HomeMy WebLinkAbout035Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
David W. Johnson <djohnson@cojefferson.wa.us>
Thursday, February 04,2016 8:18 AM
Cynthia Koan; Gary Felder; Kevin Coker; Lorna Smith; Mark Jochems; Matt Sircely;
Richard Hull; Tom Brotherton; Tom Giske
David W. Johnson
Comments, etc.
PC comments 2-3-16.pdf; Diane Coleman.vcf
Planning Commission members,
Please find the attached final batch of comments from the Public Hearing of January 6,20'J.6
Firstly, I want to apologize for my comment about not doing your "homework," last night. That was unwarranted and
does not reflect upon you, but instead upon me and myfrustration with the process, project and my job in
general. Please ask me any questions you have, anytime.
Secondly, lwanttothankthoseofyouwhohaveshownyourappreciationforthejobl'vedonesofar. Thatmeansalot
to me.
Finally,toscheduleasitevisitattheresort,call DianeColeman,theMarinamanagerat360.T96.46l-1. Hercontactcard
is attached. I believe they said Wednesday was the best day for them.
And just a reminder that I will be out of the office next week and won't be at the PC meeting on the 17th
See you all on March 2nd when we can answer some questions and start crafting a recommendation.
Tha nks !
David Wayne Johnson - LEED AP - Neighborhood Development
Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
360.379.4465
Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of lfe in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy,
sound communities and a healthv environment.
5f, SAVf PAPER - Pleose do not print this e-moil unless qbsolutely necessory
All e-mail may be consrdered subject to the Publb Records Ad and as such may be dsclosed to a third-pafi requestor.
1
Csunry Deperlment of Gom{nunlty S*vtlopmont
5;j;UARE'"'lr ,,i.."
Betrer Eurldtrig Strrts Hffr,
}}i\Ir'iirtr*rli. Iriil;1s.y,/.y{AVlr}i.J. I lrri:, lr'!{drdl Iit,r$!.di*rh{qi*{srr
2
David W. Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subiect:
Attachments
Peter Bahls <peter@nwwatershed.org>
Tuesday, February 02,2016 9:44 PM
David W. Johnson
NWI comments on FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor
Pleasant Harbor-corn ments on FSE lS_2-2-1 6 fi nal. pdf
David,
Pf ease include this email and the attached letter from Dr. Richard Horner, dated Februa ry 2, 2016, in the public record of
comment on the FSEIS for the Pleasant Harbor MPR and please forward these comments to the planning commission and
Jefferson County Commissioners prior to the planning commission meetinB on February 3,20t6.
Northwest Watershed lnstitute and over 40 partnering organizations have invested million of dollars and hundreds of
thousands of labor hours over the past decade in the effort to protect a portion of the Hood Canal watershed for salmon and
other wildlife, including establishing numerous protected and restored habitats along Tarboo Creek and Dabob Bay, These
efforts are now jeopardized by the proposed mega resort at Blackpoint which will probably cause significant regional impacts
to the water quality of Hood Canal and fish and wildlife populations.
Dr. Richard Horner, a foremost expert in stormwater issues, has reviewed the storrnwater plan for NWI and found it seriously
lacking (please see attached letter of Feb 2, 2016). ln his opinion, the stormwater plan is too generalto assess whether it will
adequately mitigate significant pollution problems likely for Hood Canal. ln addition, greatly increased vehicle traffic on public
roads related to the construction and use of the proposed resort is likely to cause significant stormwater pollution of Hood
Canal. Although this issue has been raised by Dr. Horner and others numerous times in previous public comment, h has been
completed overlooked in the FSEIS analysis.
tu a biologist, it is my professional opinion that the planned resort will also cause significant impacts to wildlife. The FSEIS and
associated wildlife habitat plan stumble on the issue of impacts to elk. The FSEIS admits that the Blackpoint area is within the
habitat range of the Dosewallips elk herd and further that elk may be attracted to the golf course and thus be at increased risk
of fatality along Hwy 101. The solution proposed in the FSEIS is to erect a wildlife exclusion fence. Fencing off the property to
elk will also likely exclude deer and other large mammals (deer, bear, cougar) from using the property. Thus, the wildlife
impacts of this project are severe - not only is native vegetation going to be destroyed on 5G81 percent of the 231 acre
property (depending on the action alternative chosen) but most large wildlife will be excluded from the property altogether.
Added to this problem is the increase in wildlife road kill related to the greatly increased traffic forecast for Highway 101. The
FSEIS does not adequately assess these likely impacts nor provide adequate mitigation.
ln summary, Northwest Watershed lnstitute believes that the FSE15 fails to adequately assess the full impacts of the proposed
resort and likewise fails to provide mitigation measures for the "action" alternatives that are adeguate to prevent longterm
and significant harm to public and triba! resources. NWI recornmends the no-action alternative to protect the public's
resources.
Sincerely,
Peter Bahls, Executive Director
Northwest Watershed lnstitute
3407 Eddy Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Tel36&385€786
Fax 360-385-2839
1
www.nwwatershed.org
Rrcrunn R. Honusn, Pu.D.
1752 NW Mnnxsr Srnrrr, # 551 TeLrpHoNr: (206) 782-7400
SeattLE, WesstNcrou 98107 E-uatL: rd19ltrglf@tng!.coj!
February 2,2016
Jefferson County Planning Commission c/o
David Wayne Johnson, Planner
Jefferson County DCD
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
I by emai I to dglqhu_s_o n @eqi.gffe $eniya.-q.s]
RE Comments on FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC, Master
Planned Resort Case Numbers MLA0t-00188, ZON08-00056
Dear Jefferson County Planning Commission members,
I was requested by Northwest Watershed Institute (NWI) to review the FSEIS for the proposed
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Master Planned Resort (MPR) regarding the potential effects
of stormwater runofffrom the project on the water quality of Hood Canal and the groundwater in
the vicinity. I present my findings after stating my qualifications to perform this review.
BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
I have 49 years of professional experience, 43 teaching and performing research at the college
and university level. For the last 38 years I have specialized in research, teaching, and
consulting in the area of storm water runoffand surface water management.
I received a Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Washington in
1978, following two Mechanical Engineering degrees from the University of Pennsylvania in
1965 and 1966. Although my degrees are all in engineering, I have had substantial course work
and practical experience in aquatic biology and chemistry.
For 12 years beginning in l98l,I was a full-time research professor in the University of
Washington's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. From 1993 until 201 l, I
served half time in that position and had adjunct appointments in two additional departments
(Landscape Architecture and the College of the Environment's Center for Urban Horticulture). I
spent the remainder of my time in private consulting through a sole proprietorship. My
appointment becarne emeritus in late 201 l, but I continue university research and teaching at a
reduced level while maintaining my consulting practice.
Jefferson County Planning Commission members
February 2,2016
Page2
My research, teaching, and consulting embrace all aspects of storrnwater management, including
determination of pollutant sources; their transport and fate in the environment; physical,
chemical, and ecological impacts; and solutions to these problems through better structural and
non-structural management practices.
I have conducted numerous research investigations and consulting projects on these subjects-
Serving as a principal or co-principal investigator on more than 40 research studies, my work has
produced three books, approximately 30 papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and over 20
reviewed paperc in conference proceedings, I have also authored or co-authored more than 80
scientific or technical reports.
Over a 17-year period beginning in 1986 I spent a major share of my time as the principal
investigator on two extended research projects concerning the ecological responses of freshwater
resources lo urban conditions and the urbanization process. I led an interdisciplinary team for I I
years in studying the effects of human activities on freshwater wetlands of the Puget Sound
Iowlands. This work led to a comprehensive set of management guidelines to reduce negative
effects and a published book detailing the study and its results. The second effort involved an
analogous investigation over l0 years of human effects on Puget Sound's salmon spawning and
rearing streams. These two research programs have had broad sponsorship, including the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the Washington Department of Ecology, and a number of
local govemments.
I have helped to develop stormwater management programs in Washington State, Califomia, and
Britisb Columbia and studied such programs around the nation. I was one of four principal
participants in a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-sponsored assessment of 32 state,
regional, and local programs spread among 14 states in arid, semi-arid, and humid areas of the
West and Southwest, as well as the Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast. This evaluation led to
the 1997 publication of "lnstitutional Aspects of Urban RrmoffManagernent: A Guide for
hogram Development and Implementation" (subtitled "A Comprehensive Review of the
Institutional Framework of Successful Urban Runoff Management Programs").
My background includes22years of work in California, where I have been a federal court-
appointed overseer of stormwater program development and implementation at the city and
county lwel and for two Califomia Deparhnent of Transportation districts. I was directly
involved in the process of developing the l3 volumes of Los Angeles County's Stormwater
Program Implementation Manual, working under the terms of a settlement agreement in federal
court as the plaintiffs' technical representative. My role was to provide quality-control review of
multiple drafts of each volume and contribute to bringing the prograrn and all of its elemenls to
an adequate level. I have also evaluated the stormwater programs in San Diego, Orange,
In addition to graduate and undergraduate teaching, I have taught many continuing education
short courses to professionals in practice. My consulting clients include federal, state, and local
government agencies; citizens' environmental groups; and private firms that work for these
entities, primarily on the West Coast of the United States and Canada but in some instances
elsewhere in the nation.
Jefferson County Planning Commission members
February 2,2016
Page 3
Riverside, San Bemardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Monterey Counties, as
well as a regional program for the San Francisco Bay Area. At the recommendation of San
Diego Baykeeper, I have been a consultant on stormwater issues to the City of San Diego, the
San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority.
I was a member of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (*NAS-NRC")
committee on Reducing Stormwater Discharge Contributions to Water Pollution. NAS-NRC
committees bring together experts to address broad national issues and give unbiased advice to
the federal govemment. The present panel was the first ever to be appointed on the subject of
stormwater- Its broad goals were to understand better the Iinks between stormwater discharges
and impacts on water resources, to assess the state of the science of stormwater management, and
to apply the findings to make policy recommendations to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency relative to municipal, industrial, and construction stormwater permitting. My principal
contribution to the cornmittee's final report, issued in October 2008, was the chapter presenting
the committee's recommendations for broadly revamping the nation's stormwater program.
PREVIOUS INVOLVEMENT WITH THIS MATTER
I submitted a comment letter on December 6,2007 regarding the Master Planned Resort (MPR).
In that letter I expressed, elaborated on, and justified the following opinions, in summary:
The Cornprehensive Plan amendment application should be denied unless the MPR
proponent can provide convincing evidence that (l) zero discharge from the golfcourse
resort can be achieved; (2) soils are conducive to the intended infiltration either in their
natural condition or after arnendmenl; (3) infiltration will not contaminate groundwater or
result in below-ground delivery of pollutants to surface receiving waters, with particular
attention to golf course irrigation and rain water discharge; (4) marina discharge will be
treated with a specific system to reduce harbor contamination from that source to the
greatest extent possible; and (5) inueased traffic will not degrade the water quality of
Hood Canal and its tributary waters or threaten the survival and well-being of their
resident and anadromous aquatic organisms. This evidence rnust be made available to the
public for another review of the proposal before its official consideration.
I understand that the marina has been separated from the MP& and thus I do not comment
further on the fourth point in this letter. I further understand that zero discharge from the full
golf course resort has been abandoned, and a stormwater management plan has been presented.
The proponent has since provided more infiltration rate data that satisfy my original concems
expressed in the second and third points. The remainder of this letter involves the fifth issue and
the stormwater management plan.
FINDINGS
Traffic Impacts on Water Q-pality and Aquatic Irife
The increased traffic generated by the development will raise contaminant levels in stormwater
Jefferson County Planning Commission members
February 2,2016
Page 4
runoff from public roads in the vicinity, with negative impact on water quality of Hood Canal
and aquatic resources. This impact has been totally ignored in the FSEIS and previous
documents, although it has been raised by NWI and others in public comment numerous times.
Issues specific to this point are:
a) DSEIS Appendix L. Transportation states that traffic related to the resort will increase by
an estimated 4,100 additional vehicle trips per day.
b) Highway I 0 I and other roads that would see increased traffic skirt the edge of Hood
Canal and directly discharge through road ditches to Hood Canal and tributary streams.
c) Automotive vehicles are a major sounce of the firll range of stormwater pollutants with
petroleum derivatives and metals toxic to salmonids and other aquatic life being of
particular concem in the ecosystem affected by the development. A variety of toxic
eflects on salmonids have been demonstrated from copper, originating in brake pads;
zinc, stemming from tire wear; and these and other metals released to the environment
through the wear of parts and fluid leaks.
d) Chapter 3 of the FSEIS states that, "New pollutant-generating impervious surfaces such
as roads and parking lots, and pervious surfaces of the golf course, would introduce
additional quantities of pollutants to the site during construction and long-term in the
form of oils, gasoline, other mechanical fluids used to operate motorized equipment, and
materials used to maintain the golf course vegetation. These pollutants would have the
potential to degrade the quality of water being infiltrated into the ground if not properly
treated." Yet the issue of vehicles causing stormwater pollution offthe site is not
addressed at all in the FSEIS.
e) I expect that with this added traffic level, the increase in storrnwater pollutants generated
would cause significant impacts to the water quality of Hood Canal, which is already
compromised, and the affected tributary streams, and to marine and anadromous
organisms.
f) The increase in pollutant loading can be quantified using an available model developed as
an outcome of a research project for Washington State Department of Transportation to
which I contributed.l
' References: Horner, R.R. and B.W. Mar. Assessing Impacts of Operating Highways on Aguatic Ecosystems.
