Population Cap Keeps Sprawl From Boulder

Orange County voters on June 7 will decide the fate of a far-reaching growth-control measure. The Citizens’ Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative would limit growth in unincorporated areas by prohibiting development that would overburden roads and other public facilities beyond certain levels.

The issue is both political and emotional: The measure could touch the lives and possibly shape the futures of all residents throughout the county. Rhetoric, charges and countercharges are flowing freely.

In an effort to determine what the initiative might really mean here, The Times visited three areas that, in a variety of ways, are similar to Orange County. Each of the areas has approached its growth problems differently. And each strategy has met varying results.

Today, in the second of a two-part series: the path taken in Boulder and how it has worked.

Unpacking boxes, Cyndi Nelson points to the view beyond her new house. “I love this place,” she says. “How can you make it any better than this?”

Off in the distance, towering over Nelson’s back yard, are the snowcapped Rocky Mountains. Hers is one of the last single-family residences built under the latest in a series of slow-growth ordinances that have limited annual population growth here to 2% since 1977.

“I love the city’s growth-control program,” Nelson says.

“I don’t,” says her husband, Scott Thorburn, sitting at the couple’s dining room table. “I like the open space, but the 2% growth limit isn’t good at all. I know builders who have left town because they couldn’t make a living. And carpenters and other construction workers are nearly impossible to find.”

85,000 People

Thorburn, a contractor, built his own and several other houses on the same street in this city of 85,000 people, 30 miles northwest of Denver.

Boulder is a compact city surrounded by mountains and agricultural land, with 20,000 students attending its University of Colorado campus. There are subsidized food, rent and medical programs for low- and moderate-income residents. Musicians and food vendors stroll the outdoor mall downtown. The students recently presented Colorado’s governor with a brick to put in his toilet for water conservation. This is Berkeley with skis.

But the area also has much in common with Orange County. Natural beauty. Tourism. High-tech industry and an entrepreneurial business climate. And, in good economic times, the ability to sell every home that developers might want to build.

Although Orange County residents will vote on a slow-growth initiative on the countywide ballot for the first time June 7, Boulderites--seeking to avoid the sprawl that has plagued other cities in the shadow of Denver--have lived with growth controls since 1959. It was then that an imaginary “blue line” was drawn at the 5,870-foot level of altitude to keep buildings off the hills above the town.

In the Vanguard

Today, Population Environment Balance Inc., an environmental group based in Washington, D.C., estimates that about 1,700 communities in the United States have growth controls. And more are being enacted every year.

In California, at least 64 local growth-control measures were in effect as of last December, the state Department of Housing and Community Development says. And last year alone, 38 growth-control measures were on local ballots around the state, according to the California Assn. of Realtors. Another dozen have been added in the first 2 1/2 months of 1988.

Boulder was in the vanguard of the growth-control movement, trying first one method and then another.

In the early 1970s, the city tried to limit growth by refusing to extend sewer lines and other services to new developments. But the Supreme Court overturned that approach, ruling that the city was obligated to provide such services because it had a monopoly on them.

Local residents looked for a new approach--and settled on an annual ceiling on population growth, stated in percentage terms and enforced through limits on new housing construction.

Unlike the Orange County initiative, Boulder’s growth controls were never aimed at preventing traffic congestion. Nor did they limit commercial development.

Traffic Increasing

Today, city officials here say, traffic is becoming a problem. The lesson, they say, is that growth controls do not solve traffic problems unless they include specific provisions dealing with traffic.

The father of Boulder’s current approach to growth control is Paul Danish, a journalist who ran for the City Council in 1975 and won narrowly. Danish could not persuade his fellow council members to adopt the 2% growth limit, so he mounted a citywide referendum fight. The growth cap became law after it was approved at the polls in November, 1976.

The “Danish Plan” expired by its own terms in 1982. But it has been succeeded by a series of similar measures, bolstered by a 55-foot height limit on all buildings, an aggressive, voter-approved, sales tax-financed open space purchase program and a master plan agreement with Boulder County that essentially gives the city veto power over most new development in the area.

