All right. Thank you. Good
evening everyone. My name is
Stephanie Marshall and I'm the
City of Vancouver Hearing
Examiner. Today is Tuesday,
June 16th, 2026, and it is 6:03
p.m. I'm going to call this
meeting to order. We have two
hearings on the agenda for this
evening. The first one is
Swifts Terrace Infill
subdivision. And the second
item on the agenda is Mount
Hood Vista Subdivision with a
zone change. The first item on
the agenda is, as I stated, the
Swifts Terrace infill
subdivision. This is file
number PRJ-16957, LUP dash
85734. The proposal is for.
Subdivision of property located
in the R nine zoning district.
2.3 acres proposed to be
subdivided into 18 residential
lots. I have reviewed the staff
report and I've reviewed the
exhibits in the record to date,
of which there are 13 exhibits
to the staff report. The staff
report itself is exhibit one.
I'm going to do a little bit of
preliminary statements and and
explain how the hearing will go
this evening. The purpose of
the hearing is to have a public
forum, essentially for members
of the public, to provide
testimony on the application.
The first item on the agenda
this evening. And that will be
everybody will be sworn in. And
this hearing is being recorded,
as Miss Bowen stated earlier
this evening. I will be
swearing you in and testimony
will be provided under oath. I
see that there are 32 people in
the team's room this evening.
Some of which are staff. But in
order to manage this hearing in
a orderly and fair process, I'm
going to ask participants to
please limit your shares to
three minutes. If you have
submitted a public comment. I
note that there are several in
the record. Please note that
for me, and I can take note
that your comment is in the
record. There is no need to
read public comments into the
record, and if you've brought
something else this evening
that you wish to be included in
the record, please let Miss
Bowen know and we will make
sure that that gets into the
record as well. In addition to
limiting testimony, please
understand that this is not a
question and answer proceeding.
If you have questions for the
applicant and or questions for
staff, please state those in
your testimony and at the
conclusion of all public
testimony, the city will have a
chance to address questions and
the applicant will have the
final word and also may address
questions. The applicant does
have the burden of proof. To
have the applications approved,
I have no ex parte contact.
That means I've not been
contacted outside of the
hearing this evening. Other
than communication from Miss
Bowen, in which she provided me
the link to this hearing, a
copy of the staff report and
copies of the exhibits. I've
not been to this site, nor have
I talked with anybody that's
either in favor of or opposed
to the application. I've not
prejudged this application.
While this application may be
similar to other applications
in the city of Vancouver, each
application is decided on its
own individual merits. Each
parcel of property is different.
Each traffic circulation around
is different. Each neighborhood
is different. So please
understand that that I will be
deciding this application based
on the merits of this
application. I have not. As I
stated, I've not prejudged the
application and I have no
interest in the outcome either
for or against the application.
And I believe that I have no
bias that would preclude me
from presiding over this
hearing. As the hearing
examiner. If anyone wishes to
challenge my ability to preside
over this matter in a fair and
impartial manner, please state.
So now, and I'll leave this for
a moment so that you can raise
your hand if you wish to
challenge me. Okay, I'm hearing
none the way the the
proceedings will happen on this
on this first application, on
the agenda. First we will hear
from the applicant. The
applicant will present their
testimony and their evidence
that they want me to consider.
In addition to the exhibits,
they may highlight certain
aspects of the application or
maybe even address public
comments that have already been
submitted after the applicant
has made their presentation,
city staff will present the
staff report. They'll review
the criteria. They'll go
through proposed conditions of
approval, and may also fill in
any gaps that the applicant may
have left. The city wishes to
bring to everyone's attention
at that time. It will be time
for public comment. Miss Bowen
will help me and elevating
those that wish to testify.
We'll we'll she'll help. Call
on each one individually and
again, given that there are so
many people here this evening,
it would be great if you could
not have repetitive testimony.
You can reference what somebody
else said, or you can reference
a comment letter that you have
submitted and hit the
highlights. I don't want I
don't wish to cut anybody off
or, or say that you can't share
what's on your mind. But at the
same time, we want to make sure
that everyone has a chance to
participate. So please do keep
that in mind after you're sworn
in. I would like I would like
you to state your name and
spell your last name, provide
your address, and also state
whether you wish to be a party
of record. A party of record
will be getting notice of the
decision when it's issued. And.
