JCC representatives say proposed code changes target their redevelopment; proponent denies targeting

Two representatives of the Strom Jewish Community Center spoke during public appearances at the Oct. 22, 2025 Mercer Island Planning Commission meeting and urged commissioners to reject several proposed docket items they said were targeted at the JCC.

Amy Lavin, the JCC’s CEO and a 38-year Mercer Island resident, described the JCC’s role on the island and urged the commission to oppose several docket items. "I'm Amy Lavin, and I live at 7835 Southeast 20 Second Place. I've lived on Mercer Island for 38 years," she said. Lavin told the commission the JCC "reaches nearly 30% of Mercer Island households" with programs and that proposed docket items 2, 3 and 4 — and potentially 5 — "appear to be targeted specifically at the J" and could impede the JCC’s redevelopment plans.

Jessica Clausen, a Mercer Island resident and land-use attorney representing the JCC, echoed Lavin’s concerns and cited the city’s docketing code. "The proposed change changes the way GFA is calculated on higher ceiling buildings, which would include the JCC," Clausen said; she also said the inclusion of language closely mirroring docket item 4 in a recent omnibus amendment raised procedural concerns under MIC 19.15.2.50.

Matthew Goldbach, who filed proposed amendments 2–4, told the commission he did not intend to target the JCC. "The amendments that I made are not targeted at the JCC," he said. Goldbach described his proposals as clarifications or minor wording changes intended to apply broadly to organizations and to ensure uses remain within the rules.

Chair Dan Thompson, who filed amendments 5–9, described the longer history behind the city’s docketing process and said some of his proposals predate the JCC’s redevelopment plans. Thompson explained that an annual docket for code amendments was implemented after an appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board and that some items — including ceiling-height and GFA calculations — have been raised repeatedly in past years.

What was requested: both Lavin and Clausen asked the planning commission to reject docket items 2–5. Clausen also asked the commission to review whether staff or the chair improperly included language in an omnibus ordinance in a way that circumvented required public process.

Commission response and context: commissioners discussed zoning distinctions, the role of conditional-use permits, and whether the proposed language would affect properties already on residentially zoned lots (the JCC’s property is on a residential designation). Several commissioners said the language being proposed applies to town-center or commercial properties rather than to conditional-use properties that are themselves residentially zoned. Staff and commissioners noted past docket history and said some of the issues raised would be considered as part of larger residential development standards work already on the city’s multi-year work plan.

Next steps: the commission voted on each docket item individually; most of the contested items were not advanced to the council docket. The JCC and other stakeholders will have the opportunity to review and comment on any future code amendments when the council and staff take up the items or when the city’s residential development standards and middle-housing work resumes.