Transportation Research Record I 017:47-55, 1985.
Horner, R.R. and B.W. Mar. A Guide for Assessing Water Quality Impacts of Highway Operations and
Maintenance. Tr ans p ortation R e s e arc h Re c ord 9 48:3 l- 40, I 983.
Chui, T.W., B.W. Mar, and R.R. Horner. A Pollutant Loading Model for Highway Runoff. Journal of
Environmental Engineering Diyiion, ASCE l 0E: l 1 93- l 1 20, 1 9E2.
Homer, R.R. and B.W- Mar. Guide for Water Quality Assessment of Highway Operations and Maintenance,
FHWA WA-RD-39.14. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1982.
Jefferson County Planning Commission members
February 2,2016
Page 5
g) The FSEIS does not discuss this issue at all, let alone make any assessment of potential
pollution loading increases and their impacts.
h) This is third time that this specific issue has been raised by NWI and myself: first, in my
letter of December 6,2007 on the FEIS; second, in the same comment letter resubmitted
on January 5,2015 for the DSEIS; and now for the FSEIS. Other conservation groups,
including the Brinnon Group and Hood Canal Environmental Council have also raised
this specific issue in their public comments.
i) The FSEIS is the last opportunity for the public to gauge the cumulative impacts of the
project and decide on an acceptable altemative. The FSEIS is inadequate and the project
proposal should be denied urless the MPR proponent assesses the oFsite traffrc-related
stormwater impacts and proposes mitigation measures as part ofthe FSEIS.
Ppposed Stormwa-tqtlv[aoageln nt Plan
The stormwater management plan is too general to assess potential impacts for such a major
development proposal. The action altematives involve clearing 56-87 percent of the 231-rcre
property of native vegetation and topsoil and grading resulting in the movement of 1-2 million
cubic yards of native soils. The impervious surface of the development altematives will be in the
range of I 2- I 3 percent. The general level of stormwater planning and detail presented in the
FSEIS and Appendices is inadequate to evaluate the potential impacts of such a large scale
proposal. Issues specific to this point are:
a) Somewhere between the EIS and SEIS, the proposed standards for stormwater fcatnent
were lowered dramatically. Section 3.3.7 of the FEIS states that "The stormwater
rnanagement plan will be designed to meet the project's requirement for zero discharge of
water to Hood Canal from the golf course resort are-a [emphasis added] . . . " In other
words, the EIS proposed a zero-discharge requirement for the entire resort. However, the
FSEIS requires only that the golf course fairways have zero discharge and allows for the
remainder of the resort be treated to state standards and acknowledging that stormwater
will flow offsite to Hood Canal. As stated in Section 3.3. of DSEIS Appendix E Grading
and Drainage Engineering Report (2012):
"Runoff from areas other than the fairways that discharge to adjoining properties
would be permitted to leave the site following flow control and treatment that
complies with SWMMWW requirements. Examples of these areas of the
development include the Marina Center, Maritime Village, parking area fronting
Black Point Road, wastewater reclamation plant, Maintenance Building and its
associated parking area, and treated and dispersed fairway discharge to Wetland D
along tbe east property line."
This change, represents a significant lowering of stormwater protection requirements for
Jefferson County Planning Commission members
February 2,2016
Page 6
the resort proposal overall and is not acknowledged or assessed as such in the SEIS
process.
Furthermore, the proposed development will apparently not even comply with the reduced
standard to provide for zero discharge of nrnofffrom the fairways themselves, as required
by Jefferson County Commissioner's Condition 63(q). As stated in the above quote from
Section 3.3 of the DSEIS, the proposed development will allow for "treated and dispersed
fairway discharge to Wetland D along the east property line". Wetland D occurs partly off
the property and as stated in the Section 3.3. of DSEIS Appendix E Grading and Drainage
Engineering Report (2012) "This wetland is the headwater of a drainage that flows easterly
to Fulton Lake and continues easterly to Hood Canal approximately 0.5 mile to the east."
Apparently, the proposed development will cause surface water runoff from the fairway
into Hood Canal, in violation of the plan requirement. With the lack of specific
stormwater plans as part of the SEIS, it is impossible to determine what other areas of the
resort may not comply with the stated stormwater goals nor gauge the full extent of impact
on the water quality and aquatic life of Hood Canal.
b) The FSEIS acknowledges that stormwater will flow offsite to Hood Canal and Pleasant
Harbor and states that stormwater runoffwill be treated to the current edition of WDOE's
Stormwater Management Manual, but provides no actual stormwater management plan.
The Grading and Drainage Engineering Report in Appendix E recommend some LID
methods that could be employed, such as rainwater harvest and use of rain gardens.
However without specific plans and commitments as to how or where these methods
would be employed, it is impossible to evaluate the adequacy of the stormwater
mitigation measures to function effectively in preventing probable significant irnpacts.
c) Similarly, the specific construction and erosion control plan for treating over 100 acres of
clearing and grading activity and l-2 million cubic yards of dirt moving is left to a future
Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. While this "kicking the can down
the road" may have been acceptable in very early stages of an environmental analysis, the
specifics are needed in the FSEIS to evaluate the project properly.
In summary, the FSEIS has very significant inadequacies in failing to assess the impacts of
increased vehicle traffic on the Hood Canal ecosystem and by incorporating a stormwater
d) To deal with the significant probable impact on water quality and quantity related to
pesticides and fertilizers from the golf course, which the Jefferson County
Commissioners identified as a priority that needed to be addressed, the FSEIS includes a
proposed Golf Course Management Plan. However this plan simply provides an
overview of potential best management practices, such as use of drought tolerate grasses.
The plan does not provide any detail or make any commitments on the types or amounts
of fertilizers and pesticides (herbicides, fungicides) that would be used, making it
impossible to assess the potential impacts on surface and groundwater. Furthermore, no
details or commitments are provided on landscape management plans for other areas of
the proposed resort, where high use of fertilizers and herbicides might be expect to occur.
Jefferson County Planning Commission members
February 2,2016
Page 7
management plan with insufficient detail to assure protection of that ecosystem frorn discharges
from the proposed development. Approval should be withheld until these faults are addressed
and only if the applicant can demonstrate that such impacts can be fully mitigated.
Sincerely,
'fuLle--fuL,
Richard R. Homer, Ph.D.
A2/A2|ZaLE 83:21PM L36A225AtZ6
FAX CO\/ER
TO:
COMPA].IY
l,lYHR
FAXNI.]MBER:
MAINPHONE
FAXNUMBER
PAGE ALl93
FROM:
PamMyhr
360225 5741 OR 560-7616
SIIBJECT:bltu r e A
PLAIN FAX COVER.dos
02/ S2/ zgt5 O3: ZLPM L36gz2SgSZ6 MYHR
To: )efferson County Planning Cornmissioners
Date: Februar-y ?,ZOLG
From: Pam Myhr,local address: 560 Rhododendro[ Brinnoru WA
RE: PleasantHartor Master Planned Resort'Final Supplemental EIS
What follows are comments I requestyou consider in your dellberations regarding
approval of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resorc.
Firs[ I an in favor of the Statesman (applicant) preferred Altenratlue Three and
believe it will benefit the communlty both with desirable ernployment" amenities,
and improved tax base, I can envlsion a multitude of resort opoons that would add
none of these, Statesman has gone the distance to create a deslrable end result but
not without these reservations.
At the fanuary public hearing ln Erinnon, concerns were addressed that I share:
Traffic -
It is understood that HWY 101 southborrn4 will heve a left turn lane onto Black
Point Rd. Since the "T" intersecfion is at an elevated point along Hwy 101, both
south and northbound Hwy L01traffic have llmited sightvisibility. Please also
inctude a Black Point Rd outbound left merge lane onto southbound Hny 101 as
wetl..-AND a cautton light
Aquifer lnflltration -
Local residents have expressed concerns over saltwater infiltration of the aquifer
and pollutant contamination as a result of the rerycled water recharge to the
aquifer. These concerns come from studies within the documents. The aqulfer is
described as "atsea level" witlr saltwater penetration possible if lt ls drawn down
repeatedly. Plans 1 and 2 may create that scenario, Plan 3 was not available at flme
of these earller shrdies. There has been much testlmony and documentation
regarding the "state of art" design of water featment to mlnlmize quantity
wlthdrawn. "State of Art'' requires wauer resource interaction over time to prove no
cornpromise to quality.
There are monitoring requircments and reference to tefferson CountSl Coordinated
Water Systern Plan Section 5.6" and "Neighborhood Water Supply Program." But,
lacking specifics, what exactly does this leave as remedy to one's compromlsed
water system?
Appendix K Compliance vrith LEED StaMards, Conceptual Load Estlmates,
Page 5, 16A - states: "No rnunicipal water supply or wastewater systems will be
PAGE 62/A3
a2/a2/2AL6 03:21Ft4 L3692258926 PryHR
impacted..,.." Further in the document, a table identifies Pleasant
Tides/Pleasant Harbor Water System as a munlclpal system.
Pleasant Tides/Pleasant Harbor Water System shares the aquifer of the
proposed development. lt is a stable systern with high quality of water. Most
impoftantly - - 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 seoure additional high tech
water treatment or additional wells if the aguifer is damaged in quantity/quality by
the Statesman development. Time won't cfrange 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 (Statesmen fixes at lts expense) should the aquifer beome
compromised. This would make it far easler lor me and perhaps for others to be
fully supportive,
PAGE A3/A3
Sincerely,
Q^, lYl
Pam Myhr
360 225 5741
David W. Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Haylie Clement
Friday, January 29,2016 8:15 AM
David W. Johnson
FW: Comments on the Pleasant Harbor MPR
FSEIS summaryBOPG(5)1 227 (16 zXg).pdf
From: Barbara Moore-Lewis lrnailto:brinnongroup@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27,2075 5:57 PM
To: PCCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us; Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject Comments on the Pleasant Harbor MPR
Attached are cornments from the Brinnon MPR Opposition Group on the proposed MPR at Pleasant Harbor.
We recommend the No Action Scenario A.
Please reply to this ernail to confirm that you have received these comments.
I
1
BRINNON MPR OPPOSTION 6ROUP
ISSUE SUMMARY
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort FSEIS
The FSEIS proposes a Master Planned Resort (MPR) on a 231 acre site. There are 5 options:
1, 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 49,772 square feet of commercial space and resort
amenities, 31 acres of natural area, and 2.2 million cubic yards of earth moved,
2. 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 56608 square feet of commercial space and resort
amenities, 80 acres of natural area, 2 million cubic yards of earth moved
3. 9-hole-gotf course with 3 hold practice course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of
commercial space and arnenities, 103 acres of natural area, and 1 million cubic yards of earth
moved.
4. No Action Alternative Scenario A: Continuation of exisiting conditions with site's current land
use designations
5. No Action Alternative Scenario B: Redevelopment of the site under existing land use
designations with single family residential uses and a 9-hole golf course.
We would recommend No Action Scenarlo A at this time untilthe following proposed mitigation is
accomplished.
When appropriate, this summary will break out the plan into issues when construction is in progress and
issues after construction is complete. lssues presented apply to both of the action choices.
Construction for this particular project is projected as being at least a 10 year processl There is
no guarantee that the construction won't last longer, as the approval process for it has stretched out.
Problems during construction include out of town construction workers and contractors, unstable
ground, county and taxpayer debt and increased taxes, traffic bottlenecks, more trucks on the road, and
chemicals and drugs sent into all Black Point wells.
2
FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS
MIT]GATION
PROPOSED MITIGATION
oRDIrrt*NCE g1.p![3;ffi r ists a
number of conditions about
actions the developer needs to
propose in the FSEIS
It is unclear the way the FSEIS is
written whether the conditions
of the ordinance are being met.
ln several instances, such as
allowing other residents access
to resort wells when there is salt
water intrusion in the private
well, the FSEIS appears not to
meet the conditions.
The developer to prepare a
separate document listing the
conditions from the ordinance
and the ways they are being
addressed in the FSEIS. This will
allow both the public and local
government to track compliance
with the conditions.
Although the marina is included
in the MPR area and ordinance,
construction, traffic, water
usage, and waste water
treatment for that site are not
described in this document. The
FSEIS covers 231 acres of the
development and the
Development Agreement covers
256 acres of development,. Local
governments and citizens cannot
understand the entire impact of
the development with only part
of the information about it.
Developing marina under
existing site plan without local
government or citizen review
and input.
Developer to revise FESIS to
include all relevant plans for
marina included in the MPR.
Both local governments and the
public have the right to know the
actual impacts of the additional
development.
There are 2 "no action"
scenarios in the FSEIS. These
scenarios are not developed in
the document in the way the
three options for building the
resort are developed. lt appears
that no action scenarios were
not actuaJly being considered.
There are insufficient details
about the no action scenarios in
the FSEIS to be able to make a
reasonable comparison of
options.
Developer to prepare FSEIS
document to include full details
of no action scenarios.
3
FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS
MIT]GATION
PROPO5ED MITIGATION
ECONOMTCTSSU6
State taxes are 9% of sales. 6.5%
Boes to Olympia and 2.5% comes
to Jefferson County. Taxes
received can be spent anywhere
in county, while the brunt of
traffic and fire district costs are
born by south county. We will
pay levies attached to property
taxes for school, fire
department, and sheriff costs.
Fulltax revenue will not be
available until Phase 4 and Full
Build Out, while the costs will be
present during the whole
construstion period.
The developer and a few
business owners are the only
ones who will experience
economic benefit. Local
governrnent and all county
taxpayers will experience higher
taxesfiewer services.