And it's just helpful to know
whether you wish to be one of
those. After all, members of
the public that wish to testify
have had an opportunity to do
so. I will turn it back to the
city. The city will answer any
questions that may have been
posed or make additional
statements concerning comments
that were made. And then, as I
stated earlier, the applicant
will have the final say because
they have the burden of proof.
Again, this will not be a
question and answer session.
Please do not interrupt the
hearing with questions or
reactions that would be helpful.
And please understand that once
public testimony is completed,
we won't be turning back to the
public for additional input. So
please, when you're on the
stand, that's your time. So
please take advantage of that
and limit your comments beyond
that. So thank you. Any
questions about the proceedings
this evening before we get
started. And I'll wait a moment
for anybody to raise their hand.
It looks like we have one hand
up from Mark. See?
>> Hi. Will we receive the
information, the decision, even
if we don't add our names to
the record right now, like we
were on the record before. To
join this meeting.
>> I would suggest that you ask
to be a party of record again
there. It looks like there's a
lot of people that are going to
be wanting notice of the
decision when it's issued. So I
would suggest that that's the
the best way to ensure that
that happens.
>> Thank you. Examiner Marchel
yes, please. If anyone who
received a anyone that provided
a public comment on either of
these projects this evening, if
we have their email address and
we do they have a hearing
invite, they will receive the
your decision on each project
for the project that. They're a
party record of.
>> Great, great.
>> Perfect. Thank you very.
>> Much already. Yeah. If
you've not already submitted a
comment, please state that you
wish to be a party of record.
And thank you for that
clarification. One final
statement. If at the conclusion
of the hearing on this first
item on the agenda, if the
record is closed and the
hearing is closed, the date
that my final decision, my
final order will be due is June
30th. So you may make a note.
And if that changes because the
record will be left open, I
will calculate a new date and
state for on the record. Miss
Bowen.
>> We do have a holiday this
week, so.
>> I'm sorry. Oh, we do have a
holiday. That's correct.
>> So it would be at the
earliest. It would be July 1st.
>> Yes. Thank you. And yes,
absolutely. I, I knew of the of
the holiday. Yes. And did not
account for it. Alright. Thank
you for that correction. So yes
please note that my final order
on this application will be due
on July 1st, unless the record
is left open, and I will make
that. I will make concluding
remarks at the end of hearing
so that if you missed it or if
I'm going too fast, we'll cover
it again at the end. Okay. All
right. Well, thank you,
everybody, for these
preliminary remarks and
description of the process. I
will start by asking the
applicants representative to
present the application.
>> Thank you.
>> And and I'm not seeing which
one is talking.
>> Conference room three
Vancouver.
>> Oh great. Oh, there we go.
Now I can see you. Thank you.
Do you real quick. Let me swear
you in.
>> Okay.
>> Do you swear or affirm the
testimony you give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth.
>> I do.
>> Great, please state your
name, spell your last name and
describe how you are associated
with the applicant and the
application.
>> My name is Michael Andreotti,
A NDREOTTI with AKS Engineering
and Forestry. I'm the land use
planner for the applicant. Our
address is 9600 northeast,
126th Avenue, suite 2520,
Vancouver, Washington, 98682.
>> Oh, I muted myself. Thank
you, Mr. Andreotti. You may
proceed with your presentation.
>> Just to make sure everyone
can see what's on the screen
here.
>> Yes, I can see that. Perfect.
>> Yep.
>> All right. So as I noted,
I'm representing the applicant.
I'm the land use planner for
the Swiss Terrace type three
subdivision application this
evening. First site location.
The site is indicated by the
arrow on the on the image there
is located in the northwest
portion of the Vancouver city
limits. The site is located
east of Interstate five, north
of State Route 500, south of
northeast fourth Plain
Boulevard and west of Northeast
Saint James Road. Vancouver
city boundary is shown in
purple and Clark County's
boundary is shown in white on
the map. Looking a little
closer at the site. The site is
identified as parcel numbers
148882000148921000, and
148924000, again highlighted by
the arrow. Northeast 54th
Street abuts the South. Excuse
me, abuts the site's south
boundary and is classified as a
collector arterial. The subject
site is surrounded by single
family residential development
on all other sides, with the
exception of the City of
Vancouver stormwater facility
that is west of the site. For
the site zoning, the site is
zoned R nine for residential
development, and the
surrounding parcels are
similarly zoned R nine, with
the exception of the city
stormwater facility, which is
zoned Park. As you can see on
the map there. Surrounding uses
for the site. As you can see on
the slide, the surrounding uses
are largely detached. Single
family residential identified
as number five, with a similar
attached infill project near
the site identified as number
four. The city stormwater
facility is again identified as
number two, and Minnehaha
Elementary to the east is
identified as number three.
