Bainbridge Island gets a babysitter.
Explained: BI has been placed under HAA Selected Review. What does this mean for the Comp Plan and affordable housing?
Short Version:
Washington state law requires cities to ‘plan for and accommodate’ a diverse range of new homes affordable to households across a range of incomes.
BI is more than a year late in meeting those requirements, so the state has put us under a process called Selected Review.
This means that the Department of Commerce will hold our hand and guide (or drag) us into compliance with state law by June.
If we fail, we will be cut off from some state funds, be forced to approve any and all affordable housing projects, and likely be ridiculed by the rest of the state.
Long Version:
Last week the City of Bainbridge Island (COBI) was chosen by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) for Selected Review under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). This may sound fairly innocuous, but it could have big ramifications: for our access to state funds, for our ability to control what housing gets built on the island, and for our reputation throughout the state.
It is easy to get lost in all the jargon surrounding this stuff, so in this article I hope to provide an accessible explanation of the following:
Just to be transparent up-front: I have my own opinions about all this, but I’ll leave those for the final section. Everything in the first six sections simply describes the facts of the Selected Review process and what it means for Bainbridge Island.
Context
In 2021, Washington state passed HB1220, which requires cities to ‘plan for and accommodate’ types of housing which are affordable to families across the income spectrum1. Here on BI, this meant that we had until the end of 2024 to update our Comp Plan to make room for nearly 2,000 new homes by 2044, and to show how we will meet specific targets at different affordability levels:
Because several cities (including us) failed to meet their deadline2, last year’s Housing Accountability Act created a mechanism to enforce these requirements. It empowered Commerce to identify cities which are not in compliance with HB1220 and to place the worst offenders under Selected Review.
I’ll explain what that means below, but to put it simply: Olympia has hired a babysitter to grab us by the ear, drag us to the table and say “no allowance until you complete your HB1220 homework!“.
Why were we chosen?
Commerce picks up to 10 cities each year to place under Selected Review, using three key criteria:3
The city has failed to ‘plan for and accommodate’ its fair share of housing needs
(i.e. failed to meet the requirements described above)4The city is building at a slower rate than the rest of its county5
The city is building mostly single-family homes6
Reviewing these criteria, it is perhaps unsurprising that BI was chosen: we are more than a year overdue in passing a compliant Comp Plan, we’re building less than other cities in Kitsap County7, and SFHs make up more of our housing stock8.
What other cities were selected?
Eight cities were placed under Selected Review for 2026. Aside from BI, these are: Beaux Arts Village, Brier, Carnation, Darrington, DuPont, Gold Bar and Woodway.
Don’t be surprised if several of these names leave you scratching your head. Bainbridge is by far the largest of the bunch, with a population more than 2.5 times the second-largest (DuPont) and more than the seven other cities combined. It is therefore reasonable to expect that there will be significant attention paid (by Commerce and the media) to how we respond to this process.
What will the next six months look like for COBI?
As COBI scrambles to update the Comp Plan over the next six months, Commerce will be looking over our shoulder, providing helpful tips, and checking our work. Here’s what that will look like on a month-by-month basis:9
(Edit: On 2/17/26 Commerce presented to City Council and provided an updated timeline. The list below has been edited to reflect that intended timeline.)
13 Jan 2026: Commerce notified COBI that we had been placed under Selected Review and identified: which staff will be involved, all policies that require review under the HAA, and what support Commerce can provide.
Feb-Mar: Commerce reviews COBI materials & consults with local developers, identifies areas where we are not in compliance with state law.10
By April 30th:Commerce will notify COBI of areas where we are deficient and propose corrections. This starts a 120-day countdown within which we must address those deficiencies and prove our compliance.11
Next 120 days (May-Aug): COBI, the City Council, and the Planning Commission all work diligently to design and approve an updated Comp Plan, Winslow Subarea Plan, and all related policies.
June: COBI submits updated Comp Plan and development regulations for 60-day review by Commerce.
By end of August: COBI submits final materials and HAA checklists demonstrating that we are in compliance with state law.12
Sep-Nov: Commerce reviews those materials and makes determination as to whether we are in or out of compliance.
If we are found to be consistent with state law, the babysitter gives us a pat on the head, packs their bags and heads home. If not, then things get weird.
What happens if we fail to comply?
If Commerce declares us inconsistent with state law when the 120 days run out, two penalties kick in:
No more allowance: COBI gets cut off from a bunch of state grants and loans.13
Builder’s Remedy: COBI gets forced to approve certain categories of housing developments.14
Yes, you read those right.
The first consequence means that not only would we lose access to funds from future grants, but also several which have already been awarded to us. As one example, we would lose a grant of over $700,000 to improve aquifer recharge in Manzanita. Given the critical role of recharge in conserving our groundwater resources, forfeiting these funds would be a real loss.
Under the second consequence, COBI would be forced to approve certain types of affordable, workforce, or moderate-income housing developments15. Outside of a few specific exceptions, developers would be guaranteed to get their projects approved, regardless of their size16.
Sometimes called “the Builder’s Remedy”, this type of mechanism was pioneered in California as a tool to speed construction in communities that were failing to build enough housing.17 This has led to developers seeking permits for some truly wacky projects (see below). Closer to home, this rule would force COBI to approve the much-debated affordable housing project at 625 Winslow Way.
How is COBI responding?
COBI appears to recognize the urgency of the task ahead. In December, the outgoing City Council committed to a timeline of milestones, defined key roles, and directed the Planning Commission to focus only on policies which are essential to getting us into compliance. Newly-appointed Mayor Clarence Moriwaki stressed that “we understand the importance of meeting the state’s housing planning requirements, and… are working diligently to complete the update and meet our state mandated requirements”.