Developer does not pay
sufficient taxes to cover costs of
infrastructure and public services
needed by the resort itself,
resort members, and resort
employees.
Draft development agreement
specifically says that the county
will not ask for more economic
mitigation than is in the MOUs.
Developer to identify true costs
of infrastructure and public
services during and after
construction and arrange to pay
those costs, above what is paid
in taxes, to local and county
government. A study in Oregon
of sirnilar destination resorts
found that the standard model
for a golf-course suMivision-
oriented destination resort
presents local governments and
taxpayers with a substantial net
burden (in the millions of dollars)
that will result in either higher
overall taxes or a decrease in the
quality of basic services.
Construction jobs like this are
done by large companies who
have out of town sub
contractors, and out of county
suppliers. The only iobs typically
available to loca! people are
minirnum wage day laborers.
Profits from the companies and
waBes from rnost of the workers
will leave the county.
Condhions set for the FSEIS
require as much employment of
county residents as possible, as
much use of county contractors
as possible, and sourcing
construction materials f rom
within the county.
The FSEIS states that about 1750
jobs will be created, but this is
the nurnberfor all four phases
and many of the jobs will be the
same for all four phases
Set a 20% threshold for contracts
given to county residents and
employrnent of county residents.
Developer to calculate actual
number of construction jobs
over the 4 phases.
I
4
FSErS |SSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS
MlTI6ATION
PROPOSED MITIGATION
The average median income
(AMl) in Brinnon is 542,679. The
number of direct jobs created at
or below 8Q%of AMlare 223.
Construction and indirect jobs
with an income of 534,143 equal
342. 83o/o are considered
poverty level by U.S. Departrnent
of Heahh and Human Services
standards.
r 48 jobs are above AMl,
ranging frorn 535,000 to
S52,9tcr 108jobs are St0,593 to
Sta,:81o t2Tjobs are from 51.9,241to
SzS,ooo
2014 Poverty Guideslines of
USDHHS:
o Family of 5: 527,910o Family of 4: 523,850o Family of 3: 519,790o Family of 2: %L5,730
Creatlon of substantial number
of poverty leveljobs in south
county and an increased need
for taxpayer funded health and
social services.
Developer to prepare a report of
the services uses by ernployees
with wages below the Brinnon
AMland an estimate of the cost
of those services. Developer to
pay for costs of services to these
employees provided by tax
funded entities. A report
prepared of minimum wage jobs
at Walmart estimated that
Walmart costs surrounding
communities S13 million in
economic activity and 514.5
million in lost wages over 20
years.
5
INSUFFICIENT FSEIS
MITIGAT]ON
PROPOSED MITIGATION
Taxpayers will subsidize life
safety services
ln 2013 there were 249 EMS calls
for about 800 Brinnon residents.
Add the estirnated 2000 resort
residents and there will be about
520 calls a year. The MOU with
the fire department is for
S3,333/month. This is not
enough to hire another EMT.
The inadequate funding can Eo
for 10 years or more. Also, local
fire department is responsible
for alltraining costs and upkeep
of used ladder truck Statesman
will provide...al! meaning higher
local taxes for fire department.
The developer says if the resort
has trained EMT staff, they will
be available to surrounding
community.
For police, the developer will
provide a 500 square foot room
(smaller than a 2 car garage) but
no budget to supply and staff
it,..meaning higher taxes for all
county residents.
The Sheriffs Department says no
additional county resources will
be needed if resort has private
security.
Developer to prepare analysis of
true costs of life safety services
and to make provisions to pay
for those services to local
government entities.
Developer to present plan for
trained EMT staff.
Developer needs to describe role
and training of private security
that will replace county sheriff
staff. What will be their
authority? Willthey be able to
ha ndle traffic accidents/fatalities
and other emergences involving
resort residents and/or Brinnon
residents?
Taxpayers will subsidize road
improvement and repair for
heavy equipment
None Developer to prepare analysis of
true costs of road improvement
and repairand make provisions
to pay for those services to state
and local government entities
lnternet service to local area is
inadequate because of voJume
of use of existinB equipmenq
resort use will compound
internet access problerns.
None Developer to pay to upgrade
internet infrastructure to the
same speed consumers receive
in the metropolitan areas.
FSEIS ISSUE
6
FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT DSEIS
MITIGATION
PROPOSED MITIGATION
About 280 jobs are projected,
with the majority low income or
minimum wage. lt's not clear
how many of these jobs are part
time or seasonal.
Developer must build low
income housing or provide land
or money for it.
Developer to state how many
jobs are part time or seasonal.
Developer subsidize rents for
low income workers in the
housing constructed or present
evidence that wages will allow
these workers to rent this
housing. lf employees have their
own housing, developer will pay
for this housing the same as for
employees who rent from the
developer. Developer to pay lor
costs of services to these
employees provided by tax
funded entities.
Developer will provide a 500
square foot clinic for use by
medical personnel; use by resort
members only.
Developer to use local medical
and hospital resources but to
provide mitigation only for
resort members.
Developer to prepare analysis of
true costs of life and safety
services and to make provisions
to pay for those services to local
government entities, including
local hospitals and medical
services subsidized by local
taxpayers.
MOU with Brinnon schools
specifies 52 per tee time to go to
schools and scholarships to be
given to Jefferson County school
children.
No estimate of real revenue
from tee times. No dedicated
fund for scholarships; no details
of who will be eligible.
Developer to prepare report on
incorne to Brinnon schoo! and on
scholarships to Jefferson County
children. For example, are home
schooled children eligible?
Money needs to be placed in
dedicated account before
construction begins that will
cover scholarships
It
7
FSEIS ISSUE lNSUFFICIENT FSEIS
MlTIGANON
PROPOSED MINGATION
IRAFFIC
Data used for the traffic study is
totally inadequate. Highway 101
on the east side of the Olympic
Peninsula is the only non toll
direct connection to the l-5
corridor and is used for all major
shipments of goods, as well as
for residential and tourist traffic.
When serious accidents occur,
101 is shut down for long
periods of time, affecting both
commerce and quality of life.
There are serious economic,
health, and safety costs for the
entire Peninsula.
The Loss of Service data is from
2000. The actual car trip count is
from 2O05. The data does not
count accidents that do not
occur at intersections (leaving
out collisions with animals,
McDonald Cove, and the tanker
truck that exploded on the
Duckabush hill. Consultants paid
by the developer have
consistently minimized both the
effects of unsafe driving and
unsafe driving conditions on 101
in their reports and in response
to comments on their reports,
The developerto do an upto
date traffic report with data
from 2014 or later. This will
include all accident reports
between Olympia and 104. fl-he
Peninsula Daily News reports
that tourist trips increased 25%
during 2014 and the Olympic
National Park has similar data).
Developer to present adequate
mitigation for current traffic.
Developer to pay for mitigation
for projected additional traffic.
Heavy equipment on highway,
increasing congestion and
accidents
Developer says earth will be
moved within resort area
because it will be used for
construction materials; no
evidence gravel fits
specifications
Developer to present evidence
that the earth moved from the
site qualifies for construction use
and provides data on the
amount that will be moved on
the site vs what will be rnoved
on the highway. Developer
proposes mitigation for
increased truck traffic and pays
for mitigation.
Machinery used will be scrapers,
excavators, bulldozers, wheeled
front loaders, a portable
screening plant, feed-hopper,
portable gravel crusher, finishing
crusher, water trucks, conveyor
belts systems, and
vibratory/sheep-foot com pa ctor
rollers. This will be 1200 feet
away from the closest existing
residence.
None Developer to present report on
noise impact on other Black
Point residences and to propose
mitigation. Developer to pay for
mitigation.
tt
8
FSEIS ISSUE INSUFF!CIENT FSEIS
MITIGATION
PROPOSED MITIGAT]ON
There will be up to 4100 added
daily trips from resort traffic on
state and local roads; there was
a 25% increase in tourist traffic
in 2013 alone on the Peninsula;
there will be bottlenecks in
Hoodsport
Buses will run to Seatac and
visitors will take a route to resort
that includes lengthy ferry
waiting and heavy Seattle traffic
instead of the easier ; traffic
volumes calculated with out of
date and incomplete data
Developer to do traffic analysis
with recent data on traffic
volumes and with all accident
data. Developer will calculate
road irnprovements needed
from accurate traffic data and
make provision to pay for those
improvements. Developer to
hold local meetings discussing
traffic improvements with local
residents before proceeding.
Developer to provide proof of
estimates of bus usage.
The increased traffic along Hood
Canalwill increase the nitrogen
problems and dead zones in the
Canal.
Buses will run to Seatac and
visitors will take a route to resort
that includes lengthy ferry
waiting and heavy Seattle traffic
instead of the easier ; traffic
volumes calculated with out of
date and incomplete data.
Developer to do an analysis of
the environmental impact of the
increased traffic on the health of
Hood Canal, using current
science, and propose mitigation.
WATER
The water rights were awarded,
but additional wells were never
drilled. A pump test was
atternpted on an existing well,
but was aborted after
equipment failure, so draw down
rate and available volume was
never proven. Usage amounts
have not and will not be
determined untilfull build out,
with the caveat that for each
phase during the 10+ years of
construction adequate water
must be proven.
For each phase duringthe 1Gt
years of construction, adequate
water must be proven.
Developer must test the existing
welJ and provide adequate data
on drawn down rate and
available volume. Developer
must show adequate water
supply not only for resort but for
all Black Point wells, existing and
future. Cornputer models which
have been used are not
acceptable.
Developer must define what
mitigation will be provided if
volume is not sufficient and the
aquifer is depleted for allwells.
lr
9
FSEIS ISSUE INSUFTICIENT FSEI9
MITIGATION
PROPOSED MITIGATION
The water supply well is
developed below sea level and
will always be susceptible to salt
water intrusion or cause
intrusion to the wells along the
south and east coasts of Black
Point. This is not a well used for
testing sah water intrusion
Yearly monitoring Require the developer to test
the water supply well monthly
for salt water intrusion and to
submit the reports to the county
health department.
The salt water intrusion samples
are taken from 3 Statesman
wells that are not located where
salt water intrusion is likely to
happen
Yearly monitoring Require the developer to test all
water supply wells monthly for
salt water intrusion and to
submit the reports to the county
health department.
The developer is required by the
ordinance conditions to provide
access to the resort water
system by any neighboring
parcels if saltwater intrusion
becomes an issue for them.
Restrictive Neighborhood Water
Poliry that requires 3 years
monitoring of private wells
before a claim can be made and
the developer to decide if claim
is valid.
County health department to
decide if well has salt water
intrusion. lf so, developer gives
access to resort system at
standard county hook up and
monthly usage rates.
Statesman's tests for salt water
intrusion are to be collected
guarterly, but to be submitted to
the Department of Ecology once
a year. This means residents
with neighboring wells may have
to wait up to a year to start the
process of proving salt water
intrusion is due to the water use
of the resort.
Yearly monitoring Require the developer to test
the water supply monthly for salt
water intrusion and to submit
the reports to the county health
department
The pumping plan for the supply
wellwill influence salt water
intrusion
None Require the developer to submit
a pumping plan that will
minimize salt water intrusion in
resort and neighboring wells.
I
10
FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFIC]ENT FSEIS
MITIGATION
PROPOSED MITIGATION
There is one aquifer on Black
Point, recharged by rainwater.
The resort wells could deplete
the aquifer.
Water studies are done by
computer modeling.
Developer to do actualwater
studies on the property to be
developed and to prove the
availability of water for all
residents. lnclude wells that
already have salt water intrusion
(not in DSEIS). Require a bond to
compensate other residents if
aquifer is depleted.
Developer to prepare report
about how resort witl be
mothballed or environrnent
restored in case of aquifer
depletion. Developer to provide
a bond to cover costs of
mothballing and/or restoration.
There already is salt water
intrusion in Black Point wells;
resort wells could cause more
salt water intrusion not only in
adjacent wells but in resort wells
as well.
Put up a bond that would cover a
desalinization plant.
It is unclear how much water is
projected to be used. Figures
from 70 to 175 (standard usage)
are in the document.
Forcing waste water down wells
to recharge the aquifer.
Developer to do water plan with
consistent numbers that fits with
historical supply and not
recharging the aquifer in this
way.
The aquifer is recharged by
rainwater. There are extensive
changes to the land that will
affect the amount of permeable
land. There is no information on
how low rainfall years would
affect the assumptions of the
water model. Because
everything is based on a
computer model, there is no real
proof that recharge will take
place as described with the
development of the land.
Recharge rnay be significantly
less.
None Developer to present a plan for
drought years, taking into
account the changes in the
landscape to be made by moving
at least 1 million cubic feet of
dirt and rock, Developer to
demonstrate that recharge rates
willbe as projected in DSEIS.
[,1
11
FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSE!S
MITIGATION
PROPOSED MITIGATION
Statesman has put several
restrictive conditions on what an
individualwell owner has to do
to prove their potable well water
was lost due to Statesman's
actions.
This is in conflict with the DOE
conditions on the water rights,
including Statesman conditions
that they can demand additional
evidence that they are at fault. lf
the developer does accept fault,
the owner may hook up, at
Statesman's cost, to their water
system and then they will have
to pay for its use. This is also in
conflict with the conditions DOE
placed.
Developer to rewrite
Neighborhood Water Policy in
concert with owners of local
wells so that local owers'
concerns are answered. County
health department to facilitate
this rewrite.
