Balancing Roles: Candidate and Planning Commissioner

​

As both a City Council candidate and a current member of the Planning Commission, I’m committed to maintaining the integrity of both roles.

I take my responsibilities on the Planning Commission seriously. We’re currently working through updates to the Comprehensive Plan and Winslow Subarea Plan, and that’s a process I want to respect. It’s important to me that my campaign activities do not compromise the Commission’s work—or the trust and collaboration among my fellow commissioners, some of whom may hold different views.

​

I’m also mindful that, as a member of a city committee, any posts I make about city business on social media are public records, that must be maintained and are subject to disclosure. While I’m free to speak as a candidate, I am choosing to honor the City’s policy that discourages social media use by commissioners on city-related matters—out of respect for the process, the Commission, and the public, therefore, the positions below are mine, and mine only, and in no way reflect the views of the Commission as a whole.

​

My Position on Growth, Housing, and Infrastructure

Over the past seven months, I’ve been deeply involved in the Comprehensive Plan update and the work we’ve done has helped shape how I think about growth, housing, infrastructure, and what it means to plan responsibly for Bainbridge Island. Much of that work is part of the public record and I believe it speaks clearly to where I stand on growth and how we should approach the new state mandate we’re required to navigate.

I recognize that not everyone has had time to follow that process closely. So, for anyone looking to understand my position on growth, I’ve put together a statement below.

​

Population Target vs Housing Allocation

Historically, the Comprehensive Plan has focused on planning for a population target. Our current population target is 4,524, and under existing zoning, we already have the capacity to accommodate that number without any changes.

​

But things have changed. A significant new factor must be considered in this update: the requirements of House Bill 1220, which mandates that cities demonstrate sufficient capacity to accommodate housing at all income levels—including low, very low, and extremely low-income households. This is our housing allocation.

​

Although our housing allocation under HB 1220 is numerically smaller than the population target, meeting it is more complex because it requires us to look not only at land capacity, but also housing type.  For the lower ranges of income, 80% AMI and below, the City must demonstrate capacity for 1,139 low- and mid-rise multifamily units.  This type of development must be built where there is sewer infrastructure, and the zoning permits higher-density multifamily housing. Most of our available housing capacity is in the Conservation Area, which supports lower-density single-family residential development and doesn’t have the sewer infrastructure needed to support the type of housing required by our housing allocation. 

​

This disconnect between where housing can go and what kinds are needed presents a serious challenge. We don’t have the right types of units in the right locations to meet the intent and legal requirements of HB 1220 without adding capacity.

​

Infrastructure Constraints: Sewer and Groundwater

In planning to meet our housing allocation, we must also contend with infrastructure limitations. The Winslow sewer treatment plant is nearing capacity. With two upgrades, it can support a limited number of additional equivalent residential units (ERUs). If the City plans for growth that exceeds this capacity, we will be required to construct a new sewer facility—an undertaking with significant financial, environmental, and planning implications.

​

While our sewer capacity is limited, there is currently enough capacity to accommodate the housing allocation of 1,139 multifamily units in Winslow required under HB 1220. However, planning for growth beyond that point would begin to strain the system. In addition to the 1,139 new units, there is already capacity for 592 units in Winslow that do not meet the income targets for households earning 80% AMI and below. These units count against total system capacity without helping to meet the state mandate. Furthermore, there are developed properties within the sewer service area that are not yet connected to the system; we must reserve capacity for those in the event of septic system failure. Finally, we need to maintain a reasonable buffer to accommodate new or expanded commercial uses, whose wastewater demands are inherently harder to predict. Taken together, these factors suggest that while we do have the capacity to meet our housing allocation for 80% AMI and below households, there is very little room to grow beyond that without triggering the need for a new facility.

​

Some policymakers have suggested that planning beyond current infrastructure capacity is acceptable because actual growth rates have historically been slower than projected. They argue that future Councils could course-correct if growth exceeds expectations. I respectfully disagree. Once zoning changes are made and development occurs, reversing course becomes unlikely. If the City Council intends to pursue a growth strategy that exceeds sewer plant capacity, it should do so transparently and with full acknowledgment of the long-term consequences.

​

A new sewer plant raises fundamental questions: Where would it be located? How would it be financed? Would the costs fall to existing ratepayers, or would it require further expansion to grow the customer base? In many communities, infrastructure expansion itself becomes the justification for more growth—a new plant could become the very thing that drives further development.

​

The only alternative to expand the customer base to pay for a new plant —besides adding new growth—is to expand the sewer service area and require existing homes on septic to connect to the sewer system. Requiring existing households to connect to an expanded sewer system has implications for groundwater recharge. Septic systems allow for natural groundwater replenishment, whereas sewer systems discharge treated wastewater directly into Puget Sound. Any potential expansion of sewer infrastructure should be evaluated in coordination with the City’s forthcoming Groundwater Management Plan. 

​

With the caveat that our Groundwater Management Plan is not yet complete and that our Comprehensive Plan should not be adopted until it is, I do believe we can continue to work towards an updated Comprehensive Plan that accommodates our housing allocation. 

​

A Responsible Path Forward

As a Planning Commissioner, my goal is to deliver to the City Council a recommended plan that meets state requirements without exceeding our infrastructure or environmental limits. I believe we can create a plan that:

​

• Complies with state law, including the housing allocation under HB 1220;

• Respects the infrastructure and environmental constraints of Bainbridge Island; and

• Reflects the values and priorities of our community.
  
  

We must produce a recommendation that is legally sound in the opinion of the City Attorney – that is the legal opinion that the City Council will defer to. If we do not, City staff will recommend that the City Council adopt their preferred alternative instead—and I do not believe that will better reflect our community’s value and priorities.