Big Concrete for Little Winslow

What has 1,000 parking spaces, is one and a half football fields long and runs from Madrone to Ericksen? How about a mega- parking garage proposed for the heart of Winslow. If anyone had any doubts left about the vision for our City shared by a small group of property owners, urban planners, realtors and architects, surely this will be the nail in the coffin of that doubt.





The “Winslow Core Parking Feasibility Study” will be presented to Council this Wednesday night and will suggest the building of a city funded parking garage on City property immediately south of the Farmer’s Market plaza and possibly connected to an even larger private garage, for a total length of 600 ft. To be fair, the study does not “suggest” the garage, it presumes the garage. Despite it’s title, the sole purpose of the study was to determine how to build the proposed garage, not to study “parking” in the Winslow Core. The study is the result of a public-private partnership between the City and two major property owners, Haggar-Scribner Properties and Sandstrom Properties.

With cumulative ownership of half the property fronting the north side of Winslow Way between Ericksen and Madison, these property owners have much to gain by City participation in a parking garage adjacent to their holdings, not the least of which would be facilitation of redevelopment under proposed upzoning. But what would the community gain, and what would it lose with this venture?


For Love of Parking

According to the Feasibility Study, “The Winslow Tomorrow planning process concluded that downtown Winslow is deficient in parking supply.” This premise has been a driving force behind downtown planning for years, despite the fact that the on-the-street experience of most Islanders has been to the contrary. Why this insistence that a problem exists, and that the community is in dire need of a comprehensive solution? When we consider the origin of the claim and the identity of the parties that will most benefit most from increased parking capacity, at least one possible explanation arises.

Of all the Winslow Tomorrow committees, it seems that the Parking Committee has been the target of the most criticism in the community. A number of former participants have described the process as “predetermined” and exclusively focused on the opinions and goals of a key minority. Among the members of the committee were Winslow property owners Tom Haggar (of Haggar-Scribner properties), his wife Priscilla Zimmerman and Larry Nakata (of T&C) as well as a number of other individuals with professional ties to the downtown core.

Tom Haggar is now a key player in the proposed parking garage. Why would Haggar and other property owners have such an intense interest in establishing a phantom need for a massive parking garage?


Promises, Promises

In 2005 Dr. Haggar sought and was granted “The Haggar- Scribner Comprehensive Plan Amendment” which rezoned his holdings to allow property fronting Ericksen to share the much higher density zoning status of his adjacent Winslow Way parcels. The goal was to facilitate the redevelopment of the 5 contiguous parcels together. At the time Haggar-Scribner proposed the rezoning (upzoning) of their property, concerns were expressed by some about the effect on the Ericksen District of a structure built to maximize height and density allowances. Dr. Haggar reassured the Land Use Committee and the Planning Commission that parking restrictions for the site would effectively prohibit maximum development, and that the upzoning was sought to allow increased “design flexibility” and to “allow a greener, more energy-efficient structure”.

Two years later, the Haggar-Scribner position on the development of the property has gone from reassurances that maximizing building size would not be likely given parking restrictions, to soliciting the participation of the City in the building of a massive parking structure that would in fact allow that full expansion. The feasibility report cites the “future” building of a 30-50,000 sf clinic as the motivation behind the Haggar-Scribner participation in the garage.


B.Y.O.C. (Bring Your Own Cart)

Whatever the forces were at play on the Winslow Tomorrow Parking Committee, it actually proposed a number of alternatives to address the presumed “parking problem”, including short term parking zones, increased enforcement, smaller satellite parking lots, employee shuttles and non-motorized improvements (aka: the poor stepchild of city projects)

As citizens we must ask how the City came to spend tens of thousands of dollars (or more?) on a “Parking Feasibility Study” focused on only a parking garage concept and only one location for that garage. Certainly a more candid name for the study would be “The Haggar-Scribner Parking Garage Feasibility Study”.

Why isn’t the City partnering with Larry Nakata in his consideration of developing a garage at the post office site? If we were to locate a garage downtown, and ask patrons to “park once” and walk, wouldn’t we put the garage adjacent to the business most frequented by Island citizens, and where the most volume is purchased, on a site with excellent existing ingress and egress? Maybe T&C can put a shopping cart rack up at the Haggar-Scribner garage instead.


Hint, Hint, Nudge, Nudge

On the subject of ingress and egress to the monster garage, there’s a bit of a wrinkle in the proposed design. Not surprisingly, Madrone Lane is seen as an obvious access route for the project, what it surprising for most in the community to learn, is that Madrone is a private road. This would not be a problem for the garage lobbyists if the owners were willing to hop on board the Winslow Way Urban Planning Express along with the rest of the North of Winslow Way gang. But apparently the owners have other ideas. They are considering closing off the lane and further emphasizing the quiet courtyard feeling that has naturally developed among the bordering businesses.

But the fact that these folks are seeking to protect the sanctity of this space from traffic and noise isn’t going to stop Haggar-Scribner et al. They propose somewhat cryptically that “the City should develop a strategy for what it needs to accomplish in the Madrone Way corridor and engage in discussions with the property owners to resolve future direction.” Some might say that sounds rather ominous. Maybe it’s just optimistic, after all, all eight of the drawings showing ingress and egress to the garage, show Madrone Lane as open and in use.


For a community that claims to be seeking to discourage reliance on the automobile, parking has played an incredibly prominent role in most aspects of our downtown planning. Perhaps that is because the vision for downtown has been written not by the community but by a few individuals who have more than a small conflict of interest with regards to issue like parking, height and density and whether or not benefiting properties pay their fair share.

To read the entire feasibility study go here.

Urban Renewal, Bainbridge Style

Breaking news: Winslow Way is dead and someone forgot to tell us.