The utility district created for the
operation of the Water System
and Sewage Treatrnent Plant has
to make enough profit to cover
maintenance and future
replacement of deteriorating
equipment.
Sometime in the future the
entire Sewage Treatment Plant
will have to be replaced. Owners
of private wells that are
compromised by the water use
ofthe resort and want to hook
up to the resort water system
will have to pay unspecified fees.
The developer to clarifo fee
structure of utility district,
including hook up fees and
monthly fees for owners of
private wells who use the utility
district systern.
W,AS$ET['AT:ER
No Class A water treatment
system removes soluble
chemicals. This means that the
medications people use daily will
not be removed from the water.
Statesman plans to use the
water in irrigation, fire
suppression, and to recharge the
aquifer. The water will be forced
down wells into the aquifer,
where it will contaminate any
water drawn from the single
aquifer.
None Prohibit the developer frorn
contaminating the aquifer with
chemicals left from the water
treatment or require water
treatment that removes all
chemicals.
L2
FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS
MITIGATION
PROPOSED MITIGATION
oTlrEB
All stormwater runofffrorn new
pollution generating impervious
surfaces must be treated before
discharge to on or off site
locations to comply with
Stormwater Management
Manual for Western
Washington.
FSEIS does not indicate how they
are going to treat the water.
Mitigation can help with
stormwater runoff, but not
eliminate it. Developer to
prepare report on ways to
rnitiBate the stormwater runnon.
These can include
a stormwater filters (which go
onto the stormwater
entrances and filter out oils
and other pollutants; they
should not be used by
themselves for they don't
always work),
tarps (which willtrap water
while all the earth is being
moved; this will help keep
the water from running off
and giving the construction
workers time to filtrate the
water into stora8e
containers to be cleaned).
and
controllinB the erosion
(controlling how workers are
move the soilaround the
work site may save water
frorn running off into the
Hood Canal).
a
a
13
FSEIS lSSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS
MITIGATION
PROPOSED MITIGATION
Moving soil releases the stability
of the ground. Moving at least 1
million tons of earth at the site
will affect the stability of the
ground. lt will also affect the
stormwater, all surface waters
frorn rain and snow. This is
runoff that does not collect in
the ground. The plan to move
stormwater to a retention pond.
That pond will let the water sink
into the aquifer, transferring the
pollutants of construction to the
aquifer. Less stability of the site
will cause more stormwater to
run off, be absorbed into the
aquifer, or go in Hood Canal.
Pollutants include oils,
antifreeze, and other liquids
from construction equipment,
pesticides, and fertilizers.
Storing stormwater in holding
pond or allowing it to go into the
Canal. Various methods of
treating pollutants in water.
Lack of information on chemicals
(herbicides, pesticides, or
fertilizers) that will be used for
golf course grass maintenance or
any discussion of how the
developer plans to protect
groundwater or storrnwater
runoff from the use ofthese
chemicals.
Developer to provide evidence
that plans in the DSEIS treat
stormwater to remove
pollutants are realistic.
The BMPs (Best Management
Plans) for golf course
maintenance needs to be
explained in detail.
Natural wetlands in the resort
area will be cleared and used as
retention ponds. These
wetlands are pollutant removal
systems and clean the ground
water.
Destroying wetlands will destroy
the natural systems now intact
and the wetland will no longer
be able to help in natural
fi ltration of stormwater.
Wetlands mitigation plan has not
been done.
Developer to revise plan to leave
wetlands as wetlands. The kettle
with the wetland needs to be left
as it is because this will help the
project to clean some of the
stormwater runoff that will be
caused by this project.
Developer to do wetlands
mitigation plan before approval
of DSEIS.
Biosolids will be sent to Shelton
for processing
No proof of agreement about
disposal of biosolids. lnadequate
information on amount of
biosolids. lncreased truck traffic
for the biosolids. Unclear if this
is included in the traffic analysis.
Developer to prepare a report on
biosolids, including proof of a
plan to dispose of them and an
estimate of truck traffic that will
be generated.
Mason County PUD #1 has
agreed to supply power for the
first phase.
Lacking in details about PUD
services to be supplied and how
they will be funded; no mention
of possible rate increase for all
rate payers in PUD #1 from
increased energy usage.
Developer to present agreement
with PUD for public review,
including possibility of rate
increases for all rate payers.
14
FSEIS ISSUE !NSUFFIC]ENT FSEIS
MITIGATION
PROPOSED MITIGATION
The Geoengineer's Fish and
Wildlife report states that
Strearn A is considered (Type F)
fish bearing until it reaches a
hung culvert, which prevents fish
passage and makes the stream
non-fish bearing (Type N). An
impassable culvert alone cannot
be used to justiry classlfying a
stream as Type N waters (WAC
222-t6-O3t and Section 13 of
Forest Practice Board Manual).
The Wetland Delineation Report
has further details about the
stream, including that it has a
gradient barrier of over 20%, but
this stil! does not preclude the
water from upstream being
typed as Class F if the habitat is
sufficient.
The FSEIS does not provide
adequate detail to determine if
the habitat is sufficient and if the
stream is properly Type F or
Type N. The FSEIS does not take
into account WAC 222-15-031
and Section 13 of the Forest
Practice Board Manual in
determining the Type of Stream
A.
The developer to prepare a
report on Stream A that gives
more detail and supports the
Type of stream.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subiect:
Attachments
Haylie Clement
Administrative and Planning Clerk
Jefferson County DCD
Haylie Clement
Tuesday, February 02,2016 1:36 PM
David W. Johnson
FW: MPR
MPR lefter Feb 2016 Feb.docx
ffi
From: Bill & Roxianne Morris Imailto:uptheduck@embarqmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 11:10 AM
To: Planning Comrnission Desk <PCornmissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>
Subject: MPR
1
David W. Johnson
J efferson County Planning Commission Feb. 1, 2016
We have lived in the Brinnon area since 1974 and have watched the area mature into what it is
today, Yes, at one time; Brinnon thrived due to logging. Logging jobs will never come back to
that level. lt is now mostly retired people who move into the area but the locals who have lived
here for years-like the isolation. Some people LIKE the rural isolation and character of Brinnon.
It isn't really close to any city. You are always an hour or more away and no stop lights. People
who live here have always traveled to jobs or have developed their home industries.
The M PR development will forever change the rural character of this community. I do not see
how the Half Way House, Brinnon General Store or the Geoduck Tavern would be able to
sustain their businesses through the winter in this small community. I think they barely make
ends meet now and depend upon summer travelers. A small rural area cannot support the MPR
either during the FalUWinter/Spring for them to maintain jobs. I do not believe even with all
the attractions they have added to the MPR, that it will be able to be year round. So like the
Yelvik store; some of the local businesses will not survive an added restaurant or store. Even
the Resort Marina has minimurn wage jobs and seasonal employment.
The jobs proposed are still minimum wage and seasonal. They are not year round family wage
jobs and we will end up; as tax payers, helping them with healthcare and unemployment when
they are not employed. The MPR has repeatedly stated that they will hire locals ONLY if they
are qualified; quite easy to say tell someone they are not and bring in your own crew. The job
idea is simply a fallacy that does not pan out. These jobs will not pay someone's student loans
or support a family. Better to put the land into 5 acre plots for family housing.
The traffic issue has been totally ignored by the developer and county planner. The MPR
construction wil! cause road damage. lncreased traffic on Hwy 101 will cause more wrecks and
road damage. Wrecks on Hwy 101 can block travel for several hours. Then there is the increase
traffic on the Duckabush Rd where we live. That road is the only access point to the Olympic
back country and trails so it will have a greater need for repair. Not sure the county will ever fix
the Dosewallips Rd. so that there is more access. My road is like rush hour sometimes now. Not
to mention; some people cannot understand Private Property or Do Not Trespass signs.
Taxpayers will have to pay for road repairs and maintenance.
The water aquifer is inadequate to support all the attractions and use of current residents. And
I surely hope that they are not planning on using recycle water in the water slide venue. YUCKI
Local residents will have to pay to hook up to their water system have to pay to monitor their
wells for salt water intrusion, and pay for water usage when the intrusion happens. They do not
have those expenses now. I also believe that reusing the water will end up harming the water in
the Hood Cana! which actually provides some family wage jobs.
Tax money will not end up in Brinnon, Most of the money collected will go to the state and a
tiny percentage might filter to the local community.
I believe the best interest for Brinnon is to vote to do nothing on the MPR and let it go to 5 acre
parcels. Let Brinnon remain rural. People choose to live here for that reason not because there
is some monstrosity of a MPR with all its many attractions. lt is lacking the one attraction that
actually brings people and makes money. Where is the casino??? People choose to travel to
Clear Creek and Great Wolf Lodge-really, don't think they willtravel to Brinnon. The Olympic
Peninsula area seems inundated with the same venues that have a casino. Do not think this
MPR is sustainable for family wage jobs year round.
Sincereln
William and Roxianne Morris
3261 Duckabush Rd
Brinnon WA
i 'i
FEB 0 3 2016
For publicatio:rr:
The Statesman Grou{r is a corporate builder. They've plans for what they caii Flens'iidt i'
Harbor. A lich msn's ShangiJa" it will ovenvhelm a ruml village in south Jefferson
County The nrral village is caiied Brinnon---tbr years well nigh invisible in the eyes and
minds of Jef;[ersr:n Cor:nty Cornmissioners. T'hat is, until Statesman came onto the scene.
lt used to be tha.t our elect':d representatives and we the citizens played a large role in
deterrnining the look anci feel of our cornmunities. Nowadays, financially strapped local
govr'r:oments increasi:igly rely upon the homebuilding industry, overwhelmingl5,
don.r:ated by corporate builders, to do their work for them. Hat in hand, we bow and
scrape so iLS rlcrt to fiighten them away, while they ruthlessly transform rural laflds and
rural communities into pre-packaged "company towtrs."
Here's what The Statesman Group has in store for Brinnon:
Mlny thousancl lbet c,i'picturesque shoreline will be lor:t to the public forever. A single'
class of werrlthy transients wiil likely inhabit Pleasant l^: rbor---a hollow village,
everything tbr rent and haif the houses empty in wintertime. Gated or not, it will seenq
ofl:limits to anyone r:rher thon its newly settled residents.
An 18-hole golf course ald ureil over a thousand housing units will be no little draw upon
lJrinnon's limited supply of freshwater. With money to irurn, Statesman has targeted
precious ccmrnunai resoulces.
No rnatter r,,rhat assurances they offer, the proposed development will--given the lay of
the tand arrd its proximity to water---seriously degrade the ecological integrity ofboth
shoreiine and arijacent lands.
It's rot too late tc dra.rxatically change course, I can envisioh a scated-down plan that
would, among other tHngs, protect the natural environment, accommodate those
interested iir development, &nd, at the same time, caringly transform a relatively formless
rural community inlr-r a very special place. If Statesman wanted to buy in, it would be
encourageC to do so---on ci.ir rerms, not their own. This is as it should be.
328 u'ords
Todd Wexrnan
1255 3le litreet
Pcft Townsend
379-1 596
I
For pirblication:
C,ur Jefferson County{ Co;,rpissloners si:.ould trave fcll-orroC
the lead of othere in euf Ste.te ruhc unapoLo6'etical-1y banned
large=sca1e tlplanned unlt devel-oomentstt in or:tlying rtrral
settin.gs.. T!:ey, Lnsteacl , went tieLl- out of their vz.v to
enccurage one srrch PIID alongside tl:e sh.orel-J.ne of t}-e Iiood
Canal ln n:rirl XrLnnon.
Statesmanls Garttr l,js.nn cal-ls his daveiop.,rent "PleasantHarbor.rr' I call it a ccnpeny torrn, a gated comrnufllt]' a
rlcir rnanls Shang-ri-la---each and aJ.J. dascri,ptive of an
irruptton deserving Llttle or nc serictrs consiCaration.
:lccordins to Garttrl his Pleasant ilarbor is a godsend that
rv11l- great].t benefit those rvho presentl;' resLde in and
around Brlnnon proper. f say trog-.,;;1 "53 Itrs not for'th.en
he is building. Itf s for wealthy others whc couldnrt ca.?e lessabout those 'yrho live on t}..e otirer si,1e of hl6lrrrtay' 1O1 . Oh,
ttrqre may be constructl-on joh.s very early on and nenLal
Jobs i.n' a notably class-conscious enlrifonurent afterrcarcie..
But you cerr:. bet tl'rere r1l be nothing i-n torms of a;uenlty
for tsrirrnon prcpef--evoir t::.ouglr CornmLsgloters ere charSed
r'rlth gu?.r'anteein6 such.
Garth llannts sprawJ.ing PJ-easant Harbor development--golf
coll.fse and more--rrilL slgnifica.ntJ-y drerr down sonnunal rrater
resources, alreacly tn sl.ort supply. Tl:ls j.s fact, not fa-ncy!'
Tehn, tool 4i^or-lndr"eiter runcff during const::uctlon an,l after-
vards is bouncl to pose a'r;hrea-t to r.ta.ter que"J.lty in licrrtd
Ca-all-*-as r'rell as the r.raters of Pu;et Sound into which the
Iiood Prai.ns. Disturbed soil ls boua<i to find. its ruay shoreruardo
iincr.r that a recentJ-y-cornpleted State-sponsored study identifles
large-sce.1.e shoreline c'.e../eJ.opment as tlre nir,Jor caltse of
deterioratln,q -ura'v6r riua. lity in and around Pu;et Sound!
