Recommendations to the Commissioners

Regarding Slope Regulations and Related Land Use Practices & Procedures

• Cover Letter

• Report

May 27, 1999

To the Members of the Boulder County Slopes Advisory Committee:

Ed Russell, Phil Stern, Sylvia Dane, Audrey Godell, Jimmie Keith, Sam Weaver, and Pete Brady

RE: Recommendations to the Commissioners regarding slopes regulations and related Land Use Practices & Procedures

Dear Committee Members:

The Land Use Coalition (Coalition) has attended all the meetings of the Slope Advisory Committee ("Committee"). We appreciate the time the Committee took to take public input at the meetings, and we recognize that the Committee members have worked long and hard to get to the facts at issue regarding building in the mountains of Boulder County. We have also observed that the Land Use Department may have attempted to influence the Committee through direct participation in deliberations, and through hand-picked experts. We are concerned that the Committee has received an incomplete or distorted version of the issues relative to building on mountain lands.

To supplement the information provided by the Land Use Department, The Land Use Coalition has compiled the information contained in this report, as well as other material provided to the Committee, along with additional recommendations we would like to see the Committee pass on to the Commissioners.

The topics addressed include: historical mountain land development in Boulder County, known slope construction hazards, aesthetics and visual considerations, comments on the County Land Use Department draft regulations (since discarded) and comments on the County Commissioners’ role, and, finally, we also provide our own set of recommendations. This information is provided to assist the Committee in their deliberations, and to give balance to the presentations and comments provided by Land Use.

If the Committee has any questions concerning the content of this document or the conclusions reached by the Coalition concerning the slope regulations or the Site Plan Review (SPR) process in general, we would be pleased to respond both in writing and by presenting our own experts.

Thank you for giving us a chance to have our voices heard and for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely yours,

A.J. Chamberlin

President

May 27, 1999

I. CURRENT MOUNTAIN LAND DEVELOPMENT IN BOULDER COUNTY

About 1500 – 2000.

Key considerations include: how many homes already exist in the mountains and what types of slopes are they on, how many lots remain that could be built on, how many are really buildable, and how significant would be the impact of construction on these lots?

According to Land Use there are approximately 6500 [6400?] homes built in the mountainous areas of unincorporated Boulder County and an estimated 4,000 homes in the incorporated mountain towns.

An estimated 40% of those in the [mountain regions][unincorporated county], or 2600 of these homes are built on slopes greater than 20%.

Land Use claims there are 3467 vacant building parcels remaining in the mountains, consisting of 1067 mining claims, 1200 subdivided lots, and 1200 meets-and-bounds parcels. However, in 1993 Pete Fogg of Land Use conducted an inventory which showed the following: Only 3582 lots were available in 1993, "after consolidation". (This inventory was provided to the Committee by the Coalition).

This accounting for the mountain areas was made at the 1/4-section or Township level and was very accurate. Since then Land Use has been issuing approximately 90 building permits per year in the mountains. Thus, at least 540 parcels should have been removed from this list, leaving approximately 3040 parcels, not 3467.

There is no hard evidence that these lots are "difficult" by any definition of that word.

Approximately 1500-2000 parcels are considered "undevelopable" by experts on mountain real estate (Committee member Jimmy Keith and others. Jimmy is one of the most knowledgeable individuals in the County on mountain real estate, which is one of the reasons he was selected to be on this Committee). Many of the mining claims are undevelopable due to access limitation and other restrictions. Mr. Keith believes the actual number of developable properties is closer to 1500-2000. Additionally, many properties are active mining properties, and are not available for development since the owners intend to continue mining operations and have no interest in selling the land for development.

Of the buildable parcels, about 50% are on slopes greater than 20%, further reducing the significance of slope construction. Thus, the total developable parcels with "steep" slopes is reduced to approximately 750-1000.

