Comprehensive Plans’ Housing Elements Under Increased Scrutiny

Affordable housing has been a major issue facing Washington State communities for several years. In response, the Washington State Legislature has advanced several significant housing-related bills over the past few years that have been signed into law. One new law added additional requirements to the Growth Management Act (GMA) regarding what is required of the housing element within a local comprehensive plan.

Several local governments have either recently updated their housing elements or may be in the process of doing so as part of state-mandated updates to their local comprehensive plans and associated development regulations, which need to be conducted every 10 years.

After the City of Mercer Island and Kitsap County recently adopted their local comprehensive plans, appeals were filed against those plans and associated development regulations. The Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB), a state entity that hears and decides claims that a city, county, or state agency has not complied with the GMA’s goals and requirements, issued two decisions in early August 2025, indicating that those jurisdictions did not comply with some of the GMA’s housing-related requirements.

The purpose of this blog is to summarize the GMHB decisions and highlight where local governments may wish to review their housing elements and associated development regulations (regardless of whether these have been adopted or are in development).

The GMA, Housing Elements, and the GMHB Process

The GMA is a series of state statutes (primarily codified under Chapter 36.70A RCW) that require fast-growing cities and counties to develop a comprehensive plan to manage their population growth. The mandated comprehensive plan must contain several mandatory chapters, or “elements,” one of which is the housing element (see RCW 36.70A.070(2) for a description of what must be included in a local government’s housing element).

HB 1220 was signed into law in 2021, adding new standards for the housing element. These standards broadened a local government’s obligation to now “plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all economic segments of the population of this state” (versus the old standard of encouraging “the availability of affordable housing”).

State law related to housing elements now places the following requirements on GMA-planning jurisdictions:

• An inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth as provided by the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce).
• A statement of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including single family residences, and within an urban growth area boundary, moderate density housing options including (but not limited to) duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes.
• Identification of sufficient land for housing that includes government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, housing for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households; manufactured housing, multi-family housing, group homes and foster care facilities; emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing, and, within an urban growth area boundary, consideration of duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes.
• Adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community, including:
  • Incorporating consideration for low, very low, extremely low, and moderate-income households;
  • Documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability, including gaps in local funding, barriers such as development regulations, and other limitations;
  • Consideration of housing locations in relation to employment location; and
  • Consideration of the role of accessory dwelling units in meeting housing needs.
• Identification of local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing, and the implementation of policies and regulations to address and undo such impacts.
• Identification of areas that may be at higher risk of displacement and the implementation of anti-displacement policies.

On the procedural side, the GMA provides for an appeal process by which an aggrieved party may appeal a GMA-related legislative action by a city or county by filing a petition for review to the GMHB. (More details may be found in the GMHB Handbook.)

Summary of Recent GMHB Decisions

Futurewise, a statewide advocacy group that monitors the GMA-related activities/actions of Washington local governments and brings legal actions against those it believes are not acting consistently with the statute, filed appeals along with other petitioners in early 2025 with the GMHB, challenging actions taken by the City of Mercer Island and Kitsap County to adopt their individual comprehensive plans and development regulations. Decisions on both cases were issued by the GMHB in early August 2025. 

Mercer Island

The GMHB’s key findings in the Futurewise v. Mercer Island case are that the city did not:

• Identify sufficient land capacity for permanent housing;
• Make adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments;
• Adopt adequate anti-displacement measures; and
• Adopt a subarea plan for the light rail transit (LRT) station area.

One of the major takeaways from the Mercer Island decision is that a city must take action to make “adequate provision” for housing all economic segments through both its comprehensive plan and its development regulations by the statutory deadline (which was December 31, 2024, for Mercer Island) and not five years later when a mandated implementation progress report is due.

Two other significant takeaways: Jurisdictions need to acknowledge that land capacity alone, without subsidies, is insufficient to address housing needs, and that it is not enough to rely on potential and speculative future incentives and subsidies for accommodating affordable housing at all income levels.

In addition, it is advisable for the identification of the existing and projected housing needs to be broken down into the different income categories (such as moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households) rather than being aggregated into a broader “low-moderate income” category, in order to clearly identify which future housing units will need to be subsidized.

The GHMB’s Mercer Island decision also emphasizes the importance of local comprehensive plan needing to be consistent with countywide planning policies (CPPs) as well as with multi-county planning policies (MPPs) for jurisdictions located within the Puget Sound Regional Council’s purview.

The GMHB gave Mercer Island one year to come into compliance with its decision (instead of the typical 180 days), due to the scope and complexity of the issues involved.

Kitsap County

The key housing-related finding of the Futurewise v. Kitsap County decision is as follows:

The County’s Comprehensive Plan failed to identify sufficient capacity of land for housing for all income groups and make adequate provisions for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community, in particular for the low, very low, extremely low, and moderate-income levels of the County. This creates an internal inconsistency and violates the countywide planning policies

There were other issues raised by Futurewise in the Kitsap County challenge, but this blog focuses on the housing-element-related issues addressed in the GMHB’s decision. The GMHB gave Kitsap County until February 4, 2026, to file a compliance report.

More details are available within the actual GMHB decisions for the Mercer Island and Kitsap County cases.

Some Initial Considerations for Local Housing Elements

Commerce is currently determining what updates are needed to its current guidance documents due to those two GMHB decisions. In the meantime, Commerce recommends a local housing element:

• Identifies sufficient land capacity for all housing;
• Identifies barriers to affordable housing and list local actions needed to address these barriers (“adequate provisions”);
• Provides an analysis of the number of housing units that need subsidies or incentives and the funds required for these units; and
• Identifies potential funding sources for housing needs.

Additionally, Commerce recommends that the development regulations adopted with periodic update:

• Make zoning changes to ensure capacity for all housing needs, and
• Make regulatory changes to address listed housing barriers.

Other takeaways from the recent GMHB decisions include:

• Make sure you comply with all applicable countywide planning policies. In the Mercer Island decision, the GMHB ruled in favor of the city on 10 out of 11 CPP-related challenges.
• Conduct the necessary studies and background research and be sure to document how these relate to your comprehensive plan’s policies and proposed development regulations.
• Work closely with your jurisdiction’s attorney/legal counsel when updating your comprehensive plan and development regulations.

Conclusion

Washington local governments are being asked to do more than ever before to address difficult affordable housing issues arising in many parts of the state. This situation has caused increased public scrutiny on how jurisdictions are tackling these challenges when updating their comprehensive plans and associated development regulations, including some legal challenges.

Although the Mercer Island decision is pending during judicial review, and the outcome of the appeal is uncertain, it would nevertheless be prudent for local governments to review their housing elements and consider whether some revisions may be in order in light of the detailed findings within the GMHB decisions.

For more information, please see Commerce’s Updating GMA Housing Elements webpage and MRSC’s Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Planning webpages.