On one point, there was little dispute: Bainbridge Island needs more affordable housing.

But where? Certainly not on the city’s unused Suzuki property, said a majority of the crowd who spoke out at last week’s council session to get feedback on potential development of the 13.83-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Sportsman Club Road and New Brooklyn Road.

Though unequal in size, a compelling case was made from umpteen others: Many who work on Bainbridge, or have dreams of living here, have been priced out and off of an island where the median home value is $666,000.

City officials have been entertaining three development options for the land — and one to turn it over to the Bainbridge park district for parkland  — in recent months.

Three development plans were submitted in November for the property. The potential developers include Housing Kitsap, AKA Investors and Blue Architecture; Housing Resources Bainbridge, Housing Kitsap; and Olympic Property Group/Davis Studio Architecture + Design. Development plans range from 52 to 75 homes, with elements of lower-cost and mixed-income housing.

The council cleared off last week’s agenda to devote the entire meeting to comments on the proposals, and more than 60 signed up to speak. Both sides, those for development, and those against, rallied their sides to attend; Housing Resources Bainbridge sent out an email blast, encouraging supporters to show up 30 minutes early for the meeting.

For nearly three hours, council members got an earful on the pros and cons of developing the property, which includes an old growth stand of trees on one end where critics worry that new homes will take the place of 100-foot-tall, 100-year-old trees, as well as a man-made pond that’s turned wild and has attracted more than a dozen birds on an Audubon watch list of vulnerable species, including yellow warblers, red-breasted sapsuckers and bald eagles.

Many in the crowd said it seemed to be an unwelcome choice between old growth trees and affordable housing.

Critics of developing the property highlighted the forested nature of the land, or urged city decision-makers to put affordable housing in the downtown area, closer to services, on underdeveloped parcels.

Others noted a lack of sewer capacity to serve new homes that would be built on the property, or pointed out that the potential developers had offered millions of dollars less than what the land was worth. Under the three different build-out scenarios, prospective developers offered the city between $2.4 million and $2.6 million for the land.

The city has not had the land appraised in years, but one conducted in January put the value at $3.5 million to $4.9 million.

Marshall Tappen said the forest was “priceless,” echoing the comments of a certified forester and member of the state’s old growth commission who had visited the property.

None of the proposals include a buffer for the pond ecosystem, he added.

Though some of those who would like to develop the land have visited the property, Tappen said, their build-out proposals don’t acknowledge the environmental constraints on the property.

“All of them cut into that mature forest,” he said.

“So far, the ecological protection really has been a lot of empty promises,” Tappen added.

More than 700 islanders have signed petitions to preserve the site and keep it natural.

“The community is speaking,” he told the council.

Many in the audience held up green sheets of paper with a drawing of an evergreen as some asked for the land to be protected, and both sides ignored a plea from the deputy mayor for no interrupting applause after people spoke.

Many said they supported affordable housing, just not on the Suzuki land.

“The Winslow core to date has not been developed to its potential — not even close,” said Maryclare Kersten.

“High density outside the true Winslow core is suburban sprawl, plain and simple,” she said.

Some asked for an environmental survey of the property, an idea earlier championed by Councilman Ron Peltier, or to call a simple timeout. One suggested a public vote.

Others disagreed with keeping the land as-is.

Don Heppenstall said the land should be developed and the new neighborhood would be an easy walk to downtown for residents.

“I love parks and use ours frequently, but growth is inevitable,” he said.

“So let’s do it in a smart way and develop housing where sewer and water is available.”

Teachers and other island workers are priced out of the Bainbridge housing market, he said.

“Let’s not turn our backs on those who can’t afford to live here because they don’t make enough money,” Heppenstall said. “We can make a difference with one brick, one house, one apartment, one small development.”

But Doug Rauh said the city would lose a significant amount of taxes if the land is developed by an entity that could get a tax exemption for creating affordable housing.

As taxes continue to climb, the city would be replacing one group of homeowners who are balanced on the edge of home affordability with another.

The new property owners would only pay limited assessments, he said, and not general property taxes.

“Their tax bill will be transferred to my tax bill,” Rauh said.

He noted an 11 percent increase in his recent tax bill, but no increase in Social Security payments to the retired.

“You need to look at the senior citizens on this island. You will be forcing off your seniors,” he said.

“You will tax us out. One by one, boom, boom, boom — they’re gone.”

Jeff Krueger, however, told how living on Bainbridge would be an elusive dream for his adult daughters.

“Affordable housing and 20- to 30-year-olds are endangered species on Bainbridge Island,” he said.

Paul Bryant said the current plans for development were “ill-considered.”

“A choice between affordable housing and old growth forest just seems like a battle royale on our island. They are two things we care a lot about,” Bryant said.

“Frankly, I don’t think anyone in this room is against affordable housing; I don’t think anyone in this room is against old growth forest. We’re a community that cares about these things.

“The question is whether the plans on the table make sense,” Heppenstall said.

If any of the plans make sense to the council, though, is a question city council members will decide on another day.

The council will talk about its next steps at its meeting on March 8.

“That doesn’t mean a decision will be made on one of the proposals,” said City Manager Doug Schulze.

Instead, he said, it’s “what do we do next in this process. Do we want to continue, do we want to stop it? If we are going to move forward, what does that look like?”

As the city enters the second phase of the review process, the council may choose an alternative, and public comment will be taken on the option that is chosen and potentially, Schulze said, the draft terms of the sale.

In the third phase, the chosen development team and its proposal would go through a “rigorous public involvement design.”

The city envisions a charrette, an informal meeting where the design of the project would be talked about, refined and revised.

The draft development permit application would then be reviewed to make sure the proposal followed the terms of the sale agreement with the city and also city development regulations.

In the fourth phase, the development application would be submitted and undergo environmental review.