City shows little regard for residents | LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Published 1:09 pm Tuesday, September 30, 2014
To the editor:
The decision by the city’s planning department to allow more than 800 trees to be clearcut for a retail development reveals a government which lacks concern for the environment.
More importantly, it showed the city has little interest in hearing what citizens wish for their island. This became evident during the six-day appeal held before the hearing examiner to oppose the city planning director’s approval of the Visconsi development application. On the first day of the hearing about 100 citizens overwhelmingly spoke against the development – adding to more than 400 emails submitted to the city objecting to the project. The planning commission had previously unanimously voted to recommend denial of the project. But the city staff had other plans.
A small group of us under the name Islanders for Responsible Development presented our objections to the application — of which there were many. We were fortunate to have the support of a local environmental land-use attorney, Ryan Vancil, and citizen volunteers.
We hired a traffic expert who showed that traffic on High School Road heading toward Highway 305 from Ferncliff Avenue would back up to Kitsap Bank after commuter ferry landings. The city’s traffic consultant instead testified this backup would rarely occur (but neglected to use peak season ferry traffic) – even though it regularly occurs now without the development! Traffic congestion was even made worse when the hearing examiner approved the developer’s request to allow an additional 9,475 square feet for four retail buildings through special Conditional Use Permits (CUPs).
Goals we and the planning commission introduced from the comprehensive plan were repeatedly ignored by the hearing examiner as was our testimony on the value of trees for air quality, sequestration of carbon dioxide, water retention, and contribution to the island’s special character.
One positive outcome was increased protection of the adjoining wetland east of the project. The wetland was originally designated Category 2 by the city (1 is the highest rating for protection, 3 being the lowest). The developer, Visconsi, requested Category 3, and only after neighbors in Woodland Village hired a consultant was the city forced to change it to Category 1, thus adding to the protective buffer. Thanks go to citizens questioning the city!
We could have walked away from this experience muttering the old adage that “You can’t fight city hall.”
But this is Bainbridge Island, where citizens are not afraid to speak out for the environment, as witnessed by their support for Chiara d’Angelo’s recent protest of the forest removal by Visconsi.
It’s time for city hall to be professional and finally carry out what it was supposed to have accomplished years ago as prescribed by the Bainbridge Review in its Sept. 20, 2000 editorial: “The code must support the (comprehensive) plan. Period;” and “A comprehensive plan that isn’t supported by its own ordinances isn’t worth the binder it fills.”
Why didn’t the city take this advice when it recently updated its zoning code in 2010? Furthermore the planning department purposely omitted the vegetation ordinance from the 2010 update process, promising to add it soon! The city has also stonewalled a tree ordinance for over a decade.
It’s time to produce a tree ordinance and create consistency between our municipal code and the comprehensive plan.
It’s too late for Visconsi — but not too late for that binder containing the comprehensive plan to apply to the next project.
Please add your voice to tell the city council, the planning commission, and city management that legislation to correct these past promises is long overdue.
CHUCK DEPEW, OLAF RIBEIRO AND CHARLES SCHMID
Bainbridge Island
