Opinion: ‘Density transfers’ at 1440 Pine


When I heard about the Attention Homes project at 1440 Pine, now under review by the Planning Board, something about the large size and high number of at-risk young adults that would be housed there didn’t ring true to me. Then I learned that this was the result of a “density transfer.” I couldn’t remember ever hearing that term in my 10 years on the City Council, so I inquired as to what was being proposed. What I learned was, frankly, pretty bizarre.
This proposed “density transfer” first calculates the amount of residential development that would be allowed on the whole block, including the 1440 Pine site, as if it were all bare ground, even though most of this block is already developed and so there is no space to build anything close to that amount. Then it “transfers” this block’s worth of development “density” rights to about one quarter of the block. So the existing buildings remain on three quarters of the block, and extra new residential development gets built on one corner, at 15th and Pine. This is what the Planning Board is being asked to approve.
A legitimate “density transfer” might occur where real development potential is simply moved, but not increased. For example, if a developer dedicates a park site without being required to do so, then the underlying residential development potential should not be entirely lost to them.
But what is proposed for 1440 Pine is exactly the opposite — development rights are being created out of thin air. The entire rest of the block is already developed or used as parking, including the First Methodist church, the Boulder County Aids Project in the old Church Rectory building, Lucille’s restaurant, Out Boulder’s offices, and the current Attention Homes offices. So essentially none of the “density” that is proposed to be “transferred” could actually be built without demolitions, special reviews, historic preservation issues, etc.
Obviously, this sort of double-dipping creates enormous financial windfalls. Given that the lots in a site review do not even have to be contiguous, it’s easy to imagine the owners of already-developed office and industrial buildings selling off their unusable residential density potential to other developers, who would then expand their own developments by multiple times (after just a bit of papering of the ownership documents) using “density transfers.” This could happen pretty much anywhere, assuming the Planning Board agreed. Clearly, this is not fair to the neighbors who count on the zoning to prevent such abuses.
I looked, and I could not find anything in Boulder’s code that would allow such “density transfers.” The city attorney at the Planning Board meeting confirmed that these transfers are not specifically allowed, but also not specifically prohibited. However, Boulder’s code identifies 28 specific development standards modifications that are allowed in a site review — and such “density transfers” are not included anywhere.
The city planner argued that this made-up “density” is like parking or open space, which can be moved around the site. But providing parking and open space are real obligations, whereas these “density transfers” are imaginary rights that don’t exist in reality because the sites they come from are already developed. So they’re not at all similar. Also, city staff’s argument these “transfers” have been done before and so are OK to do again doesn’t hold water, any more than arguing with the police that speeding is OK because you didn’t get caught the last time.
Zoning is put in place to give residents and businesses in the whole community some certainty as to what will occur in the future. These “density transfers” destroy that certainty — no one knows if the lot next to them will end up with multiple times the number of units it is zoned for.
There are other issues with the 1440 Pine process. I’m sure some people feel that Attention Homes does good work, and that they are under pressure to do 40 units, so let’s just give them what they want irrespective of the rules. But what happens in 40 years when the obligation to provide “homeless” housing runs out? Or the finances go awry in a few years and the property reverts to regular price-restricted housing? The next residents might actually own cars. But no parking is provided.
The Planning Board should make this a smaller project that does not require these “density transfers” and deal with the alternative futures. It will still serve its purpose, but will be more acceptable to downtown businesses and nearby neighbors.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more