The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-1333-Minutes for Meeting October 15,2004 Recorded 11/1/2004COUNTY OFFICIAL TES NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKS COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11/01/2044 04;29;49 PM 1111 !)111111111 IISI IIIII (III III 200-1333 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2004 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tom DeWolf. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Mike Dugan, District Attorney; Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; Debbie Legg, Personnel; Paul Blikstad and Kevin Harrison, Community Development Department; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; media representatives Barney Lerten of bend com and The Bugle, and Chris Barker of the Bulletin; and approximately fifteen other citizens. Chair Daly opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation October 20 Vulnerable Oregonians Justice Day in Deschutes County. M. P. Meekins of the State Department for Seniors & Peoples with Disabilities, gave an overview of the request for the Board to adopt this proclamation. She said that significant progress has been made in the awareness and prosecution of offenders, ultimately resulting in diminishing the number of cases. Kristin Drew, Terese Ponci, Samantha McConnell and Bill Linyard read portions of the proclamation to the audience. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 1 of 37 Pages Commissioner Luke said that in the past he was Chair and Vice Chair of the Human Services Committee in the Legislature, and appreciates the work that is being done by this group. DALY: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004- 114, Declaring Opposition to Oregon Ballot Measure No. 33, regarding Amendments to the Medical Marijuana Law. Mike Dugan said he didn't want to discuss the medical properties of marijuana use; instead he wanted to discuss Measure 33 and its wide-ranging effects. Passage of this measure would allow users who are registered with the State to possess up to six pounds of marijuana, plus ten plants that can produce up to a pound each. Mr. Dugan said that in his opinion this amount is excessive, and amounts to being able to use one marijuana cigarette per hour, twenty-four hours a day. Even Stormy Ray, who was one of the chief petitioners of the original Act, opposes this change. In addition to allow this higher amount, the Measure would require a non-profit dispensary to be established within six months. If that doesn't occur, if a registered user is indigent, the counties would then have to provide the drug. The Measure doesn't explain how it would be provided to the County for this purpose. At this time, the users grow their own drug. This change could cost the County money, as the State would pass the responsibility of administering the changes to the counties. It is still against federal law to use the drug, and if the counties dispense it, there could be controversy. Commissioner DeWolf said that Oregon in voters have approved right to die legislation, which the federal government doesn't like. But the counties shouldn't have to go into the marijuana growing and distribution business. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 2 of 37 Pages Mr. Dugan added that the Measure doesn't provide for medication for those users who are in jail, but seems to extend to that point due to the broad sweep of the Measure. Commissioner Luke stated that former Senator Neil Bryant has said that the latest polls show the Measure failing, and there is no government officials supporting it. Mr. Dugan explained that there is a potential cost to health departments and public safety departments, and it would be very hard to adequately determine who is authorized to use the drug. The Measure also allows non -physicians to prescribe the drug, and the County would have to bring someone on board to provide these services. Commissioner Luke said that one of the reasons he opposes the Measure is that if the program is allowed, it should be run by the State with appropriate standards in place. The way it is proposed could end up with thirty-six different applications on how it is run, creating many problems. However, the drug is legal at this time for registered users to help with specific medical problems. Mr. Dugan replied that in some cases it can be beneficial, but pharmaceutical companies have developed some drugs that provide similar relief, and these are available through prescription. He added that the street value of the marijuana, when considering the pounds that can be possessed and the mature plants, could equal $3,600 per pound. At this time Mr. Dugan read the resolution to the audience. DEWOLF: Move approval of Resolution No. 2004-114. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (Continued from September 22), and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004-066, regarding the Legalization of a Portion of Sisemore Road. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 3 of 37 Pages George Kolb gave an overview of the issue to date. After the public hearing on September 22, he contacted representatives of the Bureau of Land Management, who indicate they own the property because of a reversionary clause, and provided a letter to the County that they feel the legalization process should proceed. (County records show that the property in question is owned by the State of Oregon) He said the County will have to amend the right of way grant with the Bureau if the legalization is approved. He added that that he contacted the Assessor's Office and asked them to look into this situation. Chair Daly then opened the public hearing. WILLIAM KUHN: I'm William Kuhn, and I live at 65575 Sisemore Road, within the Tumalo winter deer range. Thank you for finding out who the owner is. I would like to address the letter to Mr. Kolb from Robert Towne. This basically says what we were kind of expecting, and I would like to draw to your attention to the fact that, based on what we have heard, Sisemore Road is not a legalized road from Tumalo Reservoir Road north to about I'm going to guess about half a mile south or so of our property. I guess I want to know, why there are number of people that live along there who have used the road on a regular basis and, if the legalized road is out in the middle of Bull Flat, why is it there? Can it not be legalized from Tumalo Reservoir Road north? LUKE: May I ask George a question? Was the original road done when it was Crook County or Deschutes County? KOLB : The road was moved when it was with Crook County. And in 1913 the road was relocated and Crook County started the process to do the legalization of that entire segment of the road. LUKE: So where the original road was, was not where it was supposed to be? KOLB : Where the original road was established was right in the middle of Bull Flat where the reservoir was going to be. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 4 of 37 Pages LUKE: So they started working on the reservoir then and moved the road, but never completed the legalization. Much like what happened at Deschutes Junction, where eventually people crossed the railroad tracks and drove down the west side of the tracks, and did it over enough years that they then said, this is where the road is. Okay. KOLB : So the process was started by Crook County, and I think several months later it turned into Deschutes County, and the process just got dropped. The reason we are doing this stretch is that property owners approached us; they did the surveying and will end up doing the monumentation on it. It is one that we probably should have on our list of roads to be legalized, but we have several on the list already. LUKE: Let me ask you a question. Where the road is supposed to be, where the legal right of way is — KOLB: The established right of way. LUKE: The established right of way, not where the road itself is right now. If you legalize where the currently is, the property where is originally was to be goes back to the original landowners? KOLB : The legalization nullifies any previous record of that road. KUHN: I believe that property is under the control of the Tumalo Irrigation District as long as they are setting this aside for irrigation purposes. But if they don't, I think it reverts back to somebody else, but I don't know who. I also have a question about the maintenance of both the legalized and non - legalized roads. In the minutes of the Board's work session on August 9, I'm reading that "The people wanting the partition are paying for a survey and other costs, and a land use process is still required to allow them road frontage. The road is there and is maintained. This is a paperwork issue." I believe George Kolb is being quoted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 5 of 37 Pages In the hearing on September 22, it says, "During their partition process, they found out that the road had not been legalized in its current location", and say that it is not maintained. DEWOLF: We don't maintain it. KOLB: I went back and checked. It is shown on our road system. Since it is an established road, I guess technically we could maintain it, but we don't. We maintain it roughly to the bridge because we have used that bridge to get water for our water trucks. DALY: It's not a requirement that we maintain it, though. Right? KOLB : Since it is an established County road, we could spend funds on it, just like Gribling Road — LUKE: Or the gravel roads in Deschutes River Woods? KOLB : No, those aren't established; they are public right of way. It has to be an established County road before we can spend funds to maintain it. DALY: And this is now? KOLB : Sisemore is an established road. We're maintaining the portion from Tumalo Reservoir north. But the portion south has so little traffic, we've got other places that need our money more. But we do maintain the portion that runs by Mr. Kuhn's house, heading north. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 6 of 37 Pages KUHN: We're not necessarily arguing this point. We just want to know if there is a set policy for what is maintained and what isn't? Is this written any place as to how you make that determination? LUKE: We probably wouldn't maintain any of this road if we didn't contribute to the deterioration of the road. KOLB: We will look at roads and technically could be doing maintenance on any established road. But it comes down to a fiscal decision as to whether we should spend money on a road that gets a few cars a day, or use the money on arterials and heavily used roads. KUHN: Again, I'm not here to quibble. I just want to know if there is an established policy. DEWOLF: I think it might be best to get together with George or Tom Blust and see what they've got. We're not going to get that answer here today. KUHN: Okay, fine. L981 11.4 There is a road maintenance plan that is adopted every year, and the roads that are maintained are on that plan. KUHN: Okay. Again, I would like to urge that the portion of Sisemore Road between Tumalo Reservoir Road north to roughly a half -mile south of our property be legalized. If you are going to do this south, let's make the major portion of Sisemore Road legal. DALY: Is it already legal, or not? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 7 of 37 Pages KOLB: It hasn't gone through the legalization process. And, like I said, we've got several roads that are on our list ahead of this that we need to legalize. The problem is, it's a fairly expensive procedure. You have to survey and tie down centerline monuments. That's why we are doing this one; the applicants came to us and said they'd take care of it. They paid for the survey, the filing of the survey, and the monumentation. Really all we had to cover is the engineer's report and the public notification. KUHN: Our major rationale for wanting it to be legalized, the portion that is currently used, is to remove the concept that there is something out there in the middle of Bull Flat that people can use. This is because of the greater plan of the area, to remove motorized vehicles from that wildlife area. This would remove the status of that one being a recognized road. I am in support of the legalization of the portion of Sisemore Road from Tumalo Reservoir Road north for this reason. Thank you. PAUL DEWEY: I'm Paul Dewey, for the Sisters Forest Planning Committee. I have almost more questions than testimony. I wanted to comment specifically on Sisemore Road south of Tumalo Reservoir Road. The concern of the Sisters Forest Planning Committee is about the Tumalo winter deer range, and the potential connection of this road down to the Sisters Mainline Road. Now, you all issued a decision fairly recently on Bull Springs Road, making that a public road. LUKE: That connection is not made though, is it? Maybe on the map. That's an abandoned right of way. That was part of the discussion we had at the last public hearing. That road is not physically there. DEWEY: To connect the Sisters Mainline Road to Sisemore Road. LUKE: That was the testimony we heard. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 8 of 37 Pages KOLB : I've driven out to the end of the road, and it looks like there is just a track. I haven't followed it to find out where it ends on the Forest Service property. DEWEY: The Forest Service map for the area does show the road through there. That's one of the concerns about legalizing this road south, is the extent to which that would encourage more development and more use south of there. DEWOLF: That won't. And the reason it won't do any more or any less is because we already have a legal road out there. It isn't where the road actually is. So all we are doing is moving a section from where on the maps it is legal but there is no road, onto this road that actually exists. The end of the legalization is basically at the end of that lot south of there. It does not continue. This eliminates the rest of the road that were formerly legal from being legal. This should actually reduce any possibility of that ever coming to pass. LUKE: I appreciate your concern. I would think that a different application or a different time abandoning what is on the map might be discussed. I'd be more than happy to take a look at that. It is not our intention to open up any more roads in that area. KOLB: If anyone wanted to, they would have to go through a public process. DEWEY: Doesn't this road end at the Forest Service property? KOLB : It appears that it does, yes. DEWEY: Because the extension, if I owned the land just south of the Forest Service property, I think it is still owned by Crown, and I wanted to partition that, I would say that this is a public road. Because for any partition you need a public road. The public road would be Sisemore Road to the Forest Service property, and then the Forest Service road shown on the map would be a public road. Then you would get to that land that's currently owned by Crown. