Attachement C- HB26-1001 Matters Memo

City of Boulder City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: February 5, 2026 Agenda Title Discussion of City Position on HB26-1001, Housing Opportunities Made Easier (HOME) Act

Staff Contact • •

Heather Stauffer, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer, City Manager's Office Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager, City Manager’s Office

Executive Summary The purpose of this item is to review and discuss HB26-1001, the HOME Act, and determine to what extent the city should engage on the legislation. Bill Status: Introduced on January 14, scheduled to be heard in House Transportation, Housing & Local Government Committee on Tuesday, February 3. Summary of Legislation: HB26-1001, Housing Opportunities Made Easier (HOME) Act requires a subject jurisdiction on or after December 31, 2027, to allow residential development to be constructed on a qualifying property (that does not contain an exempt parcel) subject to an administrative approval process (e.g., no discretionary criteria, no public hearing etc.). • • •

A qualifying property is real property that contains no more than 5 acres of land and is owned by either: A nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing (NDH) A nonprofit organization that provides public transit

•

• • • •

A nonprofit organization that has entered into an agreement with an NDH, provided that the agreement requires the NDH to develop a residential development on the property A school district A state college or university A housing authority A local or regional transit district or a regional transportation authority serving one or more counties

A subject jurisdiction shall not: •

Disallow construction of a residential development on a qualifying property on the basis of height if the tallest structure in the residential development is no more than 3 stories or 45 feet tall • Disallow construction of a residential development on a qualifying property on the basis of height if the tallest structure in the residential development complies with the height-related standards for the zoning district in which the residential development will be built or any zoning district that is contiguous to the qualifying property on which the residential development will be built • Disallow construction of a residential development on a qualifying property based on the number of dwelling units that the residential development will contain, except in accordance with standards listed in the bill; or • Apply standards to a residential development on a qualifying property that are more restrictive than the standards the subject jurisdiction applies to similar housing constructed within the subject jurisdiction, including standards related to structure setbacks from property lines; lot coverage or open space; on-site parking requirements; numbers of bedrooms in a multifamily residential development; on-site landscaping, screening, and buffering requirements; or minimum dwelling units per acre. Additionally, provided that the uses are allowed conditionally or by right within the zoning district in which a qualifying property is located, a subject jurisdiction shall allow the following uses in a residential development on a qualifying property: • •

Childcare; and The provision of recreational, social, or educational services provided by community organizations for use by the residents of the residential development and the surrounding community.

Summary of Benefits and Drawbacks: Key Benefits: •

May encourage new development of affordable housing: Zoning changes and development review processes can be costly and time consuming in some jurisdictions. This can be a deterrent to people running nonprofits and churches in the city who may otherwise be interested in developing residential property. New administrative processes may encourage the development of new housing by these nonprofits and churches.

•

Contributes to city affordable housing goals: New residential housing developments could help Boulder reach its target of 15% affordable housing by 2035.

•

Aligns with broad goals laid out in BVCP: The draft plan and land use map update contemplates policies which in concept would make zoning changes to allow a denser affordable housing outcome on non-profit lands easier than it previously has been. Policy objectives of the BVCP align with the purpose and intent of HB26-1001, while the mechanism for achieving the outcome differs.

•

May encourage broader utilization of land: The legislation may encourage qualified entities to activate school, church, transit, and other mission-driven properties which may otherwise sit vacant.

Significant Drawbacks: •

Undermines home rule authority: Preempts Boulder's constitutional right to regulate land use as a matter of local concern.

•

Circumvents community planning: The land use code and related policy documents have been carefully crafted to reflect city goals and values. As the legislation is proposed, this thoughtful framework for location, density, and housing types becomes secondary to state mandate. Existing codes and processes already contemplate easier pathways for nonprofit affordable housing.

•

Zoning override: Residential development becomes permissible in any zoning district, based only on ownership and largely without context.

