HomeMy WebLinkAbout029Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Myhr's < myhrs@icloud.com >
Tuesday, February 02,2016 5:42 PM
PlanComm@co jefferson.wa.us
Letter response to Pleasant Harbor MPR
Letter to Jefferson Co Planning Commissioners.docx; Untitled attachment 00059.htm
I tried earlier today to email PCCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us with a letter response but it came back as
undeliverable. I am resending to address above in hopes to get letter in before February 3rd deadline for
comment. As well, I faxed to the planning commissioners today using fax number: 1 360 379 4451.
1
To: Jefferson County Planning Commissioners
Date: February 2,20L6
From: Pam Myhr,local address: 560 Rhododendron, Brinnon, WA
RE: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort - Final Supplemental EIS
What follows are comments I request you consider in your deliberations regarding
approval of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort.
First, I am in favor of the Statesman (applicant) preferred Alternative Three and
believe it will benefit the community both with desirable employment, amenities,
and improved tax base. I can envision a multitude of resort options that would add
none of these. Statesman has gone the distance to create a desirable end result, but
not without these reservations.
At the January public hearing in Brinnon, concerns were addressed that I share
Traffic -
It is understood that H\MY 101 southbound, will have a left turn lane onto Black
Point Rd. Since the "T" intersection is at an elevated point along Hwy 101, both
south and northbound Hwy 101 traffic have limited sight visibility. Please also
include a Black Point Rd outbound left merge lane onto southbound Hwy 101 as
well....AND a caution light.
Aquifer infiltration -
Local residents have expressed concerns over saltwater infiltration of the aquifer
and pollutant contamination as a result of the recycled water recharge to the
aquifer. These concerns come from studies within the documents. The aquifer is
described as "at sea level" with saltwater penetration possible if it is drawn down
repeatedly. Plans 1 and 2 may create that scenario. Plan 3 was not available at time
of these earlier studies. There has been much testimony and documentation
regarding the "state of art" design of water treatment to minimize quantity
withdrawn. "State of Art" requires water resource interaction over time to prove no
compromise to quality.
There are monitoring requirements and reference to "|efferson County Coordinated
Water System Plan Section 5.6" and "Neighborhood Water Supply Program." But,
lacking specifics, what exactly does this leave as remedy to one's compromised
water system?
Appendix K, Compliance with LEED Standards, Conceptual Load Estimates,
Page 5, 'l6A - states: "No municipal water supply or wastewater systems will be
impacted....." Further in the document, a table identifies Pleasant
Tides/Pleasant Harbor Water System as a municipal system.
Pleasant Tides/Pleasant Harbor Water System shares the aquifer of the
proposed development. lt is a stable system with high quality of water. Most
importantly - - it is a state regulated Class A, not-for-profit cooperative with 133
residential/one commercial hookup capacity - mostly built out. System fees
address ongoing maintenance with existing technology. lts water rights are
senior to those proposed. This system is not prepared to secure additional high
tech water treatment or additional wells if the aquifer is damaged in
quantity/quality by the Statesman development. Time won't change that. A
water right for bad water is worthless and could create a crisis locally, and at the
county and state level if the Pleasant Tides/Pleasant Harbor Water System
becomes compromised.
Please consider teeth to monitoring (neighbor inclusion in test report distribution)
and teeth to remedy (Statesman fixes at its expense) should the aquifer become
compromised. This would make it far easier for me and perhaps for others to be
fully supportive.
Sincerely,
Pam Myhr
364 225 5741