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 9 of 37 Pages LUKE: There potentially is a road there anyway. A right of way. They could make that claim now, whether we legalize this or not. They could put the road out in the middle of Bull Flat, because that's where the right of way is. DEWEY: That's another question here. This section south of Tumalo Reservoir Road, is it a public road or a County road? KOLB : It's an established County road. DEWEY: So the County would maintain it. LUKE: Not necessarily. DEWEY: That would also be nice, if you didn't improve it to such standards that it would encourage traffic. DEWOLF: We aren't going to pave it. LUKE: I share your concerns. I really don't want to see this road extended to the south any more than it absolutely has to be. DEWEY: Is there any way of adding that intent to whatever it is you all do? LUKE: Not without republishing. KOLB : All this Order will do is establish this portion. Any portion outside of this has to go back through a process, the same process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 10 of 37 Pages DALY: I would think that any other set of Commissioners could change our ruling in the future. KOLB : The Forest Service would have to be involved, too. DEWOLF: It isn't going to happen. DEWEY: It's just a question of whether this is in the "public interest", which statute requires. DEWOLF: It is, because what it is doing is allowing someone who already owns property there to have legal access to their property. DEWEY: That's a private interest. It's not the public interest. LUKE: I think the public interest is the protection of the ground where the right of way actually is, and the damage it would do if people actually started using that right of way. We need to legalize where the road physically is. DEWEY: As part of this, there is some kind of abandonment? KOLB : Normally what the legalization process includes is that when you legalize a portion of that road, any original records of that road are null and void. (He referred to a map at this time.) So this portion of Sisemore Road is here and not here. So when we legalize from this point on up to here, this portion will not be legally recognized. LUKE: I would like Tumalo Irrigation District to clarify the reversionary clause on that ground, since that was brought up on the record. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 11 of 37 Pages BILL HOPP: I'm Bill Hopp, the attorney for Tumalo Irrigation District. First off, we would like to see the road legalized where it exists, and an abandonment as it would be out through Bull Flat. We own Bull Flat. And as you indicated there is a reversionary clause in our deed from the State, but the State allows us to transfer property to another governmental entity for public use. So the legalization of this road certainly falls within that. And it also goes to protect fish and wildlife. That's another thing we are trying to do. Our agreement with the State is to keep that area open for wildlife habitat. So, by going ahead with what is proposed today you are helping us to ensure that property is kept exclusively for fish and wildlife purposes. LUKE: So the reversionary clause would have it go back to the Division of State Lands? HOPP: Yes. LUKE: And if Tumalo Irrigation District ceases to exist, the Division of State Lands would then reclaim that property for the State's interest? HOPP: Actually, I believe it would be the Water Resource Commission. Anyway, Tumalo Irrigation District supports this. KUHN: I want to speak very favorably towards the Tumalo Irrigation District. They do an excellent job in trying to keep people off of Bull Flat. I guess the question is, would it in any way help the District if the rest of Sisemore Road were legalized? A number of years ago they were criticized by somebody, and we don't know who, for posting signs that said "private property, keep off'. Apparently it was on State lands or something like that. Again, we would really appreciate endorsing what it is that Tumalo Irrigation District is trying to do, which is keeping people of Bull Flat. Thank you. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 12 of 37 Pages LUKE: I think George pointed out that the legalization of the rest of Sisemore Road will probably be on a work plan, but there are others on the list ahead of that one which need to get done first. It will come in order. KOLB : We'll put it on the list. Being no further testimony offered, Chair Daly closed the public hearing. LUKE: Move approval of Order No. 2004-066. DEWOLF: Second, happily after all this time. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on a Text Amendment to Titles 17 and 18 of the Deschutes County Code to Amend Cluster Development Regulations. KEVIN HARRISON: This is an applicant -driven text amendment, so we have Liz Fancher here today representing the applicant. Paul (Blikstad) has been the lead staff person. I want to do a brief introduction and background explanation on cluster developments so you will have a context here, for both the Commissioners and any public that might be interested. Deschutes County has had a long-standing preference for cluster or planned developments over standard subdivisions. The notion has been that cluster developments and planned developments are residential developments with the preservation of open space. Deschutes County has articulated a preference for those over standard subdivisions where open space is not included, because of the efficiencies in providing services, the preservation of the rural character of the area, and also to help preserve wildlife habitat. The County has articulated its preference by giving developers a density bonus to do cluster or planned developments. This means that developers of cluster or planned developments get additional residential lots relative to a standard subdivision. The trade-off is the developer preserves open space. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 13 of 37 Pages The incentive represents a 50% increase in density within one mile of the urban growth boundary, and up to a 33% increase in density if more than one mile from an urban growth boundary. In 2001 there were some changes to State law that really undercut our ability to provide these incentives. It went so far as to remove the density incentives, and in some cases produces a loss of density relative to standard subdivisions. So, making some amendments to this section of the Code has been something that staff has had on their work program now since 2001, when the State law changed. We were never able to get that work project to the top of the priority list, so we are actually grateful that an applicant has come forward to help move that along. LUKE: There haven't been any applications since 2001, except for this one? HARRISON: Well, we have had one that I can think of. LUKE: But it didn't meet the new requirements? HARRISON: Well, they went through the process and did a cluster development, but they weren't able to realize the same incentives that previous developers had. PAUL BLIKSTAD: They also needed a variance to be able to do it. HARRISON: Anyway, what we worked through in this proposal here is some changes to our Code which removes a 150 -foot buffer calculation. This was a technique that we had built into the Code to help define and calculate the open space. What this did is raised issues before the Planning Commission as to how to make amendments to reinstate the density incentives and at the same time preserving wildlife habitat, when you have these kinds of projects in the wildlife area combining zone. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 14 of 37 Pages So, what we've done is a combination of things. We are proposing to remove the 150 -foot buffer calculation, but we've worked closely with the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife to come up with a set of criteria or a procedure here that would require a developer to use a wildlife biologist, and identifying any habitat on the property in designing the project with that habitat in mind. We did something of a balancing act with the Planning Commission to really maintain the status quo in terms of these types of projects, while more clearly defining open space, preserving any wildlife habitat in that open space, and designing projects with that wildlife habitat in mind. So, with that kind of background, I'll go ahead and let Paul walk you through the details of the ordinance. LUKE: We've done that already. DALY: We've done that on a couple of different occasions, haven't we? BLIKSTAD: Yes, we could walk you through it, or if you just have question — LUKE: For those who weren't here, the only thing we talked about at the Monday work session is LCDC's study about letting people outside an urban area hook up to sewer if the sewer is close by. We have directed staff to work with the LCDC, especially during the public hearing over here, on this. Again, it's not establishing a new sewer system. Take the La Pine New Neighborhood, for example. If you are across Huntington Road and you have something like this, we would hope that you would be able to hook up to the sewer system instead of putting in septic systems and drain fields. So LCDC is currently looking at their rules on this. Other than that, we have covered this at least twice. BLIKSTAD: I would like to state that I may have been the lead person in the Planning Division, but without Kevin's help it would not have gotten done. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 15 of 37 Pages So, I'll do a very brief overview. Initially we have to change the rural development chapter of the County comprehensive plan, and we've made some proposed changes to that. It's nothing really substantial other than to accommodate what we are trying to do in the cluster development part. LUKE: You are making our Code match State law. BLIKSTAD: Yes. The primary concern, at least at one or two of the Planning Commission meetings, was the protection of wildlife in the wildlife area combining zone. So our attempt to do that was — you're still required to maintain 80% open space, and 20% of the land can be developed. We came up with an idea of requiring a wildlife plan for that open space; it would have to be written or developed by an actual wildlife biologist. And, since the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife is our wildlife expert, when an application comes in they would provide a second review. They would be in essence our experts. So we felt that was a good way to protect the wildlife area while still allowing cluster of planned developments. LUKE: Do they have the final say? Let's say that a person comes in with a proposal and submits a wildlife plan to you, and it goes to the ODF&W. And they come back with a negative on it. Does that stop the cluster development? BLIKSTAD: I think the Hearings Officer would have trouble approving it at that point. LUKE: The problem is, then, you've given a State agency our authority over a land use issue. I don't mind it going to them. I think it's a great idea. And the applicant or their expert needs to have the opportunity to agree or disagree with the ODF&W's assessment. But if you are giving a State agency through this the authority to override a land use decision by local government, I would have a problem with that. HARRISON: Just to be clear, the County is the decision -maker here. The criteria are contained in the County Code. Ultimately it would be whatever reviewer within the County making the decision. The ODF&W acts as a resource for us so that they can look at the plan and give us their input. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 16 of 37 Pages DEWOLF: But they aren't approving or disapproving anything. LUKE: I appreciate that. They are a very good resource. BLIKSTAD: Our hope would be that their wildlife biologist would be working directly with them so that when it came before us, it would be worked out. So that was a concern at the Planning Commission level, that we still protect the wildlife resource. One of the ways we proposed to do that was requiring a 100 - foot setback. Since we are proposing to get rid of the 150 -foot buffer around lots and roads, as a compromise we propose — actually, the applicants' representative proposed — a 100 -foot setback for structures on those lots adjacent to the open space areas. DEWOLF: So it's a 100 -foot setback from the open space? BLIKSTAD: From the property line that delineates the open space. DEWOLF: That's the way this before us is written up now. Okay. BLIKSTAD: Yes. The other changes we propose are amendments to the definition of cluster development. Right now it just doesn't work. And then taking the open space definition and dividing it up into two separate definitions; one for destination resorts, because those are different animals than cluster and planned developments; and then open space for planned and cluster developments. The other changes we propose to Title 17 are pretty minor, which deals with the fact that you can do private roads in these cluster and planned developments. In fact, our preference would be that they are private roads so we don't have to maintain them. So, if you have any questions — Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 17 of 37 Pages LUKE: Evidently there are people who would like to testify. We might have some after that. Chair Daly then called a brief recess. Chair Daly then asked for public testimony. CAROL MACBETH: I'm Carol Macbeth, the Central Oregon Advocate for the 1000 Friends of Oregon. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this request for a comprehensive plan and Code amendments. We are submitting written comments with attachments, which I've just handed you, and we request that this be accepted into the record if that's alright. (A copy of the document is attached as Exhibit B.) (Consensus.) MACBETH: We are urging you to deny the request for these proposed changes for several reasons. We think that the property is potentially eligible for cluster or planned developments in the rural residential and multiple use agricultural zones, but the lands that would be affected are also designated as wildlife area in a large portion of the County. The rules for development of these lands are critical to the County's wildlife area as well as wildlife diversity and wildlife habitat, the protection of which is required under the County's acknowledged comprehensive plan. The County cannot adopt plan amendments or changes in zoning regulations that would significantly alter the protections currently in place for wildlife and other Goal 5 resources without establishing that the proposed amendments and changes will comply with Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule. Compliance with Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule has not been demonstrated. Given the negative effects that these proposed changes would have, approval of the proposed changes would conflict. LUKE: Did the State evaluate whether these rules violated Goal 5 when they passed them? We're amending our laws to mirror State law. Did the State agencies determine that their rule changes fell within Goal 5? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 18 of 37 Pages MACBETH: I'm not sure what you mean. LUKE: You are saying that before we change our law — MACBETH: You haven't changed them yet. The proposed changes would bring the County out of compliance — LUKE: Did the State do that same evaluation before they changed their rules that we have to adopt? MACBETH: I'm sorry, I'm not following you. What we are saying is that because the proposed changes affect a Goal 5 resource, this triggers a requirement for the County when trying to adopt these changes, that you first do an analysis of the Goal 5 impacts. This has not been done. I'm suggesting that if the analysis were done, it would not be possible to adopt these changes while protecting wildlife. So it would fail the test in any event. I would like to respectfully disagree with the Planning staff's characterization of the impact of the proposed changes. Although they say they aren't substantial, I would like to clarify that they actually are quite substantial. I also respectfully disagree that the current definition of open space doesn't work. OAR 6600.015(5)(a)(4) says that the carrying capacity of land resources cannot be exceeded by the development actions allowed in your plan. Currently, there is a balance in your cluster development rule that allows wildlife habitat needs to be met while the cluster development is allowed. I agree with the Planning staff that cluster development is to be encouraged, as it does have less of an effect on wildlife. That's part of what's in the paper that I handed in as an attachment. But that has to be in conjunction with the 80% requirement in wildlife zones in order to provide sufficient protection of wildlife from the adverse effects of human development on wildlife. