Boulder council presses state HOME Act sponsors for guardrails; opts to seek amendments

The Boulder City Council spent extensive time Feb. 5 questioning staff and weighing policy options after an in‑depth presentation on House Bill 1001 (the HOME Act), a state proposal that would allow qualifying nonprofit and institutional property owners to pursue administrative approvals for residential development on parcels up to five acres.

Heather Stauffer, the city’s intergovernmental affairs officer, outlined how the bill would treat qualifying properties and entities, what local standards the city could still require (for example, life‑safety codes, infrastructure standards, wildfire resiliency added by amendment), and notable limitations: the legislation would cap height at three stories or 45 feet for qualifying administrative approvals but would otherwise constrain some local zoning controls and could preempt aspects of municipal site review and public hearings.

Council members pressed staff on a long list of local concerns: whether the bill effectively undermines home‑rule authority for land use, whether qualifying projects would be required to deliver permanently affordable housing (the bill contains no statewide affordability mandate), how broad the nonprofit definition is and whether a nonprofit could partner or contract in ways that let market‑rate developments proceed on tax‑exempt land. Staff acknowledged some ambiguities in the current draft and said sponsors had shown receptivity to technical changes; two amendments (wildfire resiliency and solar access) had already been added in committee.

Council discussion ranged from procedural questions about administrative approval processes to policy proposals. Multiple members urged an "amend" posture so Boulder could stay at the table and shape the bill; others favored "oppose unless amended," reflecting strong concerns about preemption of local planning, potential development in light industrial or sensitive areas, and the risk of market‑rate housing replacing local priorities. Speakers repeatedly emphasized the need for guardrails on nonprofit eligibility, the bill’s applicability in unincorporated county parcels, and the ability to ensure projects meet a demonstrated local housing need.

The council took a nonbinding straw poll: five members favored seeking amendments (remaining engaged to negotiate changes); four favored an 'oppose unless amended' stance. During discussion the council identified a set of potential amendment requests to send to bill sponsors: (1) limit applicability to lands within municipal boundaries (exclude unincorporated county parcels), (2) tighten the definition and eligibility criteria for qualifying nonprofits (require demonstrated affordable housing track record and remove broad partner provisions), (3) treat height as an equivalency standard (so local height limits remain enforceable), (4) require that qualifying developments demonstrate a link to a jurisdictional housing needs assessment, and (5) require review or council-level input for large projects above a specified unit threshold.

Heather Stauffer said staff would continue discussions with bill sponsors and return to council as the legislative process moves forward. Councilmembers described the approach as a mix of engagement and caution: they want to influence the bill while reserving the option to oppose if adequate amendments do not materialize.

No formal city position was filed that night; staff will coordinate with the intergovernmental affairs committee and return with recommended amendment language and timing as the bill proceeds through the legislature.