Most residents of Boulder are pleased with the results. The labor force and the number of new businesses have grown steadily despite the growth controls. Sales tax revenue for the city also has increased. Once hostile, the Boulder Chamber of Commerce now supports the growth limits.

“I’ve lived here for 14 years, and I know the people here would never give up growth controls,” says Skip Huffman, a market researcher surveying public attitudes about rechargeable batteries at the downtown mall. “Everyone I know thinks the controls have helped preserve this place as something special.

“And I certainly agree with that. The average age here is only about 27, and that helps explain a lot. There’s a strong sensitivity about the environment. And there is a big deal here about physical fitness. The mood here is simply different.”

Still, there are problems.

“I do business here because this is where the money is,” says Dan Hillman, washing the front window of his new gift shop on the mall. “I can’t afford to live here. So I live in Longmont, which is about 12 miles away.”

Commutes Long

Jim Crane, a laborer helping to remodel an old saloon up the street, says he is actually from Leadville, a two-hour drive away. “Nobody on this job is from Boulder,” he says. “We can’t afford this town.”

Developers have sued to overturn the current growth limits, contending that Boulder is exercising powers that go beyond any city’s authority. But state appellate justices recently upheld the city’s actions.

“The biggest effect (of the growth cap) has been that it has driven the middle class out of Boulder,” says Tom Hoyt, a builder who joined in the lawsuit against the city. “You have to go to outlying areas to find any starter homes for first-time buyers. By necessity, I’m no longer a builder in Boulder.”

Louis Sauer, professor of environmental design at the university, says he has studied Boulder closely since moving here more than two years ago and has concluded that the city is “too exclusive.”

The city needs service industry workers but cannot provide them with single-family homes that are priced within their reach, says Sauer, who has worked as an architect and planner in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Dallas, Cincinnati and the planned communities of Reston, Va., and Columbia, Md.

“It’s all about this community’s attitude about what a community should be and whether there’s room in it for people of all income groups. . . .

“The mountains have strongly influenced this elitist attitude. If you took away the mountains, Boulder would be just another Midwestern town. The quality of planning isn’t that different here. The city is both culturally and architecturally dull.”

Author of Measure

Danish, who wrote the original 2% growth limit, is outraged by such remarks.

“I’ve never made more than $20,000 a year, and I live here by choice,” he says. “And there are many others just like me. I live in a condo. Not everyone has to have a big house on a half-acre of land to be happy.”

And Danish--the last press secretary to the late Rep. Allard K. Lowenstein (D-N.Y.)--gives no quarter to builders who have abandoned the town.

“I’m glad they’re gone,” he says. “For the most part, they were building stuff that I don’t like--schlock. They were quick-buck artists who didn’t care about the community.”

One of Sauer’s faculty colleagues, Spenser Havlick, a city councilman, agrees.

“If you’re poor,” he says, “this is the best place in America to be, only the secret isn’t out yet.”

Havlick cites city-subsidized food tax rebates, recreation programs, medical care at the People’s Clinic and vouchers for low-income housing, among other strategies aimed at promoting diversity in the population.

In fact, the heart of the dispute over the impact of growth controls on the price of housing here seems to have more to do with the kind of low-income housing that is available than whether it can be found.

Housing Prices

The statistics show that, though housing prices rose more steeply in Boulder than they did in nearby Denver immediately before and after the controls were imposed, the price difference since has returned to levels that preceded the Danish Plan: Prices in Boulder generally are 15% to 20% above Denver’s.

Since 1980, the annual percentage increases in housing prices have trailed national averages, a phenomenon attributed to local plant layoffs even though Boulder’s unemployment rate has always remained lower than Denver’s and U.S. jobless rates.

Nonetheless, the simple fact is that single-family detached housing--at a median price of $115,000--is too expensive for many Boulderites.

Currently, figures show that only 28% of the families seeking new detached housing in the city can qualify financially. That’s about the same as in Orange County.

If families are willing to live in condominiums or apartments, however, the housing market here can accommodate them.

