Residents clash over 625 Winslow affordable housing as council advances planning directions

The Bainbridge Island City Council heard more than an hour of public testimony on Feb. 10 about a proposed affordable housing development at 625 Winslow Way, with residents sharply divided over whether the Winslow ferry dock location is an appropriate site for dense, subsidized housing.

Opponents raised safety and environmental concerns and questioned the selection process. “I am opposed to affordable housing being built on Bainbridge Island at the ferry dock,” resident Nina Pelton told the council, saying the land needs substantial shoring, that traffic and parking are already a problem and that a 99‑year lease would remove local control over upkeep and affordability. Pelton also said she was not convinced the proposed builder had been competitively vetted.

Supporters countered that the site would offer critical proximity to transit and services and could provide accessible units that many island residents need. “We need more housing for people with disabilities, including affordable housing. If the building at 625 Winslow is built, it will need an elevator,” said Marcia Cutting, who described the island’s extremely limited supply of accessible affordable units.

The public comments fed into an extended council session on the Winslow Subarea plan and nearly 27 motions members had submitted to guide staff and the planning commission. Councilmembers debated a broad range of policy tools — from narrow constraints on what the planning commission may recommend to a proposal for bonus density tied to 100%‑affordable projects.

Several procedural outcomes and votes followed. Councilmember Scheider’s motion to add middle‑housing code work to the housing element was approved after amendment (4–3); another motion to limit zoning district recommendations to those that directly respond to the city’s housing deficit saw close votes and amendments over the evening. Deputy Mayor Haitopoulos proposed a bonus program to allow higher FARs for wholly affordable projects; that motion did not pass. Council then voted to study, rather than immediately implement, a specific comprehensive‑plan amendment (the Hager Scrivner request), which passed 6–1 after amendment.

Throughout the debate members repeatedly emphasized the tension between meeting state planning and housing obligations and the practicalities of building affordable units on a small‑island infrastructure system. Several council members urged quick action to meet legal timelines; others warned that too‑rapid changes without detailed development standards, infrastructure analysis and funding plans could create unintended consequences for downtown traffic, parking and long‑term site maintenance.

What’s next: Council directed staff to produce additional analyses — particularly tiered bonus structures that tie allowable density to the income level of proposed projects — and scheduled further opportunities for council review of planning commission recommendations before final adoption of the Winslow Subarea preferred alternative.