Nov. 17 Council Meeting
Quick recap of Monday 11.17.26 council meeting: They passed all the permit fee increases so the city charges 100% of the cost. A few council members expressed interest in discounting some of the fees, but this seems to need to happen at a later date. Concerningly, the attitude of "we don't want to subsidize developers" was just as prevalent as ever at this meeting, without recognition that these fees are paid by the homeowner in one way or another ($586/mo for 30 years on that single-family home permit!)
The STEP Committee also gave a presentation and comments and engaged in some discussion with Council. What Council was most interested in was corner stores, reducing parking requirements, and increasing density incentives along arterials. What Council expressed hesitation about was the Good Neighbor Agreement (GNA), especially one that was enforceable. The City Attorney will be looking into this, we believe.
When we talked to our panel of experts, they said GNAs are something they're quite familiar with. Another member of the committee did extensive research into GNAs and found that they are used in other jurisdictions. They came up during the Plymouth discussions, along with the criticism that they're worthless if they're "toothless" – because of this, the STEP Committee recommended tying the GNA to a business license that could be revoked for repeated violations.
What the committee heard from many opponents of Plymouth is that these agreements are absolutely essential for moving forward with PSH. During discussions, CM Srebnik expressed concern that acts that were already illegal were included in the GNAs. From my perspective, being explicit about your expectations allows everyone to start from a place of mutual understanding and agreement, and yes, sometimes we even need to state the obvious.
We can't guarantee that everything will go right with any sort of contractual agreement, and the contract is there for if things go wrong. This is how I see the GNA. If everything goes well, we did the paperwork for nothing other than peace of mind, but if stuff goes wrong, it's there to remind us of the rules that we agreed to abide by. It makes the community feel more comfortable because we know what to expect.
During discussions, CM Culver quoted something that I believe to be from the Department of Commerce, stating that "studies show" that STEP Housing doesn't lead to an increase of crime or a reduction of property values. I found the source, and read the studies, which CM Culver clearly did not do. These studies aren't comparing a city with a $1.2 median home sale price before and after STEP is built, they're looking at depressed areas with run-down or abandoned buildings before and after. When STEP is built well in a depressed or high crime area, yes, he's correct, but that's not really what we're starting with here.
In the days following this meeting CM Culver posted on his councilmember Facebook page (not personal) with the same information. Someone who was clearly well-informed about the
Plymouth situation in Bellevue refuted much of what he said - CM Culver then deleted all of their comments.
My concerns about our council's ability to engage with, and listen to, our community are still here. We can't move forward if we're unwilling to listen to each other. We need to have the hard conversations, with people we disagree with, and find a place where we can all (or most) agree.
Here's where the presentation began - it lasts for an hour and 20 min with discussion. [https://youtu.be/RJ4JeCsCll4?t=3420](https://youtu.be/RJ4JeCsCll4?t=3420)
HEADS UP: Council is discussing having staff scope out potential affordable and supportive housing locations. This is on the meeting agenda for Monday 11/24.