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 19 of 37 Pages The 150 -foot buffer that was referred to, the proposed amendments would remove that. Contrary to the staff report, the 150 -foot buffer is warranted, as this paper explains. The paper, by the way, is by a Colorado State professor who specializes in protecting wildlife on private lands. David Theobold's paper is called, "Estimating the Cumulative Effects of Development on Wildlife Habitat". What he is talking about from his own data and what he is summarizing from the data from multiple papers, the distance — called a flushing distance or the wildlife disturbance distance for different species as outlined — the flushing distance can range from 15 to 100 meters for elk, and 100 to 300 meters for mule deer. That in feet would be between 328 and 984 feet for mule deer. So if the County Code is requiring that the cluster development area have a zone of disturbance of a 150 feet and mule deer disturbance distance is more than 328 feet, they are scared already. The 150 feet is not very protective but at least it is something. And removing it is contrary to the wildlife biology research that shows that the startle distance is that. There is no evidence it is any less than that. LUKE: The mule deer that are eating the grass in my back yard on a quarter -acre lot within a subdivision probably doesn't understand that. MACBETH: That's called an ecological sink. Just because the wildlife like it, doesn't mean it is in their best interest. LUKE: Is this study replicated or are these conclusions backed up by anyone else? MACBETH: There's a peer review journal called "Landscape Planning and Urban Planning", and so are the other papers that are cited by him. So, there is substantial evidence that wildlife disturbance distance is in fact quite a bit larger than 150 feet. So the 150 feet could not be removed without having a negative effect on wildlife. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 20 of 37 Pages But there are other proposed changes here that are even worse for wildlife. This would completely alter the definition of open space for this part of the Code. Right now the definition of open space for cluster developments is "you cannot develop or alter the natural landscape". And from that, on page 2, it says, "The current open space definition is no development or alternation of the natural landscape" — DCC 18.128.200. The proposed definition includes hiking trails, bicycle paths, lands used as buffers, land under a structure, land under a parking area, and land under a driveway. Now, wildlife habitat as defined by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, is land that provides services for fish and wildlife. It allows them to eat and have shelter, population growth and normal behavior. Specifically, the change of vegetation that residential conversion and recreational conversion provides means that it is no longer habitat. Once it is a house or a driveway or a bike path, it's not wildlife habitat. So, changing the definition from not altering the landscape to all these different things is a completely different concept. Where your current Code balances the needs of wildlife against the need for development in these rural areas, this new one would be just a complete loss of wildlife. This proposal to put in a wildlife management plan is completely unnecessary, because there won't be any wildlife habitat and no wildlife to manage. So it would be nonsense to have a wildlife management plan for the raccoons or scavengers that happen to live on these altered landscapes. In other words, you are going from either 65% or 80% open space that's a natural landscape to the proposal of 65% to 80% recreational conversion, which will have no wildlife in it. I understand that the special pattern of a cluster development is preferable to disbursed patterns in the rural areas, and that is documented in the same paper. But that cannot be outweighed by the negatives of removing the 150 -foot barrier, redefining open space, and changing the requirements under 18.128.200(1)(b). LUKE: Does your testimony suggest that wildlife cannot exist where there is recreation? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 21 of 37 Pages MACBETH: I'm saying that conversion of habitat to recreational — LUKE: Is your testimony that wildlife cannot exist where there is recreation? MACBETH: I did not testify to that, no. The proposed changes would negatively affect wildlife and wildlife habitat and diversity. These are specifically listed as Goal 5 resources in the County's comprehensive plan. Therefore, negative effects to them such as these could not be implemented or approved without going through Goal 5 rules to establish compliance. Since that hasn't been done, we recommend that you deny this. The additional concerns that we have, although they are not in our written comments, are in Section 18.128.200(b)(7). We believe that this is unclear and would be difficult to enforce. It concerns non -revocable deed restrictions, but describes circumstances under which the restrictions would in fact be allowed. It is saying that when the urban growth boundary expands to include these lands, then the non -revocable deed restrictions will be revoked. This proposed change is unclear and could not be enforced. I don't know what other problems there are with these proposed amendments, but think that the problems that we found are substantial enough that I urge you to deny all of them. I'd be happy to answer any questions. PAUL DEWEY: Paul Dewey, for the Sisters Forest Planning Committee. The first item that I wanted to address was not a major one as identified by staff, but I think it is probably the most critical element in here. And it really doesn't have that much to do with partitions. That's the 17.22.020 — the requirement that before you can do a land partition you have to have a public road. We went through all this on the Bull Springs Road issue. There is a proposed change. In the past, it used to be that you had to have access either by public road or a Forest Service or BLM road. What staff is now proposing in the latest draft that I got is that private roads be added to this. So you could either have a public road, Forest Service or BLM road, or a private road. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 22 of 37 Pages LUKE: I guess I need a clarification from staff. My assumption was that the roads inside the cluster development were private, and not the access roads. Is that the case? BLIKSTAD: That's the intent. LUKE: If that's not how it is written — DEWEY: That's not how it is written in the draft that Paul sent me. I agree that it makes sense inside the partition. But to get to the partition, it should meet current standards. This draft changes it. It doesn't say "private roads within"; it just says "private roads". So this could apply to EFU or forest lands. It's very broad. LUKE: We'll get that fixed. We'll have legal counsel look at it. I don't believe that was the intent of staff. DEWEY: The other issue I wanted to address, which is a fairly technical issue but I think it is important in terms of public process, and I raised it to the Planning Commission because the original notice that went to DLCD for a plan and text amendment — which they always publish, and every county goes through this — doesn't identify these changes to the road provisions. It addressed cluster developments in the MUA-10 and the RR -10 zones. So these road provisions go far beyond that notice, as well as the changes to the open space. There was some discussion about submitting new notices to DLCD since what was being addressed here was so much broader than the original notice. But I haven't seen that in any of the DLCD notices that have been sent out. I'd like clarification from staff as to whether this was done. The reason I raise this is because these developer -driven text amendments and zone amendments are dangerous in many ways. They are dangerous because we really don't know what the effects are going to be. The people out there in the MUA-10 zone and the RR -10 zone don't really know this is going on. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 23 of 37 Pages At the Planning Commission meeting I asked whether the applicant would identify what area they are planning to develop so that we can put this in context and see what these changes are going to mean in the area they want to develop, and they refused to identify it. Mr. Bohofer is proposing these changes. It would be so much better to actually go through the process that Paul just described that the other applicant went though with a variance, because people would know in what area this is being proposed. We have no idea where in the MUA-10 zone or the RR -10 zone this is being proposed, to be able to understand it. And maybe because I am a lawyer I don't understand when I read this language about the 65% rule and the 80% rule and the two -acre minimum and the three -acre maximum. I started drawing diagrams of a twenty - acre parcel. What does the old way mean, and what would a development on a twenty -acre parcel look like, as opposed to what they are proposing now. I can't figure it out. It would really be helpful, for the public and perhaps for you, to have some diagrams of what the changes mean in terms of cluster developments. I think we all agree that cluster developments are better than the standard subdivisions, but there are so many variables here. I'm sure the developer knows good and well what the meaning of the language here is. I don't now that staff completely understands it. In fact, in their report they question a number of provisions because they really didn't understand what the language meant, or they recommended that some other language be changed. I would like to able to see, number one, where this developer wants to do what he wants to do. LUKE: You will when the application comes in. DEWEY: Then the public doesn't — LUKE: Paul, I need to respectfully disagree with you. Because, when land use changes, and becomes site-specific, then I think you have a tendency to take too narrow of a view and not look at the overall picture. If this is proposed outside of Redmond, you wouldn't be thinking about the effects on it down in La Pine. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 24 of 37 Pages I think there are two sides to this argument. I have a real problem sometimes when land use changes and becomes site-specific, because it centralizes you too much. I have a problem with — DEWEY: There's attention there. Maybe a compromise would be some examples of what it would look like in the old system and what it would look like under the new system. DEWOLF: That makes more sense to me as well. Because that's the conundrum that we are stuck with. My logic tells me exactly what you are saying; what is going on here and what site are we talking about so I can understand the impact on that site. And, yet, if we are doing something for all of the MUA-10 for instance, it's going to look like everywhere. Understanding that maybe in three or four varied MUA-10 parcels what it would look like, that might be a meaningful compromise. DEWEY: I would really like to see that, and recommend that. Another issue that came up because I'm representing some clients in the MUA- 10 zone and have come to understand the distinction between the RR -10 and MUA-10 zone. They are both exception areas, but are really different. There is a proposed provision which requires siting of homes on the least productive land on lots. Staff said that since these are not such great lands anyway, this makes sense. And I could agree with that on RR -10 land, but if you look at the MUA-10 zone that was specifically set up to allow the continuation of agriculture on those lands. There is a distinction between the RR -10 and the MUA-10, and I can understand staff saying that with regard to RR -10. But I would think that the least productive land standard is still relevant when you get to the MUA or mixed use agriculture zone. I would also recommend maybe making a distinction there. LUKE: It's amazing that a lot of our pieces of ground in RR -10 are one -acre lots. MUA is usually a bit bigger. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 25 of 37 Pages DEWEY: Right. And there's a bit more agricultural activity actually occurring on them. The issue of open space is another one, another critical issue, where the definition is being changed. Staff actually pointed out that the reference to not allowing dwellings on open space, and staff pointed out in the report I saw that suggests that maybe other structures are allowable on open space, and we believe that would be inconsistent to allow structures in open space. It would be really important, because open space — I don't know how broad this goes — we're looking at open space in the context of cluster developments. But the definition is being changed for the entire Code for the entire plan, as to what open space means. And I would hate to see any erosion of open space. LUKE: Is a corral open space? DEWEY: Well, it would be nice to see that defined. I just don't know what this current allowance is going to be. And your point about recreation is a good one. There's a big difference if it's a tennis court as opposed to a mountain bike trail or something like that. LUKE: Did both of you appear before the Planning Commission? DEWEY: I appeared before the Planning Commission. (From the audience, Ms. Macbeth indicated she did not.) DEWEY: Some of these issues I raised before the Planning Commission; others just kind of crystallized. There were changes made by the Planning Commission or by staff since the time that I testified. I just got back into town yesterday so I didn't have much time to prepare written materials, and would respectfully request the ability to have some time to do so. Or, if you require more information, if the record could be kept open I would appreciate it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 26 of 37 Pages LUKE: The opening comments on this about the LCDC looking at their rules about allowing hookups to sewer outside of urban areas, does this bother you? MA13= No. The logical place is La Pine. It's a classic example. It's another one of those things where you can't imagine all of the implications, but for La Pine it's kind of a no-brainer. LUKE: Terrebonne can make some of the same arguments there because of the thin soil. You don't want septic tanks in those places. DEWEY: Maybe that's the distinction, that you don't allow it everywhere; but you allow it where the soils are inappropriate or where there is high groundwater. LUKE: To me, the rule changes are not there to allow new sewer districts. If there is an existing sewer district you could annex into it and hook up. It's not like you are going to go out and put in a new sewer system. Something has to be already there. Rural development has to already be there. DEWEY: Thank you. Chair Daly had to leave the meeting at this time, and Vice Chair Luke took over. WILLIAM KUHN: I want to address the cluster development issue regarding a joint homeowners' association or agreement. Having a cluster development without such an agreement and association is a nightmare. We have been living such a nightmare for the past seven and one-half years, eight years since some of the issues started coming up on our cluster development. I would suggest someplace and some how that the wording and understanding of what it means to have a joint homeowners' association when it is implemented be addressed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 27 of 37 Pages For example, we have been arguing with George Read and Rick Isham that there should be a homeowners' agreement and association before any sale, as opposed to the sale. And just feel that this is one of the most important things that needs to be addressed by this Commission. Second of all, and I don't mean any disrespect on this, just because deer come to your back yard and eat there does not mean that what they are eating is good for them. It's a little bit like McDonald's. It can be awfully tempting, but you cannot argue that it is better for them. Please take that into consideration when you consider the wildlife. Thank you. VICKI LITTLEFIELD: My name is Vicki Littlefield, and I will keep this very short. I am in support of this amendment. I am representing myself. The reason I am in support of it is because it allows cluster developments to be done on many more eligible properties because of the removal of the 150 -foot buffer. Right now, I don't have the exact calculations, but many properties, especially those under twenty acres, cannot have a cluster development because you simply cannot meet the 35% and the 25% wildlife area qualification due to requiring the 150 -foot buffer. I want to say that I don't oppose any of the language they are adding for the wildlife areas. The particular application I am interested in is not in a wildlife area so it doesn't affect me. I'd like to give you an example. I would like to do a horse property and cluster development where the open space would be used as pasture, and houses would have pasture surrounding them in an agricultural area. I would request that you guys consider that many of the properties impacted by this are not in wildlife area zones. I don't have the exact percentages, but I think Kevin or Paul may have that. So, while it is important to recognize the wildlife, please remember that there are also many, many properties not in the wildlife area that your decisions impact. That's all I have, thank you. LIZ FANCHER: I'm Liz Fancher, and I represent Pennbrook Homes. They are the applicant for the legislative amendment. The reason the application was filed was because my client went to speak with the County about its ordinances, and was basically told that the ordinance needed to be changed in order to allow any sort of cluster development to occur. