Comprehensive Plan GMA Compliance

Yes - higher density, particularly in town center and walking distance of light rail, but also possibly at the south-end center (this is closer to my back yard, and I say Yes here too).
Yes - remove / loosen zoning restrictions and permitting procedures so more housing can be built, faster and less expensive
Yes - mitigate real, quantifiable impact to those who live in affected areas, for example with sidewalks, public parking, and shuttle services connecting to light rail station - I don't need to park if I can walk to a frequent shuttle.
Yes - take the opportunity to make town center and the rest of the city work better for more people
Yes - anticipate the challenges of increased density and make plans to solve them, rather than dragging feet.
Yes - thank you to the council and to city staff for looking ahead and making this work as well as it can
Yes - this is more than "compliance" - it's doing the right thing.

With Washington State’s passage of HB 2266, Mercer Island should act decisively to adopt a comprehensive, legally, enforceable plan specific to the distinctive character of Mercer Island that ensures safety, security, privacy, and environmental stewardship for all residents—both permanent and transitory. This includes clear standards for waste management, infrastructure/residential safety and protection, and ongoing monitoring and enforcement across all housing, as the City advances its comprehensive plan under the Growth Management Act.

The City Council should lead an urgent, coordinated effort across all departments to align housing with infrastructure capacity, public safety, environmental protection, and emergency preparedness (including water, food access, and waste systems). This effort should incorporate meaningful neighborhood input recognizing the Island’s distinct geography and environmental character, as the City advances its plan under the Growth Management Act.

Washington State must also provide dedicated funding and partnership support to ensure implementation is effective, equitable, and sustainable. Thank you for the updates and allowing for feedback.

I live in an area of upper luther burbank slated to allow multifamily complexes by 2029. No one in our neighborhood wants to see our way of live ruined by this poorly conceived mandate from the state. The area has no sidewalks and has narrow roads incapable of the traffic that such complexes would bring to the area, especially without any parking requirements. Please conduct a parking study for the upper luther burbank area as the relevant state statute specifically allows areas to be opted out of the multifamily requirement where it can be shown safety for pedestrians, cyclists and others will be negatively affected by the zoning change. Do everything you can to avoid needless pedestrian injuries and deaths in our area.

I live in the neighborhood just west of Upper Luther Burbank Park, now designated in the Phase 2 upzone under HB 1491's TOD requirements.

Our neighborhood has unique physical and community characteristics that require careful consideration as the City moves forward with upzoning:
1. Our streets are extremely narrow — most are one-way — with no physical space to accommodate additional on-street parking.
2. 84th Avenue, our main corridor, has no sidewalk, meaning pedestrians — including children and seniors — share the road with vehicles daily.
3. Allowing new properties to be built without parking requirements will force more vehicles onto already tight, one-way streets, increasing congestion and creating serious safety hazards.
4. Reduced visibility at intersections caused by illegally or haphazardly parked vehicles will put pedestrians at significant risk, particularly children and seniors who regularly walk these streets.

We appreciate the hard work of the City Council and City Staff in navigating state compliance requirements, and we understand that upzoning under HB 1491 is not optional.

Our specific request: Please commit to conducting a formal parking study for our neighborhood once the state guidelines under HB 1491 are finalized. The unique conditions of our streets deserve careful, data-driven analysis before development decisions are made.

I believe Sound Transit owns the parking garage at the Mercer Island Park and Ride. If you haven't already considered this, it would seem like a good idea to strike a deal with Sound Transit to allow and encourage a developer to build an apartment complex above that parking structure to help meet the density/affordable housing requirements that the state is imposing.

I am in support of the GMHB and the GMA mandate which requires increased housing, including Affordable Housing, in the Mercer Island Town Center. . It is also very important for the MI community to be in compliance with the GMA in order to receive funding from the government. It also allows for a realistic revitalization of the Town Center and contains the growth and density in the TC rather than expanding into the single family residential neighborhoods.

The GMHB decision seems to be in compliance with the GMA and affordable housing requirements. The subarea plan will keep the higher density housing and affordable housing within a 1/2 mile radius of the transit station. This will contain the growth and improve the vitality and interest in the downtown area.

I think the City of Mercer Island is finally headed in a good direction that will lead to redevelopment of the aging portions of the city Center. I believe that the 1/2 mile subarea boundary shown in the slides during the public meeting on March 10th was determined appropriately and meets the intent of the GMHB Order.

Luther Burbank Park is an important amenity, benefitting all Islanders and beyond. I hope that the Station Area Subarea does not infringe on this or on any local parks.

Compliance is challenging. However, the underlying aim - to increase affordable housing in the area - is important.

First off, I want to say that I am very happy with the outreach that the City is trying to provide regarding these significant changes. I especially appreciate the slides being posted - great job on that by our City Manager and her staff!

As regards the change from the baseline station area to the preliminary modified station area, I agree with removing parks, open spaces, and the I-90 corridor, and no one can fault our city for that. I do not agree, however, with extending the zone arbitrarily to line up with roads or other straight features. If a parcel is accessible by less than 0.5 miles on foot, then it should be in; if it is not, then it should be excluded. That is the law and there is no need to exceed it. Better yet, let the subarea lines follow the 1/2 mile walking distance, independent of parcel boundaries - we already have parcels that are split-zoned on Mercer Island and code specifying how to handle those situations. Peoples' quality of life will eventually change within the zone away from a low density primarily single-family neighborhood (aligned with our City's vision statement) to a denser, busier, environment. Many moved away from larger cities for the former. Additionally, there may be financial damages imposed on those within a possible zone but beyond 0.5 miles walking. The land will become more valuable to developers, and because land must be assessed at its highest and best use, it can reasonably be expected that property assessments and consequently property taxes will increase for those members of the community.