•

Conflicts with some current development standards: Current city development standards conflict with many of the limitations prescribed to subject jurisdictions in the bill. Some current city development requirements are not expressly contemplated in the bill. The proposed bill would not allow limits on the number of dwelling units and would permit buildings at 45 feet in areas of the city where 35 feet is typically the maximum height allowed. The allowance for additional height also raises questions about how to implement the city’s community benefit requirements related to increased permanently affordable housing and solar access on neighboring properties. A full list of potentially impacted development standards can be found in the analysis section of this memo.

•

Broad definition of non-profit: While non-profits with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing would include trusted partners such as Habitat for Humanity and Boulder Housing Partners, criteria for being considered an NDH is broad and could invite abuse. The bill also allows any non-profit to partner with an NDH for development, which may greatly expand the number of qualified entities.

Questions for Council 1. Would Council like the city to take an official position on HB26-1001? 2. Are there any amendments the council would like staff to pursue related to HB261001?

Alignment with City Plans and City Council History Sustainability, Equity and Resilience (SER) Framework and Citywide Strategic Plan Alignment SER Framework Goal Area This item directly connects to the “Livable” goal item within the city’s SER Framework. HB26-1001 aims to address the availability of housing within local governments by addressing zoning and permitting requirements for certain entities within the city. Citywide Strategic Plan This item directly connects to the “Livable” strategy item within the citywide strategy. HB26-1001 aims to address the availability of housing within local governments by addressing zoning and permitting requirements for certain entities within the city.

Alignment with Additional City Plans This item contemplates legislation that will directly impact planning, zoning and development within the city. It directly relates and may impact comprehensive planning being considered as part of the update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

City Council History Council’s Intergovernmental Affairs Committee met on January 22, where council committee members (Mayor Brockett, and Council Members Speer, Benjamin and Marquis) received an update from staff on HB26-1001. Recognizing that the matter is of particularly high political interest, pursuant to the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee Charter, the committee recommended that the policy be considered by the full council at the next available opportunity.

Analysis Legislative Purpose and Intent: The bill aims to promote residential development, particularly affordable housing, by limiting some local regulation on private and public properties that are owned by entities with public benefit missions. Qualifying Property Owners: Properties eligible under this legislation must be owned by: 1. Nonprofit organizations with demonstrated history of providing affordable housing (NDH); 2. Public transit nonprofits; 3. Nonprofit organizations partnered with affordable housing nonprofits. Provided that the agreement requires the NDH. Or its successor organization, to develop a residential development on the property; 4. School Districts; 5. State Colleges and Universities; 6. Housing Authorities; 7. Local/Regional Transit Districts or Regional Transportation Authorities Property Limitations: • •

Maximum 5 acres of land Must not contain an “exempt parcel” as defined in legislation.

Important Legislative Definitions: Subject Jurisdiction: Means a local government that had a population greater than two thousand people as of the last U.S. Census. The City of Boulder would be considered a “subject jurisdiction” and subject to the requirements of the bill. Exempt Parcel: Means a parcel that is 1. Not served by a domestic water and sewage treatment system. 2. Served by a well that is not connected to a water distribution system. 3. Served by a septic tank. 4. A parcel where residential use is prevented or limited by state regulation, federal regulation or deed restriction pursuant to: a. Federal Aviation Administration Restrictions; b. An environmental covenant; c. Flammable Gas Overlay zoning district restrictions. d. A parcel subject to a conservation easement. e. A parcel located within an airport influence area. f. A historic property located outside of a historic district. Nonprofit with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing (NDH): A nonprofit organization that, within the last five years, has: (A) Developed projects which have received federal low-income housing tax credits or state affordable housing credits; (b) Been awarded funding through the federal “Home Investment Partnerships Program”, 24 CFR 92.1, ET SEQ. (c) Been awarded funding to support the creation, preservation, or rehabilitation of affordable housing from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs; the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority; the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade; or a local government. (d) Owned property that is exempt from property taxation pursuant to section 393-113.5; (e) Been certified as a community housing development organization pursuant to 24 CFR 92.2 and, together with the Colorado division of housing or a local government, is a party to a community housing development organization operating agreement;