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 28 of 37 Pages The property they are interested in is not the wildlife zone, and the intention of all of these wildlife provisions was to be helpful. And it seems to a certain extent some of the folks are concerned that the wildlife provisions are creating a bigger problem maybe than they are solving. I think that is unfortunate, because these provisions were added by the Planning Commission at the request of Planning Commissioners who were very concerned about wildlife, and they were developed in conjunction with Steven George to provide additional protections for wildlife that currently don't exist in the cluster development ordinance. The statements by Ms. Macbeth regarding the status quo and changes regarding Goal 5, I think it's important to take a view that's sort of the long view of what's happened here. The County's cluster ordinance as it is currently written and has been adopted and acknowledged to comply with Goal 5 and all of the other Goals was written and acknowledged essentially before Goal 14 was changed. Goal 14 is what drove a lot of the updates of this particular document, and that hasn't really been discussed today. One of the things that I was asked to do was to update this particular County Code so that it would match State law. What happened to the County's Code is that the State law came along and was changed through Administrative Rules for Goal 14 about what is urbanization and what isn't. LUKE: It has been suggested in different sessions of the legislature that the State, when they change their rules, should have to do an impact statement on how it affects local governments' laws. FANCHER: That would be nice. Because the County's Code was designed so that in the WA zone there would be a requirement for 80% open space, and that you would be required to essentially have eight acres if you were going to do one to ten, that sort of ratio. And then you would have a 150 -foot strip that you could add as part of the developed area adjacent to your lot, so you'd have to have a little extra strip. You could have your lots be about an acre in size, and you could develop basically one dwelling unit per ten acres, and have your development go forward. That was the County's plan, and what the County's cluster ordinance does. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 29 of 37 Pages What happened after the State law came along was that it required a minimum of fifteen acres for a cluster development, per dwelling unit. Because of the fact you have to provide the 150 feet. That's essentially the impact of that requirement. That essentially takes the two acre minimum lot size and adds another 150 feet out from it on what sides abut the open space. So if you could put all of the lots next to an existing road and just added it on one side, that would require you to have fifteen acres per dwelling lot. So, instead of one to ten, you are required to do one to fifteen. You can see how that could expand if you have the lots in a different location. So, the 150 -foot calculation added in doesn't work anymore when you have to have two acre minimum lot size. The intention was to essentially maintain the status quo to allow the setback area on the building lots instead of being out in the open space area. That is what was proposed, a 100 -foot setback on the lots from the open space areas so you would have an undeveloped area as required. So that was the whole concept, to have no significant change by the end of the day in terms of the amount of area that is adjacent to open space. You would still have basically what was intended when the County's plan was acknowledged and the WA rules were acknowledged. It's the same sort of arrangement where you could develop houses basically at one to ten — one house per ten acres — and at the same time have the open space protections. Since there is a difference in the buffer area calculations, and only 100 feet is on the property, the other provisions for offsetting and protecting the wildlife is that the property owner has to develop a wildlife area zone protection plan for the wildlife area. And, Ms. Macbeth stated that essentially the Code as written would allow a great deal of new things in the wildlife area open space, a lot of improvements. I think if you look at the text of the cluster development code you can see that's not what is intended. The Code is written so that the more general provisions do not apply in the wildlife area combining zone. There are specific prohibitions against uses in that zone that would cause problems. It says it prohibits the development of structures that are frequented by humans other than agricultural structures designed for use by residents and guests only, unless the applicant shows that the structure will aid wildlife habitat preservation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 30 of 37 Pages Under the prior definition of open space, any agricultural activity is allowed as an open space use. It is by definition anything that is agricultural or forest use is allowed in open space. So I think when you look at the different from what currently exists and where we are going now, is that we are going to have much more of a protected standard in the WA zones. Currently someone in the WA zone could come in and create a horse operation on all of the open space area, and put in a barn and paddocks, with jumping arenas, and that would not serve the best interests of wildlife. The Planning Commission was concerned about that and wanted to make sure there would be restrictions, and that they would be tailored to the property based upon whether it was in a wildlife zone. They also prohibited golf courses, which currently are mentioned as a use allowed in the open space zone. So you can't have a golf course any longer. It is a great deal stricter. The problem with the prior definition is that it was somewhat contradictory and confusing. In places it talks like it will protect everything, and in other places it talks about golf courses. In some places it talks about preserving natural resources but then it talks about conserving landscaped areas, such as public or private golf courses. So it allows landscaping, but certainly in the strict sense you don't conserve a landscaped area; you create it and maintain it. So there was a great deal of confusing language there. But what was clear was that the open space could be used for agricultural or forest uses, and it says, and any land area that would have preserved and protected an all of these other things provide open space. So, that language was removed and was changed to provide a definition that would provide more protection for the wildlife zone. Additionally, in response to Mr. Kuhn's comments, there are requirements in the Code that do require homeowners' associations to have their by-laws recorded. Also, to record the management plan for the open space area so that is of record and everyone is aware of that. Also, to record deed restrictions so that all of the property owners know about it when they buy property in the area. And these provisions were all included to encourage enforcement and compliance with the protections for wildlife, and for protection and compliance in any of the open space areas so that all the property owners would understand what they are getting into, and that they don't have to go down to the County to look in the application file to find out what the restrictions are in the open space area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 31 of 37 Pages LUKE: It would be my intention to leave the written record open of this public hearing. Paul has asked for time to get some information in, and Liz, I'm sure that you'd like to put some of this in writing into the record, and 1,000 Friends and anyone else who would like to. A brief discussion then took place regarding when documents would need to be submitted, and when the hearing would be continued. CRAGHEAD: Just to clarify, you would take public testimony at the meeting. LUKE: I would think it would be determined by what comes in by October 20. I don't know that we need additional testimony. CRAGHEAD: Unless you are saying today that it is going to be a public testimony, it would require a new notice. DEWOLF: Why not just continue it. LUKE: We could leave our options open on taking public testimony on the 27th CRAGHEAD: So you are going to continue the public testimony, but limit it on the 27th to what may come in. DEWOLF: My complication is that I am going to miss several Wednesday meetings for conferences and what have you. Then we're bumping up against the AOC conference and the holidays. What I'm seeing here is a variety of things that I'd like our staff to have the opportunity to review and get back to us on. I'm fine with doing that on the 27 , but I won't be here. My hunch is that we may be modifying some of this language or putting in more clarifying language so that the intent is actually clear. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 32 of 37 Pages LUKE: I would just like the arguments in writing, by 5:00 on October 20. CRAGHEAD: Just to clarify, since this is legislative, you can receive testimony at any time. However, you are requesting that the public get it in by the 20th to aid you in your decision. LUKE: This would give staff an opportunity to review those and make their recommendations to us. I do not see a decision on the 27th. But I would like to continue the public hearing until then, at which time we can make a determination whether we need to continue the public hearing or closed the record then, and work with staff to come to some conclusion on this. DEWOLF: One of the things I'd like at some point is to look at schedules; maybe we can do this on a Monday work session instead of a Wednesday meeting. LUKE: Does anyone in the audience have a problem with this? FANCHER: I'm going to be gone on vacation and won't be able to meet the deadline of the 20th R i�� I request that all written comments be submitted for the record by November at 5:00 p.m. It is a legislative issue and we can accept arguments after that time, but would appreciate seeing them by then. The public hearing will be continued until November 8, at which time we will decide whether to continue the public hearing, or take public testimony, or close the hearing. FANCHER: I'd like to suggest to the other parties who are here, and maybe to the Board, that it might be that it makes more sense to take these amendments and adopt them in different ordinances so that the provisions that are of concern to Mr. Dewey and Ms. Macbeth could be focused in one draft. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 33 of 37 Pages My client is not interested in the WA zone at all, except that we did the drafting on this in response to the Planning omission. Their main concern is other lands. It sounds like the concerns that were raised by Mr. Dewey and Ms. Macbeth were really keyed to the WA zones. It might make sense to adopt each separately. LUKE: It appears they are not in agreement with you on that. You can put that in writing if you like as a suggestion to staff, and they can make a recommendation to us. Being no further testimony offered, the hearing was then recessed. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Ordinance No. 2004- 020, Correcting an Inadvertent Error under Ordinance No. 2004-013, Correcting Language in Section 18.16.050, Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zone. Paul Blikstad explained that Ordinance No. 2004-013 was to include guest ranches, which was the intent when it was adopted in July 2004. Commissioner Luke asked if anyone in the audience wanted an explanation of the new ordinance; no one responded. DEWOLF: Move first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2004-020. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Vice Chair votes yes. At this time, Vice Chair Luke did the first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2004-020. LUKE: Move adoption by emergency DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Vice Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 34 of 37 Pages 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004- 123, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Fund. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Vice Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004- 124, Increasing the Petty Cash Fund in the Mental Health Department. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Vice Chair votes yes. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004- 150, a Union Labor Agreement between Deschutes County 9-1-1 County Service District and the Deschutes 9-1-1 Employees Association. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Vice Chair votes yes. 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $481.34. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Vice Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 35 of 37 Pages CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $919.75. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Vice Chair votes yes. RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $954,812.56. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Vice Chair votes yes. 13. