Thank you for allowing The Land Use Coalition to speak to you today on the Final Report from the Slopes Advisory Committee..   My comments will be both general comments on the SAC report, its content, tone and overall conclusions, and specific comments on the recommendations presented in the report.   I will also comment on the SAC process as we observed it.  I hope these comments will be useful and constructive.

 Overall, The Land Use Coalition would like to congratulate the SAC in concluding their work.  We are pleased that the Final Report is  more logical, reasonable and fair than the originally proposed Slope Regulations.  We feel the SAC report represents a major step toward reasonable and balanced policies for land use throughout Boulder County.   We want to commend the SAC for its diligent work toward resolving the difficult questions placed before it by the County Commissioners.

 The The Land Use Coalition does have some reservations about the general tone and nature of the draft report and the specific recommendations.  In particular, the report needs to convey the basic conclusions reached by the SAC in clear and unmistakable language to avoid incorrect interpretation.  We feel that, based on the observations by the The Land Use Coalition of the SAC deliberations, the committee results could be characterized in the following unambiguous way:

•   The SAC found the originally proposed Slope Regulations to be poorly written, not based on good engineering or science, and not founded on evidence or facts to support the conclusions regarding hazards associated with building on properties with slopes greater than 20% in Boulder County. The SAC found no evidence that any significant health and safety hazards have existed in the past, nor currently exists in Boulder County due to home construction on sloped mountain property.
•   The SAC found that all natural hazards associated with development on sloped properties could be dealt with through proper engineering and construction practices as dictated by current building codes and other regulations.  This includes rockfall, erosion, sedimentation, flooding, earth movement, wildfire, and other hazards claimed in the originally proposed Slope Regulations.
•   The SAC found no significant link between sloped property construction and hazards to natural values such as the environment, wildlife or their habitats, or other natural elements.  According to expert testimony, construction on sloped properties is no more nor less impacting to the environment than other construction as long as currently defined mitigation and revegetation practices are employed, and significant wildlife corridors and designated habitats are avoided.
•   The SAC found that the principal issue of sloped construction was one of aesthetics.  In that the major concerns are not hazards or environmental impacts, the question becomes that of mitigating the visual and "community values" impact of  construction of new homes on sloped properties in the mountains.  Specifically, the issues are viewshed and house size; i.e. the visibility of the house by others (such as from roadways and other public areas) and the size of the house relative to others in the "local community".
•   The SAC found that the Site Plan Review (SPR) process was intimidating and contentious and that it generated considerable dissention and ill will with landowners in Boulder County and within local communities.  The SPR process leads to distrust between citizens and their government and conflict between neighbors.  The County should consider including in the SPR process an ombudsman to protect the landowner, and an impartial professional review board to judge disputes between the landowner and the Land Use Department.  All of these issues could be evaluated if the SPR process received a bottoms up review and revisions to make it more harmonious and helpful to those building in Boulder County.
•   The SAC found that many alternative tools could be employed by Boulder County to help alleviate concerns with building on problematic mountain properties.  These tools, such as TDRs, mountain open space purchases, GIDs, and RCDs should be used by Boulder County to deter or regulate, through fair, open market, and democratic processes, the construction on properties deemed critical for protection from development due to aesthetic or community value concerns.
•   The SAC found that better communication between the County Land Use Department (Land Use Department), the County Commissioners, and the land owners was essential to improving the SPR process.   Enhanced communications could include: on-site meetings of the parties, greater use of site envelopes with longer lifetimes, clear and definitive regulations with specific requirements, the employment of a professional review board for assessment of engineering and construction issues associated with development projects, and better notification of land owners concerning potential land use policy changes and public meetings, and their impact on land owners

 In general, the Final SAC Report, though a positive step toward appropriate land use policies, does not reflect the poor nature of the original proposed regulations.  It also is, in some areas, vaguely worded leaving the conclusions and recommendations of the SAC open for interpretation by the Land Use Department and the County Commissioners.  The Land Use Coalition strongly believes that the SAC should be clear and definitive in its statement of conclusions and recommendations.

