03/09/2007: "Hearings To Be Held On Rosario Resort Master Plan"

San Juan County Council will conduct a public hearing to consider approval of the Rosario Resort Master Plan and associated corrections to the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The application involves three noncontiguous sites on the east side of Eastsound on Orcas Island: a) on and north of Cascade Bay, b) north side of Olga Road near the intersection with Rosario Road, and c) north of Rosario Road near the intersection with Palisades Drive. The hearing will begin at 1:30 p.m., Friday March 30, 2007, at the Senior Center, 62 Henry Road, Eastsound, WA, and will be continued to 1:30 p.m. Tuesday April 10, 2007 in the Council Hearing Room, 350 Court Street, Friday Harbor, WA (or as otherwise posted at the Hearing Room).

The San Juan County Planning Commission heard the request and recommended approval with plan changes and conditions.

Following is a summary of the request:

As required by section 18.90.060.A.2 of the San Juan County Code, the owners of Rosario Resort and the owners of Cascade Harbor Inn have jointly submitted a Resort Master Plan covering approximately 100.9 acres of land at the site of the existing Rosario Resort and Cascade Harbor Inn on Orcas Island. The Resort Master Plan will provide the framework for future development in the Rosario Resort planning area and includes the following:

1. An increase in the number of Rosario Resort vacation units from 131 to 223 (an increase of 92 units). These vacation units will include a mix of fractional and wholly owned condominium units and hotel rooms.

2. An increase in the number of Cascade Harbor Inn vacation units from 48 units to 96 units (an increase of 48 units). These vacation units will all be hotel rooms.

3. An increase in the number of employee housing units from twenty units (each containing two beds) to 60 units. The increase will provide accommodations for a total of 120 employees.

4. An increase in the size of the existing marina.

5. New or improved support services include sewer and water system improvements, resort related retail space, resort related personal services, parking, open space, trails and food service.

6. Changing land use map designations as follows:

● Change parcels 173143002000 (1.39 ac.) and 173134002000 (.36 ac.), located on Cascade Bay, from "Master Planned Resort" (MPR) to "Residential Activity Center" or "Rural Residential" and establish density for the parcels. These are privately owned, are not managed by the Resort, and should not have been included in the MPR designation.

● Change Rosario Resort's Hilltop parcel, no. 173043001000 (approx. 39 ac.), from "Rural Farm Forest" to "Master Planned Resort". This is the location of the Resort's employee housing and other proposed support functions and it may be appropriate to include it in the MRP designation.

● Change the portion of parcel 173142002000 (1.87 ac.) that is zoned "Rural Residential" to "Master Planned Resort". This parcel is currently split zoned, is managed by Rosario Resort, and the entire parcel should be designated "Master Planned Resort".

Responses to Questions asked on Rosario Resort

For the Meetings of: April 10, 2007

Councilman Ranker

1. Wanted an opinion from Randy Gaylord, Prosecuting Attorney, regarding the performance bond. Said a letter was received with valuable input but needs opinion from counsel before deciding.

Staff discussed the assurance issue with Mr. Gaylord. He felt that requiring a bond would impose a significant burden on the applicant, and that it was not an appropriate method of ensuring the mansion will be renovated and the annex constructed as presented in the Plan. If it became necessary, the County would have difficulty completing the work on private property. The Council is allowed to make changes to the Plan, and Staff and legal counsel suggest that the project be broken down into smaller phases, with the first phase including a) approval of a mansion renovation plan which includes improvements necessary to ensure a life of at least 50 years, b) completion of the mansion renovation, c) completion of the mansion annex, and d) construction of not more than 30 stand alone units with overnight accommodations (i.e. units that are not within the mansion, mansion annex or Cascade Harbor Inn structures). This will allow the Resort to generate revenue, but will limit the risk that significant development will occur without the public benefits associated with construction of the mansion annex and renovation of the mansion.

If necessary, a future owner could renegotiate this condition. The County could then evaluate the experience and financial backing of the owner, and better assess the risks and rewards associated with an alternate phasing schedule.

