Posts
Whidbey Environmental Action Network
Restoration Education Preservation
Box 53, Langley, WA USA 98260
(360) 579-4202 wean@whidbey.net
Dedicated to the preservation and restoration of the native biological diversity of Whidbey Island and the Pacific Northwest
Dec. 15, 2009
TO: Bobak Talebi, Island County Planning
FROM: Steve Erickson
RE: 934/07 SPR & SEPA; Bridge Christian Fellowship
Please consider these comments on this proposal.
Conversion of agricultural land. The proposal is to convert Rural Agricultural zoned land at a scale that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zone. As with the recent case of the denied application for the Saratoga Passage development, this amounts to a defacto rezone. The purpose of the Rural Agriculture zone is virtually the same as that of the Rural Forest zone. The Saratoga Passage proposal was judged to exceed the primary purpose of the zone it was located in, even though it would not have completely eliminated that primary use. However, this proposal would essentially eliminate agricultural use of the parcel. As with the Rural Forest Zone that was the setting for the Saratoga Passage case, the Rural Agriculture zone requires that any Permitted Use “shall be disapproved upon finding that it will Interfere with efficient management or productivity of Agricultural Uses.” ICC 17.03.090A. If Permitted Uses must be so denied, then discretionary Conditional Uses surely must also be. Conditional uses are just that – conditional. Because of its scale, this proposal interferes with continued use of the land for agriculture and must be denied. It is simply too big for this location.
Impacts from noise. We believe that a determination of significance should be issued and this proposal denied because it will periodically expose large numbers of people to injurious noise levels. We note that the Navy has recommended denial because of the proposal’s location in noise zone 3. No mitigation is proposed, other than meeting noise reduction building standards. But it is not reasonable to believe that 500 people will not walk in the woods, children will not play outside, etc. This is simply the wrong place for a use of this scale. It is conversion from a low density of people to a very high density, from low to high intensity land use. The only mitigation we can conceive of is to limit the potential number of people and/or their presence on the site. If the proposal is approved it is appropriate for the days when the church is used to be limited. In fact, proposal documentation submitted by the applicant states that the facilities will only be used on Sundays.[1] If the proposal is not denied, this should be an explicit condition of approval.
Impervious surface grossly underestimated. The submitted documentation states that “total impervious area is approximately 19,632 square feet (less than 2.4 percent of the total 19 acre site).”[2] This grossly underestimates the area of actual impervious surface., because it omits the driveway and parking area.[3] [4] [5] The rationale given for this omission is presumably the definition of “Impervious Surface” found in ICC 17.03.040. However, this ignores both that the definition in the County’s stormwater regulations does include graveled surfaces and that every agency with expertise on this subject does likewise.[6] While for purposes of compliance with ICC 17.03 the County may ignore the actual impact of these impervious surfaces, SEPA does not allow this subterfuge: the actual impacts must be addressed.
Impacts to critical areas. The Land Use Intensity ranking of a proposal in large part determines the buffer that wetlands receive from the proposed use. Therefore, it is critical to the amount of protection the wetland ultimately receives. The wetland report assigns a land use intensity of “moderate” to the proposed use.[7] How this intensity rating was arrived at is not discussed. Non-Residential uses on parcels over 5 acres do not appear in the critical areas ordinance.[8] However, the ultimate authority for determining the land use intensity of a proposal resides with the Planning Director.[9] If the proposal is approved, given the large numbers of people that will periodically be on the site (~500 or more) and the actual level of impervious surface, this proposal should properly be classified as High Intensity. Moreover, since the standard buffer widths are presumed well vegetated with native vegetation, they should be increased beyond the standard range or enhanced. Accordingly, even if they are enhanced, the buffer for Wetland A should be increased to at least 90-125 feet and Wetland B to 150 feet.[10] These buffers should be planted with a large proportion of Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and Nootka Rose (Rosa nootkana) to help dissuade human intrusion and buffer reduction over time. This is regardless of the area of direct wetland impact; long term protection of the wetland mandates large buffers enhanced to discourage human intrusion and reduction. We also suggest that since forest clearing is proposed significant amounts of large woody debris (logs and stumps) be placed in Wetland A if the proposal proceeds.
We also note that in using the Wetland Work Sheet to determine the Habitat score for Wetland A trees were omitted because they were “not rooted in [the] wetland.” In the report proper, it was noted that trees were present in the wetland, but were on hummocks. This is normal and expected in forested wetlands and is a critical component of the structural diversity that makes forested wetlands such valuable habitat for a wide array of organisms. Just as hummocks within wetlands are included within wetlands during delineations, so should those trees be considered present in the County’s habitat scoring Wetland Work sheets. While it is not clear that this omission significantly changed the outcome of the habitat rating, we suggest that the County provide guidance that makes clear that trees within wetlands on hummocks are counted as present within the wetland.
Lights. If this proposal proceeds, it should be conditioned to assure that all outdoor lighting fixtures are shielded so as to preserve the dark sky.
[1] See 4) e, g, and h @ p. 4, DCG Letter, 09-10-13.
[2] Project Proposal Narrative and Visual Analysis, 09-10-13.
[3] g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
The proposed church facility will create approximately 19,632 square feet of impervious surface area, which includes the proposed church building and surrounding concrete walkways. Less than 2.3 percent of the total site will be covered with impervious surface, not including the proposed gravel access driveway and parking area, which, according to previous conversations with County staff, is not considered an impervious surface.
Environmental Checklist, 09-10-13.
[4] The additional area of impervious surface omitted from analysis is at least 33,000 square ft.:
Regular size parking spaces: 162 square feet X 102 =16,534 square ft. Compact car parking spaces: 128 square feet X 43 = 5,504 square ft.
SubTotal Parking Spaces = 22,037 square ft.
Road >500 ft. long X 22 feet wide = >11,000 square ft.
TOTAL = >33,037 square ft.
We do not know the precise length of the road, but it is at least 500 feet long, must be at least 22 feet wide, and a loop road may be required, potentially doubling the length:
An access driveway will typically need to be 22 feet wide with adequate turning widths to accommodate emergency response vehicles. A future loop road should return to the one access point onto Troxell Road.
Memo by Bill Poss, Island County Public Works, 07-10-11.
With an additional 33,037 square ft., the area of impervious surface is about 6.4%. However, that figure also doesn’t include any roads internal to parking areas or a loop road. With these include the area of impervious surface increases to about 8.7%, near the widely recognized 10% threshold for very serious impacts to aquatic systems.
[5] It is not clear if this also omits the proposed future expansion (additional structures).
[6] Including the federal EPA, Washington DOE, and Puget Sound Partnership.
[7] p. 1, CRITICAL AREA STUDY AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN, 09-10-13.
[9] See, ICC 17.03.030 Defintions: Land Use Intensity.
[10] See, ICC 17.03.090F. Tables 2 & 3.
