HomeMy WebLinkAbout004David W. Johnson
From: Barbara Moore'lewis [mooreleb44@embarqmail.coml
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:44 AM
To: Brinnon Group 2
Subject: New site plans for the Pleasant Harbor Resort and links to county documents
Friends,
Following are some thoughts about the new site plan announced recently for the Pleasant Harbor
Resort. At the bottom of this email are links to the documents on the county site. Two of these
links are new since we sent the last email about this site plan to you.
OBSERVATIONS
1. On the new site plan one thing that is not included is what the new cut and fill plan looks like.
The text references the change in fairways and building locations to the "natural grade," but there is
no topography underlay in the new plan and no cut and fill plan. So there's no way to conclude
how much material is being moved and where. Previous calculations have indicated more than
10,000 truckloads just of cut and fill material, excluding materials brought from the outside.
2. The new additional buildings, located in the Harbor Uplands, called the Reunion House and
Harbor View House, have no listed square footage or height.
3. The stated height of the proposed buildings is higher than the maximum allowed height as
described in the FEIS (might be as high as 5 stories or 70 feet).
4. The age and adequacy of the traffic impact studies is very important and needs to be updated.
The increased traffic is one of the more egregious factors of this development. The initial study did
not seem to include either collisions involving motorcycles or animals, and only accidents at
"intersections," such as highway 104 and Center Road.
5. The promised "Green" engineering still needs more peer review of these points:
a. Projected water use vs. supply
1. In the new alternatives the fairways are included in the aquifer recharge. So, what
are the guarantees regarding fertilizer use infiltrating the aquifer?
2. What is the proof that the Class A treatment plan can remove chemicals, drugs,
heavy metals from both the bio -solids and the water re -introduced into the aquifer?
b. Where exactly are the bio -solids going to be disposed of that will not damage some other
eco system?
c. What is the net long term eco impact of the co -generation systems used extensively instead
of electricity from PUD #I Mason County?
d. Given the new locations of buildings, fairways, and the addition of tennis courts visible to
Rt. 101 and the populated hillside between the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers, what will
be the effects of the light pollution? (Again, multi -story buildings in the plan.)
e. The 30' buffer between the fairways and the South Bluff is extremely narrow. What will
the vegetation and density be? Most of the 200' Shoreline Conservation from the high water
line is composed of the steep bluff making the fairways nearly at the edge and highly visible
from the South and Rt. 101.
6. The change from a 7 year construction phase to "10 years or in response to market demand"
means that the negative impacts of construction will be 3 years longer and have no definitive time
limit.
These two, new alternative plans are backed with less detailed information that was in the 2007
FEIS. These new alternatives are no different than the FEIS in their negative impacts, during and
after completions of construction, in regards to population, traffic, and noise. There are still the
same, if not additional, un -answered questions and un -verifiable results.
Iw164ICty
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/PDFSBlack%20Point%20MPR/SEISIPHMPR
%20Draft%20Proiect%20Description.2df
ham://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopmentlPDFSBlack%20Point%20MPRISEISIPHMPR
%20Draft%20AItemative%20Comparison.pdf
://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelODment/PDFSB lack%20Point%20MPR/SEIS/PH-
Alternative I -Overall-11-12-13.
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopmentlPDFSIBlack%20Point%20MPRISEIS/PH-
Alternative2-Overall-11-12-13.pdf
Please let us know if you have trouble with the links or have any questions or comments.