I will now go through each section of the Final Report and make some brief comments.

 Introduction: As mentioned earlier, the original proposed regulations were bad enough that Graham Billingsley tore them up and said they were off the table!! To call them "worthwhile" does not place responsibility for them, and the ensuing months of controversy, where it should be placed.  Also, at the original hearings at the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners, and at all the SAC meetings, virtually nobody defended the regulations while many, many people spoke against them.  The introduction is misleading to the County Commissioners as to public reaction..

 Additionally, the conclusion of the SAC was that specific regulations and requirements such as building codes need to be drafted for everyone to use, and then the landowner would apply these to their specific site.  What the committee wanted to get away from was the subjective, undefined nature of the SPR process and the rules being made up as the process evolved.

 Natural Hazards:  The general conclusion was that all natural hazards could be dealt with by proper engineering and construction, and that no proposed construction should be prohibited just because a site was sloped.  As opposed to the text of the report, the area of natural hazards, was the primary reason given in the original slopes for restricting sloped development, not aesthetics or environmental impacts.

 The concept of additional professional scrutiny (i.e. real engineers and professionals, not Land Use Department planners) is one The Land Use Coalition supports as an appropriate method to ensure proper engineering and building practices are employed on a construction project.  Such professional input should be triggered primarily by a visual inspection of the site by a professional geologist, not just by a Slope Overlay or a particular "average" slope estimate.

 The Commissioners should be informed that this area was grossly and fraudulently used by the Land Use Department and the County Attorney early in the process to try and justify the regulations.  The County Attorney's presentation was totally fraudulent and misleading as to the hazards of building on slopes.  Such deceptive tactics by public officials should not be tolerated.

 Natural Values:  It was concluded by the committee (based on expert testimony) that slope was not a consideration in the impact of construction on wildlife and other natural elements.  Proper regulations on revegetation and mitigation, such as already exist, combined with reasonable protection of wildlife habitats for endangered species, can deal with natural impacts.  

 Testimony on this area showed that slope had virtually no relevance to the impact on natural elements, especially wildlife.  Also, it should be recognized that if all of the 3500 parcels left in the mountains were built on, only about  one half of one percent of the mountain land in Boulder County would be impacted.  Clearly this will not have any measurable impact on the environment.  Deterring mountain development is not driven by the environmental impact.

 Aesthetics:  As in the community, so in the committee, there was dissension over the role of the County in telling people what kind of house they should build, what color it should be, how big it should be, where it should be located, where the driveway should go, etc.  The Land Use Coalition believes that the County should have an advisory role in aesthetic issues, and the question of legal action should be left to the neighbors in a community if they feel they have been unduly wronged by a particular construction.  The County Commissioners and their 40 staff people should not spend 75% of their precious and expensive time worrying about the color of a house or the size of its windows or other such issues.

 Additionally, the committee concluded that other than the viewshed issue, slope had nothing directly to do with aesthetics.  It was also shown that in many cases there was a conflict between the goals of  safety and hazard mitigation and that of aesthetics.  In these cases, hazard mitigation should have priority.

 Visual Impacts:  It was clear that the major issue for the committee was the visibility of homes.  With the majority of the mountain land owned publicly and protected, it is not a question of having adequate pristine mountain lands for public enjoyment as open space.  The remaining developable parcels are not going to significantly impact the gross aesthetics of the mountains, nor the availability of open space lands for public enjoyment.  If protecting views in the mountains is so important, the County should emphasize purchase of important viewshed properties, in the mountains (i.e. not foothills, not front range escarpment), for open space rather than spending their money buying up land in the eastern plains. Funds for this should come from the entire county, not just taxes on mountain landowners, since all residents benefit.