How should we respond?
This is where I take off my ‘friendly neighbor explaining things’ hat and put on my ‘annoying neighbor with opinions’ hat. If you’d prefer to draw your own conclusions, feel free to stop reading here.
So what should we make of all this? And how should we respond as a community?
My view is that we should treat Selected Review as a light reprimand for dragging our feet on getting our plans in order. Recent decisions by the Growth Management Hearings Board have shown that the state means business and will not hesitate to rule cities out of compliance if they do not make meaningful steps to enable housing construction. Thus, I think we should take seriously the risk of being ruled noncompliant.
Our reputation is also at stake here. It is worth noting that of the 8 cities placed under Selected Review this year, 7 have higher incomes than the state average, and 7 have whiter populations. BI is in the top 3 on both of these measures, placing us at serious risk of being accused of continuing the well-documented pattern of wealthy white communities using exclusionary (single-family) zoning to obstruct the construction of more affordable options like townhomes and apartments. Anecdotally, when Bainbridge Island and affordable housing are mentioned up the Peninsula and across the Sound, the response is often some variant of “elitist Bainbridge will never welcome affordable housing”. I would love it if we could prove them wrong.
So, we need to get serious about meeting our obligations to the rest of the state. By June, we need to pass plans which both a) make room for a variety of housing types, and b) meaningfully plan for how we’re going to get affordable housing built. Those green signs reading “Stop Winslow rezone” were all fun and games during election season, but they’re less exciting when the fine print is “and risk losing state funds and enabling the Builder’s Remedy”.
To the City Council: Resolution 2025-18 made a great commitment, but time is still tight. We can’t afford to get sidetracked by tempting but time-consuming errands like restarting the Winslow Subarea Plan or trying to convince Commerce that we are already in compliance with HB1220 and that it was an ‘unfunded mandate’ in the first place. We should also try to do more than just zoning for the bare minimum, or promising to subsidize the affordable units without the requisite funding. These approaches risk non-compliance and all its consequences.
To my fellow environmentalists: I share your concerns about water sustainability, and I’m sure we agree that the loss of funds for improving recharge in the Manzanita Watershed would be real shame. For the first half of 2026, let’s focus on encouraging COBI to get us into compliance on time.
To landowners who think that the Builder’s Remedy might be a chance to build your dream housing project, get in touch if you’d like to be connected to folks in the affordable housing sector.
To the community at large: the Planning Commission in particular has an absolutely monumental task ahead of them over the next six months. Remember that they are volunteering their time and professional skills to serve our community. Let’s try to offer them grace on the occasions where their recommendations don’t quite sit right.
To the Planning Commission: you’re doing great sweetie, keep it up. I do not envy you the task ahead.
(Steve Hoskins is an urban economist and affordable housing advocate who lives in Winslow. Come hear me talk about the Paradox of Progress & Poverty at the library on Feb 24!)
Or in the case of Mercer Island, finding sneaky ways to pretend to be in compliance.
Commerce prioritizes cities which have failed to meet the criteria in RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a)-(h), specifically by failing to pass voluntary review by Commerce.
Commerce uses OFM housing completions over the last 5 years of housing construction to identify cities which are building less than half as much as the rest of their county (adjusted by housing need allocation).
Commerce uses OFM housing completions over the last 5 years to pick cities where single-family homes (SFH) are more than 80% of all new homes built. Cities can reduce this number if they can show that some of their SFHs are built for households earning less than 120% of Area Median Income.
For the sake of clarity, we are building less per capita than Bremerton, Port Orchard and Poulsbo. Adjusting for housing needs rather than population, we are ahead of Bremerton but behind Port Orchard and Poulsbo.
While 8 in 10 of our existing homes are single-family (compared to 7 in Poulsbo and 6 in Bremerton), recent completions at Wintergreen and The Oliver have meant that single-family homes have been closer to half of all new construction since the pandemic.
Compliance is measured against the list of laws and regulations detailed in RCW 36.70A.835(7) and includes: the “plan for and accommodate” target from HB1220 and the housing element requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(2).
Commerce can extend this 120-day period with written agreement by COBI.
By submitting a cover letter, a copy of all ordinances which helped to address the deficiencies identified, a statement explaining how those materials comply with state housing laws, and all records from relevant public meetings held along the way. RCW 36.70A.835(5)(a).
Specifically, all funding will be halted from: the public works trust fund, the centennial clean water fund, the drinking water state revolving fund, all programs of the recreation and conservation office, all transportation improvement board funding, all predisaster mitigation grants, and all funding for water pollution control facilities. WAC 365-196-585(6).
They also cannot approve projects with restrictions that have a “substantial adverse impact” on the affordability or viability of the development. RCW 36.70A.835(11)(a).
Specifically, developments which guarantee at least 25 years where: (i) at least 20% of the units are affordable housing (meaning they are affordable to tenants earning 60% AMI or owner-occupiers earning 80% AMI); or (ii) at least half of the units are workforce housing (affordable to tenants earning 80% AMI or owner-occupiers earning 100% AMI); or (iii) all of the units are moderate-income housing (affordable to households earning 120% AMI). RCW 36.70A.835(11)(b)(i)-(iii)
These exceptions include: the project is in an area where housing is not permitted, the project is in a critical area, or where the project must be denied to comply with state or federal law. RCW 36.70A.835(11)(ii)-(iv).
Bainbridge has long been such a “rich people only” NIMBY area (no offense to the select few who are not such there), I am delighted to see some pressure to expand housing options.
Hello Stephen! I've been following the BI story for a few years now and appreciate your take on things. There was an interesting article in the NYT a few months back on builders remedy being used in California pretty successfully so that possible consequence caught my attention. I'd love to connect.