Ha',nt :ncre? Listen bo uhat Tl:e Erlnnon Group has to salro
Todd 1'Iexnan
?cyt ?orrirserid
379-1 196
r L>--
---J
-
lto$lAE$II;"FIRE?!"
:-.-.-.
Use fsr mill site
The city of P"rrtAngcles
has -spent consir lerable
money making plans for
the development of the old
Raynnier mill site.
The Jamestown
S'Klallam tribe has
plannetl yet another tribal
center, no doubt; cumplete
with a little fon:st of totem
poles.
Strangely enough, the
owners of the prroperty
were not consulted in these
plans.
Since I don't own the
Itayonier sibe and have
never spoken to'anyone in
the company'I, too, have
developed a plan for the
site.
I think the old Rayonier
mill acreagp would be a
perfect location for one of
the universities to build
another campus, complete
with medical and law
schools and graduate and
undergraduate curricu-
Iums.
I envision picturesque
Port Angeles becorning the
ultirnate, beautifuI college
town.
Having a univereity
brings economic health to
the community.
Students, faculty and
support stalf need housing,
food and entcrtainment.
Mom and Dad need
places to stay when they
visit.
A university would not
ouly bringjobs to ow area,
but there are other advan-
tages.
For example, with a
medical school close by, we
would not have to travel kl
Seattle for special consulta-
tions and procedures.
Our local kids could live
at home and attend a
rnajor universit5r
And this is probably the
only way we will ever get
Tfader Joe's to mme to the
North Olympic Peninsula.
Roberta Griset,
Sequim
The Statesman Gmuy's
Garth Mann is counting on
wealthy investors in China
and an immigration pro
gram to finance tris $300
million Pleasant llarbor
of the hundreds if not thou-
sands ofjobs in store for
us"
This claim is nothing
new to those who've dosely
followed Statesman's
ongoing attempt to colonize
Brinnon's shoreline.
A Iatterday snakeoil
salesman, Garth Mann will
say and dojust about
anything to get his way -while lying at his master'B
feet, Jefferson County
Commissioner John Austin
dutifully'woof6" approval.
Tb the sopliisticated
observer, Statesman's plans
repreoent nothing less than
a subtle fonn of apartheid
- an exclusive enclave of
wealthy Ctrinese immi-
grants on the shoreline side
of Higtrway 101, hapless
Brinnonites on the other.
Im one of those who've
imagincd Brinnon s futurc
in terms akin to what Brin-
nonites espouscd back in
1995 and again in 2001.
Both the maintenance of
the area's rural character
and inns and support ser-
vioes for recreational tour'-
isrn were emphasized in
their wdll-wrought "home-
grown'musings.
Looking forward to a
secDnd terru in office,
Mann's best friend asks
that we support him in his
bid for re-election.'
Know this, John:
I'll be voting against the
other guy, not for you.
Tbdd Wernan,
PortTownxnd,
Resort Dlansrir.=f+rE!rr.+-ttaung sblucl( out in the Marina and Colf Resort.
United States and Canada, Along the way, he boasts
I
School bond, levy
ln the 1)ir,, il ftrrrinr;uIu
llriiy Ncras il;. a i:rtrr1:l* iif
i 1r(r ('{rtrt. {ti' Llri: frr'r.ip,isrr{llrir)d iri,:ru: lirr liort Ang,ilc.,*
I ligh Sciux,l l'l\rrt, Angertre*
S,'hrul Hr,i:rl litrplxrrti.r*
ltll {"ti' llro}r'rrral"l.
It sl'r,;ws Llrrrt a lrorr'rl,
l:i r^:rs*t"rsr.:{l ;ri. $ I 0t}.ti(r0
rv,rultl prry rrn rrililitinrral
6 Iii{l rr nrrrrail.y irr *r:l'rr rrl
I) t't)lx.rl-t..y {.iL-{(lrl,
If tltu ltorrt* ix irr,iiussr:d
.rt $2ti0,0011, tlrt: aturrurrt. of
l.lrc iucrtaxr:rl :lclruul l:ix*,trll br: alxnrt, $41(i.(|rr i.lrr: lrorne t.ax-
rrisessell .at. $'lii(l,0(itl, tlit:
11n.;mtl. rrllrrit r.it firr
scirr:ul,+ irt ?0t,t rvrts alrnrl
$lltiil. Il'tlrri lq1,1r pnriscs, l.hr
rtrlw t{){rll sclttxrl tlrx rrsitrlg
tlrtl*tl figurcr, wtrulti lrr
$l,3?ai r'$90tt 1,kr.i $.1 16- r,
(rr :ln iltrrFror.rlr.ltll.i::I.v {i'l
grrrr,ril incrtnsc.
I do rrr:i. u:ru l.his iniiir.
rriiil..itin to rri#iiJi turtr y*ii or
rlu t,oi(: on Ilrt.lurrlxriiixl
ii,r..v.
I fi:;k rurl.,' lltrt. l's11 ;,u,L
.i!, .yi:illr lu..t':il rtl:rl si trritiirin.
Iii*ltrre t: rir,r, \'()lr {:rrrl'ii:riL
[ilx si$t{:rr)en[ to fii3rre
yfru r illl rrrrx irn utrt arir:rtt rtt
r"rnrI ;*.r'rrrrri;tHc ind'r{.:lsr"r irr
.+chritrl ktxi.:.1.
'i'licn r{cci,:le ltow l,et vot+
lrusul rrn yutrr uLilil,.vihxin:
lir lutf iltcrtar;u,
flhrrck llrrulsorl
Itrn rlrgeies
Pleasant 4rlhoi
()rrr .lilltilxrn (.'lotrnty
uru) tftir{:rh)rtoIs ril.uilld hnvti
follorvrvl thc lrr$tl ol'{}thcrs
in r)ur $tare who unlPr:rlti"
p;ctir:rlly lrlrrnetl ltr6,e -sc'ale
fl annrd u ri t dst(ilolnrcnLq
{Pl-lL}) in .trtl.ving rtrr,il
settings.'l'hr;1, irrxtr-,ad want
rvrll oul. of th.,ir rrta.y t.r]
i.rlfi)urn{e one xttch Pl.Jl}
llong*iile thc sholt:linr: ol'
the II<xrrl (jtrnrLl ir rurrrl
llrinnon.
litatrxmtu'i; (irrtlr
l\llrrn cnll.* his <iuveltrgi-
nir:nt 'ltL:nsrtrrt I larhrr."
I call it tr <:rrnrpuny town,
a ilatttl urnrnrrrnitv, n ric;h
rrr:rn'"s iihnngri-In, t:aclr
urrrtr r:rll tlrscript.ir,c ol'nn
irrtrprtirtn rleservirrg Iil [[e or
rrn x'rrirtus c{lt$irlsnrti{rn.
ActonlintrJ to {irrrth, his
ltlrlirsntrt l':lnr[:or i;* u grxl"
$trild thnt will gre*tly lwne-
lit tltosrr wlro prosently
residc in and arqurrd llrin-
non plolxrr"
I nn.y lrolJwnxh.
Itb urrt lix'thern lre is
llrikiing It,'s ftrr wrurIt.tr.y
r-rtlrtlrs wlro couldn't (flre
k:ss rrlroul $ltoi*u rvlxr livs..r
otr tlro uthtr nir{r: olil'ligh-
wrty l0l.
tllt, thcrc rrtrrv bi.'rron-
rtrrtcliou jolx vr:ry e&rl.v iitl
nnd urr:n:iul johs luler in a
rrot.ably r:ltrsr-con*cious
r:nvironnwnt.
Rut yort carr lxl, tlrcr<lll
lrrt nothilrl1 in lrrrnrr ol
aruenity fi rr llrinttrlu []rolx.:r'
---" even thoul;lr c$lltrriis-
sion&rs are clrargr:rl wi{"h
6rramntccing urr:h.
(iarth hl :rnn'x iipr*rviirr g
I'lr:lrsilnI I lurtxlr rlr:v*k;p-
rilr:rtt, --.- grilf ruursc aml
nrom .* will significantly
drurv rlorvn commurlsl
wrtk.r rr:srlurtcx, alrtrtd_r in
rlrort r;[1r1il:
'l'lri$ is litt:t, not f:rncyi
't-lren, trxr, !ir)undwft rrir
]i{E SELTTE,;;:;5-
[**--"t ,,l.*,*'.*r
ru noll' drrriltg crxrtitr'n(rtion
nnd aftcrwarri is lxrrrnrl trr
pom a t.lrt'*a[ t^} w{tlr}r
(llrrllity io Iltxxl (,'annl as
1v*11 us tlrrl wati:rs of l\r6ct
Sorrntl irtlrr wtrieh the II<xxl
rlrainc.
I)ixturlx<l soil i* lxrurrtl
to lind it,r wiry shareward.
Ifuxrw thul. l'r re{rx)Ll},
r:ompletul, st.at{i-sF}nsor'(:{l
siurly identilitxl largu-rtrsrlo
slvrrr:[i ne rltwelopnrr.rrrL ax
the nrili<rt r:au*e rrf' dt'tltrirr-
r.ttbig wlrt{}r' qrr:rlil:y ir,i :irtrl
trtr:run<l Pu1;irt Sovrrd.
Itirni, nror,e1,
listcn to wlrrrt T'[ur
Brinnrxr (.iriiill, tiits l(r sa}t
't'rxkl \!'exlntrr,
l),rt 'linunx:nt]"
_1.
4
I
1
1
/
4
,t
q
ti)
r'*-
iri
I
I
l,
t
i
'a
)
I
I
I
I
l
,L
I
*a
t
For puhlication
In the lilrn, a slearv hank president sets in motion a plan iCI steal a rani;h and rts w&ter
rights fron: a damsel in disrress 'l-he water had been treated by farher arrd daughter as a
resource shared by zurrounding ranchers. Under new manegernent the rights to \fr'ater
*'ould belong to one man alone--rto profitabl.v distribute as only he sees fit. Hopalong
Cassidv anil'es in the nick of time to unco!'er the plot, rescu€ the damsel. and save the
rvatsr tbr all tc share Hoorayi The movie's called "Falsr Cl*lor"s" $1d co-stars Robert
Nlitchum.
Stirtesnran's Oanh N{ann isn't a sleaz\,bank president but hiri ainrs are much tfrt saryre. lf
and when his Pleasant Harbor gets built, he'll own much of the tourn's fresh warer,
though unlike the bank president relemed to above, he"s boughr the rights fair and
squilre. In sunn. he will have'"privatized" Brinnon'$ water suppiies to suppofi his
sprawling lv{aster Planned Reson. County commissiorrers remain activeil' zupponive.
J'odtl Wexrnan FO Box ti 1.1 Porl Torvnsend, WA 9$i68 (-lbli) i7e-1596
!U\
s
d
Lt
il
z!
t
lrt(
3g5g
lgi ** $ : $is1;g igE
g55E *Eig x i$E;s
T
oao
llo
at,
n
nlx!,t-
E
t
fi
2oo
D!
E
E
FI
:z
E,!ll
E
*iE$:
=rtrr-iss.: 3 iallsqRn!F?i'=:
R { ^ rtsic$i;.91 \-
=!fi: =d €$=i*i-:sl:shr!* ! *€
=
$gRESs.oi ** sSIETRit d < ='='
$ g,E t *EqBCsdsFss
-:sa*Il+
6Yt'
q
*ssssss
$ $i ls $ }EIE $ t
*gc
s$s*S a3$$i:ir*sEiI Es
g5E$gEFi$$Es+rsi$$ EE
EiiFFE$$EEEEEEiEiEEEsS-iEFEt;s{ssE*+$; Ri
:,S. Ss :a *Eq+ rR
\
!oo6
r-
o
I
FI
,llx
!
nlao
D
T
!t
ooo
D!t!
For publicatiori:
The Statesman Group is a corporate builder. They've plans fbr what they caii Pleasant
Flarbor. A dch man's Shangri-la, it will ovenarhelm a rural village in south Jefferson
County. The nrral viilage is caiied Brinnon---tbr years well nigh invisible in the eyes and
minds of Jefferson Cor:nty Commissioners. That is, until Statesman came onto the scene.
lt used to be that our eiect,:d representatives and we the citizens played a large role in
detenninin6lthe lor:k end fbel of our communities. Nowadays, financially strapped local
govr,!'flrD€nts increa.silgly rely upon the homebuilding industry overwhelmingly
rlom.r:ated Lry cr,.rporate br-rilders, to do their work for thern. Hat in hand, we bow and
scmpe so ii:i ncrt to frighten them away, while they ruthlessly transform rural lands and
n.ual cornrnunities into pre-packaged "company towns."
Flere's what The Staterimen Group has in store for Brinnon:
Many thousancl feet ,cf picruresque shoreline will be lost to the public forever. ,t singte'
class of wenlthy transierrts will likeiy inhabir Pleasant }.. rbor---a hollow village,
everything tbr rem and haif the houses empty in wintertime. Gated or not, it rvill seem,
ofl:limits to aryone oiher than its newly settled residents.
An l8-hole -eolf course and urell over a thousand housing units will be no little draw upon
Brinnon's lunited supply of freshwater. With money to burn, Statesman has targeted
precic,us communal resources.
No matter what assiuances lhey offer, the proposed development will--given the lay of
the land and its pro:imity to water---seriously degrade the ecological integrity of both
shoreline and adjace* lands.
It's rot too late to dra.nratically change course. I can envisioh a scded-down plan that
n ould, among other tl'jngs, protect the natural environment, accommodate those
interested iu development, and, at the same time, caringly transform a relatively formless
rural community i:rro ii very special place. If Statesman wanted to buy ir1 it would be
encouraged ro do so---on curterms. not their own. This is as it should be.
