Gov. Jared Polis is expected to sign into law a bill that would prohibit cities like Boulder from imposing occupancy limits that restrict how many unrelated people can live together. The governor, who grew up in Boulder, has described such rules as discriminatory.
The two-page bill says cities cannot restrict how many people can live together based on “familial relationship.” This generally means occupancy limits do not apply to people who are married, in a domestic partnership or are relatives living together. Cities can still have occupancy limits based on “demonstrated” health and safety standards.
The bill has received final approval from the state House and Senate. The governor is expected to sign it. The law would take effect on July 1.
Last year, the City of Boulder raised its occupancy limits from allowing as few as three unrelated people to live together to five across much of the city. The ordinance was celebrated as an incremental win for renters, who often want to split housing costs among more people to afford living in Boulder.
The bill sponsors have compared occupancy limits to redlining, a historical practice of denying financial services to Black people and effectively preventing them from living in certain neighborhoods. Opponents of the bill argue cities with less local control over housing will be negatively affected. During the vote last week, Ken DeGraaf, a Republican from Colorado Springs, said occupancy limits are designed to “recognize the carrying capacity of a population.”
The state occupancy limits bill is relatively straightforward in its intent to eliminate the restrictions. But exactly how the City of Boulder would implement it remains to be determined.
Karl Guiler, a senior policy adviser for the city, told Boulder Reporting Lab that the city’s Planning Department will need to consult the city’s lawyers and, potentially, get policy direction from the Boulder City Council.
“We have mostly been following the progress and status of the bill and have not yet specifically discussed the next steps if it were to pass,” Guiler wrote in an email. “If supported by council and directed from our attorneys to proceed, I anticipate we would look at removing occupancy limits from our land use code and relying on the existing life safety regulations in the adopted city building codes to comply with the law, but I cannot say with 100% certainty that this would be the path forward.”
The occupancy bill is one of several lawmakers have introduced this year overriding local land-use and zoning rules. Lawmakers are working on bills that would eliminate parking minimums for residential developments, ease restrictions for building accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, and allow denser housing development near bus stops and train stations.
Given the number of bills under consideration, Guiler said the Boulder City Council may want city staff to report back with a broader ordinance that addresses several new state laws.
“This is kind of new territory for the city,” he said. “There are these pretty big land-use changes that could be coming about.”
Mayor Aaron Brockett told Boulder Reporting Lab that his understanding is that the city will have to remove occupancy limits from its code. Asked whether the city could use the health and safety codes to justify the current occupancy limits, Brockett said “I don’t know if that would be something we could justify.”
“I think we hit a good compromise for the city last year with raising the limits to five,” he said. “But if state law says we can’t do that anymore, then we will need to change that.”
The City of Boulder has not taken a formal position on the occupancy limits bill. During the 2023 legislative session, the city was among the few local governments supporting the governor’s controversial statewide land-use bill that sought to eliminate single-family zoning in large cities. The legislation died on the last day of the session.

This is a question. I used to live in a HOA controlled community in which the bylaws were quite restrictive. The HOA fought the city requirement to do away with shake shingles and lost. I’m sure they will claim their covenants and bylaws will allow them to ignore this law. The Board is VERY anti everything meant to help any people who are not white, upper middle class and generally old. My question is, will they?
Surprised that it’s a Republican who mentions “carrying capacity,” the population number that an area can actually support, considering the infrastructure, water and other resources required. That’s a point so often overlooked in the quest for more housing, more people, more empty office space.
Emily how did I know it was you before I looked? Right on sister. The “P” word. You can’t use that! (Population). It shouldn’t be facetious.