HomeMy WebLinkAbout024To Jefferson County Transportation Planning
Re: Pleasant Harbor Resort
Joint Workshop, April 16,2014
APR 1 6 201[
The materials sent in advance, and being presented at this meeting, recognize the need
for transportation study and planning for new development
The Ordinance approving the Pleasant Harbor EIS also mandates such planning; the EIS
for the resort presents a general concept but the ordinance funher requires a
development agreement and zoningcode must be developed as a subsequent phase.
The County is thus charged with the very important task of ensuring that all impacts of
the development are known and addressed in the development agreement. This, of
course, includes traffic and transportation.
There are major concerns as to traffrc/transportation, including:
The data used by the developer's consultant, Michael Read, in the EIS was out
of date when the EIS was approved in 2008 (data going back to 2000) and is
greatly more out of date now.)
That vehicle emissions are one of the largest sources of pollution in the Hood
Canal. Environmental damage from the increased traffrc needs to be fully
investigated and taken into account in any development agreement.
Accurate planning is needed for a massive increase in traffic (at least 4,100
extra trips per day during the summer) and costs of it strould be assessed to the
developer rather than the ta:<payer.
Accurate planning must include a realistic look at how many people will be
traveling to the resort and the routes they are expected to travel. Without
requiring accurate information from the developer and and appropriate
requirements being made by the county in the development agreement, the
county will be neglecting its duties.
The minimization of the number of car trips by the developer's assumption that
a certain percentage of guests will take a resort provided shuttle from Sea Tac
and back seems very unlikely as most visitors to the Olympic Peninsula will
want acat to travel to other areas on the Olympic Peninsula.
The developer's assumption that visitors to the resort would travel to and from
over the Hood Canal Bridge is both unlikely and resulted in a total lack of data
It
on impact coming and going via Olympia. (Traveling to the resort would be
easier from Sea Tac via Olympia (no downtown Seattle and ferry, etc) and
many would likely travel that route).
There is a deadly curve south of the Black Point entrance with sight distance
problems from both the north and south.
Highway 101 along Hood Canal already has increased traffic in the summer,
fatalities and collisions are already a serious problem. The increase in traffic
congestion due to the resort will only make it worse.
The traffic study in the EIS is greatly flawed as it was limited to looking at just
collisions at intersections on Highway 101. Most collisions and fatalities on
that highway do not happen at intersections. An increased stream of traffic
will also impact local residents in turning onto and offof l0l from driveways
and county roads, increasing their collision/fatality risk.
Accurate fiaffic data as to both passenger vehicles and for commerce is needed.
Logging trucks, chip trucks, and delivery trucks travel 101, there was no
mention of such coilrmercial traffic in the developer's tansportation study. It
would be expected that increased traffic alone would impact the stream of
traffic; collisions/fatalities already result in many hours of delay for traffic.
Accurate and up to date taffic information from the developer needs to be
required from the developer that includes collisions and fatalities at all
points, not just intersections, and also the cost of emergency services and
collision and fatality investigations. The developer should bear the cost of the
increased services rather than the ta:<payer.
Accurate and up to date taffrc data should be required from the developer and
a plan for mitigation of the traffic problems we have identified.
Respectfu lly submitted,
Barbara Moore Lewis for The Brinnon Group
Bonnie McDaniel, Quilcene