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no further items brought before the Board, Vice Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p. m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 36 of 37 Pages DATED this 13th Day of October 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Attachments Exhibit A: Sign -in Sheet (1 page) is Lel A aly, C it Ennis R. Luke, Commissioner Tom DeWolf, Comm' n r Exhibit B: A letter with attachments from Carol Macbeth of the 1000 Friends of Oregon (18 pages) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Page 37 of 37 Pages L— P 1 Glr,v r — i q °d V N o N -4- � O � b M +�+ cv LL � D M Vi O p rn CL �' N ovi C N a% O M N i (� Qj v o J J Le V u b � C 'o_ �0 a � H°- a) � a Exhi it_ 1 Glr,v r — i q 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON wwwo�nftft-i 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fax (503) 223-0073 • waw.friends.or� Southern Oregon Office • 33 North Central Avenue, Rm. 429 • Medford, OR 97501 • (541) 245-4535 • fax (541) 776-0443 Willamette Valley Office • 388 State Street, Suite 604 • Salem, OR 97301 • (503) 371-7261 • fax (503) 371-7596 Lane County Office • 120 West Broadway • Eugene, OR 97401 -- Ce ral Central Oregon Office • P.O. Box 8813 • Bend, OR 97708 • 154 October 12, 2004 Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, PR 97701 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON CAROL MACBETH Central Oregon Advocate P.O. Box 1380 Bend, OR 97709 Phone: (541) 382-7557 Fax: (541) 317-9129 Email: carol@friends.org Web Page: www.friends.org Re: Amendments to Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Partition/Subdivision Regulations for Planned and Cluster Developments File number: TA -04-1 Dear Commissioners, On behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this request for comprehensive plan amendments and code amendments regarding planned and cluster developments and the County's definition of the term "open space". We urge you to deny this request for the reasons outlined below. 1000 Friends of Oregon Position The proposed amendments will affect properties potentially eligible for cluster or planned developments in the Rural Residential (RR -10) and Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) zones. A large proportion of the lands so zoned are also designated as wildlife areas (Deschutes County Zoning Atlas). Therefore the rules for development of these lands are critical to the County's wildlife areas, wildlife diversity, and wildlife habitat, the protection of which is required under the County's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan (DCC 23.104.020). The County cannot adopt plan amendments or changes in zoning regulations that will significantly alter the protections currently in place for wildlife and other Goal 5 resources without establishing that the proposed amendments and regulation changes will comply with Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule. Compliance with Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule has not been demonstrated. Given the negative effects the applicant's proposed changes will have on wildlife areas, wildlife diversity, wildlife habitat, and other identified Goal 5 resources, approval of the proposed changes would conflict with Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule. 1000 Friends of Oregon Comments 1. Approval of proposed amendments would result in development actions exceeding the carrying capacity of land resources. OAR 660.015.0000(5)(A)(4); DCC 23.104.020; DCC 18.128.200 According to OAR 660.015.0000(5)(A)(4), Plans providing for open space, scenic and historic areas and natural resources should consider as a major determinant the carrying capacity of the air, land and water resources of the planning area. The land conservation and development actions provided for by such plans should not exceed the carrying capacity of such resources. Exhibit JJ Page __L_ of The current Deschutes County Plan requires and the current Deschutes County Code provides for protection of wildlife habitat, wildlife areas, and wildlife diversity. A large proportion of high quality wildlife habitat worldwide occurs on private land (Maestas et al., 2003), and Deschutes County is no exception. The Deschutes County Zoning Atlas illustrates that much of the land area of the County that would be affected by these proposed changes, for example much of the areas zoned RR -10 and MUA- 10, are designated Wildlife Areas. Pursuant to OAR 16.015.0000(5), the County's development actions should not exceed the carrying capacity of the land resources of these zones to provide habitat for wildlife, to protect wildlife areas, and to protect wildlife diversity, all of which are identified goals under DCC 23.104.020. As the Code is currently written, the definition of open space (DCC 18.104) and regulations for cluster development (DCC 18.128.200) together provide a blueprint for developing land in such a way that the same area can continue to function as wildlife habitat. The proposed amendments would so substantially alter the meaning of large portions of DCC 18.128.200 and DCC 18.104 that wildlife protections currently in place would be severely negatively affected or eliminated. The addition of a requirement for a "Wildlife Management Plan" (proposed Section 18.128.200(B)(3)) would do nothing to mitigate the negative effects of 1) removing the 150 foot continuous line requirement; 2) changing the definition of open space; and 3) removing the language that "activities including all development and alterations of the natural landscape will be limited to 35% of the land" in current DCC Title 18. These and other aspects of the acknowledged Code provide.for the protection of wildlife on cluster developments, whereas the proposed amendments make no such provision. The proposed amendments would allow for clustered developments where the affected area has been completely converted to either residential or recreational use. Under the proposed changes, open space uses in cluster developments would change as follows: Current open space: "no development or alteration of the natural landscape" (DCC 18.128.200(B)(1)) Proposed open space: "hiking trails " "bicycle paths " "lands used as buffers " "land under a structure " "land under a parking area " "land under a driveway " (Proposed 18.104 & Proposed 18.128.200(B)(1)) Wildlife habitat would be replaced by converted landscapes. A "Wildlife Management Plan" would be as unnecessary as it would be meaningless as there would be no wildlife to manage. Approval of the proposed amendments would mean the finite carrying capacity of the land resource to provide habitat for wildlife would be exceeded in the relevant areas, thus approval of the proposed amendments would conflict with Goal 5 and the request for these amendments should be denied. Exhibit Page—T 1000 Friends of Oregon TA -04-1 October 12, 2004 2. Requirement under DCC 18.128.200(B)(1) for a 150 foot continuous line around the area affected by cluster developments provides essential protection for wildlife: proposed deletion will negatively affect wildlife and wildlife habitat. OAR 660-015-0000(5); DCC 23.104.020; DCC 18.128.200 1000 Friends of Oregon applauds the use of 65% and 80% open space requirements and the use of spatially clustered developments as outlined in DCC 18.128.200 as ways of reducing the negative impacts of development on wildlife habitat. However, contrary to the staff report for this application, (DCCDD, 2004), the requirements for 65% or 80% open space do not mean that the 150 -foot standard is "not needed or warranted". That the negative impacts of development on wildlife habitat are directly related to distance from development is documented in.the current wildlife biology literature, including in the attached paper on "Estimating the Cumulative Effects of Development of Wildlife Habitat" (Theobald, et al., 1997). Research indicates residential development has numerous negative effects on wildlife. Alteration or removal of native vegetation for buildings, roads and landscaping determines what wildlife species are found in an area, and the amount of fencing increases with development, which tends to inhibit species movement. Everyday human activities such as driving, walking, and hiking have been documented in the peer- reviewed wildlife biology literature to alter wildlife activity and feeding patterns, which may have nontrivial consequences, especially when animals are already under stress. Theobald et al. have summarized some of the documented effects of human development on wildlife as follows: "Animals typically take flight, or `flush', in response to a human presence, incurring energetic costs associated with heightened metabolic rates (stress) and evasive movements. For many species of birds, flushing may result in nest evacuation or abandonment or nest predation. Some wildlife may exhibit a learned `avoidance behavior' and maintain some distance from development. Flushing distances can range from 15 to 100 meters for elk to 100 to 300 meters for mule deer, 15 to 45 meters for some water birds, and 40 to 300 meters for grassland raptor species." (Theobald, et al., 1997). The current Deschutes County Code (DCC 18.128.200(B)(1)) protects wildlife and wildlife habitat by requiring a buffer of 150 feet on either side of lots, buildings and roads in cluster developments. "The area of the developments shall be measured by drawing a continuous line around the affected area 150 feet on either side of any lot, building, road, or other such facility." As noted above, wildlife disturbance distances reported in the literature are much greater than the 150 - foot buffer required by the current Deschutes County Code. For mule deer, the cited disturbance distance of 100 to 300 meters corresponds to approximately 328 to 984 feet. In light of the evidence now available in the scientific literature, the wildlife buffer distance of 150 feet that is required by the current county code may not be sufficiently protective of wildlife. In order to ensure that Goal 5 species in the County are adequately protected as specified in the County Comprehensive Plan, the County should be consider increasing the 150 -foot protective buffer in the current conditional uses requirements for cluster developments under DCC 18.128.200(B)(1), not removing it as a requirement. Exhibit !J Page 3 of ) 1000 Friends of Oregon TA -04-1 October 12, 2004 The requirement for a 150 -foot continuous line around the area affected by cluster developments specified in DCC 18.128.200(B)(1) is based on well-established principles of natural resource ecology. In conjunction with a clustered spatial pattern and 65% and 80% open space requirements, the 150 -foot line is necessary to prevent serious and permanent adverse effects on wildlife areas, wildlife diversity, and wildlife habitat as identified in the County Comprehensive Plan (DCC Title 23). Before this protection can be removed as proposed, the County must address and comply with Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule, which it has not done. (Home Builders Assoc. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370 (2002). 3. Proposed amendment to delete from DCC 18.128.200(B)(1): "including all development and alterations of the natural landscape will be limited to 35%of the land" will negatively affect wildlife and wildlife habitat. OAR 660-015-0000(5); DCC 18.128.200; DCC 18.104 Pursuant to DCC 23.104.020(1), the County will "Conserve and protect existing fish and wildlife areas". Pursuant to DCC 23.104.020(5), the County will "Maintain wildlife diversity and habitats that support the wildlife diversity in the County". By definition, the term "wildlife habitat" describes an area possessing the physical and biological features that are necessary for life and reproduction of a given species. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, wildlife habitat provides space for: • individual and population growth and normal behavior; • cover or shelter; • food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; • sites for breeding and rearing offspring. (USFW, 2002) Under the current Deschutes County Code DCC 18.04, "open space" is specifically defined to include farmlands, forestlands, and lands that under the USFW definition above are suitable for wildlife habitat: "Open space means lands used for agricultural or forest uses and any land area that would, if preserved and continued in its present use, conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; protect air, streams or water supply; promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or marshes; conserve landscaped areas such as public or private golf courses, that reduce pollution and enhance the value of adjoining or neighboring property; enhance the value to the public of adjoining or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or other open space; enhance recreation opportunities; preserve historic, geological and archeological sites; promote orderly urban development; and minimize conflicts between farm and nonfarm uses." (DCC 18.04) The current Code strikes a balance between conversion of habitat and wildlife needs. The new definition of the term "open space" proposed by the applicant is not remotely related to the current meaning of the term in the acknowledged Deschutes County Code. The applicant's proposed definition removes all mention of farmland, all mention of forestland, and all parts of the definition that describe lands suitable as wildlife habitat. Moreover, the proposed new language ignores the current definition's inclusion of conservation of such Goal 5 resources as historic, geological, and archeological sites. Exhibit 5 Page of 1 S 1000 Friends of Oregon TA -04-1 October 12, 2004 Under the proposed changes, the affected areas will be converted to either residential or recreational use. :Lands converted to residential or recreational use do not perform the same habitat functions for wildlife as lands undeveloped and unaltered from the natural landscape. The proposed change will negatively affect the protection offered to wildlife and other County Goal 5 resources under the acknowledged Code and Plan by fundamentally changing all sections of the Deschutes County Code and Plan where the term "open space" is used. Such a change would require the County to address and comply with Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule, which it has not done. The proposed change would be inconsistent with Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule (Home Builders Assoc. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370 (2002). Conclusion 1000 Friends of Oregon urges the Deschutes County Commissioners to deny the requested amendments because they will negatively affect protections currently in place for important Deschutes County Goal 5 resources. The County cannot approve such changes without establishing that the proposed amendments and regulation changes will comply with Goal 5 and the Goal 5 rule. With this letter, I am requesting that I be given written notice of any decisions regarding this application. Sincerely, Carol E. Macbeth Central Oregon Advocate 1000 Friends of Oregon Exhibit 0) Page n of /� 1000 Friends of Oregon TA -04-1 October 12, 2004 ATTACHMENTS Theobald, D. T, Miller, J.R., Hobbs, N.T. 1997. Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning 39: 25 REFERENCES DCCDD (Deschutes County Community Development Department). 2004. Planning Division Staff Report: TA -04-1. May 27, 2004. Maestas, J.D., Knight, R, L., and Gilgert, W. C. 2003. Biodiversity across a rural land -use gradient. Conservation Biology 17: 1425-1434. Theobald, D.T, Miller, J.R., Hobbs, N.T. 1997. Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning 39: 25-36 USFW 2002. "Critical Habitat: What is It? ". 