328 words
Tocid Wexman
1255 31s lirreet
Port'l'owruiend
379-1596
!
Que.;tirrns to ask llt'/A8
1-We know that not long ago the company "permitted" to supply water to a developrnent
in Port Ludlow rnisjudged its needs, and, at present, is chasing extra water rights to
service demond. How can we be zure that Blackpoint won't under-estirnate nectls and
come up short in the future?" How can we be sure that there will be enough water to "go
around?"
2-In our local waterfront comrnunities, salt water has l,teen known to contaminate vrells
over time as more and rnore groundwater is pumped to lhe surface. What's to prevent
such an outcorre once the Blackpoint dwelopment is in place?
3-Blackpoint wiil build to sell only to those with iucomes well above the average ia
Brinnan. Would the development be in conflict with the Comp Pian's stated airn to
"increase housing choices for all residents" of the comrnunity?
4-Mrrke no mistake. Blackpoint's proposal will wrenchingly alter the look of Brinnon in
its predominantly rural setting. The GMA speaks of "containing and controlling rural
development." The Comp Plan speaks of the need to "retain the rural character of our
setting." The focus is narrow---on relatively open lands. Mght we not adopt a new,
broadminded interpretation of such Cirectives so as to retain the rural character of
commuuities also? If Brinnon is to grow, better to do so in "distinctive" rather than "run-
otltl e-mili" fashion.
5-Tlc Blackpoint prcposal jeopardizes thc ecological integrity of both shoreline and
adjacent tands. Every increment of cleared land will likely cause some degree of
degraciation or loss. Though much natural integrity has already been lost as a result of
previcus development, might we not take this opportunity to restore some of what's been
lost rather than significantiy increase the certainty of further disnrption.
6-The developers seem willing to absorb some impact fees. What is a fair price to pay for
a transformation of this rnagnitude, one that evidences,such little consideration for the
either the people or the place that is Brinnon? Indeper,,lent research suggests that
amounts less than S23,000/unit in cash or kind wculd not.suffice.
6-It's been sai,l that rampant development along the shores of Puget Sound mightily
ccntributes to de1;radation of same. The Dlackpoint plan calls for an extensive nenvork of
paved roads and other "improvements." These rvill significantly alter the natura! flow of
$/&ter across the site and add poisonous residues along the way. Will mitigation, a
dangerous ga:r:s given the lay of the land and its proximity to water, work?
7-Judging by letters received, there is, county-wide, little support for the Blackpoint
proposal. Those who applaud cite the economic benelits that may accrue and pay little or
no attention to other, less obvious effects the development will visit upon their
cornmunity---some of which I've mentioned above. Why haven't county staff rnembers
brought wbat i call the "ecology of human communities" into the discussion? Is it
ignc ance o: an or/erriding disirrterest in stretching existing law?
Todii Wexman
The BRINNON GROUP iS committed to the preservation and enhancement of both
soci,J and natural communities in and around the rural village of Brinnon. It carne into
being in response to a threat posed by the Statesman Group--a corporate buiicier whose
intrusive presence promises to overwhelm the unpretentious little town. Its application to
build a Master Planned Resort (lnOR) onside the Hood Canal was recently approved by
Jefferson County's Board of County Commissioners.
MPRs are corporate-built retreats wherein well+odo homeowners share golf courses,
open space, and other amenities in common. They are very oftur gated; or, by other more
subtle means, made to appear off-limits to outsiders. A single class of wealthy transients
typically inhabiteildPRs, which have been described by social critics as "hollow villages-
-with everything for rent and half the houses empty in winter." Insular in terms of social
class and place, they stand in stark contrast to the cities and towns of which they are a
part. The Statesman Crroup calls its MPR by the name Pleasant Harbor.
Having failed in attempts to steer those in charge away frorn such a dwelopment, the
BRINNON GROUP asks that you overturn the decision by Jefferson County
Commissioners to approve Statesrnan's application for a Master Planned Resort G!PR)
on the basis of the evidence outlined below.
The BOCC included in its notice to approve Statesmao's application a list of 'findings"
and made site-specific Comp Plan amendment approval contingent upon certain
conditions being met. We will show its find;r]gs to be questionable, its conditions vague,
arid, more to the point, its underlying analysis--from start to finish-- tragcally
misguided and incomplete.
l-The findings
a) The County found that, since the Brinnon MPR was conceptually identified and
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan on I May 2002, assumptions upon which the
decision was based "hdve not generally changed" and that they "continue to be valid."
This is very much like salng "We once knew what we lvore doing and haven't learned
much to change our mind on the subject since." Truth is, we should have known better in
2002, and we should have learned a great deal since. Nowadays, experienced
professionals and thoughtful citizens are acutely aware of the irrevocable damage this
type of development visits upon immediate and extended natural settings. Yet County
Comrnissioners remain optimistic, believing as they do that we can successfully mitigate
agai,rst such damage during and after build-out.
We know, for example, that intensive development alon$side Puget Sound remains TTIE
major cause of contamination to that once pristine body of water. A well-researched
report commissioned by the Governor told us so. Given itsproximity to waters of the
Hood Canal, Statesman's Pleasant Harbor development is bound to negatively impact
waters that, down the way, empty into the Sound.
t,.?"ll'
aQ.
{
t)
We know, for example, that development, once begun, will jeopardize the ecological
integnty of both shoreline and adjacent lands. The Statesman Soup, as is oustomary will
"promise the world" in order to get their way. Yet the f-ast remains: every increment off,:"'
cleared land will likely cause some degree of degradation or loss. It's been suggested that
a very small disruption can cause major losses in terms of ecological value. Best
available science suggests that it is "not possible to fully protect ecological functions and
values from the effects of intensive development." With this in mind, Washington's DOE
adopted new guidelines for implementing the state's Shoreline Management Act, calling
for "no net loss" of ecological function. State hearings boards have interpreted this
requirement as setting a standard--yet development in critical areas continues unabated
while restorative efforts barely get past study stage. So, in large part, says ecologist lohn
Lombard in his "saving Puget Sound: A Conservation Strategy for the 21d Century."
The developers of Pleasant Harbor will move nearly two million anbic yards of soil
during cut and fill operations in preparation for development. The construction of close to
one;Ihousand housing units, an l8-hole golf coursg hard-surfaced roads, and driveways qp
will significantly compromise the environrnental health of the natural setting. At the same "
time, the makeup and flow of water across the land and into adjacent waters--during
construction and afterwards--will add !o the adverp
Commissioners warn against the use offertilizers,arii.4
'recorrnted above. Though
these will be.put to use
Poisonous residues are bound to make their to shoreline Though
Commissioners believe that that att€mp,ts to
mitigate damage are bound whenwer and
wherever development has occurred.
b) The County found that, "based upon public testimony, the proposed amendment may
reflect current widely held values ofthe residents of lefferson County."
Note the word "may" in the statement, Were Comrnissioners afraid of a close reading of
the evidence? A close reading would show that about half the respondents saw economic
benefit coming out of development. These respondents, it should be noted, paid little or .
no attention to social and environmental issues of great consequence. The otlrer half said
"no." Theirs was I more well-rounded critique.
c) T.re County found that "the proposed site-specific amendment is consisterrt with the
goals, policies and imptementation strategies of the various elements of the lefferson
County Comprehensive Plan."
We "find" differently. A Master Planned Rrisort designation:zubverts the following
objectives as outlined in Appendix C of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
Under "Land Use/ Rural Elemen! General tand Use'j'thi Comprehensive Plan says we
should "permit only land uses which are compatible with the rural character of the
Cou:lty" anC that "Rurel \rillage Centers"-of which Brinnon is one---"should continue
to provide a mixture of housing t)?es, comrnercial activities, and recreation and open
t
{ !i, i:
*1 'ko
&'
.6:r,
t
t
{r,
spac&." Under'?esidential Use" the CP insists tlht'and vistas be presewed aod
hazards avoided" a.rd that "areas for the development oflow income/senior housing are
provided."
According to the Comprehensive Plan, rural character is described as "undisturbed land"
or'!ery low density residential development." A sophisticated planner might describe
rural village character in terms of a loose organization of public and private places, low
density, vernacular therne, and quialy unpretentious in its relatively undisturbed natural
setting. The Pleasant Harbor dwelopment is something else. It is the corporate presenc€
personified. It is Vogue and Esquire and Fortune Magazines rolled into one. It is high
sryle, exclusivq and very expensive; it stands in stark contrast to its natural wtting, as
well'as the village to which it turns its back, It is surely out of place in rural South
Jefferson Copnty.
Statesman's proposal is no different from others gf.its ilk Once the landscape has been
radically altered there's little or no chance for resuscitatfr& Rural characte, can only
serve as phony afterthought once the required asrenitieshave been put in place. Tte
"hom+grown" ethos unique to rural communities and tl.rs netura! diversity rroiqrreto their
rural setting is supplantedbywell-maniord golfcorisc$'.'eiidlEums, upscati,rrfiri-malls,
look-alike dwelling units, hard-surfaced roads a.nil difii ril,drainage ditches grd
:
retention ponds, raised wooden walhrays, securigy deviccs systems, afid entry/erdt gates
are the rulme o the game. Of necessity, MPRs must significantly transform the natural and
man-made landscape if they are to be successful from a profit-centered point of view
Formula-built and operated, who can honestly believe that they might blend into
Brinnon' s comfortably unpretentious rural setting?
A wide range of options in terms of housing type and price is out of the question in
developments of this sort, as prevailing custom recommends a play-it-safe narrow focus.
Inasmuch as MPRs are built as privately owned and operated vacation communities, a
wide range of commercial and cultural activities are classed as non-'essertial--as is
conriern for ongoing enterprises in the village proper, As to hazards, there can be no
quedtion that, in terms of runoffalone, a shoreline-built MPR is bound to put both
shoreline and adjacent waters at severe risk. We should have known this when the land
was first designated---and appreciated the fact every day since, Then, too, a many-fold
increase in traffic entering and exiting IJs tfll q3*6llq*deserves cousideratioq yet
Under the Housing Element, the Comprehensive Plan says we should "encorrage the
construction of afficrdable housing" ard "provide areas for {evelopment of a variety of
low-income and elderly housing." According to preliminary planning docurnents
zubmitted by the Statesman Crroup, a miniscule percentage of affordable housing is
contemplated, across and down highway 101. !
The Open Space, Parks, and Hstoric Preserration Element of the CompreJrensive Plan
says'that iNattral open spaces and recreational developmerfi should be one of the
primary uses of land adjoining shorelines." Yet shorelines in and around Jefrerson and
tt
'*
it
S*
ttil
*.'l
B
a
)
{fi:
lil
:.-i
adjacent courties are the ver,v places that h{PRe co*it*fon rtatons rnuch toobvious to
list 1\,e only aid and abet privariation when- r+-e devote nruah tirna and attcrttioo to those
u,ho would u$urp, "prornises-" aside, what little rcmains of or.rr undet'eloped slroreline
Such a discontinuity berwoen aim and outcome was o{rcB and continues to be the rule of
the dav
Und.rr the Enl'ironmental Elernsrt ofttre it mys "Crousdrry*er
d) Tbe County found thet fic propo*od 'hf,l not rei* in
probable significanr adversc impacts to &c n*lwor{r" cspital
farilities, utiiities. puks, and be mitigslsd ard uill not
place uncompensated burdeos upon uristing or capabilities."
Note ttr,e *'ords "probable significnnr." lltlo do they thin& drey're kidding? k's hard to
beliel'e this to be true since servis€s to the cornrnuuity hrve been and contim:e to be
substantiallt'a.rt nlthout the addition of a 256-acre developnerx in Brinnon. Unle$s, of
coursc, the Statesrnan group a$rees to address the narrgd imparts-which in 63c they ue
being askd ro do, This hrlngs up and irrreresting point. Is it wise to assign responsibilities
that hsve radlriondly belangd ro th* co*arunity ro tho prilate sff{or? lie think not.
*-l
t
k,i,r'
rescltrrces. aquifer recharge arqasr zurface w8l€r$,asd stmuXd be protectd tom r
residential wastes, non-poinr source polfution"watef ntnoffo' *The
No on-site well or complex of wdlq
for the Point" Tirat is why Stamsrnen is
wherever they ca:r procure thelF--ou dte aad dirposal is anather
problern. If will nat bq.soh'd on-site orcept aa a last r€soii*-in which ease it couH $ittk
the projoct itlo,n-point sourcr pollution, erosioq td Setrrwercr runofffrrorn
development, as already merrtiond are thp rnajor canger sf&gra&tion to the warcrs of .
Puget Sound and elsewhere. 'The plotlsm will pe*"sis ss l.CIog as istaosive dwclopnsrt is
allowed to occur adjacorrt ro shorelinee. Thrre is abuolutely no way to deal with such'sn
outcorner given the destrucive hsbits of developers ard the propensity of prropert.v
owners to do what tlrel'do
the natural
rnd rwaahinpretemlo4
of, irrtcractiom oprating in
the most rudimentrry nstural systcms. So how in 'x* justift MPR
designation on the land under considsr-aliqs?sfurply- $m,tes,'t., ..
In sum, the proposad site-specific proposal to
i
r*sy$! NOT cmsisrcnt
PlEn.with the goals and policies of .feffersor
#
,i*
*,''a *
, 1: f'#' "rfr
I
I
a
1
*i+d' ai+ri+.