At the current rate of development (60-80 permits per year in recent years according to the LUD), these properties would be fully built out in 20 to 30 years. It is possible a few hundred more parcels might be added as the result of BLM land sales, though Boulder County could avoid this outcome through and acquisitions and other measures.

The total impact to the mountain lands of building on the remaining parcels is therefor extremely small.

The total impact if all parcels (including those described as "unbuildable") were built on would be 3500 homes (or approximately 35% of the 10,000 existing mountain homes). The actual, likely number is reasonably estimated to be 2000 homes (20% of the existing homes) spread over 450 square miles (288,000 acres) of Boulder County mountain land. This is obviously VERY sparse development. More to the point, each home impacts approximately (on the average) 1/4-1/2 acres of land for construction after re-vegetation (100x100 building site plus a 250 foot driveway). Thus, a total of 500-1000 acres might be impacted, representing less than .2-.3% of the mountain land. Clearly, with proper siting and construction techniques, these homes will have a negligible impact on Boulder's mountains.

The impact of full development may result in 1000 homes built on sloping lots over the next 20-30 years and spread across 450 square miles of mountains and impacting less than one half of one percent of the land.

The primary justification for the originally proposed "Slope Regulations" was to safeguard safety, health and the environment. Land Use has yet to provide any examples of rockfalls, landslides, erosion, subsidence, sheet-water runoff and sedimentation that have adversely impacted the health, safety and welfare of residents of Boulder County.

However, these concerns were not supported even by Land Use, although the Committee listened to several briefings from individuals identified as experts in each of the hazard areas. Each of these individuals were chosen by Land Use to be most supportive of their position. This section reviews each hazard and the expert opinions and available data from professionals.

III. SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS REGARDING SLOPE CONSTRUCTION.

These conclusions were not rebutted by Land Use presenters, and in fact were for the most part supported by their comments:

Employing best practice design, engineering and construction practices can deal with any hazards arising from construction on slopes. This was stated by virtually every presenter and acknowledged by the SAC members during discussions. As was pointed out, the key factor is proper development supported by the necessary funds to do the job right.

There exist thousands of homes built in the mountains of Boulder on slopes exceeding 20%, and almost without exception, they are safe, and environmentally sound. In fact some of Boulder County's most historic buildings are located on "steep" slopes, and many of these buildings are over 100 years old. Land Use failed to present any credible evidence of significant (or minor for that matter) problems that have occurred in Boulder County mountains from construction on slopes; no dramatic examples of mudslides, no houses sliding downhill, no rockfalls damaging homes or injuring people, no massive erosion gullies destroying hillsides or clogging streams...no significant examples at all despite the thousands of homes constructed over the past 20-30 years on slopes over 20%.

In the Slopes Advisory Committee meeting, the County Attorney presented a highly misleading, slide presentation on the hazards of slope construction. All the examples presented(except the "Root Canal" house)were taken from locations other than Boulder County, and many of these were caused by poor government development decisions, not by improper construction by homeowners. The one Boulder example was a clear example of how County Government intrusion created the resulting problem, rather than solved it.

Boulder County is blessed with highly stable rock and soil formations in its mountains. This makes building in the mountains, even on slopes, low risk and very feasible. We in Boulder County need to focus on real hazards, not trumped up claims of hazards arising from experiences of other parts of Colorado or the US at large. In fact, several soil experts have commented that the major hazard to building in Boulder County is the presence of expansive soils in the plains areas of eastern Boulder County.

The UBC, adopted by Boulder County, has guidelines for construction on sloping terrain, and provides for controlling erosion, mudslide and other hazards. As the City of Boulder determined, after an extensive one and a half year study, the UBC gave adequate protection for steep slope construction. If necessary, modifications can be made to the UBC to deal with selected, specific concerns.

