Councilmember Craig Reynolds Shares Meeting Recap: 2026-03-17
CITY GOVERNMENTFEATURED
In this column, Council Member Craig Reynolds shares his perspective on recent issues before the Mercer Island City Council as well as insight in to how he votes and shapes city planning and policies.
March 17, 2026 Council Meeting Update
Another Mercer Island City Council meeting is a wrap.
On March 17, 2026 the City Council had its regularly scheduled meeting at the Mercer Island Community and Event Center. All seven councilmembers were present, though Mayor Rosenbaum and Councilmembers Weiker and Anderl participated remotely. Key agenda items included:
AB 6887: Arts Council, Open Space Conservancy Trust, and Utility Board Vacancy Appointments (Resolution Nos. 1690 and 1691)
AB 6888: Final Approval of the Modified Station Subarea Boundary
AB 6894: Update on the Growth Management Hearings Board Order – GMA Compliance Work Plan
You can offer feedback on these or any city policy issue via email to council@mercerlsland.gov. If you have an issue with city services rather than policy matters, email to customerservice@mercerisland.gov.
AB 6887: Arts Council, Open Space Conservancy Trust, and Utility Board Vacancy Appointments (Resolution Nos. 1690 and 1691)
Smriti Agarwal was elected to serve on he arts council.
Joy Liechty was elected to the utiity board.
The Mayor's appointment of Andrew Rosenthal to the Open Space Conservancy Trust was confirmed. (The OCST works differently from the other boards and commissions. The Mayor makes the selection and the council simply approves the choice.)
AB 6888: Final Approval of the Modified Station Subarea Boundary
See the preview for this meeting for a recap of this issue. In summary, the Council voted unanimously to approve the staff-proposed transit station subarea boundary after hearing a variety of resident comments via email and in person during "appearances".
Discussion was more extensive than for most topics this year. Key takeways from the discussion include the following:
Further delaying the decision would endanger our required July 31 GMHB compliance deadline.
This boundary selection may not have dramatic impact. The real changes will come when we have to pick the boundaries for transit oriented development. Likely the TOD and subarea boundaries will be the same, but we can change both when we make that boundary decision--likely in 2027,
With an appropriate parking study we may be able to still require the provision of parking in the TOD zone. The opportunity for that comes later.
The rules for how much flexibility we have in tweaking the boundaries will (hopefully) be clarified by the Department of Commerce before we have to set the TOD boundaries. (Many commenters want to push the TOD boundary south--we just do not know yet how much flexibility we will have to do that.)
State requirements do not allow us to consider pedestrian safety in deciding what is within "walking distance".
While the city DID add some area to the TOD zone above and beyond what was required, this was done only in accord with the principles (smoothness, continuity etc) defined in prior meetings, and some area was taken out per the same rules.
AB 6894: Update on the Growth Management Hearings Board Order – GMA Compliance Work Plan
The council approved the work plan laid out in the agenda.