.. ,,p *i:.'
<w
(t d
4.2
maximum residential density shor"lld depend rrysn tbe needsd
an on-site'*ell and to dispose of
of roads. infrastrusture, buiHingg rnd
Provisions fror public accass to stroretrinc grcas
Stat"'sman's
envlonment
e) The County fiuund thar *the sibject parcsi is plrydc*lly sritsble or the requc*ed land
use dxignation and the anticipatcd tsrd use fuqtsfrd€fiq-iqel*drr:g bur *ot linnited to,*
amsng otbers, "provi$ion of irtilities "
Warsr is r utility*-and, as o*e know, it is the mountaias. How can
it be said that thse will be no "proboble conqmfit lo whst
is essentially a privately engineued and on Brianon's waler
resourcesl
An I&hole golf course and wsll
Brinnon's limited srpply of fre* w*lcr.
with monc-v to burq it's targctcd
met, will there bo enough n'tlcr to
.qift
t
kndw the ans*-cr to these question+ yet
Iatsr.
more
t#
'ltfr
,ij''i
ffi*,
We know tlnt not long ago s corporats buitder *pe6iffi'1to rupply watff to its
developrrcnt in Pon Ludlow, mi*jrdged availabilfu rqd, x'Fress{lt, is fmnticd}y chasing
e-.$ra water righrs to moet corxracfiBl obligsions. ?ht'fl&ryha must bq done-thrn is,
invade communal rpssurces to savs their pilde nec&c'-which ir exartly urhat Statssraan
must do in order to proceed from application b finel apprwal et Plessart }Iarbor. Agqin-
*ho'w long before they run out?
Exp;rieoce tells
welil, in tin:e as
is bouad to coiltaminatc
elrfece. W?*al'o ts prEveat
such an outcome once the Pteasaril This is not to
nremion the devated risk o certain canccrs li*krd tq und fertiLhern
commonly used on golf courses and, or
mitigre againsr such
failure to do tbe right thing iu
tban reality*&s asy ecotogi$
h ruppon of Sntesman's applicatkrq
ire ,governed under distlnct $tstuory
Ruraj Lands, a*d thus are not Lkilited Araas of Mort Rural Del-elopmnct
(L,4,MIRDs}. Thcy point our that *''nera? {bold type) lryRs mry constitute gromh outside
of urban growth area-s."
t
Inferesting to norc: Clallam Counfy Comruissions$wgrq, not long ago, rebukcd by U*
GMA Heuing$ Board for lard usc d,esigrlilinm demcd recompliart or inrali{ the
result of actions by the Dry Creek coalition of honreorrrng*. Jefferson County
Cornmi*ioners have dylv gone well out of tfteit way to insrlrte themselves from zuch a
suit
The BOCC made formal apprtrvai of Statcssr6n'$spjlkryislror an MPR contingcut upon
a iist of "conditioos. NJany of these thnrst ufosr thi d@*4 responsibilhies ttg
,
-s.JqsaF'
,ti
communitiq
11.
trad;liionally belong to cotrnty governmenl, Most are so vaguely stated as to be
meaningless.
2The Conditions for Approval
*d::
*,.
?
*.
a) The County asks that the derleloper "negotiate or
memoranda of agreement to provide neede{'district,
Emergency Medical Services, housing police,and and
transit prior to approval of the agreements urillbe
encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Tides Yacht Club, and
with the Slip Owner's Association regarding marina qsg costs, dock access, loading and
unloading, and parking."
The above is the aforernentioned and infamous Condition for Approval (63-c). We
prestrrne that these memoranda will take the form of impact fees payable to the County.
Washington law authorizes local govemments to charge these fees to defray sorne but,
specifically, not all the costs of development. Though a help, impact fees rarely pay
enough. These are one-shots and, though they rnay seem god-sent to a Jefferson Courry
now as always short of cas[ they will soon prove to be small change when the full costs
of divelopment come down the pike. .. ". .. ,.r ..: .r....,
r
One can't help wondering why Jefferson County Conunilsioners paid so little sttention to
the needs of the people ofBrinnon for so long a TS,
from out:of-country came onto the scene, Nbw
outsiders in order to reap a one-time
,1!
4$
As above and below, County
avoiding them rather than meeting
,;.r' .;:
t
l..\
,
t
b) The Conditions for Approval say "Any and all environmental analyses, impacts, plans,
and monitoring procedures pursuant to State requirernents are to be left to the developer--
-the County rnerely approving or disapproving a named person or group. Written
understandings are to made and delivered by the developer to a variety of interested
parties regarding archeological issues, site integrity during constructioq tribal access to
cultural properties and activities, and educational opportunities.
The County asks the developer to offer jobs to local oontraclors and individuals seekhg
employment and to prefer local applicants "provided they are qualified, available, andl
corryretitive in terms of pricing." It asks Stateman to *prioritize the sourcing of
construction noatErials from within Jefferson County." We can hope for sucb but
experience tells us that coqporate builders will be quick to invoke a handy proviso rather
than suffer a reduction in profit.
*a\
c-,r*
*J:
a.
t
s
c) As a Condition for Approval, Commissbn#, *r*t*"f#abpa shatl p.*ia; I ;,'#,
afiflorclabie housinq for VtiR workers. . . roughiy pioportional io tG numbei ofjobs , t
created that are *U/o or less of the Brinnon;arCa-liveuage dAClan incorire.l! Ofcotiise these " ,' r.
., ....
qS
*,f&'
ti'
i tfr,
r1
will be renta] units and, once the project is rcason to believe that
Statesrnan won't be ternpted to upgrade the units to
-srill'as
additional condominiunrs. f e*{, }1
lvlany of these conditions are so poorly defined as to boneai meaningless. The words'to
the greatest extent," "us upprop.iate," '\ilhen appropnate,l' "strive to," "identify c4 t*
techniques," "encourage to work with,' "prefer local applicants provided they are
qualified, available, and competitive in terms of pricing," "prioritize the sourcing of
construction materials" invite misinterpretation--and, worse coming to worse, legal
challenge.
d) As a Condition for Approval the Commissioners say, "tle developer shall oornmission.
a study of the nunrber ofjobs expected to be created as a direot or indirect result of the
N4PR that earn 80p/o or less of the Brinnon area average median income(AMl). The
developer shall provide a.ffordable housing (e.g., no more than 30% of household
inco,ne) for the Brinnon lvffR workers rougtrly proportional to the number ofjobs
crea"ed that earn 80olo or less of the Brinnon AlvIL The developer may suisfy this
condition ttuough dedication of lan4 payment of in lieu:fgp; or onsite housing
dwelopment."
toipresen're the
the "mhfire of
County .
"it-
ir,
Comprehensive Plan. He'll, of course,as this
jeopardize his profit picture. The County,
to development from thereject Statesman's segregated rather than
start.
e) As a condition for approval the Commissioners say, o'Stormwater discharge from the
golf course shall meet the requirements of zero discharge into Hood Canal...utilizing best
avaiiable science. Zerol Who's kidding who? We already know that best available
science suggests that it is "not possible" to fully protect ecological functions and values
from the effects of intensive development.
't
l|l
have
would seriously
done well to 4,
a
Studies show elevated risks to hurmns, other animals, and plants linked to the use of
pestlcides and fertilizers commonly usod ongolf cow. scs d,al where, in the case at hand,
Statesman is required "to nuintein a log of feriiliarr*,Begi"iOes, and herbicides used on
the MPR siti," and pass this information on to the public, A water collection and testing '
monitoring plan specific to Pleasant tlarbor "will be dweloped and approved in concert
with an adaptive management progrq5nprigftg,fry#&#&e astion." , ,
"l
T
So, what ifthe inevitable
herbicides are found in declining :willbear "..:
responsibility for such an addressed?
. ,: '
As to Maxina discharges, Commissioners say'these shall treated by a system that reduces
conta:ninadon to rhe greatest ei'leiit possible." Tlus is like sal,tng nothing at all.
s
q
'i:lf:.
C
fire alternative described in the last
pricey upscale look and feel of his
housing t5pes," including low cost
J,{:,*
If wells neighboring Statesman's tvIPR fail are periodicaiiy inoperabie, or sufer tonr
saitwater intrusion, the Cornmissioners require Statesman to provide access to its own
water system and, in these events, reserve additional reclrarge wells for this purpose.
As has already been said, water hereabout is a scarce cornmodity. The injection of an
MPR the size of Pleasant harbor is bound to make mattem worse---much to the detriment.
of tong term residents who will be the first to suffer under the pressures brougtrt on by
massive development.
3 The Underlying Analysis
It used to be that our elected repregantatives aod
coqporate builders, to do their work or them.bow and
frighten them away, while they ruthless
pre-packaged "cogrpany towng."
One wonders why the community of Brinnon received solittle attention from Jefferson '
County offrcials until a developer from out-of-coqrtry sply opportunity knocking. The
waterfront landscape will forever be transfor.med-from"iratural scrubland to rich man's
Shangri-La. ln return, he's been asked to respond to the needs ofthe commuuity in terrrs
so vague as to be meaningless
.4
,!i!
To our mind and the minds of many others whose letter are on file, Statesman's approach
to development runs counter to the vision many of us have regarding future development
in our relatively well-preserved natural setting. Seems to us that ou'r threesome of County
Con:missioners have gone well out of their way to app€ase a corporate builder who
wourd usurp much land, fresh water, and shoreline for;ihi benefit of a small group of
investors. They do this in the one-dimensional treliefttiiri-tiruisru will do much tobuild
the econorny in Jefferson County. "At what costand." we ask.
The "community" of Brinnon will not be
, i r i';;
the likesltf
Statesman' s Pleasant Flarbor. Ii built,an anomaly io our midst.
Unconnected, apart. We, full+ime residerts they, flitting
transients wandering from place to place. Is to us by the makers of
Pleasant Haftor-the best Commissioners have to offeil We think not. We hope not. It's
well past time to set Statesman adrift. There are other, much b.etter alternatives--and it's
weil past time to pursue them.
,' *l
t-
I
F
s#<f l'-
the look
to
,
Brinnon G
PO Box LTo
roup
tsrinnon, V\iA 98gzo
Email:
b rinnongroup @ embarqmail. co m
Protect Your Water Rights
The Brinnan Group has been forrned to research olnd, educate th*
corwrn"inffu on fire propGsed deuel.opwtent of the Pleaso:mt Hrarbor lllrrrint
& Golf Resart. The Group objects to the scope af tlze plsnr.ed resort crrl.r,
i ts p o f e n,fic, I ert oit' o rttnent sl trrzp cc fs.
Jefferson County determined that
the 256 acre development on the
shores of Hood Canal will cause sig-
nificant environmental impact. Pub-
lic comment consisted of over 4oo
Ietters written by citizens agencies
and tribes, extensive verbal public
testimony, and a seconci, uncounted
set of written testimony on the Final
Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS). Experts in a variety of fieljr.s
have found the (FEIS) to be defi-
cient. The County has approved the
initial comprehensive plan changes,
aliowing development to continue.
Of major concern are issues having
to do with water. Currently, the de-
veloper is attempting to obtain
enough water to build the resort to
hrll potential:
89o units
7g,ooo sq ft of commercial retail
space, not including residential
space
. 18 hoie golf course
. z8s slip marina
According to the proposal, almost e
million cubic yards of soil will be
moved in an aggressive cut and fill
plan to accommodate development
of more than 7.2 million square feet
of land.
Locally, landowners ate concerned
with possible saltwater intrusion to
fresh water supplies, potential con-
tamination from golf cource activi-
ties on the aquifer's recharge area
potential issues with reclaimei
sewer water, and storm water runoff
If you own or are iooking to pur-
chase in the area, these issues per-
tain to you.
0n a iarger scale, many are con-
cerned about the impacts to Hood
Canal and the surrounding environ-
ment. On one hand, millions of dol-
Iars of tax payer money are being
committed tc habitat restoration and
water qualiry issues in the area (see
activities of the Puget Sound Part-
nership, State Department of Ecol-
ogy, and the Washington State
Parks).
If you share in our concenrs, feel free
to contact us. We are currentlywork-
ing with experts on water issues as
well as several other areas. The
Brinnon Group is appealing the
Counry*'s decision on the resort.
a
a
The tnformaticn contatned herein is belieued to be accurate but the Binnon Group does not represent it to be accurate or complete.
Statements are the Binnon Group's opinion and are not representd to beJact.
;i
I
,
t
i
!'lI
d
44
4
@
]iU SELRE
H
I
;';-::::-
1,
I
i
I
I
f
n l-------r rr
tax statement to figure
your approximate amount
and percentage increase in
school taxes.
Then decide how to vote
,based on your ability/desire
to pay increase.
Chuck Paulson,
Port Angeles
PlepgAnlJlgrbsr.
Our Jefferson County
commissioners should have
followed the lead of otherS
in our state who unapolo-
getically ban ned large-scale
pia:rned unit developments
(PLID) in outlying rural
settings. They instead went
well out of their way to
encourage one such PUD
alongside the shoreline of
the Hood Canal in rural
Brinnon.
Statesman's Garth
Mann calls his develop
ment "Plursant Harbor."
I call it a company town,
a gated commuaity, a rich
man's Shangri-La, each
and atl descriptive ofan
irn:ption deserving little or
no serious consideration-
According to Garth, his
Pleasant Flarbor is a god-
send that will greatly bene-
fit those who presently
reside in and around Brih-
non proper.
I say hogwash.
If,s not for them he is
building. It's for wealthy
others who couldn't care- less about whose who lives
on the other side of High-
way 101.
