What’s at Stake

Adding up to 4,000 new homes isn’t just about growth — it changes how our community functions every day, and how safe we are when things go wrong. Three things matter most in any master-planned community:

Water. Roads. And the ability to get out safely in an emergency.

Amendment 15 directly affects all three.

🚰 Water

Sterling Ranch’s water system was designed based on a specific number of approved homes. Amendment 15 would significantly increase that number, placing additional long-term demand on water supplies and infrastructure.

Adding up to 4,000 more homes could:

• Increase strain on water and wastewater systems due to increased water demand

• Increase reliance on water supplies that must last for decades

Residents deserve clear, public answers about:

• What specific water sources would serve the additional homes

• How long those supplies are guaranteed

• What infrastructure upgrades would be required

• Who would pay for those upgrades

Although Dominion has issued a letter indicating support for the proposed amendment, letters of support are not the same as independent verification of long-term water sufficiency.

Residents are aware that questions about water availability and long-term supply are actively discussed at the state and regional level, and they are asking for greater clarity about how water resources will be secured decades into the future.

At this stage, residents have not seen a publicly available, independent analysis confirming that long-term water reserves are sufficient to support the additional homes proposed under Amendment 15. Given the scale of this amendment, residents are asking for a thorough, science-based review of water sources and infrastructure before approval is considered.

🚒 Wildfire & Emergency Evacuation

Sterling Ranch is located in a wildfire-prone area, where safe evacuation depends on road capacity, timing, and contingency planning. When an evacuation is ordered, every minute matters.

Residents have asked whether comprehensive evacuation modeling has been completed to evaluate:

• Mass evacuations during wildfire events

• The impact of blocked or reduced roadways

• The combined effect of Sterling Ranch and the surrounding communities evacuating at the same time

Based on publicly available information, residents have not seen a formal, publicly released evacuation study that evaluates emergency scenarios beyond typical daily traffic conditions. Douglas County does not require developers to 1. Conduct emergency evacuation studies. 2. Implement an emergency evacuation plan for residents.

Residents understand that standard traffic analyses focus on everyday use. However, evacuation events are fundamentally different and require separate modeling that accounts for urgency, congestion, and limited route availability.

As a result, residents are asking:

• How is evacuation safety being evaluated for the additional homes proposed

• Whether existing routes can safely handle a large-scale evacuation

• How surrounding communities be affected during a shared emergency

Residents have expressed concerns during public meetings about evacuation safety and the lack of emergency-specific analysis. Given the scale of Amendment 15 and the wildfire risk in this area, residents believe evacuation safety should be clearly studied and disclosed before approval is considered. The developers went as far as to say “Roxborough residents moved into a community without proper egress, and that is not our problem.” However, adding 16000 homes on the same evacuation path as existing residents is the developers’ and the counties responsibility

🚗 Roads, Traffic & Emergency Access

More homes mean more vehicles — every day and especially during emergencies. Adding up to 4,000 more homes would generate tens of thousands of additional vehicle trips over time, increasing congestion and potentially slowing emergency response.

During an emergency, traffic isn’t just inconvenient — it can be life-threatening. Residents deserve to know:

• Whether road upgrades will be required before homes are built

• Where bottlenecks are likely to occur

• Whether emergency vehicles will be able to get through when they’re needed most

Why Douglas County’s Ban on Public Comment Is Likely Unconstitutional

• First Amendment violation (free speech):
  Public meetings are a limited public forum. Once opened, the County may regulate time and order—but cannot silence citizens while allowing unlimited developer and staff presentations.

• Speaker-based discrimination:
  Developers are given unlimited time; citizens are denied comment or limited to two minutes “if time allows.” Favoring one class of speaker over another is unconstitutional.

• Viewpoint discrimination:
  Public comment was removed during controversial land-use approvals. Restricting speech when opposition is strongest strongly suggests suppression of dissent, which courts treat as unlawful.

• Due process violation (property rights):
  Land-use decisions affect property values, water access, taxes, and safety. Citizens are entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before decisions are made.

• Equal protection concerns:
  The County created two classes—developers and citizens—with unequal rights to participate. Citizens bear the costs but are denied the voice.

• Conflict with Colorado Constitution:
  Colorado’s free speech and due process protections are stronger than federal law and emphasize transparency in land-use decisions.

• Violation of Colorado Open Meetings Law (intent):
  Public policy must not be formed in secret. Removing public comment undermines transparency and public confidence, even if technical compliance is claimed.

• High legal risk:
  Courts do not require proof of corruption—structural unfairness and suppression of public participation are enough to invalidate approvals.

Bottom Line

This rule silences citizens, amplifies developer influence, and shifts public costs without public consent—making it constitutionally vulnerable and subject to legal challenge.