— by Matthew Gilbert, Orcas Issues reporter —
On August 11, the county’s Department of Community Development (DCD) issued its final evaluation of a building permit to construct a three-story mixed-use building of office space and transient lodging units on 217 Main St. next to Pawki’s for Pets.
The staff recommendation was to “approve with conditions.” That 71-page report includes the response of the EPRC along with all public comments on the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) determination, addressing such issues as parking, sewage capacity, shoreline and wetland impacts, stormwater drainage, and the effects of excavation on native artifacts, as well as the county’s response to those concerns.
There will be a final public hearing via Skype on Wednesday, August 26 at 10 a.m. Meeting details:
Phone-in #: (360) 370-0599
Conference ID: 159361#
This is a Skype-only meeting; it will not be live-streamed.
_________________________
For more information on proposed The Village Inn at Eastsound, see the following:
- A copy of the permit (which includes a preliminary rendering of the building)
- A copy of the “request for review” (dated July 15)
- The county parcel website link
- And, if you have a Facebook account, the lengthy and spirited discussion on “Orcas Island Rant and Rave”
_________________________
Additional questions can be addressed to planner Colin Maycock: Colinm@sanjuanco.com.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Orcas seems destined to destroy itself. I’m sad. What an out of character building for Anywhere in the San Juans. Can’t read any “spirited” Facebook discussion as I’m not a Facebook user. I just hope people realize what’s becoming of our special place.
Where is the 71 page report prepared by staff?
Paula, the link was not active to the 71-page report. It is now. My apologies. Just don’t tell Matthew Gilbert I did that.
How does one get their luggage from a “virtual” parking space to their hotel room?
After reading the enclosed report it is clear that the applicants have not addressed the issue of the parking spaces that will really be necessary to support the businesses and traffic that this development will generate. This is a real, daily issue that requires both consideration and an actual response. Suggesting (as the applicants do on page 62) that they’re doing the community some kind of favor because they could have bought all of the parking spaces virtually if they had wanted to does not meet the real obligation of this development.
Dismissing the concerns of Leith Templin and the EPRC as a math problem is inadequate. Sunday mornings are when hotels are at maximum capacity, and the congregation of the Episcopal Parish across the street is already struggling for parking spaces.
I would really encourage the Dunnings to think this through, the concerns of the EPRC are the concerns of the community.
As President of the Friends of the San Juans, I would like to respond to the comment of John Titus. The Friends of the San Juans has been working to protect our islands for People and for Nature from our beginnings more than 40 years ago. We work within the constraints of who we, as voters, elect as County Councilors. And we work within the constraints of the Growth Management Act which actually makes it very hard to restrain growth in development. The Growth Management Act requires our County Council “to consider” the “Best Available Science”, but the counselors are not required to actually base their decisions in the science. The only true lever in the Growth Management Act is a requirement to have “Essential Public Services” such as water, sewer, and roads, be adequate to meet the anticipated growth. Citizens must regularly participate in communicating their values to our County Councilors and actually show up at meetings (I know this is different during the pandemic).
As someone who loves our islands, I have been working with the Friends of the San Juans since 2007. My background is in science and it is in that context that I showed up at Planning Commission and County Council Meetings regularly when the regulations for the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Shoreline Master Program were being updated. I advocated for simple, but protective regulations based in science. Simple regulations would have been less expensive for people wishing to build. But, at the same time, they would have been easier to understand and easier to enforce. The regulations that were adopted are mind-numbingly complex -as you can see from the length of the staff report for the proposed Main Street development. Besides having the science ignored by the County Councilors, I endured verbal attacks from from the pro-development factions and even threats of physical violence.
The design of this structure is so NOT VILLAGE FRIENDLY, not to mention the lack of parking considerations. I wonder if the architect has even visited Orcas Island or perhaps just does ‘virtuals’.
Is the property owner name stated in the 71-page report, “Eastsound Investors LLC,” incorrect? The closest business entity name listed on the Washington State Secretary of State website is “Eastsound View Investors LLC.”
Wait…The county approves this permit even before the hearing?! Why even have a hearing if the county is just going to run roughshod over this community and our environment? Why try to dress up a pig by using meaningless “nicer” language like, “with conditions?”
This whole shoreline/wetland area containsFirst Nations remains and artifacts of great import to the Tribes. It is ecologically vulnerable, is a wetland/shoreline ecosysystem.
Look at these comments; not ONE is for this development. All this BS for 5 “net gain” parking spaces that won’t do jack, and will take out the street trees as if they are not living beings.
“They paved Paradise, put up a parking lot… with a hotel, boutique, and a” … wait… Where’s the swingin’ hot spot? Oh, that’s right. There’s a Noise Ordinance, a Sign Ordinance, a “Peddler’s” Ordinance – all to keep us working stiffs in line and unable to celebrate anything, let alone comprehend doublespeak code devoid of any caring or real protections.
Anybody remember the Johnny Cash song “One Piece at a Time”? Neighbors, ‘nuff said!
Dislodging ancestral spirits to house a Lexus colony does demand response.I’m putting my money on the spirits themselves….”wendigos” at Windemere???
Is it legal to grant permits of this nature and complexity, before the end of the Public comment period? (officially, 8/14, but unofficially we have til the hearing on the 26th to make comment – including Public Access Time). It sure seems unethical – even insulting – to our time and efforts.
If this is legal standard procedure, please cite and link the exact regulations that say so. If not, this needs a do-over.
Collectively, we keep voicing our opposition to the steady destruction and disregard for these lands and waters, so important to the Tribes, to us, and to the creatures who share this place with us. The message we keep getting from Council is that our clear “NO” is a trifle to you.
It’s not our job to be as versed in Comp Plan minutae as the planners getting paid to be! Council’s job is represent us – including to heed the groundswell of opposition you keep getting from the majority of us. Explain yourselves. And, to contenders for their seats – what will you do differently?
I was surprised to read the comments and then read the 70+ page report. None of the commenters seems to be aware that the Lummi and the State have approved the project from the perspective of tribal interests and there is and will be an approved archeologist on site. The report addresses why other purported requirements are either inapplicable or satisfied. For example, “affordable housing” could not be put on this parcel in any reasonable way, even if the owners chose to do so. Also, a moratorium on all building is not in place and not likely to be imposed. “Virtual parking” is something that the County has allowed for way too long, but it is still allowed. Vacation rental data is irrelevant to the construction of a hotel, and the cited 2018 data is out-of-date, not taking into account the County’s new registration scheme that has seen the elimination of a substantial number of vacation rental permits. Even the design standards seem to have been met. /1
The project has not been approved. The CDP has simply issued its recommendation. The report has a detailed history of the application, comments, rebuttals and CDP findings.
While many of us would prefer not to see change in the village core, the long laundry list of requirements that the County has imposed do not seem to preclude this building.