Sequim residents raise water, infrastructure and access concerns over proposed Seabrook/John Wayne resort

Several Sequim residents used the public‑comment period on Aug. 11 to press the council for information and planning around the Seabrook‑proposed development at the John Wayne property and related marina management proposals.

Residents asked why certain permit documents were not readily available for public review and raised concerns about groundwater and private wells, potential strain on local roads and utilities if the project proceeds at the scale discussed, and the possibility that marina control or management could be conveyed to the developer via a memorandum of understanding.

Public commenters and their concerns - Jan Tierney asked the city for written responses including why a Seabrook West Bay permit application was not available for public review, how many residents rely on private wells, the city’s liability if personal wells fail because of overdevelopment, and the year of the Department of Ecology’s latest water allocation to the city. - Jeff Considine summarized elements of a June 2023 draft memorandum of understanding he said circulated among Port of Port Angeles, the city and Sequim Bay Development LLC. He stated the draft referenced a potential $12 million marina refurbishment at Port expense, dedication of 60 slips to the development, potential long‑term marina management or purchase options, and other changes that raised questions about the marina’s public character and utility connections. Considine asked whether ongoing discussions exist about marina management and what steps the city will take to preserve marina access as a public asset. - Courtney Considine urged council to consider the broader housing and water resource implications of a resort-scale development, noting comparisons with other amenity destinations and expressing concern about housing affordability, rental availability and local well water supplies in the context of drought.

Council and staff context City staff earlier in the meeting noted a planning‑department moratorium webpage and said staff would continue to provide information to residents. Councilors and staff did not adopt any new policy or take a vote on the development during the Aug. 11 meeting; the comments were part of the public‑comment period and will be part of the public record.

Ending: Commenters urged the council to treat the proposal as part of long‑range planning—considering water, housing and street capacity—and to make permit documents and memoranda available for public review as the process moves forward.