Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout024David W. Johnson From: Sent: To: Subject: Miriam Murdoch <miriamclaire@embarqmail.com> Monday, January 05, 2015 10:52 PM David W. Johnson Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort To Mr. Johnson; I have been a resident of the South County for I I years, having moved out from the east side of Bellevue to live in a quieter environment. Many people I have met out here have done the suune, appreciating the pristine beauty and lack of noise and pollution. I don't have any scientific data to give you, Barbara Moore Lewis has covered much of that, but I can tell you that everyone I talk to about the resort feels it is too big of a plan for this area, taking in traffic and environmental issues, and the fact that it will be of little benefit to our community, serving mainly to put money in the pocket of Statesman Corp. I know you feel economic development is good for the south county, but the size and scope of this resort does not fit. The traffic already gets congested in the summer months on l0l, a road that has no room for expansion, and a resort of this size will only complicate matters. I ask you to consider some of the conditions outlined in Ms. Lewis'letter. Thank you, Miriam Murdoch P.O. Box 33 Brinnon, WA 1 David W. Johnson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subiect: Morgan Oslake <oslake@yahoo. com> Monday, January 05, 2015 9:29 PM David W. Johnson Morgan Oslake Proposed MPR on Black Point David Johnson Department of Community Development Jefferson County, Washington State Dear Mr. Johnson, I am writing regarding the proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR)and golf course south of Brinnon on the Black Point peninsula along Hood Canal, After reviewing the MPR options, I would like to register my preference that the resort proposal is *not* approved and that no action is taken. My primary concern is environmental impact including forest clearing, natural habitat loss, pollutant risks to Hood Canal, well water stress, and increased traffic. I own a home in Brinnon and am very supportive in seeing the Brinnon area thrive and be a vibrant community, but I do not think that the resort and golf course is the right path toward that goal, Sincerely, Morgan Oslake 1 David W. Johnson From: Sent: To: Subject Donna Frostholm Monday, January 05, 2015 4:36 PM David W. Johnson Pleasant Harbor DSEIS Comments David: As a follow up to your March 1,0,2074 email, I have the following comments on the Pleasant Harbor DSEIS: L. During my previous review of the submittals, it appeared that the applicant was intending to use the created wetland as part of the water treatment system, Based on a quick review of the documents, I did not find a drawing that shows the connections for the on-site water system. Wetlands created as mitigation for critical areas cannot be used to meet other code sections (such as the stormwater storage and treatment). The applicant should clarify that the mitigation area is separate from other water infrastructure to operate the resort. 2. The JCC allows for mitigation performance bonding and, given the number of mitigation plants proposed, I would suggest that the applicants be required to post a bond to ensure funding for mitigation, including contingency measures, and to ensure that annual monitoring reports are submitted. 3. The wetland mitigation plan states that reclaimed water will be directed to the existing wetlands, which presumably means Wetlands C and D (and is sometimes referred to in the document as "enhanced" hydrologic patterns), ln the JCC, alteration of wetland hydrology is a regulated activity, The EIS prepared for the re-zone was clear that these two wetlands would not be impacted, one of which extend offsite and is in close proximity to a steep slope. The existing vegetation and wetland functions at these two wetlands are based on the current hydrologic regime. Any modification to the hydrologic conditions willaffect the vegetation and should be considered a wetland impact. 4. The area of impact for each lmpact Class lD in Figure 3.3-1 should be quantified to support the statement in Section 3.3-4. Removing approximately 89 percent of the vegetation is inconsistent with the conclusion that there will be no significant unavoidable impacts to plants. The applicant should provide more information to support that statement. Let me know if you have any questions. Dorwta frostfio[m As s o ciat e ? fanner /W et [and Sy e c ia[is t Jefferson Courtty Deyartment of Community Deve[oymznt 6zt Sfieridan Street ?ort {owns end,'W as hirqt on g g 6 I 36o-329-4466 dfr o s t li o lim@,c o j effb'r s o n. w a" us DCD is open from 9:00am - 12:00pm and 1:00pm - 4:30pm Monday through Thursday; DCD is closed on Friday. All emails sent to and from this address will automatically be archived by Jefferson County and emails may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW, 1