Project overview the site is
approximately 2.29 gross acres
with 0.56 acres set aside for
open space. The proposed
project includes 18 lots for
detached single family homes.
The project is planned to be
constructed in a single phasing
single phase and timing is
dependent on market demand.
Parking is provided on each lot,
with 11 additional parking
spaces provided in track. A
west of lots one and 12 here
and south of lot 16 to 18 over
here. The project will include
installation of 72 new trees on
site, including 12 street trees
and 60 site trees, and at least
60% of those trees will be
evergreen trees. Private
streets will be constructed to
provide access to lots and
circulation. North East 54th
Street. All necessary. All
necessary utilities to serve
the planned lot will be
constructed with the project. A
stormwater will be collected,
treated and detained on site,
then released to the City of
Vancouver stormwater facility,
matching existing discharge
rates from the site. The
project will be responsible for
paying traffic, school and park
impact fees as well. Excuse me.
And correction or protection of
the Oversteepened slopes will
occur based on the requirements
of the geotechnical engineer
and their report. That's in the
record. For public comment. I
listed the general topics of
concern from the public
comments and detailed responses
to these are included in the
record as exhibit K. I'll run
through a few high points on
these. For lot sizes as. As
noted, this project is an
infill project and the proposed
lots meet all dimensional
requirements for info. Lots in
the zoning district sidewalks
are not proposed with this
project, as a majority of the
surrounding areas do not have
existing sidewalks and a road
modification was approved for
this. Additionally, related to
Minnehaha Elementary, there is
not adequate right of way for
construction of sidewalks on
northeast 54th and additionally,
construction of sidewalks would
require significant grading
outside of the right of way on
private property. Additionally,
as noted in the letter provided
by the Vancouver School
District, students from this
site will be bussed to
Minnehaha Elementary related to
traffic. A traffic report is
provided in the in the record
and the applicant, as noted,
will pay applicable traffic
fees for the project. Steep
slopes have been addressed in
the geotechnical report and
walls are planned and will be
required to go through building
permit review following land
use approval and the walls will
be designed in coordination
with the geotechnical engineer
and a structural engineer to
ensure slope stability for the
steep slopes. All project
grading will be contained on
site. Reference to slopes off
site was simply in regards to
the fact that the existing
slopes continued off site to
identify where they were and
the the project referencing to
the projected 2 to 1 slopes was
for design purposes, so that
site grades could be determined
to ensure slope stability.
Identify grading catch points
on site and the excuse me, set
the location of the retaining
walls. The wellhead protection
is only applicable when
infiltrating stormwater and
infiltration is not posed on
the site. Additionally, the
wellhead protection area only
touches the site. I believe in
the northwest corner, so it's a
very limited area of the site
that will be an open space. The
site may have been used by
passed by wildlife in the past.
However, given the site
location, comprehensive plan
designation, and zoning
designation that shows that the
city has intended this site to
be developed as proposed.
Regarding the survey. Conflict
of interest Dan Renton, who
provided survey work for the
neighbor, informed them of his
previous work related to the
site and they elected to
continue. Additionally, simply
surveying properties in the
past does not automatically
create conflict of interest,
and Dan Renton did not do any
survey work directed by the
applicant for this project. As
noted in the staff report, the
project is categorically exempt
from Sipa, and the applicant's
attorney has provided a
detailed response, which is
also included in exhibit K of
the record that supports the
categorical exemption
determination. We reviewed the
staff report and have no
comments or requested revisions
to the staff report. In
conclusion, the applicable
subdivision criteria are met or
have been conditioned to be met,
and the Applicant support
Staff's recommended conditions
of approval. I'd like to thank
staff for their time and effort
they put into this review. The
Project engineer, applicant and
applicant's attorney and myself
are here to answer any
questions. Thank you for your
time.
