The City of Boulder is among the few Front Range cities backing a Colorado bill that would override municipal rules to make it easier to build accessory dwelling units, or ADUs — smaller living spaces in backyards, basements or garages.
The bill, HB24-1152, would allow ADUs to be built by right in cities across the state. That means they would be approved by city officials, rather than at the discretion of a local planning board. The proposed legislation would also prohibit rules mandating off-street parking or requiring the owner of the property to live on-site.
The House Transportation, Housing and Local Government Committee on Feb. 27 passed the bill by a 9-2 vote. It advanced to the House Appropriations Committee.
Boulder updated its ADU regulations last year to make them easier to build. However, the city still mandates that property owners provide one off-street parking space for the unit, unless they agree to a certain rent cap, and live on the property for at least half the year.
Even so, Boulder is supporting the bill.
“It’s important for the state to take measures like this to create a baseline of housing availability throughout the region,” Mayor Aaron Brockett, speaking on behalf of the city, told the House committee.
Similar to last year’s statewide land-use bill that sought to override local zoning, representatives from cities across Colorado, including Denver, either oppose the bill or want it amended. Opponents are largely concerned about losing local control over zoning matters. Some cities want the bill amended so local governments can still impose owner occupancy requirements. They argue without such rules, investors will buy up homes and sell or rent them out at a greater profit.
In other places grappling with housing affordability challenges, such as California, cities have long been prohibited from imposing owner occupancy rules. David Driskell, former city planning director who has since worked as a planning consultant in the San Francisco Bay Area, separately told the Boulder Housing Advisory Board this week that these restrictions undermine the intended goal.
“If you want to kill ADUs, then require owner occupancy,” Driskell said.
Rep. Judy Amabile, a Democrat from Boulder who is sponsoring the bill, said tweaks will be made to the bill regarding the owner occupancy mandate.
Amabile cites her own experience attempting to build an ADU in Boulder as one reason why the legislation is needed. She said she wanted to build an ADU above her garage for her son, who has been diagnosed with a mental illness. The city would not allow it.
“So my kid ended up at the homeless shelter for a few months,” Amabile told committee members.
The bill would not apply to unincorporated Boulder County, though some may want it to. Committee member Rep. Jennifer Lea Parenti, a Democrat from Erie representing parts of unincorporated Boulder County, shared that she has heard from small farmers who have said it has been difficult to find affordable nearby housing for people working on their farms.
“Do you see this as a potential tool to help bring in some more affordable housing for even our farmers who are trying to make ends meet?” she asked the bill sponsors.
Amabile said that “may be a worthy goal,” but that it would have to be the subject of another bill.
“What we’re trying to do here is to add density in the places that have density, where they have access to transportation, where there are bus routes, where there’s a grocery store,” Amabile said. “We need to build housing where people work, where people go to school, where they shop so that everybody isn’t in their car all the time.”
Excellent! Housing policy must be state-wide, because very vocal local landowners dominate local politics and stop progressive policy. California did this (and more) years ago, and few countries in the world have ever even heard of the regressive policies we’ve weirdly taken for granted. Long overdue.
Boulder is free to make ADU rules more liberal without the state making it happen. Why would Boulder support this law? What is Boulder’s interest in forcing Colorado Springs to change ADU laws?
Teddy- Because it’s all connected, interdependent. Not withstanding, I don’t support state housing regulations. Communities need to try things and spread their successes and failures naturally rather than have oppressive and irreversible regs. imposed.
ADUs will result in no affordable housing in Boulder or other wealthy communities. It merely makes residences a prime opportunity for investigator buy build out with an ADU and charge inflated rents. Relying on the market to create affordable housing is a lark. This is a developer giveaway for personal profit.
Affordable housing has been the rallying cry for those who cannot afford to live in Boulder proper which is a noble cause. With noble causes come unintended consequences for current home owners like myself. I already am surrounded by a ratio of approximately 4 homeowners to 10 rentals and that rental is increasing by the Boulder City Council (BCC) increasing occupancy levels. Multiple people in one residence one vehicle per individual over flowing into limited parking on the street. Increased traffic in an otherwise quiet neighborhood all hors of the night. What about homeowners who have put down roots, forgone the popular work life balance trend to afford a home in Boulder. I would love to live in Beverly Hills, but know I cannot afford to and live in a community within my means. Government stay out of this! The vast majority of ADU’S will only be used by the owners to capture exorbitant income in an already tight market and believe me it will be anything but affordable!