Oh, there may be con-' structionjobs very eqrly on
and menial jobs later in a
notably class-co nscious
environment.
But youcanbet there'll
be nothing in terms of
amenity for Brinnon proper
- even though commis-
sioners are charged with
guaranteeing such.
Garth Mann's sprawiing
Pleasant Harbor develop-
ment - golf course and
more - wili significantly
draw down communal
water resources, already in
short supply.
This is fact, not fancy
Then, too, groundwater
runoff during construction
and afterward is bound to
pose a threiat to water
qualiby in Hood Canal as
well as the waters of Pugeb
Sound into which the Hood
drains.
Disturbed soil is bound
to find its way shoreward.
Know thdt a recently
completed, state-sponsored
sludy identified laige-scale
shoreline development as
the major cause of deterio-
rating water quality in and
around Puget Sound.
Want more?
Listen to what The
Brinnon Group has to say.
Todd Wexrnan,
PortTownsend
nDaIa
q
t
r--l
Port Towrrserrd & Jelferson County Leader
'Pleasant I
fl-{arbor' project
not so Flleasant
Why rushins tc
frapprove wffiter
nfights app'P
In this ela ol governurent focusing on
slreed rather than dutiftrl study of rarrri-
.tications, it is not surprisiug to read that
Jeft'etson Clounty is "urging" the DOE
tu rush through the Statesman Group's
vraLer rights application. ln so rloing,
they are recklessly ignoring the.July 17.
2009, hyclrologic report subntittecl by
Waterworks Consultants, whic:h reeoul-
menrts additional hydrogeologic testing
l.re dunc'at Blaclt Point,
In this report it is stated ttrat "to
betl-er un<lerstanrl the hytlrogeologic
respoilse trl the proposed water supply
luarlagenlerrt scheme in this relatively
sensitive grottttclwater envirottment,
each of the conrponents ol the hydro-
Iogic cycle should be more arccurately
quanl.ifiecl. ln addition, the aquifer prop
erties must be better clefined to design a
supply system that. does not overstress
the aquifer." Lr sltort, this hydrologist
stresses the necessily to test nine com-
ponents of the hydrologic cycle. Two o[
these tests - rainfall using the NpAA-
approvecl sla{.ion A5461 locatecl directly
across Highway 101 from Blach l']oint
and grottndwater levels in l"he thrce
rnonitorilrg wells - are recon'uuended
to be tested for a period of one yeaf to
clevelop lccurate clata.
Why the rush to approve sonrething
as vital as water rights without complete
and accurate data?
suE B.NI)
'lhe cornmunity elects the council l-o
rcpresent its interests. 'lhe Shoreline
Master Program was adopted with cort-
munity support to reflect values-.hekl
here.lhe Hastings Co. over-water hotel
project sirnply does not meet,those stan-
dards.
JIJLIE JAMAN & JILL SIITER
Olyrnlric Environmental Council
It might be said that current politi-
cai, financial and euvironmental crises
have arisen fiom a long-overdue col.
lapse of wtrole inteltectual edifces. We
are beginning to see how the world
really works. The "we" are a small
rninority of relatively powerless indi-
viduals and gr<lups, who, decades ago,
saw serious trouble ahead. Yet, to this
day, the people in power remain largely
aloof. They think they lurow more than
they do.
Such is the case in.lefferson County,
where commissioners Sullivan, Johnson
. and Austin continue to support the
efforts of a corporate developer that,
uutil recently, was rrroving full steam
ahead ou a densely populated retreat
oveilooking the I{ood Canal that is
bound to cause environrnental and
other tloubles. As planned, .Statesman,s
"Plcasant Harbor Resorf would severe.
ly degrade the natural landscapc as it
ciLifies and stratilies in lerms of social
class and place. A rich man's Shangri-
La, it would stand in stark conh.ast to
the rural enclave of which it is a part.'llte commissioners think drey know
more than ecologists who blarne inten-
sive shorelirie develcrprneut for the con-'tinued degradation of Puget Sound and
adjacent waters.
They think they know more than a
well-experienced architect, planuer ancl
teacher like nryself, who argues that
a lack of concern regarding the "ecol-
ogy of human conrrnunities" will put
both natural and'rnanmade lanrlscapes
at risk.
Ttrey think they know rnore than
well-respected scientists who valiantly
struggle to understand how human
actions affect the complex ecosys-
tems and biosphere that sustain life on
Earth. 'lhese men and wornen of sci-
ence implore us to act with "informed
caution."
Statesman has recently adopted a
"human face." Sullivan; Johnson and
Austin have written a letter on Garth
Mann's behalf, urging the Department
of Ecology's Jay Manning to "expedite
the finalization of Mann's water rights
application," even though it appears the
project may be dead for lack offinancial
backing, Undaunted, the commission-
ers can bc expected to do all they can
to support this project - believing that
it "will bring signilicant economic ben-
efits to our county, which is struggling
with unemployment, Iack of inveStment
Cluesti0rBnng
ffiriffinon resort
$cOpe, size
In relereuce to ttre alticle "No
loans for Brintton resort," reported by
Allison Arthur in the Scpt. I issue o,fThe
Leader
Nu oue is a better judgc of ttre valicl-
ily of a project than its investors. Since
the Statesn-ran Group has been rtnable
to tincl funding anywltere in the United
Sl"ates or Canarla for l'leasarrt Harbor
Resort, perhaps this is an ind.ication ot
nrajor problems in the plan.
last wee[<'s article reported tha,
Garth Mann hars ashed the countl
whether ljrinnon is a llural Area, clefiner
as an area outside a city with a popula
tion of 20,000 or less, or a lb.rgetet
Employrnent Arca, clefined as an arei
with a population in excess of 20,00C
Frorn the Internet, we found website
listing various populations Ior I'rrinnor
ranging frorn 803 to 1,45t1. lt is describe,
in neighbot'hoodlinli.colll as a "sparsel
populated rural al'ea" whose populatio
is prirnarily "white, older aurl mostl
rurarried couples" whose median age i
53.1. People coine here to retire and liv
in the counLry, and that is what many r
our friencls and neighbors have clone, r
plan to do once.they retire.
Proponents of the Pleasant Harbr
ltesort have told connty commissionet
ancl r:tlrers <lver and over tha[ "this
what the conrnrunity of lJrinuon wants
while all along rnany con:munity mer
bers havc questioned its scope and siz
Several years ago, I3rinnon residcu
ruret l.o brainsl,omr ideas for imprc
ing our conlrunity, Some of the icle
included a wooclworhing school, a dz
care/eldercarc center, aud an ecotor
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Cc:
Beth Stroh-Stern <bethstrohstern @gmail.com>
Pleamnt Harbor MPR comment
February 3, 2016 12:36:08 PM PST
PlanComm @ co.jeff erso n.wa. us
PCommissionDesk@ co.iefferson.wa.us
t[B t 3 ?\iiu
to: Jetlerson County Planning Commleeionera
re: Pleasant Harbor MPR comments
Most of the comments regarding the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort to the commission are about
citizens' deep concerns over damage to the environment in the south Jefferson county area from this
proposed MPB. I am concerned with these issues as well, but my comments are about the impact to
the existing local economy. Like many locals, following the proposals and mit(;ations, I hoped the
eonomic development promised by the Statesman Group and Garth Mann would help the
underemployed families of this area.
We choose to live in this isolated area for its peace and spectacular beauty. We treasure this fjord
and our smalltown on the canal. Most people who live here are retired, own small businesses or work
out of area . We accept this inconvenience as the trade off for living in this smallcommunity with the
richness and beauty of nature all around.
It ie also what brlngs the touristsl
Tourists come to this scenic area to see the mountains, valleys, fjords, where they can enjoy
boating, tishing , camping, hiking, bird watching, and mushrooming. They visit, spend their money
and return to their homes without destroying what they have come to experience. This kind of tourism
promotes a clean economy with very little environmental downside.
The Planning Gommission has the duty to help prolect this aspect of our community.
DisneylaM tourism that relies on condominiums golfing, movie night, zip lines and kayak iousting
does not bring people out in natrre, but creates distractions and increased tratfic that reduces the
enjoyment for those who visit the natural attractions here. These developers come daiming to love
the environment, then set about to drastically change it. The smaller proposal with less tratfic will
preserve the outdoor opportunities of this remote area.
tfYhy would you kll! the goose that lays the golden egg?
ln the first meetings about the Pleasant Harbor MPR, there were many statements about the
wonderful eoonomic benefit to loca! residentrs and businesses. Many local people believed those
promises and felt this development was the cost ol economic progress. Garh Mann dalmed that his
development would be a financial boon to the local economy and that he would hire 200 workers.
Mann's consultant, Craig Peck is quoted by reporter Charlie Bermant - Peninsula Daily News 1U4l 14
as saying , "many of these iobs would be seasonal and the resort would llll them locally if
possible."
"We aren't building a gas statlon, so It will bring people to Brlnnon who wlll buy gas".
Garth Mann said, "the resort will not compete wlth exlsting businesses."
Now that the developers have a toe in the door, these promlses mean nothingl
ln the last year, two locally owned hrsinesses have been displaced by this MPR. The houseboat
rental business, Houseboats for Two and the kayak rental business, Kayak Brinnon, at Pleasant
Harbor have been evicted by Garth Mann. Both businesses brought tourist money to our community
and contributed to the localeconomy.
By court order, the houseboat business was allowed to continue at her location through her busy
reserved season, but with no place to move, the houseboats are now being sold otf individually.
The kayak business, which has operated in our area for 8 years was evicted from the marina as well
and has since relocated, at great cost to her and her hard working family. Garth Mann has done
exactly the opposile of what he promlsed. He set up a kayak rental buslness ln dlrec't
competltion with a this onoe thrlvlng business.
Balt and Swltch Economic development was the sell point to get the Planning Commission's
approval on this proiect. Now that wording has been dropped . At the latest Public hearing in Brinnon,
the developer made no mention of these promises.
Environmental mitigations must have follow through and proof that the mitigating actions have been
taken and are effective. The same should apply to ecuomic promises. The 20% local hires that was
promised must be a verifiable figures showing this benefit to our community.
The hidden costs such as; higher taxes lor schools, fire protection, polic€ and roads must be
mitigated as well. There will be an increased costs for assistance to seasonal laid df workers in
housing, utilities and food from an already over taxed food bank. These costs must be covered or it
will be the taxpayers who loot the bill.
It ls the Planning Commlssion's iob to gulde and allow appropriate growth and developments
in our county. An actual acmunting of the development's contribution to increase or decrease in jobs
must be required, with a follow up report of the actual numbers ol localworkers emdoyed by the MPR
and for how long and terminated for what reasons should be available. The commission must enforce
the promises made by these developers and verify that they are carried out and that the MPR acruafly
benefits the entire community, not just the investors. That can only happen if actual costs to the
environment, e@nomy and taxpayers vs benefit are acf,ounted for. ;
How are these results being assessed and enforced? Wll the Commission requlre the
economic promlses are shown in a verlflable report of the employment numbers? Please
respond to this questlon.
Thank you,
Beth Stroh-Stern
66 Rocky Point Road
Brinnon, WA 98320.
David W. Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subiect
Attachments:
W ill Patric <will @riverswithoutborders.org>
Wednesday, February 03, 2016 6:24 PM
David W. Johnson
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Gotf Resort development proposal comments
comments re resort development proposal to Jefferson County Planner 2-3-16.docx
David:
Attached please find my personal comments regarding the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort
development proposal.
Thank you for considering them.
wilt
William C. Patric
Port Townsend, WA
(350) 379-2811
L
February 3, 2016
David Wayne Johnson
Jefferson County Planner
dwiohnson @co. ieffe rson.wa.us
Dear David:
Following are my personal comrnents on the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort development
proposal. Thank you for considering them.
At the outset, I want to be clear I do not reside in Brinnon and certainly do not wish to speak for that
community in any way. I also appreciate that you are mostly seeking new information specific to
environmental concerns, jobs, infrastructure needs, etc. There is little I can speak to in that regard that
you probably haven't already thought of. But commenting as a citizen of the region, hoping my regional
perspective might have value, I wish to express strong opposition to this development plan.
What appeals to me about the area in question, and whose future is now at a crossroads, is its quiet,
undeveloped, and increasingly rare rural character. I realize this is not for everyone. Where a quaint and
quiet backwater harbor aligned with nature and offering distinctive charm draws me, others see
opportunity for more commerce, people, housing, industry, developed recreation, noise, traffic, and the
like, along with locked gates and high end exclusivity, as the way to go. I realize this is not a voting
process, but for what it's worth, count me a no.
Mr. Garth Mann, president of the company behind the development proposal, offered his opinion that
negative growth is bad. As reported in the leode r lU73/761, he said the character of a community will
be negatively impacted "if it's not in a progressive state of growth." As a developer spokesperson for
the Canadian company pushing for the resort, he has a right to that opinion. But I would suggest that
there's plenty of that growth already happening all around Puget Sound. Too much growth, in too many
places is, in my opinion, a bad thing. I would like to see some corners of our region stay "behind the
times." Especially in coastal and harbor settings, there are very few such places left, Keeping them, I
would argue, provides some balance for our region's character and quality of life and absolutely benefits
our environment. For condos, golf, shopping, traffic, and yes, job opportunities, might not other places
further along the "progressive state of growth" path be better suited to Mr. Mann's development
vision?
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
WillPatric
P.O. Box 1968
Port Townsend, WA 98368