(Note: A condition modifying the phasing schedule will need to be coordinated with Condition 5 of Exhibit S-14).

2. Regarding Federal endangered species law, the FEIS lists two species as threatened that may be listed as endangered, the Marble Merlet and Bald Eagle. Have they been delisted?

According to the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, as of Jan. 25, 2007 they are both listed as threatened but not endangered.

3. For Ron and Shireene – in your opinion does approval of a master plan lend strength to future CUPs and shoreline development permits?

Yes – the Plan will serve as the guide to development within this Master Planned Resort (MPR) land use designation, so it is important that it reflect an overall vision that is endorsed by the Council and that is consistent with County shoreline requirements. There seems to be some confusion regarding whether the new, privately owned structures with overnight accommodations will be considered as “commercial” (in which case they may be constructed within 100 feet of the shoreline with a conditional use permit) or “multi-unit residential” (which are subject to common area requirements and potentially a 75 ft. setback).

Staff discussed this issue with Mr. Gaylord and it was determined that if there is a signed agreement between the Resort and the owner allowing the unit to be included in the Resort’s rental pool, then the County will consider the unit a commercial structure. If the privately owned accommodations are not included in the rental pool they will be considered “residential” and subject to the multiunit/ multifamily requirements of the County Code.

If the Council wishes to clarify the vision you are endorsing for the shoreline, you could add a condition establishing a minimum setback for new structures with overnight accommodations. You probably would not want to apply this setback to existing structures that will be replaced (i.e. they could be reconstructed in the same location). For example, a 75 ft. setback would be compatible with the requirements for multi-unit/ multi-family residential structures. Adding this condition would however, reduce the design flexibility for the project, may deter future buyers, and would impose a standard not imposed on other commercial projects.

4. Issues of fire – came up more recently and may not be adequately addressed in the FEIS. This needs to be looked at a little more. Would like an opinion regarding newer information received. Perhaps flame resistant roofing or siding and fire safety zone should be required? Request more information from staff on this.

Though this was not an issue identified in scoping for the Environmental Impact Statement, staff and the applicants agree the Plan should be modified to better address the risks associated with wildfire. Staff and the applicants propose incorporating into the Plan a new section 5.8. This proposed section is attached at the end of this report.

5. Wants to get more information on potential impacts of storm water and sewage disposal on ecology of the bay and East Sound.

The FEIS identified the possibility that an increase in development will increase the potential for stormwater runoff to carry pollutants into Cascade Bay and ultimately Eastsound. As noted in the FEIS, mitigation for the potential impacts on marine water is provided by requiring that new development conform to the stormwater management requirements of the County’s development code. The County Code in turn requires that all development comply with provisions of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington published by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). The State manual includes a range of requirements and best management practices designed to minimize stormwater impacts, including requiring the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).

The FEIS also identifies that an increase in development will increase the volume of treatment plant effluent discharged. Mitigation for this increase will be achieved by making improvements to the treatment plant to provide the contaminant removal capability required by DOE. DOE regulates sewer treatment facilities in Washington State through the facility’s NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit, and will ensure that the plant is designed and operated to provide the level of treatment necessary to meet water quality and permit standards.

Finally, DOE requires that sewer utilities submit a professionally prepared General Sewer Plan and Engineering report. Rosario’s report is dated February 2005 and includes information on the number of sewer connections and sewage flow estimates. The design of the treatment plant including the treatment method, effluent volume, and facility sizing are evaluated by the engineering staff at DOE. DOE also establishes thresholds for pollutants in the discharge water, with the allowable pollutants based on a number of factors including the characteristics of the receiving water. DOE requires sewer plant operators to monitor pollutants in the discharge, to keep records and to timely report and take corrective action if discharge concentrations exceed those allowed under the NPDES permit.