6 Exhibit ,15 Page -�o - of LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING EI.SEVIER Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 25-36 Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat David M. Theobald a, * , James R. Miller b, N. Thompson Hobbs Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA Graduate Degree Program in Ecology/ Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA ` Habitat Research Section, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 317 W Prospect Rd, Fon Collins, CO 80526, USA Received 18 November 1996; accepted 12 June 1997 Abstract The cumulative effects problem in natural resource management and land use planning stems from the difficulty of demonstrating that while each single land use change results in a negligible impact, the accumulation of these individual changes over time and within a landscape or region may constitute a major impact. This paper details a general approach to estimate the cumulative effects of land use change on wildlife habitat using Summit County, CO, USA as a case study. Our approach is based on a functional relationship between effect on habitat and distance from development. Within this building -effect distance, habitat is assumed to be degraded, producing a disturbance zone. We sum the total area within the disturbance zone and track how it changes over time and in response to different land use planning actions. This method is sensitive to both housing density and spatial pattern, so that the relative effects of clustered development can be evaluated. Two factors are important in understanding how development potentially degrades habitat: alteration of habitat near buildings and roads and landscape fragmentation. Our results show clustered development reduces the negative impacts on wildlife habitat. For large building -effect distances, spatial pattern was found to be a stronger indicator of disturbance than density. Efforts to decrease habitat disturbance by lowering development density should include the regulation of subdivision pattern in addition to decreasing density. © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. Keywords: Urbanization; Cumulative effects; Wildlife habitat 1. Introduction Land use planning decisions are generally made, especially at the local or county governmental level, within a framework which recognizes two ap- proaches to planning: comprehensive or master plan - ring (long-term); and development review (short- term). Comprehensive plans provide a consistent land Corresponding author. 0169-2046/97/$17.00 0 1997 Elsevier Sc* 1.V. PII S0169-2046(97)00041-8 Q use policy in an attempt to ensure meeting general public goals such as `maintenance of quality of life.' These plans then guide day-to-day development re- view and decision making. Making good decisions singly, however, does not necessarily guarantee that overall land use goals will be met. This is commonly known as the cumulative effects problem, or the `tyranny of small decisions made singly' (Kahn, 1966), which results from the difficulty of demon- strating that while each single land use change re - All rights reserved ,q Exhibit i5 Page -7 of 26 D.M. Tkeobald et al. /Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 25-36 sults in a negligible impact, the accumulation of these individual changes over time and within a landscape or region may constitute a major impact. While a formal cumulative impact analysis requires evaluating indirect and synergistic effects (Stakhiv, 1988), simply accumulating many individual deci- sions over space and time can provide substantial insight into the likely cumulative results of these decisions. Understanding and evaluating the cumulative ef- fects of land use decisions on wildlife habitat is thus an important and challenging problem. This paper details a general approach to estimating the cumula- tive effects of land use change on wildlife habitat. Our approach is rooted in the SCoP (A System for Conservation Planning) project (Hobbs et al., 1997), which provides planning tools to aid county officials, citizens, and developers in making informed deci- sions regarding the potential effects of residential development on wildlife habitat. SCoP was devel- oped in response to the rapid population growth rates that are causing substantial agricultural to residential land use changes in rural Rocky Mountain counties, where population increased three times faster than the rest of the United States from 1990 to 1995 (an annual rate slightly greater than 3%) (Theobald and Riebsame, 1995). Even though the proportion of private land in these counties may be as little as 5%, private lands contain a disproportionate amount of high quality wildlife habitat (Knight, 1994). The resulting residential development causes extensive changes in land use and cover that constitute the foremost threat to intact, high quality wildlife habi- tat. The loss, degradation, and fragmentation of wildlife habitat resulting from rapid residential de- velopment and associated infrastructure (roads, utili- ties, etc.) at the urban/rural; and even rural/wild- land, interface is a prime example of the cumulative effects problem. In this paper, we first identify factors associated with residential development that contribute to habi- tat degradation. Next, we examine common develop- ment patterns and compare clustered and dispersed subdivisions to illustrate the importance of pattern in determining impacts. We then introduce the concept of a disturbance zone, which is a function of both development density and spatial pattern, and develop a functional relationship between density, with pat - tem variations, and area of habitat disturbed. This hypothetical model is further evaluated and modified in light of empirical data on building locations and patterns. Finally, we suggest some implications of the cumulative impacts of development and the ag- gregation of development patterns at landscape and regional scales. 2. Effects of development on wildlife and wildlife habitat Development affects wildlife habitat directly and wildlife indirectly. Native vegetation is often re- moved during construction of buildings and roads and as a result of landscaping activities. The struc- ture of native vegetation is also frequently altered. For example, trees within 50 meters of a house are thinned to create a `defensible space' against wildfire (Colorado State Forest Service, no date). Alteration of native vegetation may determine what wildlife species are found in an area. For example, the diver- sity of native bird species in urban areas has been found to be --largely dependent on the amount of native vegetation present (e.g., Mills et al., 1989; Sears and Anderson, 1991). The amount of fencing generally increases with development, which tends to inhibit species movement. While fences that enclose pets are beneficial, other fences, especially those around the property perimeter and of chain-link con- struction, inhibit the movement of many mammal species. Development may affect wildlife indirectly through human activities. Seemingly benign recre- ational activities such as hiking may cause some species to altertheir activity and feeding patterns, which may have nontrivial consequences. Animals typically take flight, or `flush,' in response to a human presence, incurring energetic costs associated with heightened metabolic rates (stress) and evasive movement (Gabrielson and Smith, 1995). For many species of birds, flushing may result in nest evacua- tion or abandonment (White and Thurow, 1985; Hockin et al., 1992) or nest predation. Some wildlife may exhibit a learned `avoidance behavior' (Whit- comb et al., 1981) and maintain some distance from development. Flushing distances can range from 15 to 300 in for elk (Schultz and Bailer, 1978; Cassirer et al., 1992), 100 al., 1980; Freddy waterbirds (Rodge in for grassland ra The distance fron flees depends on 1 vidual animal, h, distances can be u: distances, a minin unlikely to take f. set -back distance,, mean flushing dis 40 m (Rodgers an Small to mid - often exist at hi environments bec that serve as she: opportunities (H Haspel and Callio. tors' feed on sm, and songbirds, an native species (e Coleman and Te continue to take v no longer sustain alone for food (S, Development t Not surprisingly, coexistence will. Passer domestict. lus) and those feeding or nestin; cyon lotor, and h tend to thrive in to be displaced b habitat requirem. Osborne, 1982), presence and attc and Sexton, 1994 Although spec environments ha situation is not cinereoargenteus tunistic-generalis tat in areas with per 13 ha 0 per more, even thou developed area Exhibit_ Page __E_ of I— &5Wtbed- TMs d and, modified g locations _and kng offs- of ent and the ag- ;landscape and ik.and wildlife itat directly and 9n is often re- fings and roads ities. The struc- ;quently altered. s of a house are ' against wildfire date). Alteration to what wildlife ample, the diver - :areas has been the amount of ils et al., 1989; count of fencing t, which tends to ices that enclose -specially those 'chain-link con - many mammal ilife indirectly Y benign recre- ay cause some :eding patterns, ences. Animals response to a -osts associated ss) and evasive 195). For many in nest evacua- Thurow, 1985; Some wildlife .havior' (Whit- ; distance from range from 15 1978; Cassirer D.M. 7keobald et al. / (pndsoape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 2.5-36 ollow that the species thrives there. For example, elk (Cereus elaphus) are commonly found in ms residential areas adjacent to wildlife refuges (e.g., Estes Park, CO) because of prohibition of hunting and the high -nutrient forage available. It is not clear, however, that these apparent gains counter increased incidence of disease and increased stress levels. Until proven otherwise, we presume that habitat similare that in which a species evolved best supports overall health and vigor of a species. The impacts of development on wildlife are poorly documented, and much species. f 'Th�ushW at has been � forced done focuses on g to extrapolate from relatively short-term (2-3 yrs) studies on game species in nondeveloped areas. Our strategy for developing a reasonable approach that captures the main effects associated with develop- ment (and associated human activities) is based on well established ecological principles, has few data requirements, can be parameterized for individual species, and can be refined in light of future re- search. 27 et al., 1992), 100 to 300 m for mule deer (Ward et r al., 1980; Freddy et al., 1986), 15 to 45 m for some waterbirds (Rodgers and Smith, 1995), and 40 to 300 species (Holmes et h an 1993). M for grassland raptor which an The distance from disturbance at animal flees depends on the nature of the disturbance, indi- vidual animal, habitat type, and season. Flushing distances can be used to establish `buffer' or set -back is distances, a minimum distance at which a spec unlikely to take flight. One method to calculate the set -back distances for colonial waterbirds uses the mean flushing distance, plus one-half the mean, plus 40 m (Rodgers and Smith, 1995). cats, dogs) Small to mid-sized predators (e.g., often exist at high densities in human -dominated environments because of the variety of structures that serve as shelter and the abundance of feeding opportunities (Hoffman and Gottschang, Haspel and Calhoon, 1989). These `subsidized preda- tors' feed on small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and songbirds, and can have a substantial impact on 1987• native species (e.g., Churcher and Lawton, , Coleman and Temple, 1993). These animals may continue to take wildlife long after the prey base can no longer sustain a predator that relies on wildlife alone for food (Soul6 et al., 1988)• ually. Development does not affect all species eq Not surprisingly, species with a long history of coexistence with humans (e.g., house sparrow, Passer domesticus, and house mouse, Mus muscu- lus) and those able to take advantage of unique feeding or nesting opportunities (e.g., raccoon, Pro- Cyon lotor, and house finch, Carpodacus mexicanus) developed areas. Other species tend tend to thrive in to be displaced by development, either because their habitat requirements are not met (Beissinger and Osborne, 1982), or as a result of increased human presence and attendant habitat modification (Engels and Sexton, 1994). Although species that thrive in human -dominated environments have been termed `generalists,' the situation is not so simple. The gray fox (Urcoyon einereoargenteus), usually considered to be oppor- tunistic -generalist species, avoid using suitable habi- tat in areas with housing densities as low as 1 unit per 13 ha 0 per 33 acres) (Harrison, 1997). Further- more, even though a species may occupy a particular developed area frequently, it does not necessarily 3. Development density and Pattern our approach is based on a functional relationship between the effect of development on habitat and distance from the source of disturbance. For exam- ple, Vogel (1989) found that deer avoided developed areas, and this avoidancezone nthat the magnitude of Jan. Based on the pr human -related effects decreases with distance from the source of disturbance, we assume that within some distance of a housing unit (e.g., 50-500 m) the habitat value is degraded- This building effect is the distance within which wildlife habitat is adversely affected. It is similar to the edge effect concept, where changes in the environmental conditions at the patch edge reduce the effective area 1 sr naa dister- ior species (Paton, 1994). This bane zone with a radius equal to the assumed so building -effect distance- A disturbance zone isalso cause fragme ata- ssociated with roads as they tion and degrade habitat (e.g., Lyon, 1983). The disturbance zones associated with housing and roads are correlated, i.e., clustered subdivisions have Exhibit Page _ q of 1,q_ 28 D.M. Tkeobald et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 25-36 shorter roads and overall lower disturbance zone area, and low-density dispersed subdivisions have much longer road length, but also maximum overall disturbance zone area. This road effect is, however, more difficult to measure than the building effect because each individual driveway and access road would need to be mapped and measured. Therefore, using the building effect alone is a conservative measure. Clearly, the impacts on habitat near a house or road (e.g., at a distance of 10 m) are greater than those further away. Rather than specifying a particu- lar building -effect distance, we examine the relation- ship of development patterns and disturbance zones using a range of building effect values. Furthermore, we use this approach to produce a relative measure by comparing one development pattern to another assuming the same building -effect distance. Two components of development are critical in understanding the potential impacts on habitat: den- sity and pattern. The idea that a clustered develop- ment pattern minimizes impacts is hardly new, for instance, clustered development was heralded in the 1960s as a way to reduce sprawl and to minimize loss of productive agricultural land (Whyte, 1964). However, it is still very important to illustrate the `folly of large lots' (Arendt, 1994), as people may not understand how density and pattern interact. For instance, a building -effect distance of 100 m creates a disturbance zone that is only 22% of a 14.1 ha (35 acres) parcel, but at 200 m, the disturbance zone occupies 88% of the parcel! IL Dtspemad - regular Fig. 1. Typical spatial patterns of residential subdivisions. Each subdivision is 258 ha (640 acres) and includes 16 parcels unless noted otherwise. The white mark is the building location, surrounded by 100 m (dark shade) to 500 m (light shade) zones of disturbance. i M_. Table I Landscape n disturbance 2 Pattern Dispersed -re Dispersed -in Dispersed-ra Dispersed -ht Clustered 4 Clustered 16 Clustered 22 3.1. Hypo A brie subdivisi( terns resu well as th we exami ranging f. For each calculate( the area were loc; with assc 200, 300, Fig. 2. Thr (40 acres) quarter -sec (Dispersed units (Clu., building -e: Exhibit 0 Page / 0 of )13 Pattern to another :t distance. nent are critical in 'Is on habitat: den - clustered develop - is hardly new, for vas heralded in the I and to minimize ad (Whyte, 1964). at to illustrate the 4), as people may attern interact. For Of 100 m creates Yo of a 14.1 ha (35 disturbance zone D.M. Theobald et al./Iandscape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 25-36 29 Table 1 Landscape measures for hypothetical subdivisions depicted in Fig. 1. 