>> Thank you, Mr. Andreotti,
and thank you for stating that
you've reviewed the staff. The
applicant has reviewed the
staff report, that I presume
that means that they have also
reviewed the conditions of
approval, the proposed
conditions. I believe that
there are. How many? Oh boy. Oh,
I had it written down 48. No,
that's for the next one.
There's a number of conditions
of approval, 39. Conditions of
approval. Were there any
objections or other questions
or clarifications that are
requested with respect to the
proposed conditions?
>> No.
>> Okay. I don't have any
further questions at this time,
but I will I may have some
following public testimony and
the city's testimony. Thank you
very much.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Thanks. All right.
Now I will hear from Crystal
Sanchez, City Planner Sanchez.
>> Thank you. Hearing examiner
Marchel.
>> Great. Let me swear you in
real quick. Do you swear or
affirm the testimony you give
will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the
truth?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. You
may proceed.
>> Okay. Let me share my
presentation.
>> Oh, and actually, if you
could just introduce yourself
on the record for those in
attendance, that would be
helpful. Thank you.
>> Yes, I'm Crystal Sanchez,
case manager for this project.
>> Great.
>> Let's see. Can you see my
presentation?
>> Yes, I can, yep.
>> Perfect. As mentioned by the
applicant, we're here for Swift
Terrace infill subdivision.
This is just an aerial overview
of the site. This is for an 18
lot subdivision across three
lots. The applicant is
utilizing narrow and infill
development standards for these
lots. Narrow lots require one
guest parking space for every
three narrow lots, the
applicant is providing 11
spaces which meets this
requirement. The project is
exempt from Keip review as
minor new construction. Given
the number of lots they are
proposing. Another thing to
note is the critical areas.
Maps on these lots are steep
slopes and severe erosion areas.
A Critical area report and
geotechnical report were
required and submitted. As
stated in the staff report,
staff conditioned that an
updated geotechnical report
would need to be provided. Once
a geo technical consultant has
been able to review updated
grading plans to verify
conformance with
recommendations mentioned in
the report and verify whether a
quantitative slope stability
analysis would be required. We
did hold a notice of
application public comment
period. The comment period was
held from April 9th to May 11th.
Public comments are included
with staff report as exhibit H,
we received eight public
comments during this period.
One public comment was received
after the comment period, but
they were all included together
in exhibit H. Some common
topics that were brought up
were residential density and
compatibility, traffic safety,
Keip exemption, the critical
area, and stormwater concerns.
As mentioned before, this is an
infill development where the
applicant is proposing attached
single family dwellings. This
allows a lot size to be as
small as 1500ft². Exemption,
and the critical areas were
discussed earlier in the
presentation. And also the
project has been reviewed by
the city's transportation and
stormwater departments and was
deemed compliant with their
requirements. Here's another
aerial showing the zoning. As
mentioned before, it's
surrounded by R nine and to the
southwest there is a lot zoned
park. This is owned by the city
and is used as a stormwater
facility. And we've gone over
the other applicable code
sections listed here. Staff is
reviewing this for subdivision
approval. The approval process
for this is a type three
subdivision which is required
for ten lots or more. It was
reviewed against the
preliminary plat approval
criteria and subdivision
subdivision technical standards.
And with this staff recommended
recommends approval of the
subdivision as conditioned in
the staff report. And do you
have any questions?
>> Okay. Thank you. Miss
Sanchez, in your presentation,
you noted that the public
comments, including one that
was received after the comment
period, those are all included
in the record. And and you've
addressed them in your staff
report. And I also see that the
applicant also submitted
something to address the public
comments that's also attached
or not attached. It's also one
of the exhibits in the record.
Okay. I think I had one
question. Oh, were there any
did staff determine that there
were any revisions or
conditions of approval that
were necessary necessity by the
public comments that were
submitted?
>> No, the conditions weren't
specific due to public comments.
It was just during staff review
that we had a few conditions
that were added.
>> Okay. Thank you, and I
appreciate the summary of the
topics on which public provided
comment. I don't have any
further questions at this time,
but I will again await to see
if if I have questions
following public testimony.
Thank you. Okay. And now it's
time for public comment. I will
not I will be keeping it,
keeping track of time on my
little phone timer. But I'd
also appreciate if each
individual member of the public
also kind of kept an eye on on
time so that we can make sure
that everybody has an
opportunity to testify tonight.
