Metro area studies expansion scenarios

1.5 million more people expected in next 30 years

Stuart Steers, Rocky Mountain News

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Predictions that metro Denver's population will swell by more than 1.5 million over the next three decades - more people than live in the city of Dallas - have ignited a debate over whether a boundary intended to contain sprawl should balloon outward.

Denver area officials are sparring over a map that could determine where those new residents will live. That discussion has highlighted a split between some county officials who want the right to develop in the countryside and many cities that would like to see less sprawl and more compact development.

At issue is whether the metro area's urban growth boundary, part of what's called the Metro Vision 2030 Plan, should be expanded.

"I think we need to work together to minimize sprawl," said Lone Tree Mayor Jack O'Boyle. "It's a desirable end to keep the urbanized area as compact as possible."

O'Boyle said there has been so much development over the past 10 years that several counties and some cities are now scraping against the boundary line.

"We're to the point where we have to say no," to new development said O'Boyle, who serves on the board of the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), which enforces the growth boundary.

The growth boundary was created with the hope it would reduce traffic and help the area meet federal clean air standards. If the Denver area violates those standards, the federal government could refuse to fund new highways - a threat that gives a sense of urgency to the debate.

Four counties - Arapahoe, Douglas, Jefferson and Adams - are pushing DRCOG to expand the boundary. Last month the DRCOG board voted to explore several alternatives for changing the boundary map, including one that would target 17 square miles of rural land for development.

"This is a voluntary growth boundary, it's never been a hard line," said Arapahoe County Commissioner Rod Bockenfeld. "There's a balance between private property rights and impacts in communities."

Bockenfeld said Arapahoe County wants the boundary expanded to include the former Lowry bombing range, where a controversial development is proposed that could bring tens of thousands of new residents to the prairies east of Aurora. That proposal has been resisted by Aurora, which fears the impact on its roads, water and sewer systems.

Sounding alarm

Environmentalists say any decision to expand the growth boundary will make it meaningless.

"They're pressuring DRCOG to open up more land for sprawling development," said Matt Baker, director of Environment Colorado. "They're on the verge of turning the growth boundary into a sieve."

Jefferson County Commissioner Kathy Hartman, who serves on the DRCOG board, said Jeffco believes it should have the final say on land use in the county.

"DRCOG should have limited ability to determine the development plans of independent entities like the county," said Hartman. "We've been abiding by the growth boundary in practice, but I'd say my fellow commissioners are not comfortable with the concept."

Hartman, the lone Democrat among the Jeffco commissioners, said she personally supports the growth boundary, but added she has to represent the commission as a whole on DRCOG.

Boulder County Commissioner Will Toor, who also sits on the DRCOG board, says expanding the growth boundary will inevitably worsen air quality and put more cars on area highways.

"At this point we should not be expanding the growth boundary," said Toor. "There's 200 square miles of undeveloped land already within the growth boundary. The most compact scenarios perform the best with better air quality, less congestion and less spending on public infrastructure. We can accommodate the growth within our existing communities."

But others say much of the construction at the edges of metro Denver is driven by working class families seeking affordable homes in places like Erie and Firestone. They say restrictions on development could harm first-time home buyers by driving up costs.

"It's hurtful to working families," said Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, a free market think tank. "They're trying to live the American dream."

Proponents of keeping the growth boundary where it is believed the million plus new residents can live within the boundary if denser development - with smaller yards, more townhomes and condos - is encouraged.

Hartman says there is already a growing demand for that type of housing, especially as the population ages.

"The fastest growing section of residential real estate is patio homes and assisted living centers," said Hartman. "You'll see more development around transit lines mixing housing with shopping and entertainment. People want to live in places where they don't have to drive."

New map emerging

In 1997 DRCOG adopted a growth boundary that was supposed to guide development through 2020.

Now a new map is being created to shape the area through 2035. While forecasters expect hundreds of thousands of people to move here by 2035, most of the expected 1.5 million increase in population will be from births.

Most of the counties and cities in metro Denver have agreed to follow the growth boundary.

Those that don't could be at risk of losing federal transportation funding, which is administered by DRCOG. That's because metro areas have to prove that new highways won't worsen air pollution to the point that air quality violates federal standards.

"The urban growth boundary identifies the location of urban development and the traffic it will generate," said Jennifer Schaufele, executive director of DRCOG.

Schaufele says each proposed change to the boundary will be evaluated to see how much new traffic and emissions it would create.

Federal officials have already warned Denver the area is close to violating clean air standards.

The debate over the future of the boundary will continue into the fall.

The DRCOG staff has prepared several models of possible changes, and Schaufele hopes to settle on a 2035 boundary by the end of the year.

Many public officials are concerned that if DRCOG can't reach a consensus on the growth boundary, it could open up a divisive split within the group.

"We need to work this out," said Thornton city councilwoman Rebecca Cavanaugh-Miller, who sits on the DRCOG board.

"Should we manage growth or have a split in DRCOG and everyone do their own thing? I don't want to lose what DRCOG has done."