Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bainbridge council debates plan changes after Department of Commerce flags gaps; directs planning commission on affordable housing, bonuses and funding analysis
Summary
Following a Department of Commerce review that flagged deficiencies in the draft comprehensive/housing element, the council directed planning staff and advisory committees to add a funding-gap/subsidy analysis, asked the Race Equity advisory committee to review potential disparate impacts, created a 100% affordable housing bonus overlay for Winslow sewer service area, and capped Winslow bonus FAR at 2.5 in the preferred alternative.
The Bainbridge Island City Council spent the bulk of its April 21 study session debating how to respond after the Department of Commerce said the city's housing element and development regulations did not yet demonstrate sufficient capacity for housing at all income levels.
The Commerce letter cited several items where changes are needed. Council members and members of the planning commission disagreed about how staff handled the draft and whether staff-added alternatives were consistent with the planning commission's recommendations.
Several motions were made and passed that direct staff and advisory committees to close the gaps Commerce identified. Among the actions the council adopted:
- Direct staff (with the city attorney) to include in the preferred alternative a discussion of subsidies and funding that should "include" the total number of housing units requiring subsidies, estimated total subsidy cost, a review of funding tools the city uses, and gaps in local funding. Council set a return date for that work of May 12.
- Request that the Race Equity Advisory Committee convene (or assign) a review, working with city staff and the city's equity officer, to evaluate local policies and regulations for potential racially disparate impacts, displacement, or exclusion of marginalized groups and to produce findings suitable for inclusion in the plan appendix.
- Direct planning staff to develop an affordable housing overlay for the Winslow Sewer Service Area that would offer a maximum bonus density for projects that are 100% affordable. That motion passed unanimously.
- Reduce the maximum proposed bonus floor area ratio (FAR) in the Winslow Town Center to 2.5 FAR (the council voted unanimously in favor), down from larger bonus levels proposed in the draft submitted to Commerce. Councilmembers said this preserves a sizeable incentive while avoiding what some described as an excessive jump in massing in core areas.
Council debate was intense and at times sharply procedural: several council members objected to staff's insertion of a 1.0 base FAR alternative in certain zones that planning commissioners had not recommended; others urged the council to move quickly to close capacity and affordability gaps because the region faces an urgent housing need.
Legal and process context: The city attorney explained that Commerce issues a compliance determination after plan submission; the city can appeal Commerce's determination to the Growth Management Hearing Board, and Commerce or third parties can challenge compliance decisions. The Commerce letter means the city is expected to amend its housing element and regulations to address specific deficiencies and then receive a Commerce compliance finding.
Why it matters: The council needs to show, in the land-capacity analysis and in the preferred alternative, credible capacity for housing at different income levels and a plan to fund the subsidy portion of the allocation identified for affordable housing. The motions passed on April 21 direct staff and advisory committees to compile that information and provide it to the council in the sequence Commerce expects.
What happens next: Staff will return with the subsidy/funding-gap analysis and planning materials for May 12; the planning commission will receive the council's direction and will incorporate the council's motions into their preferred alternative and public hearing materials as feasible. The council also asked the city attorney to consult with Commerce about whether Bainbridge's critical-area and sole-source-aquifer designations affect remedies available under the Housing Accountability Act.
(Reporting note: this article summarizes motions and votes recorded in the official meeting transcript; direct quotes in the record are attributed to the speakers who made them.)