'Percent effected' is proportion of 64.7 ha (160 acres) within disturbance zone, the radius of which is set by the 'building -effect distance' Pattern Total edge of subdiv. (m) Perimeter/area Percent effected with building -effect distance of 100 in 200 m 300 m 400 m 500 in Dispersed -regular 25824 0.0099 19.2 76.3 99.9 100.0 100.0 Dispersed -irregular 26624 0.0102 19.2 74.1 99.7 100.0 100.0 Dispersed -random 26244 0.0100 15.8 44.8 70.7 83.8 89.7 Dispersed -half 32280 0.0123 19.1 47.2 72.7 97.8 100.0 Clustered 4 12912 0.0049 4.8 .19.2 30.3 37.5 45.1 Clustered 16 19360 0.0074 19.2 31.1 38.2 45.8 54.1 Clustered 22 21966 0.0084 22.7 31.6 3$.6 46.2 54.4 3.1. Hypothetical subdivisions A brief examination of a series of hypothetical, subdivisions illustrates how different subdivision pat- terns result in different amounts of area affected, as well as the ways in which they are fragmented. Here, we examine seven hypothetical subdivision patterns, ranging from dispersed to tightly clustered (Fig. 1). For each hypothetical subdivision, three indices were calculated. Disturbance zone area is a measure of the area of disturbed habitat. Assuming buildings were located at parcel centroids, disturbance zones with associated building -effect distances of 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 m were calculated. Length of 75 edge, or the perimeter of all parcel boundaries in a subdivision, is a measure of connectivity and land- scape flow (Forman and Godron, 1986), and high values indicate low connectivity and high landscape fragmentation. Perimeter to area ratio is a measure of shape, and high values indicate a more convoluted shape. The dispersed -regular pattern (Fig. la) resulted in the most regularly -shaped parcels, shown by both the low edge length and low perimeter/area index, though the dispersed -random (Fig. 1c) and dispersed -regular were surprisingly similar (Table 1). Disturbance zone area increases rapidly with build- ing -effect distance; at distances beyond 200 in, es - C11 200 300 400 500 Building Effect Distance (m) 1 Fig. 2. The proportion of a quarter -section (258 ha or 160 acres) disturbed as a function of building -effect distance for hypothetical 16.1 ha (40 acres) and 64.7 ha (160 acnes) dispersed and clustered subdivision patterns including overlap from adjacent quarter -sections. The quarter -section subdivision with 4 parcels (Dispersed 4) has a lower percent effected by disturbance zone than one with 16 parcels i 'arcels unless noted (Dispersed 16). However, the percent effected for the clustered quarter -section subdivision pattern (assuming 25% developed area) with 16 units (Clustered 16) is onlyslightly disturbance. gh Y highex at low building -effect distances than the dispersed pattern with 4 units (Dispersed 4), and less at building -effect distances greater than 275 m. Exhibit (j Page of 30 D.M. Theobald et at /Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 25-36 a. Parcels and building disturbance zones b. Road disturbance zones Fig. 3. Disturbance zones produced by the building 'and road effects on the dispersed subdivision pattern from the East River Valley, Gunnison County, CO, USA. Zones of disturbance at 100 m (dark), 300 m (medium), and 500 m (light) and parcel bound- aries are shown. sentially no effective habitat exists for the dispersed -regular, dispersed -irregular (Fig. lb), and dispersed -half -linear (Fig. ld). The dispersed -ran- dom has a compact shape and low edge, and at least some of the habitat remains outside the disturbance zones. The clustered patterns have a much lower edge length and a much more compact shape that is independent of building density, and have substan- tially less disturbance zone area. In addition to disturbance zone area, the spatial configuration of building sites is important in deter- mining how the disturbance zones coalesce to frag- ment the landscape. The overall fragmentation of the dispersed -regular and dispersed -irregular patterns is small at low building -effect distances, but increases rapidly with increased building -effect distance. The dispersed -random is slightly fragmented at low and medium distances while the dispersed -half pattern is highly fragmented. An unexpected result is that the dispersed -random pattern provides both more com- pact -shaped parcels and lower overall disturbance zone than the dispersed -regular pattern. a. Parcels and building disturbance manes b. Road disturbance zones Pig. 4. Disturbance zones produced by the building and road effects on the clustered subdivision pattern from the East River Valley, Gunnison County, CO, USA. Zones of disturbance at 100 m (dark), 300 m (medium), and 500 m (light) and parcel bound- aries are shown. Table 2 Measures foj area' is the i length of all Subdivision type Dispersed Clustered Since parcel bo rather tha these. resi mentation Data on i tered 15att, lances arc ing/dispe developm pograPhy subdivisic These te>play b, building-( area incr( and subd: cator of t example, the large., 16.1 ha (, for the c 060 acre rapidly a (Fig. 2). with 4 an substahti. Table 3 Proportion and cluster This shows zone, the r. Pattern Dispersed Clustered Exhibit Page J,9— Of iagmentation of the irregular patterns is races, but increases affect distance. The Trlented at low and used -half pattern is :d result is that the ;s both more com- averall disturbance attern. we zones 38 e building and road from the East River of disturbance at 100 it) and parcel bound- D.M. Theobald et al. /Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 25-36 31 Table 2 Measures for the dispersed and clustered subdivisions located in the East River Valley, CO, USA, and depicted in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. 'Total area' is the total subdivision area, while 'parcel area' is the total area in building parcels, less open space. 'Total edge length' is the total length of all subdivided parcels within the subdivisions. 'Perimeter/area' is a measure of parcel shape complexity Subdivision Number Total area Total edge length Parcel area Parcel edge Perimeter House density ..�., of .-It (he) (km) • (ha) (km) /area (ha/unit) Dispersed 19 310 60.0 290 42.36 U.W*Z) 1U•J r�„�.,,«.a M 1027 60.9 227 26.36 0.0115 68.4 Since building sites are usually located near a parcel boundary to minimize the access distance rather than being in center of a parcel as assumed, these results likely underestimate landscape frag- mentation and overestimate disturbance zone area. Data on individual building locations and the clus- tered pattern formed by different building -effect dis- tances are needed to establish the degree of cluster- ing/dispersion that occurs with different types of development. Furthermore, vegetation types and to- pography also substantially influence the layout of subdivision parcels—especially building location. These hypothetical subdivisions illustrate the in- terplay between different development -patterns and building -effect distances. Generally, disturbance zone area increases rapidly with building -effect distance, and subdivision pattern is generally a stronger indi- cator of total disturbance zone area than density. For example, the total disturbance zone area is clearly the largest for the dispersed -regular subdivision with 16.1 ha (40 acres) parcels, while it is generally lower for the dispersed -regular subdivision with 64.7 ha (160 acres) parcels, though the difference narrows rapidly as the 500 in building distance approaches (Fig. 2). However, both the clustered subdivision with 4 and 16 units (and a 25% developed area) have substantially less impact, staying near or below 50% Table 3 Proportion of subdivision in the disturbance zone for the dispersed and clustered subdivisions from the East River Valley, CO, USA. This shows the percent of the subdivision within the disturbance zone, the radius of which equals the 'building effect' Pattern Percent effected by building effect distance of loom 200 m 300 m 400 to 500 to Dispersed 19.5% 55.8% 84.6% 97.1% 99.5% Clustered 5.1% 19.1% 35.2% 50.7% 61.6% effected area even at a distance of 500 m. Thus, a clustered subdivision (25% developed area), even with 4 times the number of total units, results in a substantially lower total disturbance zone area than a dispersed -regular patterned subdivision. 3.2. Comparison of a clustered and dispersed subdi- vision Disturbance zones for a dispersed (Fig. 3) and clustered (Fig. 4) subdivision from the East River Valley, Gunnison County, CO, USA illustrate the effect of pattern on habitat impact (Table 2). The disturbance zone area for the dispersed subdivision constitutes over 50% of the subdivision at 200 m and 97% at 400 in (Table 3). At 100 in, the disturbance zones are islands in the habitat matrix, but by 200 in the habitat matrix is highly fragmented, and at 300 m and greater, little habitat remains (Fig. 3). Fragmen- tation may be more pronounced if there is a physical manifestation of the parcel boundaries, such as a fence or manipulation of vegetation (e.g., grazing, mowing, or chemical application). The disturbance zone area for the clustered subdi- vision pattern is smaller than in the dispersed subdi- vision, constituting only 5% and 19% of the total area at 100 and 200 in (Table 3). Even at 500 in, only 61% is covered by the disturbance zone. How- ever, areas of high building concentrations impede species movement at relatively low building -effect distances (Fig. 4). 4. Density /disturbance functional relationship Estimating the disturbance zone areas for actual subdivisions using the approach illustrated above requires spatially -explicit building location data. Al - Exhibit Page of 32 D.M. Theobald et aL / Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 25-36 though calculating the disturbance zone area directly from building location data is more accurate, these data are seldom available during comprehensive planning, and obtaining it from aerial photography is often cost prohibitive. Therefore, we extend the dis- turbance zone approach by developing a functional relationship between development density and distur- bance zone area. County assessor offices usually maintain a database for tax assessment purposes that contains, for each parcel, the number of units and the Public Land Survey System location: township, range, section. Thus, the number of units per section (258.9 ha or 640 acres) or quarter section (64.7 ha or 160 acres) usually can be determined. Utilizing a density measure calculated for quarter sections, rather than absolute building locations, is also a more appropriate scale of analysis because it captures the general trends we are concerned with, while site -scale differences are the result of individual preferences and circumstances. Finally, most land use planning tools regulate density, not building location within a parcel. 4.1. Theoretical model We examined how cumulative disturbance zone area varies with different development densities, building -effect distances, and building location pat- terns (i.e., clustered vs. dispersed) to produce a development density/disturbance zone area func- tion. We constructed 858 GIS maps of quarter -sec- tion size (64.7 ha, 160 acres), with each map repre- senting a unique combination of three factors: hous- ing density, building -effect distance, and pattern. Density varied from 64.7 ha/unit to 0.4 ha (1 acre)/unit. Building -effect distances varied from 50-500 m. To assess how -pattern influenced total disturbance zone area, we separated the hypothetical quarter section into developed and undeveloped por- tions—assuming that all units (at a given density) would be dispersed within the developed portions. The proportion of the developed area ranged from 25 to 100% of the quarter section. All parcels are packed into the developed area located in the lower left comer of each quarter section. The total disturbance zone within each quarter section (excluding portions of the disturbance zones outside of the quarter -section borders) was calculated for each combination of density, building -effect dis- tance, and pattern. Generally, each combination Pro- duced a nonlinear function, with very rapid increases in the proportion of the quarter section within the disturbance zone at low densities, which leveled off quickly as density increased. This matches our pre- diction that even at low densities, development causes substantial wildlife habitat disturbance and distur- bance increases rapidly with small increases in den- sity. As expected, the density at which substantial disturbance occurs decreases rapidly as building -ef- fect distance increases. For example, the percent impacted at 2.0 ha (5 acres)/unit density and 50 m building effect ranges from about 25% to 40% by varying the developed proportion from 25% to 100%. At 100 in building effect, the percent impact ranges from 32% to 98% (Fig. 5). Highly -clustered patterns result in maximum impacts as low as 35% at 100 m building -effect distance, while dispersed patterns re- sult in 100% impact at 100 m at densities as low as 2.8 ha (7 acres)/unit. These results suggest that the disturbance zone is sensitive to assumptions about building pattern. Be- cause of this sensitivity and because there is little empirical research on actual development patterns in rural areas, we incorporated empirical measures of development pattern into the theoretical model. We calculated the disturbance zone area .based on indi- vidual building locations for each quarter section in the East River Valley, in 1964, 1978, 1990, and 1994. Overlapping portions of disturbance zones that originated in an adjacent quarter section were in- cluded when calculating total area of disturbance zone in a quarter section. The East River Valley has been extensively subdivided, especially since 1975 by 14.1 ha (35 acres) ranchettes (Theobald et al., 1996). 4.2. Empirical results and adjustments The relationship between density and percent im- pact defined in the theoretical model is similar to the relationship found in the East River Valley, with the observed density/impact generally fitting within the theoretical range. Some important discrepancies were discovered, however, resulting in revision of the original model. In particular, at very low building -ef- fect distances (i.e., 50 m), the theoretical model Pig. 5. rM° building 't overestim: tion occur to be mu, theoretics is especia feet distar turbance especially a thin rib' especiall) cent to th At 200 m fit fairly theoretic zone per( the narro retical m tances, tl cent imp theoretic. because the effec into adja neighbor strong i area, esr In lig model b Exhibit Page of building -effect dis- h. combination pro- iery rapid increases section within the which leveled off s matches our pre- levelopment causes rbance and distur- 1 increases in den - which substantial dly as building-ef- mple, the percent . density and 50 m t 25% to 40% by Yom 25% to 100%. ent impact ranges clustered patterns as 35% at 100 m persed patterns re- iensities as low as listurbance zone is ilding pattern. Be- tuse there is little apment patterns in irical measures of retical model. We -ea based on indi- quarter section in 1978, 1990, and ithance zones that section were in - !a of disturbance : River Valley has cially since 1975 (Theobald et al., snts y and percent im- ;1 is similar to the r Valley, with the fitting within the iscrepancies were revision of the i low building-ef- heoretical model v11.1 D.M. Theobald et al. /Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 25-36 0% e4 10 33 Density (he per unit) Fig. 5. Proportion of quarter -section within the disturbance zone (i.e., percent effected) as a function of building density for 50 m and 100 m building -effect distances and 25% and 100% development areas. overestimated the disturbance zone area. Overestima- tion occurred because the empirical pattern was found to be much more clustered. than anticipated in the theoretical model. Also, the amount of area disturbed is especially sensitive to pattern at low building -ef- fect distances because very little aggregation of dis- turbance zones occurs. This makes intuitive sense, especially in mountain valleys where private land is a thin ribbon along the valley bottom and buildings, especially older farms and ranches, are located adja- cent to the road, creating a `linear clustered' pattern. At 200 m building -effect distance, the observed data fit fairly well within the ranges identified by the theoretical model, though the range of disturbance zone percentages (about 30%) is much greater than the narrow range (about 5%) identified by the