Architect’s assessment of Suzuki property is in error | LETTER TO THE EDITOR

To the editor: We write in response to Mr. Wenzlau’s letter Feb. 26 regarding the Suzuki property.

To the editor:

We write in response to Mr. Wenzlau’s letter Feb. 26 regarding the Suzuki property. For those who do not know, Mr. Wenzlau is an architect hired by one of the Suzuki property’s potential developers, and was the Visconsi development architect. First, his characterization of the Suzuki property as containing some “mature tree stands,” easily worked around when building a dense development of 50 to 75 households, is in error. There is no dispute that Suzuki contains old growth forest and an indigenous fern glen.

Second, based upon our review of the proposals, we disagree with his assessment that the current proposals provide protection for the “tree stands” and pond. Overlay each proposal on the property, and it will be obvious that virtually all trees will fall to the ax. Our view is shared by at least one city council member (one who is a strong proponent for developing the tract).

We are dismayed that the city requested proposals to develop this property, but, in retrospect, not surprised. This city prides itself on “being green,” and yet we (the city government or parks) clearcut for the Sands ballfields, cut down historic trees in downtown Winslow and allowed clearcutting for several developments, including Ferncliff Village. The city did reject the Visconsi development, but lacked the will to appeal the hearing examiner’s final approval.

We see why the Visconsi hearing examiner was misled — read his lengthy opinion for yourself (easily found online). The representations made by the developer caused him to conclude that “[e]xcept for the small bank on the corner, the project buildings will be virtually invisible from neighboring roads [due to tree buffers].”

According to the Kitsap Sun, Mr. Wenzlau’s application for the development represented that the “design aim is to ‘create rural imagery’ with architecture ‘meant to evoke a rural theme with simple forms.’” Contrast with the result.

Mr. Wenzlau’s characterization of proponents of preservation as “NIMBY” is a common rhetorical trick — mischaracterize our position as “anti” affordable housing so that the city ignores us.

Do not be ignored. Write to the council today. This is your land.

LISA AND CHRIS NEAL

Bainbridge Island