(f) been approved by the Colorado division of housing as “an approved nonprofit organization" pursuant to section 39-22-548 and engaged in the development or operational service of supportive housing pursuant to section 39-22-548 (2)(h); or (g) Owned property for which the organization received a certificate of occupancy for long-term affordable housing, and can produce that certificate of occupancy, a restricted use covenant, or a similar recorded agreement that ensures affordability. Note: To be considered an NDH, an entity need only meet one of the listed criteria. Mandates on Subject Jurisdictions: The legislation mandates that on or after December 31, 2027, subject to an administrative approval process, a subject jurisdiction shall allow a residential development to be constructed on a qualifying property, if that property does not contain an exempt parcel. Height Restrictions Prohibited: Local jurisdictions cannot deny residential development on qualifying properties based on height if the tallest structure is: • •

No more than three stories or 45 feet tall; or Compliant with height requirements of either the property’s zoning district or any contiguous residentially zoned parcel.

Density Restrictions Limited: Jurisdictions cannot restrict the number of dwelling units except as they relate to equivalent development standards (see below). . Development Standards Must Be Equivalent: Jurisdictions cannot apply standards to residential development on qualifying properties that are more restrictive than those applied to similar housing elsewhere in the jurisdiction. This includes standards for: • • • • • • •

Setbacks from property lines Lot coverage or open space On-site parking requirements Number of bedrooms in multifamily developments Landscaping, screening, and buffering Minimum dwelling units per acre Setbacks from oil and gas facilities

Required Permitted Uses: Jurisdictions must allow the following uses in residential developments on qualifying properties (if allowed conditionally or by right in the zoning district):

• •

Child care facilities Recreational, social, or educational services provided by community organizations for residents and the surrounding community

Subject Jurisdiction Administrative Approval Process: In lieu of a standard development process, the legislation requires subject jurisdictions to apply an administrative approval process to qualifying entities’ development projects. While the legislation does not describe what that administrative process looks like, it does specify that nothing in the legislation would prevent a subject jurisdiction from: 1. Applying and enforcing infrastructure standards in local law, including standards related to utilities, transportation, or public works codes; 2. Applying and enforcing a locally adopted life safety code, including a building, fire, utility, or stormwater code; 3. Applying and enforcing regulations related to human and environmental health and safety, including oil and gas setbacks, floodplain regulations, and airport influence areas; 4. Adopting generally applicable requirements for the payment of impact fees or other similar development charges in accordance with CRS 29-20-104.5, or mitigation of impacts; 5. Requiring a statement by a water or wastewater service provider regarding the provider’s capacity to service the property as a condition of allowing a residential development; 6. Applying and enforcing inclusionary zoning ordinances, deed restrictions, community benefit agreements, development agreements, or other affordable housing policies or standards. 7. Enacting or applying a local law concerning a short-term rental of a dwelling unit on a qualifying property. 8. Exercising the subject jurisdiction right of first refusal (CRS 29-4-1202) 9. Applying design standards and procedures of a historic district to a qualifying property that is located in a historic district. Subject jurisdictions are also allowed to ask as part of an initial development application that a NDH provide documentation that it meets any one of the criteria listed in the bill.

Potential Outcomes and Impacts to the City: Planning and Development:

If passed, the bill will change the way the city currently reviews, processes and approves new residential developments subject to the bill. An overview of anticipated changes to the process are detailed in Attachment A. •