The first described hazard related to building on slopes is that of rockfall. Though Land Use presented no examples of rockfall hazards in Boulder County created through slope construction, it is recognized that such hazards could be created with improper construction practices. However, Boulder County has very stable slopes and rock formations. (Kirk Hendricks, graduate geologist and experienced homebuilder in the Pine Brook area for many years, presenter at the March 17, 1999 Slopes Depot Meeting}. The major rock slide problems which have occurred in the county have been on County and State roads, where cut and fill slopes often exceed 100% grade (notably Boulder Canyon Highway). One Pine Brook Hills resident did mention a rock falling on his property, though further investigation revealed the fall did not occur from construction, no actual hazard or damage resulted from the one large boulder rolling down a hillside, and the affected property is an older subdivision approved long ago by the County. Construction experts, as well as Land Use’s own presenters witnesses, made it clear that proper construction practices can alleviate rockfall hazards.

The common conclusion of those experts who presented to the Committee relating to rockfall and other hazards, is that these situations are very site specific. Developers and builders must deal with each site in unique ways, employing best practice approaches, which are covered by the UBC. Thus, rockfall hazards are not a priori a justification for limiting construction on mountain slopes.

Soil erosion and mudslides can damage slopes and harm waterways. Fortunately, with proper drainage controls and with re-vegetation of disturbed soil areas, even very steep slopes disturbed during construction can be protected from erosion and re-vegetated for long term stability. During the SAC meetings, the LUD provided the testimony of a government soils expert. She gave a very general presentation on what erosion is and the factors which influence it. She also stated that with good drainage and re-vegetation practices, steep slopes could be dealt with when disturbed by construction. She declined to claim that construction on slopes over 20 or 30% should be restricted due to concerns with erosion. Very little of what she had to offer was helpful to Committee’s effort. However, she made a point of saying that dealing with such hazards was a site specific problem, and that proper construction techniques could deal with these hazards.

The conclusions of the experts related to erosion and mudslide hazards is much like that for rockfalls. Boulder has very stable rock and soil formations and proper construction can deal with virtually all potential hazards. (Kirk Hendricks, Slopes Depot Meeting March 17, 1999; Tara Parks, structural engineer and architect, to the Committee). Also, the solution is to build according to the existing UBC and deal with site specific issues through compliance with the code.

3. Wildfire Hazards

The Committee was advised that the consensus of opinion of the mountain fire departments was that wildfire hazard is a universal risk best dealt with by defensive measures and good insurance; and that the BOCC should not use wildfire hazard as an artificial constraint to mountain development. Given that, however, steep slopes may reduce the effectiveness of fire fighters due to the terrain, and access to steep slopes can be a problem for fire fighters. However these factors may be offset by the fact that driveways and accessory roads on slopes can improve access for fire fighting and can themselves create firebreaks.

Cisterns and other water sources present because of construction can provide needed water to fire fighters. Finally, current construction, due to mandated wildfire mitigation processes, construction techniques and materials, sprinkler systems, fire breaks, and other factors, are much safer than existing, older homes from the point of wildfire hazards.

It should be noted that wildfire mitigation requires creating defensible spaces around homes and moving homes out of natural "chimney" areas. However, LUD policies often lead to preserving trees close to and downslope of homes for visual screening, and moving homes off open ridges and into draws to reduce viewshed impacts. Whenever safety concerns collide with aesthetic concerns, the policy should encourage addressing the safety issues as the primary consideration with aesthetics at the bottom of the list.

All of these factors lead to the conclusion by fire fighters that home construction on slopes should not be denied due to wildfire hazard considerations. Proper construction and mitigation techniques can lead to safe homes.

No wildlife experts presented evidence that construction on slopes creates an increased impact on wildlife.

The Committee heard from Boulder County Open Space Planner Rich Koopman who discussed generally the effect of mountain development on wildlife. His wildlife education and expertise was not made apparent to the Committee, however he indicated that there were no significant detrimental effects to wildlife that could be directly tied to construction on slopes. In general, the major factor was the overall impact of development on wildlife, regardless of slope. He indicated a few species were driven deeper into the "core" wooded areas by development, while other species actually adapted to the intrusion of development and increased in population. He stated that there were a few (Peregrine falcon, bald eagle, Preble's meadow jumping mouse) actual endangered species in Boulder County, though he could not characterize the impact of development in the mountains on these species, and made it clear Federal and State laws adequately protected these species. He also did not discuss in detail the logic behind the list of 156 "species of concern" used by Boulder County for protecting wildlife habitats in their recent new regulations.