 The Land Use Coalition does not support the idea of "formulas" relating slope to disturbance area, house size, or roof line height.  Also the computation of the "average slope" should be made over the area that will be affected by the construction, namely the area of the foundation, some surrounding perimeter, and the driveway area with a perimeter.

 Communications:  The Land Use Coalition obviously supports greater communications in the SPR process.  A site visit, a renewable envelope definition that lasts 5+ years, the involvement of unbiased professionals in the review process, etc. would all go a long way to reducing the suspicion, intimidation, distrust, and anger that infiltrates the SPR process.  The conversion of the SPR process from a regulatory to an advisory role for the County, with an appeal process for the Land Use Department to a non-political professional board would better serve the public and the individuals and their rights.

References:  The Land Use Coalition delivered three documents to the SAC which we produced.  The first was a "Recommendations" document, the second was the "Desired Outcomes" document, and the third was the "Comments on the Draft Report".  Also, the 1991-1992 Boulder City Slopes Construction Study was provided to the SAC.  Finally, the Accounting of Mountain Parcels, conducted in 1993 by Peter Fogg was provided to the SAC.

That concludes my comments on the Final Report.  I do have a few additional comments on the  SAC process.

 The Land Use Coalition attended every SAC meeting with a desire to assist in an equitable outcome.  We were disappointed in the managing role the Land Use Department was given early on, but were pleased that for the most part the SAC eventually took control of their own destiny.   We were pleased with the public comment periods that were provided, but felt that greater public input on specific topics would have been constructive, and worth the additional time it would have taken.

 We were pleased that there was extensive discussion among the committee members on the various topics, and felt that many of the members had considerable professional expertise to bring to the issue, especially in the areas of wildfire, viewshed and mountain real estate.  We were, however, concerned with some of the comments made by certain committee members such as:

•   The suggestion that the County should restrict house size so that people would not want to buy mountain property and thus the cost (value) of the property would go down.  This, it was felt, was a good way to encourage building of smaller homes in the mountains.  The idea that the County should base their policies on manipulating the mountain land market is outrageous, not to mention illegal.
•   The statement that the Site Plan Review process will always remain somewhat "ambiguous".  We feel there is no need for ambiguity.  If you can't write down a requirement, you have no business enforcing a requirement.
•   The comment that if a lot required retaining walls it should not be built on. Retaining walls are a normal, accepted element of construction, and serve to better preserve land, prevent erosion and stabilize construction.  The idea that they are somehow "unnatural" is absurd.
•   The idea that "local viewshed" should be as significant a consideration as general viewshed.  The concept is that a few neighbors should be able to dictate whether a house should be built because they might have to see it from their property or as they drive the roads in their locale.  Just because someone builds first in an area, does not give them special rights over other's property they do not own.  The other land owners have just as much right to build on their property as the early arrivals did when they built.
•   The "last resort" claim that even if a house were totally invisible to anyone else in a community, it would still be incompatible because the "lifestyles" of the occupants would be incompatible.  This is a bigoted, discriminatory and unfounded comment reflecting a disturbing, snobbish attitude toward people who just happen to want or need an extra bedroom or office, or workshop or some other space.
•   The claim that "That's what the County is for" regarding enforcing the desires of a vocal minority of neighbors on the majority of landowner with regards to unpopular requirement after democratic processes such as GIDs or RCDs have failed..  This assertion suggests a support for the dictatorial, heavy handed, confrontational, intimidating Site Plan Review process we are trying to fix.  The Land Use Department and the County should get out of the role of mediating between neighbors.  If one or more neighbors truly feel they have been harmed, their are legal recourses.  All the SPR process does now is encourage divisive confrontations between neighbors over petty issues.

In conclusion, we would like to thank the committee members for seeing this process through.  We appreciate the opportunities The Land Use Coalition has had to impact the process.  We hope you will consider incorporating these comments in your final version of the report.  Thank you for your time.

July 7, 1999