•

•

•

•

•

•

Broad Definition of Nonprofit:  The definition of NDH is broad and could include many different potential nonprofit owned properties of 5 acres or less. While we know that this list would likely include trusted partners like Flatiron Habitat for Humanity, Thistle and Boulder Housing Partners, the provision in the bill that allows any nonprofit to partner with an NDH to develop residential housing increases the number of potential properties that may qualify. Preempts Local Zoning Goals & Requirements:  The bill requires a local jurisdiction to allow a residential development regardless of zoning district designation and largely regardless of context (with some considerations noted in exempt parcels). A qualifying property could be located in a heavy industrial zoning district, and a qualified entity could render a property qualified simply by purchasing the property. Density Requirements:  Currently in RE (Residential-Estate) and RR (Residential-Rural) zones, nothing over a triplex is allowed. The bill prohibits construction limitations based on the number of dwelling units, which would conflict with these current determinations. Height Restrictions:  Currently the maximum height that can be approved administratively in lower density zone districts (where schools and churches are most often located) is 35 feet. The bill increases this maximum height allowance to 3 stories or 45 feet tall. Solar Access:  With the ability to build up to 45 feet/3 stories if the zoning district adjacent/contiguous allows it, buildings may have a large shadow cast over them in the absence of a public process or variance. Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)/ Fire Prevention Regulations:  WUI/fire prevention regulations are not explicitly called out in the bill as something a subject jurisdiction is allowed to regulate through an administrative process. Uncertainty Around Community Benefit Agreements:  It is unclear whether allowing community benefit agreements means the city can implement community benefit criteria and cash-in-lieu standards for buildings over 35 feet through an administrative process alone. Current code applies community benefit requirements to buildings above three

stories and does not allow height modifications for only three stories (except on descending grades). The proposal does not acknowledge such allowances as a tool for jurisdictions to create an incentive for such things as increased density. And, importantly, the bill fails to define how height is to be calculated and to account for different height measurement methods across municipalities • Ambiguous Standards:  The bill prohibits a subject jurisdiction from applying more restrictive standards than those for “similar housing.” Staff has noted uncertainty about what standards would apply when considering similar housing. For example, would it include housing that may have been approved through a discretionary review that allows for modification of standards that would otherwise apply? Furthermore, it is important to recognize that while height and solar access are discussed here, there could be other development standards that would be affected in unanticipated ways without clear guidance. Affordable Housing Goals: The city has a goal for 15% of all homes to be permanently affordable for low-, moderate-, and middle-income households by 2035. As of December 2025, the city is closing in on the 9% mark with approximately 4,270 affordable homes in the city. If HB26-1001 were passed, it may increase the overall supply of housing within the city, which would positively contribute to the city’s long-term affordable housing goals. Zoning change processes from low density residential to medium or mixed can be costly and time consuming in some jurisdictions. This can be a significant deterrent to lay people running nonprofits and churches in the city. This bill may lead to more entities pursuing development, which could lead to more availability of affordable housing. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP): The BVCP identifies desired locations, densities and types of housing planned for Boulder as an integral link in the community’s housing strategy to provide a diversity of housing types and price ranges. Through a variety of policies, programs and regulations, the type, number and affordability of new and existing housing units can be influenced and programs and assistance made available to those who have limited resources or special needs. The draft update to the BVCP includes designations and policies that in concept would make zoning changes to allow for a denser affordable housing outcome on non-profit lands easier than before.

Although HB26-1001's goals largely align with many BVCP provisions, its preemption of local zoning requirements for certain qualified entities undermines the planning framework and parameters established in the BVCP. Home Rule/Legal Considerations: The requirements of the bill may contravene the city’s constitutional home rule authority and existing zoning laws. The Colorado Supreme Court has found in the past that land use regulation is a matter of local concern. Similar state bills are currently being challenged under similar arguments, e.g., Aurora, Arvada, Glendale, Greenwood Village, Westminster, and Lafayette’s current litigation against the state over HB23-1255 Regulate Local Housing Growth Restrictions, HB24-1313 Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities, HB24-1304 Minimum Parking Requirements, and Executive Order D 2025 005 Regarding Strategic Growth through Compliance with State Laws. Alignment with 2026 Policy Statement: Several policy statement items can be referenced in order to guide city involvement with HB26-1001, including: Policy Item 19: Provide increased support for low-income individuals, families and workers to maintain, find and retain housing. Policy Item 23: Qualified support for state involvement in land use matters that furthers the city’s housing affordability, transportation, climate, resilience and equity goals. The General Assembly is expected to consider a series of bills over multiple sessions that would result in the state assuming some level of authority or oversight on zoning and land use matters currently under the exclusive control of local governments. The city is traditionally reluctant to cede local control, especially when it results in unfunded mandates. The justification for such hesitancy is rooted in the view that local problems demand local solutions, and that one size cannot fit all. However, under circumstances where the problems sought to be addressed by the state overlap with city goals that transcend local borders and which cannot be achieved by acting alone, Boulder has supported the creation of minimal state standards narrowly tailored to meet those goals. A prime example of such a problem is the housing affordability crisis in and around Boulder. Addressing this crisis, especially when doing so advances climate, resilience, transportation and equity goals, is a city priority. Like many of its neighboring cities, Boulder has dedicated substantial attention and resources toward achieving this goal and has seen some progress. However, making a meaningful impact will require a coordinated and shared commitment among all local governments.

