Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout006Michelle Farfan From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: kirie pedersen <kirie.pedersen@gmail.com> Monday, January 04,2016 5:34 PM pcommissiondesk@co jefferson.wa.us; Pla nComm@cojefferson.wa.us Comment on Pleasant Harbor FSEIS Testimony re Pleasant Harbor FSEIS,docx 4 Jantary 2076 Kirie C. Pedersen, M.A. 687 Pulali Point Road Post Office Box 687 Brinnon, WA 98320 Jefferson County Planning Commission 62i Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 pcom m issiondesk@co.iefferson.wa. us PlanComm@co._i efferson. wa. us RegaTding: PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT LLC MASTER PLANNED RESORT CASE No's: MLA08-001 88, ZON08-00056 Recommendation: No Action Alternative (Altemative 4) Members of the Planning Commission My family has lived on Pulali Point since 1946. I was born here, returning after college to purchase land and construct a home from the ground up, including well, septic, electric, and plumbing, relying entirely on local 1 builders and artisans. I have devoted much of my life to working with Washington State biologists to study the impacts of development on the fragile ecosystems of Hood Canal. The FSEIS for the Pleasant Harbor Marine and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort, with the case numbers identified above, despite its volume, fails to sufficiently address the adverse impacts or provide sufficient mitigation for Alternatives 1 ,2, or 3. I therefore recommend Alternative 4, the No Action Alternative. A Master Planned Resort with Golf Course as proposed would negatively impact the human and natural communities of South County. Although I know that at this juncture, the Planning Commission is not specifically charged with recommending an alternative, but only addressing ZON08-00056, I urge you to pay careful attention to the testimony of those of us who remain deeply concerned about this proposal. My concerns include but are not limited to the following In other counties where similar developments have been allowed to go forward despite lack of proof of available potable water, counties have been sued. The costs of such suits trickle down to the taxpayers. According to the Department of Ecology, senior water users have "first rights." In this proposal, senior water users bear the burden of having to prove their wells are impacted by the drawdown of the water systems for the proposed resort and golfcourse. Anyone who has experienced water shortages in the Brinnon area, as many have for years, knows the difficulty of documenting such proof. Samples must be taken before the proposed development starts, and then maintained over a period of years. How would a homeowner function during the stipulated three years if he or she suffers saltwater intrusion? And then, as I read this plan, the non-senior landowner, the resort developer, makes the final decision as to whether the resort and golf course caused the seawater intrusion and only then addresses the senior users' compromised water systems. In addition, during my six decades with a front-row seat to Hood Canal, the water quality in Hood Canal has visibly deteriorated. In the southern parts of Hood Canal, where I grew up swimming at my grandparents' cabin, some areas are at times contaminated with fecal matter from failed septic systems. Where I live, in Dabob Bay, not far from Pleasant Harbor, algal bloom now appears almost daily during the warmer months. I have taken samples to send to NOAA, and others have completed more complex studies that document deteriorating water quality. However, a simple stroll along the shoreline and visual bird counts over my lifetime indicate that numerous species that once predominated in the near shore algal community, on the shoreline, in the bay, and on the bluffs have significantly diminished or vanished entirely. Damage to the environment is incremental. Something that starts out small, a house here and a house there, begins to compound when fragile ecosystems are involved. When I kayak around Dabob Bay and Hood Canal now, I see slides along the waterfront. These then destroy oyster and clam beds which attract tourists and provide livelihoods for tribal communities and other citizens. In every case, the slides are below either a clear- cut or a place where the upland has been disturbed, even by minor development. This is true, sadly, even in the rare cases where geologists researched the fragile slope prior to the approval of the building permit. 2 My other concems about the proposed Master Planned Resort, Alternatives 1,2, and 3, include but are not limited to: Increased traffic along narrow two-lane highways which also increases toxic run-off into the shorelines and streams; lack of resources for increased traffic accidents and medical events in an isolated area; the density of the proposed land use; the location of the resort and golf course in an aquifer recharge area with a history of known water shortages and seawater intrusion; potential damage to wetlands, streams, groundwater, and kettle ponds on the site; impact to fish habitat essential to native fisheries as well as for recreational use; lack of appropriate storm water management to protect from run-off; impact on the local elk herd and other protected species; adverse impacts to the shellfish essential to the livelihood of tribes and other citizens as well as for recreational use; and potentially toxic septic