Mercer Island planning commission advances station‑area plan, hears strong public opposition to supportive housing

Mercer Island Planning Commission members on June 3 heard a staff briefing on proposed amendments to the city’s comprehensive plan, a station sub area plan and implementing development‑code changes being advanced to comply with the state Growth Management Act and a recent Growth Management Hearings Board order. Principal Planner Adam Zach described zoning changes that would add development capacity in the town center and adjacent multifamily zones, proposed inclusionary zoning and a fee‑in‑lieu option to fund extremely low‑income housing, and a schedule intended to meet the hearings‑board compliance deadline of July 31.

The planning commission approved a motion to incorporate the staff’s non‑substantive edits into the draft documents and continued the public hearing to June 10 so commissioners can complete their recommendation to the city council. Commissioners also voted to ask staff for clarifying amendments to the code’s daylight‑plane standard — a technical rule they said needs clearer wording so the new eight‑story town‑center height is buildable — and adopted staff language directing the city to develop Phase‑2 design and transition standards to increase compatibility where higher‑density uses meet lower‑density neighborhoods.

Zoning changes outlined by staff would raise the maximum building height in the town center to eight stories and allow up to six stories in adjacent multifamily zones. Staff proposed an inclusionary requirement that 10 percent of new units in the affected subzones be affordable at 50 percent of the area median income, and a fee‑in‑lieu option allowing developers to pay a fee instead of providing the required affordable units; the fee amount would be set later by city‑council resolution.

“Tonight I’m presenting amendments to the comprehensive plan, a proposed station‑area sub‑plan and the implementing development code amendments,” Adam Zach told the commission, framing the package as staff’s path to meet the hearings board’s direction on land‑capacity and “adequate provisions” for affordable housing. He noted the hearings board had directed the city to revisit land‑capacity analysis, adopt a station sub area plan and add anti‑displacement measures.

The hearing drew a lengthy public comment period dominated by residents who opposed locating permanent supportive housing (PSH) near schools and in neighborhoods where they live. “I did not realize that one of these places was around Northwood,” said Terresa Savage, a Mercer Island resident and violin teacher, who said children in her area would be exposed and asked that such housing instead be located on the south end of the island. David Clinghoffer said the “178 planned units of permanent supportive housing” he had heard about would likely be sited on the north end and warned that similar developments have been followed by visible street impacts in other cities.

Several other residents described fear, loss of a sense of safety and concerns about state mandates. “My son now fears living on the island,” Diana Malikotti said, describing how the possibility of PSH nearby has affected her child. Barbara Sternoff, a 58‑year resident, said she felt state law had imposed a “one‑size‑fits‑all” solution on Mercer Island and urged stronger local authority.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted the limits on the city’s discretion imposed by state law. City Attorney Kim Roberts cautioned the commission that new substantive material needs time for public review before it is considered at a continued public hearing. Several commissioners said they did not want to reopen settled council debate on large policy items but wanted limited, technical clarifications that would let the 8‑story standard function with code‑based daylight‑plane rules.

A series of motions recorded several outcomes: approval of the May 27, 2026 minutes (unanimous), adoption of non‑substantive edits listed in PCB 2607 (unanimous), a motion asking staff to clarify the daylight‑plane code language for the June 10 packet (passed 4–1), a failed proposal to reduce minimum unit sizes for affordable units (main motion failed on final vote), and formal adoption of staff language to add Phase‑2 design‑and‑transition standards (unanimous). A separate motion to add cannabis dispensaries to certain town‑center subzones failed for lack of a second.

Adam Zach told the commission he will include appended technical analyses — including the land‑capacity analysis used to show how Phase‑1 changes address assigned housing needs — in the June 10 packet. If the commission finalizes its recommendation at that continued hearing, the commission’s recommendation would be forwarded to the city council (briefing expected June 16) and the council’s first reading of ordinances is planned for July 8 as staff works to meet the July 31 hearings‑board compliance deadline.

The public‑hearing record and supporting materials (including the staff reports, land‑capacity analysis and related studies) are posted on the project “Let’s Talk” page on the city’s website. The commission continued the hearing to 6 p.m. on June 10; the council is scheduled to consider the ordinances in July.