Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Mercer Island council over permanent supportive housing; councilors clarify legal constraints
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Mercer Island City Council to oppose implementing permanent supportive housing (PSH) near parks and schools, while council members and staff said the ordinance before the council addressed stormwater detention and that state law and a Growth Management Hearings Board order limit local options.
Several Mercer Island residents used the city’s appearances period on July 21 to press the council to oppose local implementation of permanent supportive housing (PSH) requirements and to seek broader public debate.
David Orem, a 29-year resident, urged the council to "vote against AB 6,965," saying the plan to place PSH "near our parks and schools is wrong and misguided" and expressing concern for children and community character. Mike Searle framed the debate in historical terms and told the council that approving the measure would leave a long-term, negative legacy for the island. John Hamer, cofounder of the Friends of Dragon Park, said he and about 1,000 petition signers worried PSH could have "serious negative consequences" for park users and asked for more hearings on measures such as the 600-foot buffer.
Other residents asked the council to postpone implementation and to expand public outreach. Andrew Lane, a resident, raised local amenity concerns (including pickleball courts) and urged council members to make decisions based on their personal convictions.
Council members responded in the course of the ordinance debate. Council member Reynolds clarified that the specific ordinance before the council (AB 69-65 / Ordinance 26C-11) was a stormwater code amendment and not a permanent supportive housing decision: "I think there's some confusion in the community that this, 6965 has anything to do with permanent supportive housing. So just want to clarify that this is only about drainage." Councilor Shea outlined the statutory background, citing the state requirement to plan for housing at all income levels and noting Growth Management Hearings Board obligations and potential state sanctions for noncompliance.
The record shows a divide between public concern over housing siting and the council’s focus on legal compliance and code consistency. The city clerk also noted that no one signed up to testify at the public hearing for the stormwater ordinance that evening.
What happens next: The council adopted the stormwater ordinance at the same meeting and asked staff to continue public outreach as implementation proceeds; residents wanting further debate on housing provisions were advised to engage with the council and the state legislative process.