disposal methods. Based on my reading of the proposals available on the Jefferson County website and attendance at meetings over the years, the narrative about the proposed Master Planned Resort is based on two myths. The first, promoted by the developer, is that this is a "green resort." In this fragile and stunningly diverse part of Jefferson County, described by many, tourists and scientists alike, as one of the most beautiful and rare spots on earth, "green development" is an oxymoron. Those of us who have built our homes here have undergone rigorous scrutiny every step of the way to build just one house with one well and septic. We have paid taxes here our entire adult lives. We have worked, volunteered in, and are dedicated to this community. We revere the natural resources that cause our campgrounds to fill and and attract hikers, walkers, boaters, and bicyclists from all over the world. The second myth that I've heard, including from my elected officials, is that this proposed resort will "help" South County by providing jobs. For one thing, the developer is not a local or even American; the majority of the profit, if any, will not reside within our community. In addition, the provision ofjobs has already proved not to be the case. I've watched families I've known for decades actually driven out; the promises to support local businesses and hire locals are already unfulfilled. In addition, resorts are seasonal. What happens to part-time workers, whether local or imported from outside the area, when they are laid off before the first October storm? Did these workers earn sufficient wages during our tourist months of July, August and September to survive during the lean and long winter months? Do these workers then become dependent on public resources? Ultimately, taxpayers often end up paying the costs for a failed resort, particularly a golf resort in a time when the popularity of golf is diminishing world-wide, and when the chemicals and maintenance for a golf course further impact a drought-affected area. To mitigate this impact, a substantial bond must be required of this developer. The claims for a green resort providing benefit to a benighted community prove false. When San Juan Island gave itself over to a Master Planned Resort, with few exceptions, the original people were driven out. They could no longer afford to live in their own community. 3 After a lifetime of service to this community, my parents are buried in the Brinnon graveyard beside Elwell P. and O'Wota (Kate) Brinnon, our generous founders. Inspired by those leaders, I too devoted my life to this area and its diverse and rich natural environment. In respect to our ancestors and on behalf of those who follow, please preserve and protect this unique area in perpetuity. Respectfully submitted, Kirie C. Pedersen 4 4 January 2016 Kirie C. Pedersen, M.A. 687 Pulali Point Road Post Office Box 687 Brinnon, WA 98320 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 pcommissiondesk .iefferson.wa.us P I anC omm @ co j e fferson. wa. us Regarding: PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT LLC MASTER PLANNED RESORT CASE No's: MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Recommendation: No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) Members of the Planning Commission My family has lived on Pulali Point since 1946.I was born here, retuming after college to purchase land and construct a home from the ground up, including well, septic, electric, and plumbing, relying entirely on local builders and artisans. I have devoted much of my life to working with Washington State biologists to study the impacts of development on the fragile ecosystems of Hood Canal. The FSEIS for the Pleasant Harbor Marine and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort, with the case numbers identified above, despite its volume, fails to sufficiently address the adverse impacts or provide sufficient mitigation for Altematives I ,2, or 3. I therefore recommend Alternative 4, the No Action Altemative. A Master Planned Resort with Golf Course as proposed would negatively impact the human and natural communities of South County. Although I know that at this juncture, the Planning Commission is not specifically charged with recommending an altemative, but only addressing ZON08-00056, I urge you to pay careful attention to the testimony of those of us who remain deeply concemed about this proposal. My concerns include but are not limited to the following In other counties where similar developments have been allowed to go forward despite lack of proof of available potable water, counties have been sued. The costs of such suits trickle down to the taxpayers. According to the Department of Ecology, senior water users have "first rights." In this proposal, senior water users bear the burden of having to prove their wells are impacted by the drawdown of the water systems for the proposed resort and golf course. Anyone who has experienced water shortages in the Brinnon area, as many have for years, knows the difficulty of documenting such proof. Samples must be taken before the proposed Comment by Pedersen on FSEIS for Master Planned Resort Pleasant Harbor development starts, and then maintained over a period of years. How would a homeowner function during the stipulated three years if he or she suffers saltwater intrusion? And then, as I read this plan, the non-senior landowner, the resort developer, makes