HomeMy WebLinkAbout114TO David fohnson, fefferson County Department of Community
Development
FROM:Gary & Pam Myhr, 40304 NW Brown Dr, Woodland, WA 9867 4;
mvhrs@icloud.com ; 360 560 7 616 cell#
CC:
DATE: December L7,2014
RE:Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Draft Supplemental EIS - Public
Comment Period
We are property owners with address - 560 Rhododendron, Brinnon,WA., in the
Pleasant Tides subdivision. Recently, I (Pam) spoke with you briefly at the open
house held Dec. 3'd at the Brinnon Community Center regarding the proposed
development.
Our comments/concerns with respect to the development:
We are in favor and look forward to completion of this planned resort and believe it
will benefit the larger Brinnon area.
We have two concerns:
1) Black Lake Rd is a rural road that is used frequently by people walking and
bicycling (most from Pleasant Tides subdivision) There will be substantial
traffic increase from the development as its main entrance is very near the
entrance of Rhododendron Rd and the subdivision. We request: As part of the
Black Pt. road upgrade that will occur anyway, the road between the resort main
entrance and Hwy 101 include marked and adequate firm/wide to keep
car/walkers/ bikers safely separate. No need for a fancy separate trail - - just
need for well-defined road vs. shoulder and adequate firm shoulders and width.
2) There is no access allowed for guests of the resort to access the beach. It is our
understanding that the local tribe requested this restriction to protect the
Duckabush estuary. We assume their concern is difficulff of keeping people out
of their shellfish beds. However, complete "no beach access" is extreme and
impractical.
There exists a very large development in Mason County? called Hartstene Pt. It
too is near tribal shellfish beaches, is a very large development with steep cliffs,
and has beach access that has been compatible with the environment.
Accessing a true beach and being able to walk along it is a huge draw for a resort
and its guests. Having the beach and no access is an attractive nuisance.
Because Pleasant Tides subdivision is the only community beach within walking
distance of the resort, it could become a nuisance policing issue for the
subdivision. Neither the subdivision nor the community park/beach are gated.
Other adjoining beach property owners may find themselves affected.
"No beach access" creates a safety issue as well. Resort guests will find their
way down to the beach by forging makeshift trails. It is completely impractical to
expect the resort to barrier the entire upland frontage.
We propose the county with the developer address the attractiveness of the
beach in a pro-active manner that considers the tribes and other beachfront
owner concerns. The most southeastern resort shoreline is largely outside the
estuary/shellfish area. Within this area, our suggestion is that a walking path be
cut down to the beach with "no further beach access" controls denoting end
points of allowed beach frontage use. A return loop path exiting the beach back
to the upland could join internal resort walkway or path and be an attractive
addition to the resort. This proposal doesn't have to be elaborate but it could
make for a nice, interpretive path regarding the canal and environment.
Please allow for an attractive, safe access to some portion of the resort shoreline.
The marina can't provide this. Where there is a beach - - access is a huge tourist
draw and expectation. Limit, control, and allow is best for all parties.
David, would you please confirm you have received these comments.
Thanks -