So thank you. And it looks like
Mr. Erickson might be the first
one up.
>> Thank you. I represent.
>> Sorry, Mr. Erickson here. I
it sounds like you were about
to say you represent and you
may you may be an attorney or
another representative, but I,
I do swear everybody in. So let
me swear you in real quick. Do
you swear or affirm. The
testimony you give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
>> Yes.
>> Alright. Thank you. Please
state your name, spell your
last name and explain who
you're representing or what
your interest is in the
application.
>> Mark A Erickson, spelled
ERIKSON. There's no C in my
name, I represent, I represent
Jonathan D McLaughlin, Joshua
Ford, Grant, Kevin P Devine,
Timothy and Laura Sherburn and
Jason Vosburgh, all of whom
have residents within the
neighborhood of the proposal.
>> Okay.
>> I am a party of record. I
did submit comment. I'm going
to get some very specific
issues tonight, and I'm going
to request that the record be
held open for two weeks. I did
not get the notification that
the staff report was available
on the second. In fact, I got
it a week later from a client,
and I'd like more time to
comment on the staff report.
Okay.
>> We will address that at the
end, but thank you.
>> My clients have recommended
that the proposal be denied for
the following reasons. Courts
have inherent power to review
an administrative action to
assure that it is not arbitrary
and capricious, defined as
willful and unreasoning action
in disregard of facts and
circumstances. We refer to that
in the law as substantive due
process. The facts and
circumstances that concern us
may be summarized as
neighborhood character. In 1978,
the Court of Appeals,
Washington Court of Appeals
affirmed the denial of a
variance to allow multifamily
development, where the
applicant failed to present
evidence to negate findings of
fact. And I realize that this
is a single family attached,
which is not really different
in structure than multifamily.
They're townhomes. The court in
Ling v Whatcom County Board of
Adjustment, which is 21
Washington at 4497, reading at
500, said that surrounding use
of lots in the immediate
vicinity and the zone is
predominantly for single family
residences, there are no
special circumstances
applicable to the applicant's
property or to the intended use
that have not been applied
generally to other property and
class of use in the same
vicinity and zone. Since the S2
zoning was adopted in 1973. If
the application for a variance
is to be granted, it would
appear that the board would
have no basis for denying
subsequent various applications
by other owners. The single
family zoning benefits enjoyed
by the area would be lost. Now,
during the same year, the
Washington Supreme Court held
that the general purpose of
zoning is to stabilize uses,
conserve property values,
preserve neighborhood character,
and promote overall orderly
growth and development. Again,
that's ductwork. The city of
Bonney Lake 91 Wasch second 19
reading at 28. In the present
case, the entire neighborhood
was developed with single
family detached residences,
except three lots in the
present proposal and two
adjacent lots owned by the City
of Vancouver designated as
parkland. In addition to the
conflict between attached and
detached residences, the
minimum lot size in the
original R nine zone is 5000ft².
That's a BMC table. 2410 0401
my clients relied upon
maintenance of neighborhood
character when investing in
their residences. The applicant
is proposing lot sizes ranging
from 1946ft². That's lots 14
and 17 to 3344ft². That's lot
one, with the remaining 15 lots
ranging between 2000 and
3000ft². None of the proposed
lots can satisfy the original R
nine zoning minimum lot size,
thus violating the neighborhood
character, which promoted
orderly single family
development. Now, we are not
arguing that staff misapplied
regulations. We are arguing
that the infill ordinance and
any statute authorizing it is
facially unconstitutional under
state Bareford. Of course I
don't. The examiner can
consider that staff probably
don't, but it does go up on
appeal the same way as any
other decision. Approval of the
present proposal would
destabilize uses because the
the size of the proposed lots
and the attached townhomes.
Conflicts with detached
residential usage. Again,
Duckworth said, it is generally
recognized that the exterior
architectural appeal and
functional plan of a structure
should not be so at variance
with either the exterior
architectural appeal or
functional plan of structures
already constructed, or in the
course of construction in the
immediate neighborhood, as to
cause substantial depreciation
in property value of the
neighborhood. Doerk work
further recognized that
economic concerns, as well as
concerns for orderliness,
adequate parking, proper supply
of municipal services are also
legitimate basis for regulation.
