[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Suzanne's Thoughts on Co-op Ordinance

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Jones, Suzanne

Dear Colleagues—

Since I will be missing the meeting on June 21st, I am sending out my thoughts in advance for Council’s continued discussion of the first-reading of the co-op ordinance.

I think it is worth re-stating our goal in pursuing the co-op ordinance. In my mind, that goal is to facilitate the creation of additional “real” co-ops to provide another housing option for Boulder residents that contributes to our goals of sustainability, affordability, and building more community, while minimizing any potential negative impacts to neighborhood character. It is worth noting that co-op living is likely to be chosen by only a small subset of residents, but I think is an important and desirable option to have in the mix.

Many of my opinions regarding the values of co-op living come from my positive experience growing up in a communal setting, as well as that of living for a decade just a couple houses away from Boulder’s Masala Co-op, which I found to be a very good neighbor. However, I appreciate that others have had experiences that may differ from mine. Having lived most of my 21 years in Boulder in various locations around the University Hill neighborhood, I think co-ops could actually be a stabilizing, community-building presence on blocks within the Uni Hill neighborhood that are filling up with high-occupancy investor-owned rentals.

Most of the objections to co-ops that I have heard from concerned neighbors can be lumped into two main categories: 1) objections to the increase in density of people per house, which some feel conflicts with single family zoning and neighborhood character; and 2) concerns that we won’t end up with “real” co-ops but instead with over-occupied party houses with all of the related impacts of noise, litter, etc. My intent in my comments below is to help address/mitigate some of these concerns while creating a revised co-op ordinance that actually works to facilitate new co-ops—keeping in mind that our existing ordinance has failed to meet that goal, with no new co-ops created under it.

In crafting a revised ordinance, I urge that the following elements be included:

·       Certification:  In order to facilitate “real” co-ops, I think the ordinance should include a definition and criteria for co-ops, as well as a certification mechanism overseen by a third party. The third party could be Boulder Housing Partners, or perhaps sub-contracted to Boulder Housing Coalition, but should be an entity with expertise in housing, motivation to make the co-op ordinance work, and who could be held accountable by the City.



·       Co-op Types: I think we should just go with three general co-op types with easily understandable descriptors. Specifically, I think we should just use the following broad categories:

o   Private equity co-ops (resident ownership)

o   Group equity (non-profit ownership)

o   Rental co-ops (landlord ownership)
The threshold for a private equity co-op should be that a majority of owners are residents, and a majority of residents are owners. We need to ensure that co-op requirements are consistent with the realities of the mortgage industry and do not become obstacles to obtaining financing (e.g., by requiring all occupants to be owners listed on the title).


·       Affordability: I think that co-ops by definition will provide more affordable living options given higher persons per square footage, as long as we give the co-op permits to prospective co-opers and not to the landlords (the landlord would still need a rental license and to comply with concentration and other siting standards). If we require rent caps on rental co-ops I think they will result in no landlords being willing to pursue rental co-ops unless the caps are so high as not to be meaningful. My understanding is that the three existing “official co-ops” in Boulder are actually deed-restricted affordable housing boarding houses, and not actual co-ops under our current co-op ordinance; while we might also want to look at ways to help facilitate more such deed restricted housing options, I think we should only have income restrictions in similar situations where public dollars are being used to provide subsidized housing (e.g., through BHP).



·       Property rights vs. licenses: I support treating private equity co-ops as a property right while limiting rental co-ops to a licensed use that can be revoked. I think treating private equity co-ops as a property right is necessary as multiple people will not be willing or able to pool sufficient resources to invest in property to live together without some certainty. While we want to allow for all three types of co-ops, my sense is that rental co-ops generate the most concerns, so we should help incentivize private and group equity co-ops by not creating unnecessary barriers that make financing more difficult. I would also support treating group equity (non-profit ownership) as a property right, but understand that may be more controversial and so deserves more discussion.


·       Occupancy limits: Given neighborhood concerns, I think it makes sense to explore different square footage per occupant standards for different zoning categories, with the highest square footage requirement for low-density single family neighborhoods. I think a two- or three-tiered system could make sense, and would start by exploring 300 square foot/person limit in low-density neighborhoods and 200 square feet/person in other zoning categories, but would want more discussion on what the exact numbers should be.


·       Concentration: Given neighborhood concerns, I think it makes good sense to have limitations on the concentration of co-ops to spread out any potential impacts. I am open to also exploring different concentration standards for different zoning categories, but would want further discussion on what appropriate numbers should be.


·       Caps: Again, given neighborhood concerns, I think we should start out with caps on the number of new co-ops established per year. I am comfortable with the numbers that have been discussed – 5 per category. I do not think we should automatically grandfather any existing illegal co-ops but have them apply to go through the certification process. The goal, however, is to make legal the finite number of existing illegal co-ops that meet co-op certification and other siting/concentration standards expeditiously, such that we can step up enforcement on other over-occupied situations.


·       Cars: I think we want to establish a limit on the number of cars per co-op, without forcing on-site parking into yards and setbacks. It seems that the cap could be related to overall size of co-op based on square footage but with an overall cap of four. I am fine with requiring Eco-Passes if the co-op is located within a neighborhood Eco-Pass district.
That’s all for now, as I know this will be an iterative process with more rounds of discussion and public input.
Best of luck at the June 21st meeting--I am sorry to be missing it, but am off on a long-planned trip with my family.
Cheers,
Zan


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10