For these reasons, the city supports state policy changes that incentivize and encourage local governments to adopt land use policies, such as transit-oriented development, that reduce greenhouse gases and discourage single occupancy vehicle travel. The city may also support state policies that go beyond incentives if such policies meet the following conditions: A. Narrowly targeted to further the goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, B. Allow for flexibility in implementation, C. City determination that it has sufficient water supplies and water and sewer infrastructure to serve the mandated land use changes without jeopardizing system reliability including considerations of climate change impacts, and D. Clarity on how local governments already meeting state standards can be exempted. The city supports requirements for increased housing in unincorporated county lands as follows: A. Expanding the scope of the existing state law that requires allowance of accessory dwelling units to apply to unincorporated county land. B. Transit oriented communities (TOC) -related housing policies that better anchor housing along key transit corridors (e.g., BRT) connecting municipalities within counties. C. Greater flexibility to create on-site farm worker housing.

Anticipated Fiscal and Workplan Impacts If HB26-1001 is passed it will require additional workload for Planning and Development Services staff as it will require a new administrative process be created for qualifying entities to develop residential properties ahead of the December 31, 2027, deadline. It may also increase the number of entities who pursue development leading to an increased workload. The bill is also anticipated to require a small amount of work from public works to calculate PIF and set up water accounts as additional principal structures may be added onto a property. However, this is not anticipated to create a significant fiscal burden.

Equity Analysis Due to the condensed timeframe for consideration before council an equity analysis was not performed for this item specifically. However, the first policy principle listed in the Policy Statement is Equity, Racial Justice and Social Resilience. When using the Policy Statement as a guide for intergovernmental affairs efforts, city staff consider equity implications as described in the Policy Statement: “Equity, Racial Justice and Social Resilience – Dismantle institutional and systemic racism, prioritize voices, experiences,

interests, and needs of communities that have been historically excluded, and reduce the vulnerabilities of groups most susceptible to natural or human caused stressors.

Climate, Resilience, and Sustainability Considerations The bill presents a mixed climate impact. The primary sustainability benefit comes from enabling denser, infill development that could reduce sprawl and support transit use. By enabling qualified property owners to build up to 3 stories on qualifying properties HB26-1001 could increase the city's housing density, which directly supports climate resilience by reducing per-capita land consumption, and vehicle miles traveled. However, the net climate impact would likely depend heavily on implementation details and whether developments actually occur in transit-rich, walkable locations versus other qualifying properties. If new development ends up concentrated in lower-density or lessserviced zones farther from transit and walkable corridors, the climate and sustainability benefits could be diluted by increased car dependence. Further, the bill prevents jurisdictions from applying more restrictive standards than standards applied to similar housing. That includes standards related to "on-site landscaping, screening, and buffering requirements." WUI/fire prevention regulations are not explicitly called out in the bill as something a subject jurisdiction is allowed to regulate through an administrative process. If subject jurisdictions are not able to require WUI/ fire prevention landscaping regulations it could negatively impact climate.

Community Engagement In alignment with past practice, staff did not conduct community engagement regarding HB26-1001.

Next Steps for City Council Council may decide to take a position on HB26-1001 of either support, oppose, amend or neutral. Based upon that decision, if applicable, staff will provide updates on the bill and progress towards goals council has identified.

Digital Accessibility The City of Boulder is committed to digital accessibility. Some content may not be fully accessible due to technical limitations or issues. For alternate formats or accommodations, please visit Accessibility | City of Boulder or contact accessibility@bouldercolorado.gov.

Attachments Attachment D- Anticipated changes to current city development processes under HB261001.