Q&A
Comp Plan
Question: Please publish the City Staff's Preferred Option for the Comprehensive Plan as referred to in the last sentence of your "Position on Growth." The 625 project is getting a lot of attention, but I don't think the general public understands what is pushing it.
Also, with your knowledge of local city government operations, it would be helpful to have your perspective on how city staff meets the public input requirements. IE: Does the city staff actively seek to engage the public or do just the minimum required to "check boxes" to implement staff's preferred plans. The former option is time consuming and can be painful to staff and elected officials, but in my experience, it almost always produces a better option and result for the public.
Proposed by staff in January, PC still working on its own preferred alternative
Hi Ken,
Sorry for the delay, Ken. I took some extra time to think about this because I’m not sure the issue is how much public engagement is sought, but rather how that input is used. Using the current Comprehensive Plan and Winslow Subarea Plan as examples, there were several well-attended public meetings and workshops. According to the City’s website, 481 people attended six open houses and 567 comment submittals were received. I think the City went beyond simply “checking boxes.” However, the bigger question is how that feedback actually influenced the alternatives that were developed. I don't believe that the input received was adequately reflected in the outcomes.
Sarah
Q&A
Comp Plan
Question: Hi Sarah,
I've been an island resident for 41 years. Lately we have all seen increased pressures of increasing population in several ways. Discussions on water and sewer management are occurring. I understand the pressures of State regulation. Regarding the upcoming election and decisions on one low income project in particular, where do stand on placing the LIHI project on the police station (former fire station) site? Can the DEIS alternative one be adopted?
Thank you for your dedication and years of involvement.
Sincerely,
David Cordaro
Hi David,
I have suggested to the Council (6 of them anyway) and the City Manager that the City should consider building the project at 251 Winslow Way, which is where the Winslow Hotel had been proposed to be built. I don't think that the project they're proposing fits the former police/fire station site. The number of units they're proposing for that site will result in a development that only provides an on-site parking space for half of the units. I don't think that's realistic and it will likely impact surrounding properties and businesses as residents who own a car, but don't have a parking space, tuck their cars in wherever they can. I also think the size of the building, perhaps due to how they're orienting it, is too imposing on the intersection. It's out of place. That intersection has a park on one corner, and the other two developed corners have nice plazas, setbacks and landscaping. Whatever is built at the police/fire state site should mirror that to some extent. The Planning Commission has also discussed requiring step-backs, similar to what you see at Harbor Square, so the facade of the building doesn't go straight up. We haven't had a chance to create those development regulations and the proposed building doesn't provide any step-backs.
Alternative 1 of the DEIS cannot be adopted. Although City staff disagree with me, I believe House Bill 1220, which is the reason we can't adopt Alternative 1, is creating impacts to Bainbridge that it likely doesn't have on other cities. At least not to the same extent. We are not like other cities in that we have limited infrastructure and are unable to use our existing capacity to comply with HB 1220, which means we have to create capacity beyond our growth/population target. Alternative 1, which represents our existing zoning capacity, is adequate to accommodate our growth/population target, but HB 1220 requires us to demonstrate that we have capacity for certain housing types in order to demonstrate that we can provide housing at all income levels. Some of our housing allocation from HB 1220 can be accommodated with our existing capacity, but most of it cannot. For the housing units that will serve households earning 80% of area median income and below, the state is looking for us to demonstrate capacity for 1,139 low- and mid-rise multi-family units. That building type requires sewer service and therefore must be located in Winslow. Unfortunately, the majority of our existing capacity in Alternative 1 is outside of Winslow. There may be a handful of opportunities outside of Winslow, for example another project like Finch Green at Bethany Lutheran, but it won't be a significant amount.
Since our existing capacity isn't where we need it, I do support efforts to try to shift some of our capacity outside of Winslow into Winslow through a development right transfer program. That would allow us to create some additional capacity in Winslow while also extinguishing some capacity in our conservation area. I think a program like this also supports our goals with groundwater resource management as it would move some development into Winslow, where average household water consumption is lower, while protecting more of our conservation area from development which would help preserve open space for groundwater recharge. Ideally, the City will consider building a new membrane bioreactor wastewater treatment plant like they have in Port Gamble so that our treated wastewater could be re-used for irrigation or recharging our aquifers.