6. State Park had excellent recommendations and I would like to see them codified in the Plan.

Staff and the applicants suggest the Council consider adding a condition requiring that development on the Hilltop parcel conform to the recent agreement between WA State Parks and the Resort as outlined in the March 19, 2007 letter from Terry Doran and the attached map. This map will replace Figure 4.7-2 on page 80 of the Plan. A new list of site development guidelines could also accompany this figure as follows:

Exhibit 4-3 Hilltop Redevelopment Site Planning Guidelines

1. To protect views of the Moran State Park entrance and historic Moran archway, Rosario operations, maintenance and parking facilities will be set back from the Eastsound to Olga Road as shown in Figure 4.7-2 (as revised). In addition, a sight obscuring vegetative buffer shall be maintained between Olga Road and development on the Hilltop parcel. If the existing vegetation does not provide a year round visual barrier, additional native plants shall be planted in a naturally appearing arrangement that provides a year-round visual barrier.

2. A naturalistic system of bio-filtration swales and settling ponds with planted wetland vegetation will be used to treat stormwater rather than a visually obtrusive engineered basin.

3. Native vegetation consistent with the Moran State park planting palette and the findings and recommendations of the Historic Resources Management Plan will be planted within and around the detention basin to provide vegetative screening.

4. All buildings at the Hilltop will be designed to blend into their wooded surroundings through the use of non-reflective building materials, dark exterior colors, large overhangs, etc.

7. Councilman Ranker has more questions regarding the Hilltop development and changes in zoning and what that means for now and in future. He subsequently explained he would like more information regarding visual impacts to visitors of Moran State Park, potential water quality impacts to Cascade Lake, and whether the Hilltop development would be a change in zoning.

Yes, the applicants have requested the zoning for the Hilltop parcel be changed from Rural Farm Forest to Master Planned Resort (MPR). The employee housing and the additional support functions proposed in this location are allowed under either zone. If the area remains zoned as Rural Farm Forest, the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would need to be amended. The applicants, staff and the Planning Commission concur it is more appropriate to zone it Master Planned Resort and conduct a detailed review as part of the subsequent PUD, rather than to regulate it as a separate CUP.

No uses or activities other than those identified in the Resort Master Plan would be allowed on the Hilltop site without an amendment to the Plan. The Washington State Parks Dept. and Rosario Resort recently met and agree upon plan changes to help minimize visual impacts to visitors of Moran State Park. As previously stated, compliance with the revised plan can be included as an additional condition. The Planning Commission also recommended adoption of a revised Table 6.1-1 of the Plan (found in Exhibit S-13) with footnote 11 which reads:

11 A sight obscuring vegetative buffer shall be maintained between Olga Road and development on the Hilltop parcel. If the existing natural vegetation does not provide a year round visual barrier, additional native plant materials shall be selected and planted in a naturally appearing arrangement that provides the required year-round visual barrier.

There was a question about whether the parcel could automatically be converted back to a Rural Farm Forest designation if the Resort closed. At the Resort’s option, this type of provision could be accomplished through a conditional zoning or “concomitant” agreement between the Resort and the County, however this has not been proposed. If there is concern about what would be done with the employee housing if the Resort closed, the Council could also add a condition that if the Resort closed, the employee housing facilities would be removed. At that time it would also be necessary for the County to rezone the entire area in conformance with the goals and policies of the County Comprehensive Plan.

A response to the water quality portion of this question is included below, under question No. 9.

An additional question submitted by Coucilman Ranker after the hearing:

8. We heard testimony that the University of Washington comments were not adequately addressed and that the RCWs require that they be fully addressed – is this accurate?

A copy of the Friday Harbor Labs letter is included on pages 6-6 and 6-7 of the Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) Vol. 1. Their letter is followed by an explanation of how their concerns were addressed.

The only statutory requirement regarding response to comments from Friday Harbor Labs appears to be under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and applies generally to any person or agency commenting on a Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS). Under the SEPA rules, the FEIS only addresses comments received by the end of the DEIS comment period. The close of the comment period for the Rosario DEIS was September 23, 2005. The above mentioned letter was received on September 15, 2005 and the FEIS contains a response. Dr. Strathmann subsequently submitted additional letters which have been included in the record, but which were not addressed in the FEIS. .

