Tony Overman/The Olympian
Mount Rainier Resort developers Sylvia Cleaver and Selwyn Bingham (right) are congratulated by supporter Steve Hites of Skagway, Alaska.

Casey

Kirkland

Judge limits size of resort at Mount Rainier

Conference center must be smaller or moved out of volcano zone

N.S. NOKKENTVED, THE OLYMPIAN

Originally published Saturday, March 30, 2002

OLYMPIA -- Plans for a controversial resort near Mount Rainier National Park must be changed before construction can start, a Thurston County Superior Court judge ruled Friday.

Judge Paula Casey ruled on four issues in an appeal of a Pierce County conditional use permit for the proposed $90 million resort 11 miles west of the Mount Rainier National Park's Nisqually entrance.

Casey ruled that developers must reduce the size or move the site of a conference center.

But Casey agreed that resort developers met state standards for:

- The resort's environmental impact study.

- The impact the resort would have on park traffic.

- The Growth Management Act.

A lawyer for the proposed Mount Rainier Resort at Park Junction said he plans to appeal the court's restriction on the proposed resort's conference center.

"We will appeal the limit on the number of people in the conference center," said William Lynn.

Resort plans include a 500-seat conference center, 270-room lodge, 18-hole golf course, 20,000 square feet of retail space, a spa, tennis courts and more than 300 vacation homes and condominiums on 440 acres abutting state Route 706. The project has been in the planning stages since 1992.

Casey rejected the Pierce County hearing examiner's ruling that the resort's conference center would not have to comply with Pierce County's ban on buildings with a "public assembly" capacity of 300 or more people in a volcanic hazard zone.

The hearing examiner ruled that the resort is exempt from the ban because it is privately owned.

The conference center, if it was considered independently in its proposed location, would be prohibited, Casey said. But Casey ruled the conference center could be allowed if it were for fewer than 300 people or if it were moved out of the hazard zone.

Casey agreed with the hearing examiner on the three other points brought on appeal.

"We got three out of four, and there's hope on the fourth," Lynn said.

But whether the project would remain economically viable if the 300-person limit on the conference center is upheld is uncertain.

"We will have to consult our operator," said Selwyn Bingham, a Portland businessman and project backer. Benchmark Hospitality of Houston, Texas, would operate the resort, he said.

"There are no operations in the state of Washington of this size," he said. "We're trying to provide something in the state."

Kirk Kirkland of the Tahoma Audubon Society in Tacoma said he was glad the judge resolved the public safety issue of having a facility of this size in a volcanic hazard zone. But he was disappointed with the other rulings. The permit and an environmental analysis of the project, were appealed by the society.

"We had hoped for more, but you get what you can," Kirkland said.

Park impacts

However, Kirkland said Casey did clarify a county's authority to consider the impact of development on a national park and to impose mitigation requirements.

Despite saying that he did not have such authority, the Pierce County hearing examiner approved voluntary mitigation measures, including a shuttle to take guests from the resort to the park and a visitor information center at the resort.

Casey ruled that the effect of increased traffic on the park was adequately considered, but the impact statement did not consider any effects on the park itself.

Casey upheld the environmental impact statement because:

- An anticipated increase in park visitors falls within annual fluctuations.

- Park officials failed to identify specific potential impacts on the park.

- The need for additional staff was a budgetary issue for the National Park Service.

Park Superintendent Jon Jarvis was disappointed that the effect of increased visitors was not considered. "You can't separate visitation from impacts," Jarvis said.

An expected 45 percent increase in visitor numbers during the spring and fall spreads park resources over five months instead of three, Jarvis said.

During the off-season, most visitors are locals who are familiar with the park and aware of the fragile emerging vegetation and the sensitivity of wildlife to human disturbance, Jarvis said.

The only way to inform new visitors of these issues is to have staff on the trails, Jarvis said.

Though more visitors bring more entrance fees, those fees can be used only to repair or upgrade park facilities -- not to hire additional staff, Jarvis said.

Casey is expected to issue a written ruling that would send the proposal back to the Pierce County hearing examiner.

N.S. Nokkentved covers the outdoors for The Olympian. He can be reached at 360-754-5445 or nnokkent@olympia.gannett.com.

On the Web:

- Mt. Rainier National Park

- Thurston County Superior Court

The Olympian Copyright 2002

back to Outdoors index