Thank you for reaching out and let me know if you have any other questions.
Sarah
Q&A
625 Project
Question: How did you vote on the Planning Commission's motion to move forward the zoning necessary to accommodate the 625 project?
Also, where does the zoning change and the ability to apply for the grant funds for 625 stand today?
Hi Alice,
I voted against the motion to move the ordinance forward. The zoning change is on hold because the SEPA determination of non-significance for the ordinance was appealed. I have heard that LIHI submitted an incomplete application for the state's Housing Trust Fund but have not been able to confirm that. The two Councilmembers I asked had not been informed either way.
Sarah
Q&A
625 Project
Question: Good day. Do you support the Winslow upzone which will facilitate a multi story apartment to be built on the corner of Winslow and 305? Thank you for your response.
Larry Betsch
I did not support the ordinance that would have facilitated the project at the corner of Winslow and 305. I opposed the ordinance on procedural and substantive grounds.
Thanks for reaching out, let me know if you have any other questions.
Sarah
Q&A
Affordable Housing
Question: What is your position on the 625 Winslow Project and why?
Context: Hi Sarah, We have lived on the south end of Bainbridge for 23 years.. I have voted for you in the past and am planning to vote for you in Nov. I think you are a clear thinker and are truly committed to this island. I would liike to more fully understand the rationale for the 625 project.. We are all for affordable housing, it just seems like the city could sell this property and it could be more appropriately developed into a commercial mixed use location and the proceeds could be used to build more than the 70 units currently proposed in what seems to be an expensive location.
Hi and thank you for your support!
I think the City would be better off selling the property at 625 Winslow and building affordable housing at a different location.
The scale of the project they're trying to build (90 units) does not fit that site. As proposed there will only be parking spaces on-site for half of the units. That concerns me because I think people need a car if they live on Bainbridge. Not only to get to work if your hours don't align with the bus schedule, but also to be able to get to the peninsula where there are more options for shopping and services. I'm also concerned that if the project doesn't provide adequate parking for the needs of its residents, then surrounding businesses could be impacted as residents without an on-site space will tuck their cars in at other locations. There are some procedural issues as well with the project and our development regulations.
The City could potentially sell that site, purchase property elsewhere and come out ahead. In August I talked to 6 Councilmembers and the City Manager about the property where the Winslow Hotel had been proposed, near Winslow Green. That site is almost twice as big and would allow the City to adequately park the project and it's a much better location for the residents who will be living there.
It's hard to get information from the City right now about where the 625 project stands. I'm hoping there is an opportunity for the Council to consider other locations.
Thanks for writing!
Sarah
Q&A
Comp Plan
Question:
1. Why are the City Council Targets, GWMP scenarios, and CompPlan alternatives not in alignment?
2. Why is the city, in all the CompPlan alternatives presented, indicating population growth materially in excess of the formally adopted population growth target of 4,524 residents?
Context:
The DEIS for the CompPlan states, this City Council has adoped a population growth capacity target of 4,524 during the CompPlan period.
The three scenarios that form the foundation of the GWMP assume population growth of 315 people/year (6,300 per 20 yrs) or 419 people/year (8,380 per 20 years).
The Comp Plan alternatives range from 282 people/year (5,640 people per 20 years), 580 people/year (11,601 people per 20 years),
In all alternatives, the CompPlan assumes significantly higher population growth than the population growth capacity target adopted by the City Council.
opinion on the city restricting the use of gas powered leaf blowers? What do you think the restrictions would look like?
Hi John, thank you for your questions.
To answer your first question about the City Council targets and the growth scenarios in the Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP): these figures were established by different entities using different methodologies.