I also would question the methodology of determining the baseline station area, specifically in the SE portion of the area.

Case in point: SE 30th Pl. 8225, at the west end of the cul-de-sac, is inside the preliminary area, but 8253, 2 parcels to the east, is out of the area. Google maps pegs 8225 as a 0.6 mile walk:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.5878212,-122.2320465/47.5831365,-122.2289877/@47.5846319,-122.22991,381m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Case 2: SE 31st St. 8255 is in the boundary and 8356 is out. It appears the analysis again assumed one could approach 8255 from the west, which is not possible - there is a steep wooded hill with no paths that I am aware of. Any access on foot must be from the east. Google maps walking put it at 0.7 miles from the east edge of the Light Rail Station per the link below:

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.5878212,-122.2320465/47.5822589,-122.2289752/@47.5850075,-122.2346089,1526m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!4m1!3e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Even to reach 3057 31st St, google maps quotes as being a 0.6 mile walk.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.5878212,-122.2320465/3057+SE+31st+St,+Mercer+Island,+WA+98040/@47.585069,-122.232034,763m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x54906bb8bed10cb9:0x3c95479437e2ac46!2m2!1d-122.2271318!2d47.582472!3e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Other corner cases unnecessarily added to the modified station area include 2204 70th Ave SE and 1600 72nd Ave SE, both of which are 0.7 miles walking from the west light rail entrance. This represents a 40% increase in distance above what is required by the law.

As others have noted, when TOD compliance time comes, do not forget to exclude critical areas, critical area buffers, and shoreline jurisdiction from the subarea.

In summary, I ask that the City include what is required and nothing more, and revise the methodology to account for areas that are impassible on foot, an example of which is the green space behind the apartments on 81st Pl SE (runs parallel to ICW on its east side). Let’s make sure we’re taking the most thoughtful approach, not just the most convenient one as current residents' homes, quality of life, finances, and safety are at stake here.

I know that it is a bit early, but when you rezone the city center to permit buildings over four storeys in height, I strongly recommend that you contact the King County Fire Marshall and the M.I. Fire Department to get estimates of the cost of new equipment that will be required to combat fires in high rise buildings. The costs may be substantial and agreements with neighboring communities for fire fighting services may need to created or modified.

If the city is examining housing on the island, it should consider the whole picture. Reducing the barriers to adding ADUs, allowing for larger ADUs, and allowing for duplexing existing homes would expand opportunities for downsizing and the return of young couples raised on the island without ruining the qualities of residential neighborhoods and should be allowed.

There are mixed opinions about whether this issue directly affects GMA issues, but regardless it is a long standing one that the city needs to address.

Sustainable Integration of New Affordable Housing (GMA Compliance) Recommendation: To ensure upcoming increase in affordable housing (per GMA compliance) maintains the safety, security, cleanliness, and continued enjoyment of our city by existing residents — without increasing the tax burden on existing residents—following requirements proposed to be incorporated into the development plan.
1. Infrastructure & Public Service Upgrades:
* Education: Proactively increase school bus routes, driver staffing, and teacher capacity to accommodate new student residents.
* Transit: Ensure adequate parking for transit passengers to prevent new high-density residents from utilizing existing commuter parking.
* Safety & Cleanliness: Install additional, well-maintained street lighting and functional surveillance cameras to prevent vandalism, random acts of violence, and illegal activity.
*Waste Management: Install, maintain, and frequently service trash cans and pet waste receptacles.
2. Mandatory Development Agreements & Management
*Active On-Site Management: Require all new, high-density, or subsidized developments to have 24/7 on-site management and dedicated maintenance services.
*Resident Responsibility Program: Include in lease agreements mandatory participation in exterior upkeep/cleanliness programs for residents, ensuring the property remains clean without using city resources.
*Durable Design Standards: Require site plans to use high-quality, anti-graffiti, and durable materials to minimize long-term maintenance costs.
*Nuisance Abatement: Empower the City Code Compliance team to work directly with property managers to enforce swift action on illegal dumping, noise, or pet waste violations.
3. Resident Onboarding & Community Standards
* Mandatory Orientation & Welcome Kit: All new residents, including children, must attend an orientation meeting and sign a "Community Standards Agreement."
* Orientation Content: Cover pet lease laws, proper trash disposal/recycling, noise ordinances, max occupancy, and reporting procedures for maintenance or illegal activity.
*Clear Infrastructure & Signaling: Utilize multi-lingual/icon-based signage for trash, composting, and emergency contact information (24/7 hotline).
4. Financial Sustainability
*Self-Supporting Costs: Affordable housing rents should cover the full costs of on-site maintenance, water, sewer, and waste services, ensuring these costs are not passed on to existing residents or the city.

Why is does the TOD boundary cut through the Mercerdale Hillside open space, Mercerdale Park and lower and upper Luther Burbank Parks?

It would have been nice if all those years ago when the Sound Transit Boondoggle was just a fantasy that Marxocrats would have openly touted their support for mandating massive amounts of low-income housing on Mercer Island. They could have also openly presented their support for monstrosities like the GMA instead of concealing it from Voters. Now Islanders are stuck dealing with GMA mandates in exchange for the dubious "benefit" of having a Sound Transit station on the Island.