Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Dismantling a Community to Build a City

As the written expression of our community’s values and goals, one would expect to find in our Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan* the ammunition to stop the advancing army of consultants, planners, designers and downtown property owners determined to undertake a massive redevelopment of our downtown. Unfortunately, our Comp Plan no longer offers the protection and guidance it once did, following what might be described as a protracted stealth attack – a piecemeal dismantling that has resulted in the codification of policies that many feel are inconsistent with the goals and vision of the Plan, and the community that created it.

One of the sections of the Plan most acutely hit by this concerted effort to redefine the character of Bainbridge Island is the Winslow Master Plan, which was hijacked by an extensive codification of dozens of Winslow Tomorrow recommendations last November that few citizens are aware of. (That’s right, Winslow Tomorrow is adopted policy.) As this year draws to a close, those amendments to the Plan are coming to fruition in the form of several controversial projects including proposed height and density increases for the Winslow Core District, the Streetscape, Parking Garage and plans for the upzoning and commercialization of the Ferry/Gateway Districts.

A review of the 2006 updates to the Master Plan and the proposed amendments now before the Planning Commission leaves us wondering how the Administration managed to so quietly slip detailed plans for the redevelopment of Winslow into our Comprehensive Plan. It also raises the question of whether the public will demand a stop to the expansion and implementation of these plans before it is too late.


Transit Villages and Core Extensions

The Planning commission is currently reviewing a series of Comp Plan amendments that would further amend the Winslow Master Plan, less than a year after its radical revision in November 2006. These proposed ordinances are said to “provide the policy platform” for the Ferry/Gateway Districts, yet we are assured by City staff and the Planning Commission that this is “just policy” and that no final decisions regarding the design of the districts will be made until the public has weighed in on the alternative Urban Design Plans for the districts during the “Implementation” phase next year.

With all due respect to staff, now is in fact the critical time for public comment. By definition, policy directs action. The policies being added to the Winslow Master Plan, along with those that were embedded there last November and other proposed code changes, may not finalize all of the details, but they surely preclude many alternative visions for the districts, including any that could be legitimately called “do nothing”.

When Citizens, or even Council Persons for that matter, come forth in 2008, to protest the basic assumptions of the proposed designs, staff will be the first to point to the Winslow Master Plan to demonstrate that most of the significant assumptions have already been adopted as policy. (Witness recent discussions between staff and Council regarding the implementation of Winslow Tomorrow policies in the Core District)

One of the policy changes currently under consideration, which addresses a very basic assumption, is the following:

WMP 2-10.2The district should be redeveloped to function as an extension of downtown Winslow, with complimentary uses, streetscapes, pedestrian amenities, public gathering spaces and unique design features.” (emphasis added)

This extension of the Core district east to Ferncliff would directly contradict the current policy stated in the Master Plan. The Plan states that new development in the Ferry/Gateway districts “is not envisioned as an extension of the Core, but rather a new neighborhood.” That language will be stricken by the proposed amendments, as will provisions limiting development to “residential with small amounts of service retail and office development.” Instead, it is proposed that this extension of the Winslow Core will be “a pedestrian transit oriented, mixed use neighborhood with higher density residential development, commercial development and some retail” or, as consultants describe it, a “Transit Village”.

The proposed amendments also suggest removing the 2,000 square foot limit for retail services in the district. A 100-foot transition area – landscaping buffer and lower heights – currently mandated by the Master Plan to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods, would be reduced to an area of an unspecified width.

Outside of the Comp Plan amendment process, the City's consultants call for zoning changes to increase building heights and density in the Ferry/ Gateway districts identical to those recently proposed for the Core District– up to 55-foot building heights and up to 2.5 FAR (density). Maximum lot coverage in the Gateway District would go from 35% to 75%.

Looking to the Urban Design Plan alternatives prepared by the City’s consultants, who note on their website that they aim to “add a sense of place” to the Island, it would appear that these extensive changes to the Comp Plan and zoning ordinances are all but presumed.




Going Backward to go Forward

When the original Winslow Master Plan was drafted in 1998, it was understood that the committee formed to draft it and the public meetings held to invite public comment on it were creating real policy that would determine the future of Winslow. By contrast, the Winslow Tomorrow effort, comprised of an appointed “community congress” was never described to the community as creating development policy for Winslow. In fact, former Winslow Tomorrow project director Sandy Fischer was quoted as saying that Winslow Tomorrow was not a development plan and should not be used as one. And yet, to date, dozens of select recommendations of Winslow Tomorrow have been inserted with great detail into the Winslow Master Plan, and thus are now City policy.

So is that it then? Has the boat sailed? Not necessarily. Our City Council can choose not to adopt the Ferry-Gateway Comp Plan amendments in November (yet another significant and potentially controversial public hearing planned for the holiday season) and not to adopt proposed increases in height, density and other zoning changes as they are presented. The Council can also choose not to implement the policies already adopted, and could even reconsider them. Of course none of these actions are likely to occur, unless and until the public makes it known that these policies do not reflect our vision for the Island and that we will no longer tolerate the wholesale redrafting of our Comprehensive Plan and dismantling of our community by planners, consultants and a handful of property owners.

The Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the currently proposed Comp Plan amendments on Thursday October 25, 7:00 pm, in the City Council chambers.

The deadline to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Study for the Ferry/Gateway will be November 9, 2007.