Regarding other statutes pertaining the Friday Harbor Laboratories and land use activities, San Juan County Code section 18.80.320.D.3 requires that Friday Harbor Laboratories be provided a “notice of application” for all shoreline permit applications in the County. It is our understanding that this language was included in the County Code to implement Policy 3.2.F.6 of the Comprehensive Plan, which reads as follows: “6. Removal of flora and fauna from shorelines must be in compliance with RCW 28B.20.320-324, an act relating to the establishment of a marine biological preserve in San Juan County waters.”

Councilman Lichter

9. From Shireene, Don and Ron would like more information on the possibility of the Hilltop cottages degrading water quality in Cascade Lake.

We are not certain whether this question refers to the Woodland Cottages or the employee housing on the Hilltop Parcel, so we addressed both scenarios.
The Woodland Cottages are located down gradient from Cascade Lake, outside its drainage basin, and will be served by sewer. Stormwater runoff and septic effluent cannot flow into the lake from this area.

The Hilltop site is located within the drainage of Cascade Lake but some distance from it. Development on the Hilltop property would be subject to the County stormwater management regulations and the likelihood of stormwater runoff from the Hilltop site entering the lake is small. Sewer service is also provided to the employee housing units, so septic effluent cannot flow into the lake.

10. More information is needed on traffic impacts to roads due to increased population, and evacuation needs in case of emergencies (e.g. medical and/or fire).

The traffic studies prepared for the EIS have been reviewed and evaluated by the Public Works Department. Based on the information contained in the studies, information provided in a peer reviewed report, and the Public Works’ knowledge of traffic conditions on Olga Road and Rosario Road, Public Works identified a number of measures that could be employed to mitigate traffic impacts. Those measures have been included in the FEIS as mitigation measures that must be included in future PUD applications.

With respect to emergency vehicle access, while it would be desirable to have a second roadway access into Rosario in case Rosario Road becomes impassable, a second access from Olga Road is not feasible. Additional access for emergencies can, however, be provided by air either by helicopter or float plane and/or by boat. The Fire Chief for Orcas Island requested that an emergency helipad site be designated in the Resort Core area. Section 106 of the FAA’s Heliport Design Guidelines, provides information about designating emergency helipad sites. The location and identification of these sites is left to the local emergency services personnel to coordinate with helicopter ambulance services.

The applicants’ proposal for addressing potential fire hazards is discussed in question no. 4 above and is described at the end of this report. Implementing these actions will reduce the likelihood of fire and that will reduce the need for fire related emergency response.

11. What are the hazards associated with wildfire?

See the previous response relating to wildfire, and the suggested addition to the Plan attached to the end of this report.

12. Are additional adverse impacts to the shoreline possible? What kind of environmental review will be required for marina expansion?

Expansion of the Marina will require permit approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 10), the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Hydraulics Permit Approval), San Juan County (Shoreline Permit), and lease approval from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

The Corps permit is subject to that agency’s environmental review process which includes consultation with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department and National Marine Fisheries. A biological evaluation will be required to evaluate the potential impact on Federal species of concern including both threatened and endangered marine and terrestrial species potentially affected by the expansion. An evaluation of the affect on species of concern includes not only direct impacts to the organism itself but impacts to its habitat that may indirectly affect the species. If the situation warrants, the Corps may require completion of an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.

With regard to state and local permits, hydraulics permit approval and shoreline permit approval are subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). WA Department of Fish and Wildlife will require that sufficient information be provided to evaluate potential impacts on fish. It is likely the biological evaluation required for the Corps permit will provide the required information but the State may require additional studies to satisfy concerns for species not covered under Federal regulations. Both the Federal and State resource agencies have the authority to require the information they need to make a determination on whether to issue permits for the expansion. It is highly unlikely that any permits would be issued without a substantial list of conditions that would need to be met during construction and the subsequent operation of the marina. It is also possible that one or more of the agencies would deny approval or only grant approval for a limited number slips or a specific amount of dock square footage.