The population figures used in the GWMP’s growth scenarios are based on Bainbridge Island’s historical growth trends. According to the technical memorandum, the consultants reviewed population growth from 1991 to 2023. They found that from 1991 to 2007, the Island experienced relatively high growth—about 419 residents per year. This was used as the basis for the high-growth scenario. Conversely, between 2012 and 2023, the growth slowed to about 212 residents per year, which informed the low-growth scenario. They developed the medium-growth scenario by equally splitting the high and low growth rates.
In contrast, the City’s population target is derived from a forecast developed by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) for the State. This forecast is distributed regionally (Puget Sound Regional Council), and then at the County level (Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council), and finally allocated to jurisdictions within Kitsap County. Although the City Council adopts this target, it doesn’t originate from local decision-making. It is assigned to Bainbridge Island through the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies. Councilmembers represent the City on KRCC, along with other jurisdictions, but they have limited control over the final population target assigned to us.
The answer to the last piece of your first question—about why the alternatives presented in last summer’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) were not aligned with either the GWMP growth scenarios or the population target—is related to the answer to your second question so I will address them together.
Historically, the Comprehensive Plan has focused on meeting the population target assigned through the KRCC. Our existing zoning already provides enough capacity to accommodate that target, so without additional requirements, no zoning changes would be necessary.
However, this update to the Comprehensive Plan must also comply with House Bill 1220, which requires cities to demonstrate sufficient land capacity to accommodate housing at all income levels. This is referred to as our housing allocation. While this allocation involves fewer total housing units than our population target, it requires capacity for specific housing types—especially multi-family units that depend on sewer infrastructure.
Most of our existing land capacity lies in the Conservation Area, which lacks sewer service. As a result, we must create additional capacity in sewered areas to meet the housing allocation, even if it pushes us beyond the population target.
In addition, the City Council provided little, if any, policy direction to staff and consultants about how to approach and plan for our housing allocation in the alternatives. Staff and consultants assumed the adoption of an inclusionary zoning program as the primary tool to meet affordability goals. This approach requires increasing overall density to subsidize affordable housing in new developments. Because only 10% of the new units would be affordable under the proposed program, the total number of new units had to be significantly increased to meet the required affordable housing count.
It's important to note that Alternatives 2 and 3 from the DEIS are no longer under consideration. Since January, the Planning Commission has been working on creating its own preferred alternative to present to Council. It’s also important to note that the City Council and the Planning Commission both recognize that the use of an inclusionary zoning program will, as you’ve stated, cause the population growth to be materially in excess of the population target. I don’t believe the majority of the City Council or Planning Commission supports the use of inclusionary zoning for that reason.
I hope this answers your questions. If it doesn’t, or if it raises additional questions, please let me know.
Q&A
Gas Powered Leaf Blowers
Hi Sarah, do you have an opinion on the city restricting the use of gas powered leaf blowers? What do you think the restrictions would look like?
Hello,
I received your question about gas powered leaf blower restrictions and below is my response:
The original Zero Emission Landscaping ordinance was an all-encompassing ban on gas-powered tools and equipment, but it was later narrowed to apply only to leaf blowers. While I support the transition away from gas-powered tools where it’s practical, I believe an incentive-based approach would be just as effective as, and more equitable than, an outright ban -- especially given ongoing innovations that are making gas-powered tools cleaner and more efficient.
A blanket ban will be difficult to enforce. The City currently lacks the resources to monitor and ensure compliance, and without robust enforcement I question the effectiveness of a ban. An incentive program, on the other hand, could achieve similar outcomes by encouraging voluntary transitions. The City could partner with a local business, such as Ace Hardware, to offer rebates or establish a buy-back program that would support residents and professionals in switching to battery powered equipment when they’re ready to replace their existing equipment.
The ban could also create significant challenges for landscaping businesses – financial and operational. In addition to the challenge of having to recharge batteries during the workday, a ban would create financial hardships for businesses that are heavily invested in their equipment. It has already been reported by the Park District that in their transition to electric tools, they have found that electric tools work for some applications but are problematic for others.
As we look beyond leaf blowers, we need to carefully consider how restrictions on other gas-powered tools could impact our ability to manage vegetation, particularly considering our increasing risk of wildfires.
Thank you for taking the time to reach out and ask a question!
Sarah Blossom