by Gerald Elfendahl, Bianbridge Island Historian
The SEPA Appeal Hearing for the City of Bainbridge Island’s project to allegedly “restore” habitat at Cannery Cove (aka Strawberry Plant Park) was in to its second day on Thursday, June 25, and went very well. Thanks everyone! Your contributions and efforts were stellar!!!!!
The second day of our appeal hearing was led off with inspiring words from Conrad Mahnken, retired director of National Marine Fisheries Research Lab here and member of the Governor’s Fish and Wildlife Commission. He rejected the City’s plan and supported our cause of historic preservation and shoreline enhancement in this case.
Mahnken was followed by Barry Griffin, Griffin Engineering, who offered more inspirational words about the importance the historic site should have for the community. Griffin, a park neighbor who in his spare time has founded and mentors “Jazz Engineering” educational programs for young people in recent years, echoed opportunities and values many see in this park for young people, schools and community. Griffin’s powerful speech was a great inspiration and should be published and distributed widely.
With 96 year-old aesthetician, landscape artist and 1926 strawberry picker Tad Sakuma who had been in the cannery in 1926; his son Gary; Kay Nakao who had picked Island strawberries for the Queen of England in 1939 and who attended the end of strawberry season picnic at Foster’s Resort in 1923 in attendance, we shared a lengthy visual history of cannery cove, emphasizing the significance of the strawberry industry and cannery on the Island’s development and regional, national and international contributions to food processing, history and culture, plus the site’s maritime history and archaeology.
Other powerful statements were provided. Third generation Eagle Harbor fisherman, former Harbor Commissioner and Cannery Cove neighbor, Paul Svornich who took time away from his most busy time of year getting his boat ready for deep sea fishing, to share of his history and vast experience of the harbor, the site, fisheries in the area, ease of dock building and environmental issues. Svornich and Dave Ullin, built Paul’s sailing vessel OCEAN with which Paul has fished commercially for over two decades.
Port Madison Yacht Club Commodore and Accumar Corporate president Scott Sprague; architects Andy Rovelstad (Leavengood Architects and architect for Center for Wooden Boats); architect Tom Swolgaard, chairman of the Bainbridge Island Metro Park & Recreation District Board of Commissioners; fisherman environmentalist Doug Hatfield; designer Richard Labotz; Artist, photographer Kathryn Keve; Center for Wooden Boat director/founder Dick Wagner; and others provided strong arguments in favor of preserving the historic and cultural landscape and rejecting the City’s proposal.
Cathy Bellefeuille provided a film comparing the experience of Poulsbo’s beautiful, popular and people friendly Oyster Plant Park with that of the City’s proposal for Strawberry Plant Park. Cathy’s film will be airing on BITV, cable TV channel 12 on the Island.
Oyster Plant Park has broad water overviews, many waterfront picnic table and benches, concrete sea walls and a large safe ramp and three large floats for safe boat launching and landing. By comparison, Strawberry Plant Park will only offer the people 15 feet of shoreline access (out of 786′) via a five foot wide gravel trail to a high tide line on a muddy beach and NO ramp or float; destroys the broad earthen meadow and peninsula overlooking the water; will not allow shoreline picnic benches, welcomes people to walk across muddy tide flats for their unsafe and beach disturbing boating.
Oyster Plant Park (dedicated in 2006) involved numerous community groups and Poulsbo Rotary Club. It used grants from governmental agencies of less than 10% of what Strawberry Plant Park is budgeting without thoughts of cost over runs. Poulsbo’s Oyster Plant Park was funded by some of the same governmental agencies solicited for Strawberry Cannery Park except the Elliott Bay Council who mandate “fish and wildlife preserves” and “habitat restoration” only.
We also submitted interviews testifying as to the extensive concrete and paving layers in the work yard and in the east peninsula – a “most solid Island shoreline” meadow easily adapted to return its use to support a ramp and float and on one of the Island’s lowest energy bays”. We also reported the location of a high capacity, excellent quality, artesian well within the existing building.
The City’s project manager, Peter Best, (absent on June 12 hearing day) testified and was cross examined in the afternoon. The project was criticized for lack of any baseline data for the site or for the harbor itself inside of Hornbeck / Stetson Spit; and for a lack of quantifiable and comparative data on environmental qualities.
Best reported only knowledge of one well on site (one of two registered with the State). Best only knew of the 1931 well in the central part of the property and not the shore side artesian high-capacity well actively used between 1936 and 1997 by the cannery, concrete businesses and others until the warehouse burned in recent years. That well was registered at 90 gal. / min. with 8 gal. / min. artesian and in later years is alleged to have been developed by George Burt Well Drilling to 150 to 200 gal. / min. with 2″ pump at 70 lbs. pressure and could not be drawn down. (J. Park Jr., W. Hanley).
There were complaints as to the lack of public process and involvement in planning citing:
-
– the Memo of Agreement between CoBI and Elliott Bay Council requiring “habitat restoration” to be only for “fish and wildlife preserves … in perpetuity” never had public hearing;
– the $950,000 project to excavate 5,500 cubic yards of historic and cultural landscape was declared a “Minor Project” by the City and thus never was sent before the planning commission;
– the only “public process” was a private, by invitation only, design “charrette” that 25 select people attended (because there was “not room for more” in the “123 occupant capacity” City Council Chambers;
– the value of the park to the greater community was ignored by declaring the unique and highly valued waterfront site a “neighborhood park”;
– volunteers who had worked cleaning up the park for nine months (and who had learned a lot about the site) were excluded from the charrette;
– the two “preferred plans” from the design charrette assembled by city planner were not what any of the charrette subcommittees preferred;
– the public was not allowed to speak at the public meeting (advertised without an agenda) where and after the final “preferred plan” was revealed;
– and City Council has refused to discuss the plan with the public since.
Labotz countered the project manager’s claim that the park was “abandoned”, citing public use for a few years and volunteers cleaning it up. He cited that people are finding it a beautiful and popular place without any park sign and some frequently wonder if they are trespassing on private property.
Best cited his opinion that the site was not “officially a park” until declared so. Similarly, he said the site which has a capacity for 120 cars to park there, has no official parking places and thus the City plan will be a parking improvement of four parking places and not a reduction of 116. This at a time when the City provides no parking for car top or non-trailered boats at the City’s only boat launch with dock downtown (and only for five tandem cars and trailers at that).
The Hearing Examiner continued the hearing to July 10. There will be a site visit then and probably a last chance for testimony and to question the City’s planners.
0 Responses to “Strawberry Plant Park appeal hearing… day 2.”