The question of migration corridors, riparian corridors and wetlands was discussed, but again not related to slope specific concerns. No specific examples of damage to wildlife in Boulder County due to mountain construction or slope construction were given. Construction on the plains was presented as a deterrent to elk migration, though no specific harm to the elk was cited. Plains construction was also noted for its impact of wetlands.

It is also interesting to note that of the Federally listed endangered species, none are significantly impacted by mountain slope development. The Preble's mouse is a non-mountain area species. The Peregrine falcon is actually being introduced to downtown Denver in that it will nest successfully on high manmade "cliffs" such as high-rise buildings. The bald eagle is, we are told, undeterred by construction, as long as that construction is below their nesting sites.

The conclusion of the Committee’s deliberations was that slopes are not a factor in wildlife impacts of mountain construction. Also, as pointed out in section 1, the total land area impacted by construction on all remaining vacant parcels would be less than .5% of the mountain land. In that over 55% of Boulder County's mountain land is currently publicly owned (as parks, national forests, open space, etc.), consisting of over 150,000 acres, it seems clear future mountain construction should have almost undetectable impact on wildlife.

5. Aesthetic Considerations for Building on Slopes

Land Use raised the issue of aesthetic impacts of construction on slopes. The Committee heard about viewshed analysis, ridgeline construction, and other aesthetic and visual factors. Viewshed analysis applies primarily to controlling major developments which would produce significant change to highly visible ridge and slope areas. Single homes, on widely distributed locations will have virtually imperceptible impact on major viewsheds viewed from distances of miles from major highways. Second, viewshed protection for widely dispersed mountain lots is a case-by-case problem. In some cases slope or ridgeline construction will have virtually no impact on viewshed, while in other cases it could significantly impact viewshed. Finally, it is clear that aesthetics is a personal, highly subjective area which is not amenable to regulation and government control. Aesthetic issues should be handled as an advisory function of the Land Use Department, not a regulatory function.

The County, by imposing its own aesthetic values, is infringing on the individual's right to freedom of expression through the architecture and artistic aspects of home design. In early days, mountain communities were known for their vibrant lifestyles, reflected in their unique architecture styles. Many of us believe that it also leads to a bland, characterless, homogeneous mountain community. (Tara Parks, architect).

Mitigation of aesthetic concerns does not mean elimination of those concerns. Landowners should have significant leeway in dealing with the design and aesthetics of their home, and it should be left to the neighbors and other local citizens to determine if they feel impacted enough to take action. The County needs to get out of the business of picking house colors, roof colors, window coverings, architecture styles and other aesthetic items.

Another consideration the Committee may want to look into is that the current SPR, by invoking arbitrary and divergent requirements on each landowners property is in effect implementing "spot zoning", a practice which has been specifically prohibited by past Supreme Court decisions. Zoning laws, which are typically used to impose standard requirements across zoning districts (e.g. Forestry land), cannot be changed arbitrarily for individual properties and against individual landowners.

Finally, many of the LUD policies on site planning are contradictory. To minimize viewshed impacts, houses should be set back from the roads, rather than clustered together near the road. Imposing arbitrary limits on driveways forces homes to be more visible. If aesthetics are a major concern, then land owners should have the flexibility to locate homes well away from roadways where they are least visible.

