City Council Agenda 2026-02-17
CITY GOVERNMENTOPINION
The Mercer Island City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 17, 2026 at the Mercer Island Community and Event Center. As always, the public is welcome to attend. You can register to make comments, virtually or in person, by sending an email to cityclerk@mercerisland.gov.
This meeting, and many of the meetings over the next few months, are critical for our community. We will be continuing the process of deciding how to respond to the adverse decision in the Futurewise appeal of our Comprehensive Plan to the Groiwth Management Hearings Board. As a result of this decision and recent changes in state law we will be forced to make changes to our land use plans that will have dramatic impact on the Island. Among the more notable impacts:
We will be forced to make concrete changes to our plans so as to credibly facilitate 1,207 units of affordable housing, 517 of which must be affordable to households earnings less than 30% of Area Median Income.
A large section of the north part of the Island, including areas that are currently largely or entirely single family homes, will be required to allow housing construction with a Floor Area Ratio of at least 3.5 (likely resulting in building heights of 5+ floors) and no parking requirements.
Some of us may like these changes. Others will not. But these changes are forced upon us by the state, and there is no doubt that implementation will dramatically impact the feel of the Island. While we have to comply with state law, we have some flexibility in the details. On Tuesday we will be making some key concrete decisions on these details.
The full agenda can be found here. My summary is available at the links below. If you have time for nothing else, please read the summary below of Agenda Bill 6865. It is lengthy, but it is important.
AB 6865: Compliance with Growth Management Hearings Board Final Decision and Order Related to the City of Mercer Island Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan
AB 6866: GMA Compliance Public Engagement Plan
AB 6871: Legislative Review Alternatives to Help City Meet GMHB Order Compliance Deadline (Ordinance No. 26C-03 First Reading)
AB 6865: Compliance with Growth Management Hearings Board Final Decision and Order Related to the City of Mercer Island Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan
Decisions the city makes over the next few months have the potential to greatly impact the character, density, and housing mix of Mercer Island in almost unprecedented ways. The issues Council will grapple with are challenging, and, whatever happens, not everyone will be happy. HB 6865 is an important first step in this process. Some may not like what needs to be done. And irrespective of goals and vision for the city, I am not sure anyone on staff or the Council likes this being forced upon us or the pace at which it is happening, but it is the hand we were dealt.
What Is AB 6865 About?
AB 6865 addresses Mercer Island's response to a ruling that requires changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan—the long-range document that guides housing, transportation, and growth decisions.
In short: the City must make updates to how it plans for housing, especially affordable housing, and must do so by July 31, 2026 to comply with state law.
Why Is This Happening?
In November 2024, Mercer Island adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan, as required every ten years under Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA). After adoption, a third party appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB)—a state body that reviews whether local plans comply with state growth laws.
In August 2025, the GMHB issued a final decision finding that Mercer Island’s plan did not fully comply with state requirements related to affordable housing. The Board sent the plan back to the City (called a “remand”) with instructions to fix specific issues. The existing plan stays in effect during this process, but the City must make corrections by July 31, 2026, or face severe penalties.
What Did the State Say the City Must Fix?
The GMHB identified four areas where changes are required:
Housing Capacity
The City must clearly show it has enough land zoned to meet housing needs at different income levels, especially affordable housing, including providing 1,207 units of affordable housing, 517 of which must be affordable to those earning less than 30% of area (King County) median income.Affordable Housing Actions
The City must adopt concrete steps—such as incentives or requirements—that will actually increase affordable housing. Simply allowing such housing to exist is not suffiicent. We need a plan that will actually plausibly lead to such housing being built.Station Area Plan
The City must adopt a specific plan for more dense land uses around the light-rail station. We have some very limited flexibility in exactly what areas are included, but, one way or the other, large parts of the north end of the Island will be included.Anti-Displacement Measures
The City must include policies to reduce the risk that new development pushes existing residents out.
What Is the City Proposing to Do Now?
City staff are recommending a focused, phased approach, called “Scenario 1.” The goal is to meet state requirements on time while keeping changes targeted and manageable.
Under Scenario 1:
Near-term zoning changes would be limited to the existing Town Center and nearby multifamily areas, rather than expanding density across all neighborhoods right now.
These areas already have infrastructure and services that support higher density.
Additional housing capacity needed to meet state requirements would be addressed primarily in these locations.
What About the Light-Rail Station Area?
As part of this work, staff have prepared a preliminary map defining the station area around the light-rail stop. The proposed boundary was adjusted consistent with limited flexibility afforded by state guidelines—some areas were removed, while others were added. Density, parking, and height limit requirements in this area will change dramatically—including areas that are dominated by single family homes. The staff recommended light rail subarea is shown below.
AB 6865 proposes a public comment period through March 13, 2026, so residents can review the map and provide feedback before the City Council considers next steps.
What Decisions Is the City Council Being Asked to Make?
AB 6865 asks the City Council to:
Direct staff to move forward with Scenario 1, focusing near-term zoning changes in the Town Center and adjacent multifamily areas.
Open a public feedback period on the proposed station area boundary and review community input in March 2026.
Why This Matters to Residents
This process will shape where housing can be built, how affordable housing is encouraged, and how growth is managed near transit. While the changes are driven by state law, the City retains some discretion over how to comply—and AB 6865 represents an early step in deciding that path.
More public engagement opportunities are planned as specific proposals are developed.
AB 6866: GMA Compliance Public Engagement Plan
Per Council direction from a prior meeting, staff came up with a public engagement plan related to the GMHB decision. There are a huge number of important decisions to be made in the next few months. It will be fast and furious. The community will need to stay informed and aware and involved.
Standard opportunities to comment will include:
Notice of application posted onsite and mailed to property owners within 300 feet
SEPA Notice of Decision and public comment period
Public comment at Planning Commission meeting
Public hearing notice at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing.
Public comment at Planning Commission public hearing
Public comment at City Council meetings throughout the process
In addition, the city will maintain a webpage as the source of all related documents and the place to go to provide comment. .
Staff are also proposing at least two public information meetings.
I suspect we will hear a lot from the community.
AB 6871: Legislative Review Alternatives to Help City Meet GMHB Order Compliance Deadline (Ordinance No. 26C-03 First Reading)
To complete the huge volume of work required in a short window of time due to the GMHB decision, the Council will be considering alternatives to speed up the process. Staff presented three alternatives for Council consideration.
(1) Form a Council Committee of three people to Serve as the “Planning Agency” for the City to take over the responsibility for the legislative review from the Planning Commission.
(2) Continue with the normal process, giving the planning commission clear direction and tight deadlines.
(3) Delegate authority for unrelated site-specific rezones to the Hearing Examiner to clear the Planning Commission agenda to better allow them to take on this work.
The city manager is recommending options (2) and (3).