Council advances housing element, debates middle-housing rules, housing authority and liveaboard recognition

The Bainbridge Island City Council forwarded the draft Housing Element of the comprehensive plan to a future business meeting after extended questioning about funding gaps, targets and implementation tools.

Darren Buchanan, planning manager, reminded council the housing element is required under the Growth Management Act and noted updates to affordability targets, funding programs and policies intended to support diverse housing types while conserving land. He also told council the city is undergoing a Department of Commerce audit under the Housing Accountability Act and that Commerce staff will attend the June 16 council session virtually to answer questions.

Council member Nelson raised a packet appendix (Appendix F) that staff and a citizen had circulated showing a large local funding gap; Nelson asked staff to confirm the math and to return with written answers. "The gap in local funding of $24,000,312,811 dollars per year... I am sort of not sure where that number came from," Nelson said, urging staff to clarify pipeline assumptions and unit counts.

Council debated a set of policy motions: Council member Schneider put forward a community benefits incentive policy to allow additional height/FAR in exchange for deed-restricted affordable units or other benefits; some members supported the idea as a tool to incentivize affordable housing, while others said detailed bonus-density rules should be developed by the planning commission and not adopted on the fly during the comprehensive-plan process. After deliberation, council inserted policy-level direction on community benefits incentives and on developing a middle-housing code, and it clarified monitoring language so staff must track progress toward housing targets and consider modifications when shortfalls are identified.

Council also voted to "consider establishing" a city housing authority (or supporting development of an independent Bainbridge-specific housing authority) to access funding and provide capacity for larger affordable projects; the motion carried with one dissenting vote. Separately, Council member Schneider proposed drafting comp-plan language and a future resolution to make specific city-owned parcels available for long-term ground leases to nonprofit or mission-driven affordable housing developers; she agreed to work with the city attorney and staff to refine that language and return it for council review.

In an item that drew no dissent, the council unanimously asked staff to advocate to the state that water-based liveaboard housing be recognized as a legitimate form of housing and to be counted toward local housing inventory and affordability targets, noting other jurisdictions have begun similar conversations.

Several motions were procedural or editorial (word-smithing targets, restoring the word 'aspirational' to goal language to avoid implying binding numeric obligations), and the housing element was forwarded to a future business meeting for additional staff responses and possible adoption.