "This is not Trumpian or anti-democratic, and I take strong issue with that allegation."

She said she believed it was well understood that the council was not voting on Bedrooms Are For People, and other council members echoed her sentiments.