Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Capacity And Commerce topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Steering committee seeks clarity from Commerce on housing report, moves to proceed with '4‑6' capacity analysis
Summary
Bainbridge Island's planning steering committee asked the state Commerce office to clarify how its Housing Accountability Act memo counts housing capacity and funding, emphasized that funding — not land capacity — is the primary barrier to producing deep-affordability units, and proposed staff prepare a concise game plan and questions for Commerce. One motion to proceed with the Planning Commission's "4-6" analysis was made; no formal vote was recorded.
The Bainbridge Island planning steering committee spent much of its meeting focused on a 20-page preliminary report from the Washington State Department of Commerce tied to the Housing Accountability Act and on several recent council motions that staff said could affect the planning commission's work.
Chair (Speaker 1) opened the meeting by flagging two substantive items: "we have 9 motions from a city councilor that we'd like to discuss," and the Commerce memo with "12 succinct required actions" that will require staff work and clarifications from the commission. The chair said staff would like the planning commission to complete its comprehensive-plan review, hold required public hearings and then forward a consolidated package to council to reduce confusing back-and-forth.
Leslie (Speaker 3), who reviewed the Commerce materials closely, told the group she had "literally took the language from it," and urged the committee to be explicit about which parts of the draft plan and code the Commerce letter was addressing. Staff (Speaker 7) and commissioners repeatedly sought clarity about whether Commerce's capacity conclusions were based on the commission's preferred alternative, on a specific base-FAR scenario, or on another alternative — a detail that matters for how the city documents capacity in the housing element.
Several commissioners flagged that the key constraint to producing units affordable at 80% of area median income or below is not land or zoning capacity but funding. "The only thing in our way is funding," said Mike (Speaker 6), summarizing a recurring theme in the discussion: the city can create development capacity through FAR and bonus programs, but without subsidy or other funding tools those units are unlikely to be delivered as deeply affordable housing.
The committee discussed specific program mechanics. Peter (Speaker 8) clarified a provision as drafted for Winslow Town Center: a 100% affordable project meeting the stated AMI thresholds would be eligible for the maximum bonus FAR; in some situations additional stories could be allowed without under‑building parking. Commissioners debated whether Commerce will accept voluntary bonus programs (with assumed participation) in the LCA or whether Commerce requires firm projects or explicit subsidy commitments to count bonus capacity.
Staff and commissioners proposed concrete next steps: Jennifer (referenced by Chair) was asked to assemble a game plan that maps Commerce's requests to the city's likely responses (what applies, level of effort, timing). The committee asked staff to prepare a short list of focused questions for Commerce and to invite Commerce to a joint meeting with council so staff and electeds can get direct guidance on what documentation will be accepted for the city's capacity and gap analyses.
A motion was made by Speaker 5: "I move to proceed with Planning Commission's 4 6 analysis." The transcript records the motion at the steering committee meeting but no formal second or vote appears in the meeting record; staff reported they will need additional variables clarified before running an updated capacity analysis.
Next steps noted at the end of the meeting included: staff to prepare Commerce questions in clear staff language, staff to provide the game-plan table for committee review, and staff to coordinate a Commerce meeting for committee and council. The committee also discussed scheduling an additional session around early June to continue the work.
What happens next: staff will prepare the game-plan table and Commerce questions, seek a meeting with Commerce (and, if appropriate, present Commerce to council), and return with clarified capacity‑analysis parameters (base FAR and bonus FAR assumptions) so the city can complete the technical gap analysis Commerce requests.