theo- retical model (Fig. 6). At larger building -effect dis- tances, the theoretical models underestimate the per- cent impact, even compared to the 100% developed theoretical models. This apparent discrepancy occurs because at relatively large building -effect distances, the effects of neighboring development spill over into adjacent quarter sections. Thus, it appears that neighboring quarter -section densities have a fairly strong impact on the estimated disturbance zone area, especially at large building -effect distances. In light of the empirical results, we adjusted our model in the following ways. First, estimating the percent developed area (in the theoretical model) as a surrogate measure of clustered/dispersed pattern was problematic, especially in determining the pat- tern of existing development. Therefore, we fitted a power curve through the empirical data so that the estimated percent impact is an average value for a quarter section of a particular density. Second, to reflect the decreased impacts associated with a clus- tered development pattern, we simply decreased the disturbance zone proportion to the lowest observed value from the empirical data set. This revised ap- proach more realistically models existing develop- ment patterns, incorporates portions of disturbance zones that originate in neighboring quarter sections, and is straightforward and computationally efficient to implement. Finally, this method resulted in lower estimates of disturbance zone area. 4.3. Fragmentation In addition to reducing habitat area, development fragments habitat by dividing it into smaller, spa- tially disjoint landscape units. A highly fragmented landscape is less likely to have large, intact habitat units. Furthermore, fragmentation isolates species and inhibits movement and reduces the probability of recolonization in the event that a species disappears from a given patch of habitat. Furthermore, mountain Exhibit__ Page 15 of _ 34 D.M. Theobald et al. / landsrape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 25-36 100% 75% a 0 60% m M 0 25% m IL 64 10 0 - Density (he per unit) Fig. 6. Empirical and theoretical disturbance zone data for 200 m building effect. Zile heavy line is fitted to the empirical density dis tubance data marked by diamonds, while the thin lines are 25% and 100% bounds based on theoretical subdivision patterns. landscapes are predisposed to fragmentation because of the dendritic public/private land ownership pat- tern common throughout the mountainous western US (Theobald and Riebsame, 1995; Riebsame et al., 1996). The development pattern of the East River Valley demonstrates the fragmenting effects of de- velopment. At a relatively early stage of develop- ment (1964) and at low building -effect distances, habitat is perforated by small islands of develop- ment. Later, disturbance zones begin to coalesce, and in 1994, only a few small areas remain open to provide cross -valley connectivity for wildlife. Fragmentation and overall area of disturbance are not necessarily correlated. For example, a dispersed, low-density development pattern causes maximum areal disturbance, because disturbance zones do not coalesce until a relatively large building -effect dis- tance is reached. At a relatively low building -effect distance, development perforates the landscape, but connectivity is relatively high, until a threshold is reached when disturbance zones begin to coalesce and connectivity is rapidly compromised. A clus- tered, low-density development pattern causes mini- mal areal disturbance, but at even short building -ef- fect distances connectivity is compromised within the developed area. A large number of clustered development patterns scattered throughout a valley would create holes in the habitat matrix, but overall connectivity would remain high. Perhaps most trou- bling, in terms of maintaining intact habitat, is that linear clustered development patterns result in both large overall disturbance zone areas and fragmenta- tion, even at short building -effect distances. 4.4. Application of disturbance zone We evaluate the effect of development on wildlife habitat by calculating the proportion of each quarter section effected by development. This expected im- pact layer is then applied to a map of habitat value depicting wildlife habitat patterns. The relative ef- fects of different development alternatives are evalu- ated by summing the development -weighted habitat quality values over the study site. While the methodology described here was devel- oped to support comprehensive planning, it also can be used at the site scale. More refined estimates of impact can be made since locations of buildings, roads, and utility infrastructure and wildlife habitat patches and other environmental constraints are known. The building -effect distance could reflect slope and cover characteristics important to wildlife species, so that the building -effect distance would be greater in adjacent areas without cover and be shorter in areas with cover. A further extension would be to adjust effects to reflect the location of disturbance Exhibit 5 Page JJo of e empirical density-dis- •n patterns. Perhaps most trou- tact habitat, is that ems result in both as and fragmenta- distances. ne :)pment on wildlife on of each quarter This expected im- p of habitat value The relative ef- matives are evalu- t-weighted habitat .d here was devel- uming, it also can fined estimates of ons of buildings, d wildlife habitat I constraints are .ice could reflect >ort?Lnt to wildlife iistance would be ver and be shorter kion would be to )n of disturbance D.M. Theobald et al. /landscape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 25-36 zone in relation to patch boundaries, so that a zone within a patch interior might have a stronger impact j than a zone at the patch edge. I5. -Conclusion We have presented an approach for estimating the area of habitat disturbance generated by develop- ment, given different development densities and pat- tems, as well as different assumptions about wildlife sensitivities. Our approach does not address thorny issues such as differential sensitivities of wildlife species to human disturbance, shifting species com- position, or the potential for development to improve habitat in some ways, nor does it attempt to differen- tiate types of disturbance with different types of development (e.g., condo units with full-time resi- dents vs. seasonally occupied large homes). How- ever, it does provide a tractable, understandable, and, ultimately, useful method that improves our ability to evaluate development impacts on wildlife habitat. We. also assumed that housing density is a surrogate for disturbance -associated .with roads. Further re- search is needed to identify similarities -and differ- ences between effects associated with housing den- sity and road density and the extent of spatial corre- lation. It must be emphasized that the value of this approach is in comparing relative impacts of various development patterns, given different assumptions about density, pattern, and disturbance intensity. Clustering development reduces disturbance of development on wildlife habitat In fact, subdivision pattern was found to be a strong indicator of total disturbance zone area and, for long building -effect distances, a stronger indicator than subdivision den- sity. This finding suggests that efforts to minimize habitat impacts by decreasing development density (e.g., Powers, 1994) should also require clustering of parcels. However, development can be clustered in a way that reduces overall disturbance area, but that still fragments the landscape to a considerable de- gree. Many clustered development designs place buildings around `pods' or cul -du -sacs, reducing the overall disturbance zone area, but landscape frag- mentation is high if islands of habitat contained inside the development, are too small to support a viable population and inaccessible to the surrounding habitat. Landscape connectivity is also compromised 35 when linear clustering (e.g., development along a linear feature such as a riparian area or road) occurs perpendicular to the direction of landscape move- ment. Thus, two factors are important in understand- ing nderstanding how development potentially disturbs habitat: total area of habitat disturbed near buildings and roads; and landscape fragmentation and inhibition of wildlife movement across the landscape. As development proceeds in a valley or land- scape, negative impacts will likely occur at an in- creasing rate. At low levels of overall development in a valley, development impacts appear to be slight because of species immigration from large expanses of habitat adjacent to the developed areas. As devel- opment proceeds and subdivisions form increasingly large clumps of development, immigration from ad- jacent habitat will be reduced, and the likelihood that a development obstructs a wildlife corridor will in- crease. While clustered subdivisions reduce total dis- turbance zone area, the positioning of adjacent clus- tered subdivision should be considered to limit frag- mentation effects at a coarser scale. That is, the same issues important in determining negative impacts associated with different subdivision patterns apply at a broader scale as well. In particular, rules which result in the clustering of clustered subdivisions that minimize overall habitat fragmentation are needed. Acknowledgements This research was initiated under research sup- ported by the USDA Forest Service through contract 28-C3-750 with the University of Colorado, Boulder; and partially funded by the Edna Bailey Sussman Fund and through The System for Conservation Planning project funded by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund. We thank Susan Lohr and the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory for sponsoring part of this research and W.E. Riebsame, R.L. Knight, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous draft. References Arendt, R., 1994. Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character. Planners Press, Chicago, IL. Exhibit Page _I --) of 1eB 36 D.M. Theobald et aL /Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 25-36 Beissinger, S., Osborne, D., 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. Condor 84, 75-83. Cassirer, E.F., Freddy, D.J., Ables, E.D., 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by cross-country skiers in Yellowstone National Park. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20, 375-381. Churcher, P.B., Lawton, J.H., 1987. Predation by domestic cats in an English village. J. Zool. 212, 439-455. Coleman, J.S., Temple, S.A., 1993. Rural residents' free -ranging domestic cats: a survey. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21, 381-390. Colorado State Forest Service. no date. Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface. CSFS #143-691. Wildfire Protec- tion in the Wildland Urban Interface. CSFS #143-691. Engels, T., Sexton, C., 1994. Negative correlation of blue jays and golden-cheeked warblers near an urbanizing area. Conserva- tion Biol. 8, 286-290. Freddy, DJ., Bronaugh, W.M., Fowler, M.C., 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and in snowmobiles. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 14, 63-68. Forman, R.T.T., Godron, M., 1986. Landscape Ecology. Wiley. Gabrielson, G.W., Smith, E.N., 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. In: Knight, R.L., Gutzwiller, KJ. (Eds.), Wildlife and Recreationists. Island Press, Washington, DC. pp. 95-107. Harrison, R.L., 1997. A comparison of Gray Fox ecology between residential and undeveloped rural landscapes. J. Wildl. Man- age. 61 (1), 112-122. Haspel, C., Calhoon, R.E., 1989. Home ranges of free -ranging cats (Felis catus) in Brooklyn, New York. Can. J. Zool. 67, 178-181. Hobbs, N.T., Theobald, D.M., Zack, J.A., Bearly, T.L., Riebsame, W.E., Shenk, T., 1997. Forecasting Impacts of Land Use Change on Wildlife Habitat: Collaborative Development of an Interactive GIS for Conservation Planning. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University. URL: http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/scop. Hockin, D., Ounsted, M., Gorman, M., Hill, D., Keller, V., Barker, M.A., 1992. Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assess- ments. J. Environ. Manage. 36, 253-286. Hoffman, C.O., Gonschang, J.L., 1977. Numbers, distribution, and movements of a raccoon population in a suburban residen- tial community. J. Mammal 58, 623-636. Holmes, T.L., Knight, R.L., Stegall, L., Craig, G.R., 1993. Re- sponses of wintering grassland raptors to human disturbance. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21, 461-468. Kahn, A.E., 1966. The tyranny of small decisions: market failures, imperfections, and the limits of economics. KYKLOS 19, 23-45. Knight, R.L., 1994. What happens when ranches die? Colorado Rancher and Farmer, October, 8-10. Lyon, J., 1983. Road density models describing habitat effective- ness for elk. J. For. 592-595, 613. Mills, G.S., Dunning, J.B. Jr., Bates, J.M., 1989. Effects of urbanization of breeding bird community structure in south- western outhwestern desert habitats. Condor 91, 416-428. Paton, P.C., 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence?. Conservation Biol. 8, 17-26. Powers, L., 1994. What happened to the 35 -acre subdivision reform bill? The Chronicle & Pilot. Crested Butte, CO, March 4, p. 20. Riebsame, W.E., Gosnell, H., Theobald, D.M., 1996. Land use and cover change in the US Rocky Mountains:- I. Theory, scale, and pattern. Mt. Res. Dev. 16 (4), 395-405. Rodgers, J.A. Jr., Smith, H.T., 1995. Set -back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida Conservation Biol. 9, 89-99. Schultz, T.D., Bailer, J.A., 1978. Responses of National Park elk to human activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 42, 91-100. Sears, A.R., Anderson, S.H., 1991. Correlations between birds and vegetation in Cheyenne, Wyoming. In: Adams, L.W., Leedy, D.L. (Eds.), Widlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environ- ments. National Institute for Urban Wildlife, Columbia, MD, pp. 75-80. Soul6, M.E., Bolger, D.T., Alberts, A.C., Sauvajot, R., Wright, l., Sorice, M., Hill, S., 1988. Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral -requiring birds in urban habitat is- lands. Conservation Biot 2, 75-92. Stakhiv, E.Z., 1988. An evaluation paradigm for cumulative im- pact analysis. Environ. Manage. 12, 725-748. Theobald, D.M., Riebsame, W.E., 1995. Land use change on the Rocky fountain forest fringe. Proceedings of the Western Conference of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Big Sky, MT. Theobald, D.M., Gosnell, H., Riebsame, W.E., 1996. Land use and cover change in the US Rocky Mountains: H. A case study of the East River Valley, Colorado. Mt. Res. Dev. 16 (4), 407-418. Vogel, W.O., I989. Response of deer to density and distribution of housing in Montana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 17, 406-413. Ward, A.L., Fornwalt, N.E., Henry, S.E., Hodorff, R.A., 1980. Effects of highway operation practices and facilities on elk, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope. Federal Highway Office Research and Development. Report FHWA-RD-79-143. Whitcomb, R., Robbins, C., Lynch, J., Whitcomb, B., Klimltiewicz, M., and Bystrak, D., 1981. Effects of forest fragmentation of avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. In: Burgess, R.L., Sharpe, D.M. (Eds.), Forest Island Dynamics in Man -Dominated Landscapes. Springer, New York. White, C.M., Thurow, T.L., 1985. Reproduction of Ferruginous Hawks exposed to controlled substance. Condor 87, 14-22. Whyte, W.H., 1964. Cluster development. American Conservation Association, New York. Exhibit 6 Page J'a of Grbu Abstract Land a from the ( providing has been ground ca Science B Keywords: 1. intr(x Strear scapes. left undi edges c. irreplace ity of ril narrow i edges of 1987). IV to have ing strep ing as greenwa Urba challeng tion of i Com: 0169-204( P17 5016