Bethany Lutheran Church affordable housing project with Kent Scott and Joe McMillan

Today we welcome: Kent Scott & Joe McMillan

We discuss the current proposal from Bethany Lutheran Church to give land for the purpose of providing affordable housing to the city of Bainbridge Island.

Here is a sample of a letter addressed to the City of Bainbridge Island & the Planning Commission, as well as others in our community:

 

      With respect to the Bethany Lutheran proposal and the draft ordinance that we understand you will be presenting to the City Council, we think it important to make a few observations that we hope will inform your approach and your presentation at the City Council meeting on July 26:

 

• First, the Council should be informed that COBI is already in compliance with the Washington State statute that seems to have prompted the recent activity around the Bethany Lutheran proposal and the perceived need for a new city ordinance.  The key language from the Washington statute, RCW 36.70A.545, purporting to impose an obligation on cities and counties is as follows:

 

Increased density bonus for affordable housing located on property owned by a religious organization.

(1) Any city or county fully planning under this chapter [the GMA] must allow an increased density bonus consistent with local needs for any affordable housing development of any single-family or multifamily residence located on real property owned or controlled by a religious organization . . . .

 

• COBI already has such an ordinance.  Specifically, BIMC 18.21.030 (Optional residential density bonus for affordable housing) provides up to a 50% density bonus for both rental and “for-purchase” affordable housing, “when each of the additional units is provided for households whose incomes are at or below low income.”  Thus, the Council should not be led to believe that it must enact a new ordinance in order to satisfy a new statutory requirement.  That conclusion is bolstered by the language in RCW 36.70A.545 that any action by the city or county be “consistent with local needs,” which leaves a significant measure of discretion to local authorities, as “local needs” is undefined by the statute.  In our case, we do not believe “local needs” require the construction of a high-density housing development in an R-0.4 zone that is part of the Conservation Area under our current Comprehensive Plan.  Moreover, we understand that Bainbridge is on track to accommodate the population growth that it is required to plan for under the Growth Management Act (“GMA”), based on its existing zoning scheme.  In other words, no up-zoning of the sort required by the Bethany Lutheran proposal is needed to fulfill our obligations under the GMA.  
• In addition, our existing density bonus provision (BIMC 18.21.030) has the significant advantage of being neutral with respect to the secular vs. non-secular character of the property owner.  Thus, it avoids the serious Establishment Clause issues associated with any new ordinance based on RCW 36.70A.545.  As you may know, COBI has already received several letters from a national non-profit organization, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (“AU”), warning that implementation of RCW 36.70A.545 would violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution and may trigger litigation.  We hope that COBI will act prudently to avoid the needless and wasteful expense associated with such a challenge.  The April 28, 2022, letter from AU to COBI is attached for your reference.  We encourage you to consult with the City Attorney regarding that issue before presenting any draft ordinance based on RCW 36.70A.545 to the City Council.
• In discussions at the Planning Commission and the City Council earlier this year regarding a possible density bonus for the Bethany Lutheran property, one of the first steps in assessing what would be appropriate has been to determine what the existing permissible Density for the property is under the current Code.  In this regard, we think there have been some positions advanced that are inaccurate, e.g., the claim advanced by the current Chair of the Planning Commission (at the 6/7/22 Study Session of the City Council) that the Code currently permits a Density of 12 residences on the 8.43 acres at issue (which are split into two separate parcels). 
• That calculation of 12 residences is predicated on what we believe are at least two separate errors in interpreting the Code.  First, it ignores the fact that the north parcel (comprising slightly more than half of the total 8.43 acres owned by Bethany Lutheran) is already fully developed, containing a large church building, a meeting hal