State agency explains next steps in BI’s housing review

Published 1:30 am Tuesday, February 24, 2026

Pencils down — it’s time for the city to hand in what it’s got.

At the Feb. 17 Bainbridge Island City Council study session, state Department of Commerce expert Laura Hodgson explained what it means that BI was selected for review by the state agency, and what will happen next.

The DOC selected BI for review of its non-compliant Comprehensive Plan in December, one of eight jurisdictions in the state to receive the notice. At a population of about 24,000, BI stands out on the list; none of the other municipalities — including Beaux Arts Village, Brier, Carnation, Darrington, DuPont, Gold Bar and Woodway — crack 10,000 residents, and five are home to less than 5,000 people.

City leaders took turns asking Hodgson some initial questions about the process, including how the city should approach zoning, water resources, and demand for different types of housing on the island.

Hodgson, who specializes in housing, planning and data, explained that the DOC chose Bainbridge because it met the state’s 2026 criteria for review: that by Jan. 1, 2025, the jurisdiction had “not planned for and accommodated its portion of the countywide housing need” — either because the city had not completed its Comp Plan, as in Bainbridge’s case, or because the plan wasn’t adequate.

“Our primary role is to work with staff. We can present on the requirement and our overall recommendations when we get to points where we have specific recommendations on next steps, but generally speaking, technical assistance — we work with staff because we want them to be able to work with you through these concerns and questions,” said Hodgson.

When council agreed to consultant Joe Tovar’s Comp Plan submission schedule in November, it set the city on track to finish the document by June 2026. But the DOC is on a different schedule, Hodgson said: by Feb. 28, the city must submit a copy of its 2024 Comp Plan to Commerce, finished or no; then by April 30, the agency will review it and notify the city of any amendments that must be made. In June, the city must resubmit its document to the DOC with edits, then adopt it by August. The DOC will make a final determination of whether the city has complied with state law by November.

“If a jurisdiction is found to be in non-compliance after that, […] there are a few consequences. They may not deny affordable or moderate-income housing development, they may not approve affordable or moderate-income projects with conditions that have a substantial or adverse impact on the project, and they may not be eligible for certain state grants and loans,” said Hodgson.

Falling out of compliance opens the door to the by-right affordable housing provision, a status in state law that requires cities to automatically green-light any developments that incorporate “affordable” or “workforce” housing units into the proposal, to various degrees, based on how discounted the housing is and how many units of the development are earmarked. A project can be built by-right if a fifth of the development is affordable to people making 60% of the Area Median Income, or if half the units are affordable to people making 80% AMI, or if the entire building is moderate income, or affordable for people making 120% AMI.

In order to be in compliance with state law, the city’s Comp Plan must align with housing land capacity requirements, density bonuses, parking requirements, and some emergency shelter and permanent supportive housing requirements. The state won’t require the plan to show key elements of development, like upgrades to sewer capacity and water distribution, available upfront, Hodgson added, but will look to make sure the city has long-range plans to accommodate those needs.

“If you don’t consider those things, you won’t see the housing,” she said.

Deputy mayor Kirsten Hytopoulos asked Hodgson to explain the difference between the state’s density requirements and land capacity requirements, and whether that meant the city’s housing need is greater than what has been allocated by the state. She asked if BI can demonstrate it can accommodate the housing units allocated to the 80% AMI income bracket, then does that mean there is no need to upzone some areas of the island?

“The capacity for housing has to be in a housing typology that is reasonably likely to support that affordability level. If all of your capacity is in single-family homes or middle housing, it cannot — by way of any universe I know of — support households making under 80% AMI for the majority of that housing, because subsidies are not provided on scale for that type of housing,” Hodgson responded. “If there is sufficient capacity of housing within typologies that could accommodate housing affordable to all, or at least to the lower income levels, which is where the gaps are in most communities, then there wouldn’t need to be a change in zoning, provided that you can have sufficient capacity of a typology that would match the number of units for that specific need. Now that being said, we do recommend that jurisdictions then evaluate what other tools are available to encourage that affordable housing to incentivize it, to reduce the barriers, but the main land capacity analysis finding needs enough of that typology to serve the housing needs at that income level.”

Hodgson confirmed that the city may continue to work on Tovar’s schedule while the DOC reviews its initial draft — “meeting or beating the deadline is fine,” she added.

Councilmember Leslie Schneider and Mayor Clarence Moriwaki asked Hodgson to clarify whether the city is required to take up recommendations from the DOC; not necessarily, Hodgson replied, but for any alternative suggestions the city may propose, it is required to “show its work” — particularly how housing capacity projections play out.

“Some of the requirements are showing your work that you’ve done an analysis and made a consideration about changing your policies and evaluating those barriers. But yes, a big portion of this work is the math,” said Hodgson.