Sequim residents raise water, housing and tourism concerns over proposed West Bay (Seabrook) development

Several Sequim residents used the public-comment period at the Sequim City Council meeting to press the council for detailed answers about water, infrastructure costs and housing impacts tied to a proposed Seabrook (also referred to as West Bay) development.

Jeff Considine, a Sequim resident, pointed to a city tax-increment financing filing that "included cost estimates for infrastructure improvements of approximately $32,500,000," and said the filing estimated work needed to enable construction of homes and 30,000 square feet of commercial space adjacent to the John Wayne Marina. Considine said $14,500,000 of that total was for construction at the corner of West Quimbe Bay Road and Forest Road and that the filing included another roughly $18,000,000 for a second lift station. He asked how the city intends to pay the resulting debt and whether utility rate increases already experienced by Sequim customers reflect those projected costs.

Bruce von Borstel urged the council to update hydrologic and groundwater information before approving major projects. He cited a 1999 U.S. Geological Survey hydrogeology assessment of the Sequim–Dungeness area and the 2022 Dungeness Water Resources planning recommendations, saying current development proposals should not rely on reservoir-capacity projections without current aquifer data.

Other speakers raised related concerns. Courtney Considine asked the council to consider seasonal tourism impacts — including strain on roads, water and septic systems — and to assess whether increased lodging capacity would price out local hospitality workers. Carol von Borstel and Tracy Hollister said they opposed the project on grounds that it would change the community’s character, strain water supplies and worsen traffic near the marina. A resident who identified only as Aaron asked whether the council has growth limits for the next five or 10 years and urged more housing types that might better serve locals than large, market-rate developments.

Speakers repeatedly asked the council for clearer information about who would bear infrastructure costs, whether developer reimbursement agreements would obligate taxpayers, and what modeling the city has done on water availability and seasonal demand. No city decision on the project was taken during the meeting; the remarks were part of the public-comment period.

City staff and councilors acknowledged the relevance of those comments in later agenda items, including the comprehensive-plan update and development-regulations process that staff said will include public participation and site-specific rezoning requests.

Ending: Several people asked the council to require updated water studies and clearer developer cost obligations before the city advances large-scale project approvals. The council heard the comments during the public-comment period; no council action on the Seabrook/West Bay development was recorded at the meeting.