the final decision as to whether the resort and golf course caused the seawater intrusion and only then addresses the senior users' compromised water systems. In addition, during my six decades with a front-row seat to Hood Canal, the water quality in Hood Canal has visibly deteriorated. In the southern parts of Hood Canal, where I grew up swimming at my grandparents' cabin, some areas are at times contaminated with fecal matter from failed septic systems. Where I live, in Dabob Bay, not far from Pleasant Harbor, algal bloom now appears almost daily during the warmer months. I have taken samples to send to NOAA, and others have completed more complex studies that document deteriorating water quality. However, a simple stroll along the shoreline and visual bird counts over my lifetime indicate that numerous species that once predominated in the near shore algal community, on the shoreline, in the bay, and on the bluffs have significantly diminished or vanished entirely. Damage to the environment is incremental. Something that starts out small, a house here and a house there, begins to compound when fragile ecosystems are involved. When I kayak around Dabob Bay and Hood Canal now, I see slides along the waterfront. These then destroy oyster and clam beds which attract tourists and provide livelihoods for tribal communities and other citizens. In every case, the slides are below either a clear-cut or a place where the upland has been disturbed, even by minor development. This is true, sadly, even in the rare cases where geologists researched the fragile slope prior to the approval of the building permit. My other concerns about the proposed Master Planned Resort, Altematives 1,2, and 3, include but are not limited to: Increased traffic along narrow two-lane highways which also increases toxic run-off into the shorelines and streams; lack of resources for increased traffic accidents and medical events in an isolated area;the density of the proposed land use; the location of the resort and golf course in an aquifer recharge area with a history of known water shortages and seawater intrusion; potential damage to wetlands, streams, groundwater, and kettle ponds on the site; impact to fish habitat essential to native fisheries as well as for recreational use; lack of appropriate storm water management to protect from run-off; impact on the local elk herd and other protected species; adverse impacts to the shellfish essential to the livelihood of tribes and other citizens as well as for recreational use; and potentially toxic septic disposal methods. Based on my reading of the proposals available on the Jefferson County website and attendance at meetings over the years, the narrative about the proposed Master Planned Resort is based on two myths. The first, promoted by the developer, is that this is a "green resort." In this fragile and stunningly diverse part of Jefferson County, described by many, tourists and scientists alike, as one of the most beautiful and rare spots on earth, "green development" is an oxymoron. Those of us who have built our homes here have undergone rigorous scrutiny every step of the way to build just one house with one well and septic. We have paid taxes here our entire adult lives. We have worked, volunteered in, and are dedicated to this community. We revere the natural resources that cause our campgrounds to fill and and attract hikers, walkers, boaters, and bicyclists from all over the world. 2 Comment by Pedersen on FSEIS for Master Planned Resort Pleasant Harbor The second myth that I've heard, including from my elected officials, is that this proposed resort will "help" South County by providing jobs. For one thing, the developer is not a local or even American; the majority of the profit, if any, will not reside within our community. In addition, the provision ofjobs has already proved not to be the case. I've watched families I've known for decades actually driven out; the promises to support local businesses and hire locals are already unfulfilled. In addition, resorts are seasonal. What happens to part-time workers, whether local or imported from outside the area, when they are laid off before the first October storm? Did these workers earn sufficient wages during our tourist months of July, August and September to survive during the lean and long winter months? Do these workers then become dependent on public resources? Ultimately, taxpayers often end up paying the costs for a failed resort, particularly a golf resort in a time when the popularity of golf is diminishing world-wide, and when the chemicals and maintenance for a golf course further impact a drought-affected area. To mitigate this impact, a substantial bond must be required of this developer. The claims for a green resort providing benefit to a benighted community prove false. When San Juan Island gave itself over to a Master Planned Resort, with few exceptions, the original people were driven out. They could no longer afford to live in their own community. After a lifetime of service to this community, my parents are buried in the Brinnon graveyard beside Elwell P. and O'Wota (Kate) Brinnon, our generous founders. Inspired by those leaders, I too devoted my life to this area and its diverse and rich natural and human environment. In respect to our ancestors and on behalf of those who follow, please preserve and protect this unique area in perpetuity. Respectfully submitted, Kirie C. Pedersen J