And to think most of us thought we had a pretty good thing going on down there. Apparently, it’s in truly dire straights, because an internationally renowned consulting firm has been hired to manage it’s “redevelopment” while the City administration is angling for grant money aimed at revitalizing “economically challenged communities”.

Heery International was retained, to the tune of $1 million, not only to help the City create a shiny new main street, but also to convince the public of a pressing need to borrow $21 million dollars to rip out the entire street and risk bankrupting our local merchants. We’re not talking about broken pipes here. We’re talking about replacing every single element of the street. And we’re talking about each and every one of us paying for it, though some will pay much more than others and it won’t be the Winslow Way property owners.


The Parking Space Pyramid Scheme

At least we’ll finally have “enough” parking. Well, not exactly. Ironically, amidst declarations as recently as this week that “on-street parking along Winslow Way is vital to the economic viability of downtown Bainbridge Island,” 12 key on-street parking spaces have been slated for removal in the Streetscape plan. After years of decrying the (not universally accepted) dearth of downtown parking spaces, the City had already responded to it’s own call to action by reducing by half the number of required on-site parking spaces and now will shift 12 centrally located on-street spaces westward toward Grow. Because the spaces are still along Winslow Way, the result is generously described as resulting in “no net loss.”

Why this latest loss of parking? Putting aside any connection with the desire of certain downtown property owners to convince us that we need a $12 million dollar parking garage off Madrone, it appears to be the result of the City’s hunger for wider sidewalks and other “amenities”.

At some point it was decided that we must have wider sidewalks (9 feet) at all costs, and so, as moving buildings back is not an option, we are left with a narrower street. A narrower street means no more deliveries in the middle of the road, and that means creating delivery zones for trucks ranging up to and beyond 50 ft in length in our tiny downtown shopping district.

The current proposal is to permanently dedicate 2 extra-large spaces for UPS style deliveries, and for small business owners to ask that large truck deliveries only occur in the morning (Note to Mom and Pop: good luck telling a huge distributor to re-schedule it’s route). And when the big trucks do deliver, up to three at a time will park by each straddling 5-8 standard diagonal parking spaces in designated temporary loading zones on Winslow Way.




Thus, between dedicated loading zones, two new accessible spaces and other unspecified “design elements and code requirements... consistent with the goals and desires of Winslow Tomorrow”, 12 spaces will be lost between Ericksen and Madison.


Visions of Carmel Dance in Their Heads

Our city planners and consultants have oft described the Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape plan as “trying to put 50 pounds worth of stuff into a 10-pound bag”. They proudly embrace this challenge of trying to fit a big city’s worth of “amenities” into a small-town shopping district. Perhaps we would do better to heed the warning inherent in that concept. Is putting 50 pounds worth of something into a 10-pound bag a wise proposition? Is it not by definition unrealistic and awkward? Might we be happy with our 10 pounds of “stuff”. Even if we would like all the bells and whistles proposed, do we want to pay for them?

The City is proposing to pay for the project with Councilmanic Bonds. This is debt that the City may authorize without a vote from the general public – some describe it as the City’s credit card. Like a credit card, reserve Councilmanic Bond capacity serves as an invaluable emergency funding source and helps maintain a good bond rating. As such, it is considered prudent to leave a fairly substantial portion of that capacity in reserve. A City’s Councilmanic Bond debt is limited by statute to 1.5% of the value of taxable property in the jurisdiction, in our case that is approximately $84 million. To date we have used approximately $21 million of that capacity. Assuming we aim to leave a modest 35% in reserve, using $21 million for the Streetscape would leave just $13 million for all other proposed or desired projects. While some jurisdictions look to Councilmanic bonds for exceptional circumstances and essential capital projects, it seems that our City is looking to them increasing as just another tool for financing everything from capital projects to open space to Winslow Tomorrow soft costs.


Stickin’ it to the (Common) Man

So how will those bonds be repaid? The City points to possible grant money, the largest by far being a State Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) grant which, according to the Streetscape consultants, is available for up to $5 million. Just two small problems: (a) CERB grants are intended to provide “funding assistance to economically challenged communities for public facilities to foster the creation and/or retention of jobs by industry, and (b) grants for water, sewer and/or roads appear to have ranged between $100,000 and $500,000 from 1999-2006 – and generally toward the lower end of that spectrum. It appears quite unlikely that the proposed grants will make a meaningful dent in the $21 million debt.

Surprisingly, there is no plan to create a Local Improvement District (LID) to recover costs from Winslow Way property owners. LID’s are imposed on properties directly benefiting from an improvement – including street paving, streetlight installation, sewer installation and the undergrounding of overhead utility wires. For some reason, the properties fronting Winslow Way will not be paying their proportional share of the project costs.

Here’s where the rest of us come in. Depending upon how much outside funding can be found, every Island household not on City water and sewer could be assessed as much as $8.30 per month for 20 years, or nearly $2,000. Those unfortunate enough to be on City water and sewer could face an increase in their utility bills of up to $39.20 per month for twenty years (that’s a total of more than $9,000 per household).

The questions the community needs to be asking now, and which deserve honest answers, are how much of what is being proposed is truly essential and are the consultants and administration really exploring the least costly alternatives? It doesn’t take an expert to see that Winslow Way is not crying out for “economic revitalization”, and given the City’s current financial situation and other pressing community needs what is currently being proposed is not a realistic option. We need a simple public works directed sewer project, not a state of the art urban design project, and we should expect those most directly benefiting from the project to pay their proportional share.



For the complete recommendations presented to Council for discussion tomorrow night, go here.

For a look at who sits on the Streetscape Advisory Committee, including several Winslow Way property owners, go here.

For a brief discussion of the City’s financial situation, check out Althea Paulson’s new blog and her links to several useful documents including the infamous BRG Memo