With regard to the County shoreline permit process, a shoreline application is subject to environmental review under SEPA. The applicant would be required to provide sufficient information about the impacts of the proposal for the County make a determination as to whether the proposal adequately addresses the potential impacts. If the information is not forthcoming or if the County determines that the marina is likely have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the County may also require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Councilman Knapp

13. One feature of the proposal is shoreline access. What assurance do we have that it would actually be improved?

The Planning Commission added the following paragraph to Section 5.3.2 of the Plan:

“The majority of Rosario’s shoreline has always been accessible to the public, thanks to a concrete walkway that parallels the shore of Cascade Bay, extending from the Discovery House to the Mansion. Under this RMP, access to these same portions of the Cascade Bay shoreline will be enhanced and maintained for the benefit of resort guests and the general public alike. Restored and enhanced pedestrian facilities that provide access to Rosario’s shoreline shall be designated and signed for public access.”

The County will review detailed plans for compliance with this statement as part of the approval of subsequent PUD applications.

14. He interpreted comments regarding Cascade lake drawdown as conflicting, noting that opponents see dire consequences while proponents think it’s fine. Clarification is needed.

This is discussed in the FEIS on pages 6-52 through 6-54, 6-62 and 63, and 6-69 and 70. Rosario’s total water right is 1,879 acre-feet per year. This water right includes water for hydroelectric power generation, irrigation and domestic use. The domestic portion of the water right is 283 acre-feet per year. Current domestic water consumption is about 128 ac-feet per year, and this is expected to increase to about 223 ac-ft per year by the year 2017, when the Resort expansion is expected to be complete.

The required lake levels were set by the water right adjudicated in the 1970’s. The seasonal draw down limit is four feet in a normal year (to a lake elevation of 347 feet), and six feet in a dry year (to a lake elevation 345 feet). Under the terms of a change in the surface water right approved by the Department of Ecology in 2002 (Certificate No. XIII-A Page 2), hydropower operations must be curtailed when lake levels drop to within one foot of the above minimums in order to conserve stored waters for domestic purposes. The proposed development should cause no change in lake levels from recent years; the additional water needed for domestic use could be transferred from water that is now being used to produce electricity, resulting in no net increase in water withdrawal from the lake.

Councilman Rosenfeld

15. The FEIS Volume 2, Page 23, Appendix D, bottom of Table 6 regarding average daily traffic volumes on Rosario Road, shows a projected increase of 420 average daily trips. Can this be translated into a peak number? What would this look like?

The transportation study estimated an additional 420 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) at buildout. Additional information provided by Transportation Solutions Incorporated (the Resort’s transportation consultant) indicate the daily average for August is predicted to be 580 trips, with 46 trips occurring during the busiest hour (approximately 1 new car every 1 minute and 20 seconds).

In his letter dated July 25, 2006 John Van Lund, County Engineer, stated that “Our review of the updated environmental documents suggest that our concerns regarding safety and traffic impact will be effectively addressed”.

16. Same appendix, page 37, paragraph 4, what are “voluntary mitigation measures”?

The “voluntary mitigation measures” were proposed to mitigate impacts identified in the FEIS. The condition added by the Planning Commission requires the Resort to implement the mitigation measures presented in the FEIS, so they are no longer voluntary.

17. Specifies that potable water is not used for fire suppression. What water is used?

Chris Verithaller, manager for utilities for resort answered the question. It is untreated lake water

Copies of the proposed Master Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, staff reports and Planning Commission recommended conditions and plan changes are available for review at the Orcas Island Library, on line at http://www.co.san-juan.wa.us/cdp/default.asp and at the Community Development and Planning (CD&P) office, 135 Rhone Street, Friday Harbor. Written comments on the ordinance may be submitted at the hearing, or may be mailed or e-mailed in advance to the Clerk of the County Council at 350 Court Street, #1, Friday Harbor, WA 98250, 360.378.2898, carolynm@co.san-juan.wa.us. For more information contact Shireene Hale at 360.370.7569 or shireeneh@co.san-juan.wa.us.