IV. REMEDIES PROPOSED BY THE LAND USE DEPARTMENT

(THE ORIGINAL SLOPE REGULATION)

The Proposed Slope Regulations, which have since been "taken off the table" by Land Use, are flawed, unfounded, indefensible, and unnecessary. The claimed hazards used to justify these regulations do not exist, nor has any public outcry promoting slope regulations been identified. The proposed regulations relating to disturbance area, height above grade, house size, and cut-fill limits are inappropriate, unnecessary, and counterproductive. It seems obvious to observers that the intent was not to deal with the hazards of building on slopes, but rather to limit growth and development in the mountains. This sort of disingenuous approach to land use results in public distrust and suspicion.

The following sections discuss each of the proposed regulations.

Every expert who presented material at the meetings agreed on one thing: each site has specific requirements and challenges in terms of building site selection, driveway routing, viewshed mitigation, erosion control, etc. To place arbitrary, and excessively restrictive limits on disturbance area works against making logical, well founded decisions on these other important factors. No justification was provided for the selection of the particular disturbance area size limit, and the obvious result is to force all homes to be built directly on the roadways to minimize driveways.

As shown earlier, the total land area impacted by construction on the remaining buildable parcels will have negligible impact on the land or the environment. Even if each house were to disturb 1/4 acre (10,000 square feet), the total disturbed land area would be less than fifteen one-hundredths of one percent of the mountainous lands. And even for the largest homes, much of this would be re-vegetated according to existing requirements. The obvious conclusion is that limiting disturbance area is not based on logical protection of the environment but is an "underhanded attempt at growth management and only serves to complicate the process of developing a proper site plan." (Jeffrey Pecka, landscape architect & environmental planner).

No viable justification was presented for lowering the height above grade requirement for slope construction. Lowering the limit to 25 feet only serves to force homes into non-standard construction techniques, and complicates dealing with snow loads found in the mountains. "The proposed height limit is arbitrary & capricious and once again is another example oblique attempt to limit growth by unduly shortening building heights." (Jeff Pecka)

Forcing homes built on slopes into the Limited Impact (LI) Review process by lowering the cut-fill limits serves no purpose in reducing hazards, protecting the environment, nor dealing with aesthetic issues. It only serves to force more bureaucratic red tape, complicate the Site Plan Review process, and consume hundreds of hours of the LUD and the landowner. The decision on the need for a LI review should be based on actual safety, health, hazard, or environmental considerations, not some arbitrary dirt moving limit.(Mark Heath, architect)

The SAC received from the County Commissioners a list of other possible solutions or approaches to slope development control and the proposed slope regulations. This section reviews these proposed possible approaches.

Do nothing. Allow for already existing regulations and procedures to deal with specific sites. The Coalition approves of this alternative, except that it leaves the current Site Plan Review (SPR) process intact. That process as the Committee has learned, is too susceptible to arbitrary land use determinations, and is often applied in a heavy-handed manner. No good scientific justification has been presented for restricting building on slopes any more stringently than other building considerations. We strongly support a recommendation by the Committee to the Commissioners to immediately appoint a Task Force to review the Site Plan Review, and propose changes which would result in a more fair and open site review process.

This approach requires adoption of slope specific regulations such as that proposed by Land Use. This has been shown to be unnecessary and undesirable. There is a much better approach that accomplishes the goal of protecting against hazards without singling out slope construction.

Amending the County’s Uniform Building Code to address potential problems of building on sloped sites would ensure that owners properly address any engineering issues on their specific site. (See the City of Boulder steep slope study conclusions from 1992, provided to the Committee). By making the Land Use Department into the process in an advisory role to assist the land owner rather than a regulatory and enforcement role to intimidate the land owner would bring about less adversarial and contentious the relationship between County government and its citizens.

The Land Use Coalition strongly supports the concept of purchasing specific, "difficult" properties in the mountains for open space. Funds for such purchases should come from existing open space funds or from countywide tax sources (as opposed to a tax only on mountain landowners). Property owners should not be forced to sell properties, but if the County pays going market prices, acquiring most of the desired properties should be feasible, especially if the County could exchange the land for another equally desirable building site.