*The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the growth and establishes the long-range vision for the Island, identifying important characteristics that the community desires to retain, promote or foster. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates goals and policies that guide the community toward that vision, including the Five Overriding Principles of the Plan:
  • Preserve the special character of the Island;
  • Protect fragile water resources;
  • Foster diversity;
  • Consider costs and benefits to property owners when making land use decisions;
  • Promote sustainable development.
(excerpted from the City's website)

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

How many blocks of 55 foot buildings are in store for us? The sketch looks like a dozen or more just near the ferry. This is unbelievable. Is anyone asking about water? Is anyone looking out for us at all? And the consultant says he is going to give us a "sense of place". This is the kind of town that people borrow a sense of place from. If these people can't see that, I sure don't want them "designing" my hometown.

Everyone I know is angry about what is going on downtown but what do we do about it? Go to one of their meetings? I hope someone will post information here about what we can do to stop this assault.

Anonymous said...

I admit to reading this blog, even though I don't always agree. But this is a property rights issue. How dare this city build out when they admittedly don't even know yet if we have enough water.Any comp plan amendment, Winslow Tomorrow, Ferry gateway to disaster compromises ALL of us. Who are they kidding? Certain developers will make a killing, but they can always move.
What will our homes be worth when the water is gone? Zilch. Are you listening Gary Tripp? Why aren't you jumping on to stop this Winslow Tomorrow/Ferry Gateway madness? This is about OUR property rights, which INCLUDE enough water for us and our kids.
Oh, and by the way, I sure hope that some higher ups are reading this. Whose pockets are getting filled in government to have them push these irresponsible development schemes on this community at such a fast pace?
This isn't political, guys, this is about all our futures.

Anonymous said...

Too much, too soon, too fast.
If it looks like, walks like, feels like a con, it probably is.
I have to ask, what's the hurry. NO one has ever been able to answer that question. The hurry, I believe thanks to Truthseeker's indepth reporting, is that they want to get it over & done with before the rest of us bozos wake up to find our precious island denuded of its best & most-valued natural resources (including people of all income levels), while the land speculators & developers have scampered off-island to the next unsuspecting community.
If we are all to be able to afford to stay here on Bainbridge, both financially & spiritually, we'll need to start stepping up.
I'm ready -- sign me up -- we need to speak up and out again and again and again. We moved here because we loved the island as it was and NOT as it "could be."

Anonymous said...

As One of the Silent Majority said -- and property-rights advocate -- Bainbridge and Winslow in particular is on fast-track to an upscale Invasion of the Body Snatcher's world. Under stealth, intentional complexity, guile and fraud, our old style and old building scale is being invaded by the slick, the max, the biggest rip-off possible to taxpayers.

I can see the fast-talking Winslow Nevers moving their pods and dumping them in the recycle trucks from Bainbridge Disposal as we speak.

HELP !! Oh, and remember to vote out our incumbent counsilman Knobloch. He professes to be a naval man -- you hit the reef and tear a gash in the ship-of-state hull -- you get relieved of command within the week. Knobloch was at the helm for 6 years and we hit the reef hard.

Anonymous said...

I see JMO is back again to blast Knobloch. I don't get it Jim, are you against Winslow Tomorrow or for Waldo? You can't be both. Unless of course you are in the habit of voting against your best interests.

With regard to your reference to the ship running aground, Kordonowy took the helm a long time ago. She's the one that's gotta go. (well, she and her lap dogs Stoknes and Snow)

McCoy said...

Goodbye Bainbridge -- and everyone else who wants to know what they can do to stop this -- go to the PUBLIC HEARING before the planning commission this week (10/25 7pm, Council Chambers) and let them know what you think. Then go to the public hearing before Council and do the same. (the Council hearing will likely be in the next four weeks -- we'll post it here)

Even if you are uncomfortable speaking, go to the hearings and just be a presence. Submit your comments in writing.

Shogun said...

2:09 Anonymous -- are you suggesting Knoblock was an innocent bystander who just happened to be seated at the Council? If things go awry as they have royally, Voters have a right to hold Knobloch accountable. I have seen him hawk Winslow Tomorrow shamelessly.

Give me the new devil (Waldo) and
out with the old devil (Knobloch). And yes, I am for retirement of Knobloch and for more transparency and deep deacceleration on Winslow Never. Apparently Bill has been unable to find the emergency brake.

Anonymous said...

Shogun apparently hasn’t been watching the City all that closely. He’s blaming Bill for the votes of the majority of 4. The reality is that Council Member Bill Knobloch has found himself in the minority far too many times during the past two years. However, even as a minority Council member, he, alone, had the courage to ask in the “Voter’s Pamphlet”, with respect to Winslow Tomorrow—“do we have enough water to accommodate projected growth”? He is also the only Council person who has had the courage to raise the hard questions as to whether the taxpayers have the stomach for the inevitable tax increases that the Winslow Tomorrow fantasies will require.

I (we) need Bill in 2008 and beyond because
--Bill is not going to put forward proposals to dramatically allow upzoning across almost the entire island under the guise of affordable housing, as his opponent did twice.
--Bill would not upzone before knowing that the island’s water supply could handle it.
--Bill keeps on the table the fact that mega-development caused by upzoning can and does lead to mega-tax increases.
--Bill is genuinely concerned about our community, our sense of place for tomorrow and will not turn his back on that in order to facilitate the profits of a few today off the backs of the many taxpayers for the long haul.
Our community needs Bill.

former council person said...

It is of concern that they did not follow the process for amending the comprehensive plan as set out in the zoning chapter of the Municipal code. I went to find this on the COBI website, (forward to MRSC) and the entire chapter is missing. I have asked the city clerk to send me a copy of the comp plan process and asked why that chapter is not on the website. I would surmise that if the Winslow Master Plan is indeed part of the comp plan, which it appears to be, then changing that would need to go through the comp plan process which takes two years. former city council person