In fact, there was such a glut of multiple-family attached housing units here several years ago that developers were all but giving them away. That came about because of the Danish Plan’s point system for awarding building permits.

The system--which favored low-income, multiple-family housing--was aimed at creating an urban village in the central area of the city, says city planner John Fernandez. Essentially, development proposals were graded, and those with the highest grades got the building permits.

Road Proposal

The point system ended when the Danish Plan expired in 1982, but it left a legacy of affordable multiple-family housing.

By Orange County standards there is no rush hour here. But traffic and air pollution have become the city’s top problems, prompting calls for remedial action.

A proposal for a new toll road around Denver is opposed for fear that it will stimulate more growth and bring more air pollution.

Denis B. Nock, president of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, says the chamber has become much more sensitive to environmental concerns than it once was.

“You just missed our worst smog season,” he tells a visiting reporter. “We’re all concerned about things like that. And if we’ve bent a little to support the current program, I say they have bent a little too.”

Nock agrees with those who say that traffic-reduction measures were the missing link in Boulder’s growth controls. He hopes “something reasonable” can be worked out before gridlock occurs.

Up on the last row of new houses, builder Scott Thorburn is on the phone talking to his banker. Outside, in front of the house, Cyndi Nelson looks out over Boulder Valley and says she has not only heard about a new ad hoc committee looking at bicycle paths and other projects to reduce automobile use, she has joined the panel.

“We have to do what we can,” says Nelson, “if we’re to keep this place special.”

COMPARE AND CONTRAST Boulder, Colo., with its high-tech industry and entrepreneurial business climate, is in some ways strikingly similar to Orange County. And, on a smaller scale, Boulder has had some of the same experiences as Orange County with growth. Here is a look at what the statistics show about how the areas are similar--and how they differ.

ORANGE COUNTY

Population: 2,162,439

Area: 798 square miles

Total Households: 796,326

BOULDER, COLO.

Population: 77,629

Area: 19.5 square miles

Total Households: 30,588

* Population and Household figures are 1987 estimates.

POPULATION GROWTH

1980-1987

Orange County: 11.9% Boulder Colo: 1.2% HOUSEHOLD GROWTH

1980-1987

Orange County: 16.0% Boulder Colo: 6.7% AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE

1987 est.

Orange County: 2.7 Boulder Colo: 2.3 ETHNICITY

1987 estimated percent of total population

White Orange County: 86.7 Boulder Colo: 93.4 Black Orange County: 1.6 Boulder Colo: 1.8

Latino Orange County: 17.8 Boulder Colo: 3.9

Other Orange County: 11.7 Boulder Colo: 4.8

Totals are more than 100% because racial/ethnic boundaries overlap.

MEDIAN AGE

1987 est.

Orange County: 32.8 Boulder Colo: 28.4 MEDIAN EDUCATION

Adults over 25

Years of school completed

Orange County: 12.9 Boulder Colo: 16.1 MEDIAN HOME VALUE

Orange County: $108,137 Boulder Colo: $86,511 NEW HOUSING UNITS

1987

* estimated

Orange County: 9,300 * Boulder Colo: 400 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

1987 est.

Orange County: $33,444

Boulder Colo: $25,339

INCOME OVER $50,000

1987 est.

Orange County: 26.7%

Boulder Colo: 19.3%

INDUSTRY

Highest ranking industries

(1980 census)

Orange County

1. Durable Manufacturing: 19.9% 2. Retail Trade: 17.4% 3. Finance/Insurance/Real Estate: 7.9% Boulder, Colo.

1. Professional/Related Service: 33.0% 2. Retail Trade: 18.8% 3. Durable Manufacturing: 9.2% OCCUPATION

Highest ranking occupations

(1980 census)

Orange County

1. Administration/Clerical: 17.6% 2. Management: 15.3% 3. Professional: 13.6% Boulder, Colo.

1. Professional: 24.1% 2. Administration/Clerical: 15.6% 3. Management: 12.3% Sources: Donnelly Demographics; City of Boulder, Colo., Department of Community Planning and Development