This approach would also be desirable and should be encouraged, though it may be difficult to make it widely successful. Tax breaks from Conservation Easements might encourage some participation, but in general private landowners are not likely to purchase large properties to hold as Open Space for the benefit of the County without substantial benefits. Financial assistance from the County or local community governments may also enhance the likelihood of success.

This approach is a potential tools for the County to use to acquire difficult properties they wish to preserve as open space. However, the Coalition does not support a TDR program unless it is statutorily defined as voluntary and supported by the existence of a reserve of comparable, desirable properties, including mountain properties, that individuals would be willing to trade into. Also, the determination of comparable value for transfer rights has to be based on fair market value. This is not the single solution, but could be a useful component of a collection of creative techniques used by the County to protect certain mountain properties. (See letter from Dirk Arnold to the Committee regarding the workability of TDR’s, dated May 20, 1999).

‘When an individual’s opportunity to use his or her land is going to be limited by government action – to be fair – the questions that must be asked are: "Who will benefit?" and "Who should pay?" The method and amount of payment may vary in each case, but when the primary beneficiary of a land or use restriction is the general public, the private property owner should not be made to bear the financial burden alone’. Ed Byrne, land use attorney, Boulder County.

The idea that mountain landowners are the cause of the problem and thus should be taxed to fix it is absurd. The major drive for restricting mountain development is from "flatlanders" such as residents of the City of Boulder who want to drive up into pristine mountains uncluttered by development. If there is a desire to purchase more mountain land for Open Space, it should be funded by all the residents of the County, not just those living above 6500 feet! Local communities may choose to fund land purchases by creating districts and tax collection, but the County should not take the role of punishing one region for the benefit of another!

The Committee devoted the better part of one meeting to the process of rule-making and site plan review. The procedure now used for Site Plan Review is one that pits the landowner and the Land Use Department against one another in an adversarial relationship. There are certain simple changes which would alleviate much of this tension. (See outline of suggested revisions from Mark Heath, architect, with recommendations regarding Site Plan Review, April 26, 1999, Richard Lefcourt, Tara Parks, architect, Kevin Probst, designer).

The Committee also discussed the "rule-making" process utilized by the County Land Use Department in proposing the slopes regulations: Lack of adequate notice to the public, and to those affected by the proposed regulations particularly generated ill will and distrust from the public. More public input, more outside experts or consultants, proposing alternative approaches to the perceived problem, as well as more thoughtful consideration at the staff and the Planning Commission level might ward off mistakes or errors of judgment, or even reveal that there is no problem to solve. Presenting the regulations as a fait accompli shuts off public participation and debate, and may insulate decision-makers from creative solutions.

There seemed to be consensus that the County develop better communication between the Land Use Department and the public, especially people who are going through the Site Plan Review and Limited Impact Special Use review process.

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE LAND USE COALITION

TO THE SLOPES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

1. The County discard the proposed Slope Regulations.
2. No new regulations specific to sloped land are necessary. Instead, guarantee that "best practice" building practices will be employed on all building properties and properly engineered and built according to existing building codes will ensure safe, environmentally sound, structurally secure construction.
3. Form a citizen’s advisory committee to consider specific building code amendments include recognized architectural, engineering and design professionals to cover areas of concern for all new construction (mountain and non-mountain) if it is felt current code requirements do not address some areas adequately. These might include areas such as erosion control (proper runoff control, disturbed area re-vegetation, drainage planning, etc.), wildfire mitigation (current wildfire mitigation procedures and code requirements), soil movement (proper soil compaction, soil testing, structural anchoring, prevention of building on loose fill areas), rock fall (proper retaining structures, loose rock removal or retention).
4. Make no changes in the height above grade requirements, since current guidelines are more than adequate and conform with standard building practices.
5. Recommend no further limits on the "disturbed area" caused by driveways, house footprint, septic systems, and that other site development actions to an arbitrary maximum be discarded because each site has specific development needs and issues and limitations such as these arbitrarily restrict the options of landowners.
6. Reject changes in the cut and fill requirements that force a project into Special Use or Limited Impact Reviews as unnecessary and excessively restrictive, creating hardship for builders/owners and unnecessarily taxing the resources of the County and wasting time and money.
7. Urge the County to emphasize the concept of "Building Envelopes" with reasonably large square footage allowances for individual properties and that these envelopes be vested with the property and transferable with the land unless relevant site conditions change, in which case they would be reassessed by the County and the Owner.
8. Aesthetic considerations for all site development projects should be handled by establishing specific standards and guidelines which would be provided to prospective builders/owners through an advisory role for the LUD. These would deal with avoiding ridge lines, maximum use of shielding terrain and vegetation, use of low level lighting and downshading, and setting homes into hillsides to minimize height above grade. Aesthetic freedom should be expanded to allow individuality in home design, construction, and presentation (color, finishing, trim, etc.), rather than driving all mountain construction into a uniformly bland commonality.
9. On-site inspections should be conducted jointly by the Land Use Planner and the prospective Builder/Owner early in the Site Plan Review process to discuss potential sites, identifiable issues, possible solutions, and overall feasibility.
10. Explore creative techniques for preserving Open Space such as: a voluntary and fair market value based program of Development Rights Transfer that includes transferable mountain property, Open Space purchases at market price, purchase of mining and agricultural property development rights, community purchase of specific properties, cooperative programs with Federal and State agencies, etc. The Committee should bring in an expert on programs such as these to present information on alternatives such as these.
11. Make efforts to obtain additional Open Space in the mountains to acquire difficult properties, with such purchases to be funded by a Countywide property or sales tax if passed by the citizens of Boulder County.
12. The County should support the concept of acquiring, on a voluntary basis by the land owner, Development Rights from owners of agricultural and mining lands to preserve these lands from future development while compensating landowners for the surrender of their development rights.
13. Either this Slopes Advisory Committee, or another similar one, should be chartered to conduct a general review of the Site Plan Review (SPR) Process, since the current process is excessively contentious, generates significant community ill will, creates an atmosphere of intimidation and distrust between citizens and their government, and is perceived as arbitrary and subjective. The current process also wastes a major portion of the Commissioner's time, consumes unnecessary financial resources of the County (and thus the taxpayer) and leads to unnecessary litigation and expenses by citizens and government.

• This review should consider the foundations of Site Plan Review as a regulatory vs. advisory process.

• The review should look at the factual, scientific basis underpinning the current regulations

• The review should look at major areas of contention and how to remove the subjective nature from the SPR process, and how to establish specific standards of compliance, so owners can better plan for site plan requirements

• The review should look at the steps in the SPR process to see how it could better fit the needs of the prospective builder and not cause unneeded individual expense and frustration

• The review should look at changing the SPR process from a REGULATORY process to an ADVISORY and CONSULTATIVE process which aids the builder/owners rather than intimidates them.

14. The County should take immediate steps to improve the procedures and communication for those going through the building process to make it less adversarial and less expensive for landowners; should give ample notice of proposed new regulations to citizens, and actively seek input and comment. The County should take more time to study perceived "problems" before acting, and not rush to enact regulations without spending time to identify the issues, and conducting adequate evaluation of alternative proposals.

This is the input, comments and suggestions of The Land Use Coalition. We would be glad to speak to the SAC concerning these comments and suggestions, or to sit down with any SAC members whenever you like to review the recommendations.

We would like the Committee to understand that The Land Use Coalition is not opposed to all controls on construction and development in Boulder County. We support Open Space purchases, appropriate environmental protections, appropriate wildlife protection, realistic regulations for protecting health and safety, and development that is in harmony with our beautiful natural environment. However, we feel strongly that the proposed Slope Regulations are unnecessary and flawed. We also feel that the current SPR process is not achieving the desired goals of improving development in Boulder County and is instead creating an atmosphere of distrust, contention and intimidation in our otherwise friendly county.