Hence, approval of the present
proposal would be arbitrary and
capricious, in violation of a
single family residential
character of the neighborhood
upon which my clients relied, I.
I'm going to skip from that now
to slope stability because time
is limited. The Geotech report
admits that slope stability
analysis is incomplete. All of
the slopes are oversteepened
and will likely need to be
addressed during site grading
and construction. The staff
report has conditions of
approval three and 27, which
support that assertion. VMC
2741 30 requires that the
analysis as part of the
analysis, be as part of the
application, not as a future
condition, and we have the
decision in the city of Yelm,
which is 173 Washington second,
325, 344 and 45. And that's the
Supreme Court. A local decision
making body, cannot
conditionally approve a
preliminary plat and then
disapprove a final plat
application for a project that
conforms to the conditions of
the preliminary plat approval,
the failure to challenge
environmental issues at the
preliminary plat stage could
result in decisions by the
local Land use Authority that
have a binding impact on
interested parties without
their consent or consent. So in
that case, they ruled. That
night it was the challenger was
entitled to clarification of
the city's zoning, city
Council's decision and an
opportunity to challenge the
city's evidence before final
plat approval, not at final
plat approval. Now, here, the
proposal deprives my clients of
procedural due process under
the 14th amendment to the US
Constitution and article one,
section three of the State
Constitution. In addition to
that, the written submittal
that I made addressed various
other issues. I think I'm
getting close to three minutes.
And I'll leave it at that. I do
have several clients here
tonight who may be making some
of those comments. Great.
>> I appreciate that, Mr.
Erickson. I have 1 or 2
questions. I note that your
argument is that the infill
ordinance on its face is
unconstitutional, and as
opposed to an as applied
challenge here. Did I did I get
that down correctly?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> And and by the way, we do
have several in answer to the
applicant, we have several
objections to the conditions of
approval that I have not
mentioned tonight. They're in
my written materials.
>> Oh, they are great. Yeah.
Thank you for for alerting me
to that. Okay. All right. Well,
that was my main question was
just clarification on your
client's challenge to the
ordinance itself. And just for
my background, do you know when
the ordinance was adopted by
city council recently?
>> Don't have a date.
>> Okay. Thank you. You don't
have I don't have to hold you
to that. I was just curious.
Thank you. Konez, who is up
next? Please raise your hand
and I can call on you, Lisa
Miller. I will call on Lisa
Miller before you get started,
please let me swear you in real
quick. From the testimony you
give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but
the truth. Yes. Thank you, Miss
Miller. Please state your name.
Spell your last name. I know we
can see it on the screen. And
what's your interest in the
proposal is okay.
>> My name is Lisa Miller,
spelled MILLER.
>> Thank you.
>> I will live at the bottom of
this development. So the city
has an easement up against my
property that I don't know how
many feet it is before the
street would be there. So I
have a couple concerns being
that I'm at the corner of this
property, my property set six
feet below that street that's
proposed. I have serious
concerns about erosion to my
property from the runoff. From
this, I think there's still
inadequate parking as it will
overflow into our streets,
which are already very narrow,
and nobody does a speed limit
on this street out here. So
you're talking an impact. I
know they proposed one car per
house. I know an average
Americans have 2.5 cars per
household, so 11 extra slots
are not enough. I'm worried
about having my driveway
blocked by traffic. I'm
concerned about emergency
vehicles and garbage management
to access these properties. I
understand we need housing, but
this is, I think, a little bit
much for this small of acreage.
So my concerns is erosion to my
property, the parking situation
and the waste management,
because I didn't hear where
they're going to be having this
garbage picked up at. And if
you can imagine having 20
garbage cans sitting up
alongside your property, I
don't think you'd like the
smell or the rodents or the
trash blowing in your yard.
That's my objection to it. I
hope that you deny it, or make
them go back to the drawing
board and make some
arrangements.
>> Okay? Thank you, Miss Miller.
I think I saw something posted
in chat. Okay. Somebody said, I
can't hear. Okay. There's there
there appears to be a
substantive comment in the
meeting chat. Please do not
share comments in the meeting
chat because a, I won't be
reviewing them. And b, when you
have time, when you're called
on or when you raise your hand,
you can make that statement. So
thank you very much. It looks
like Stacy Peterson has turned
on her camera. Miss Peterson,
did you wish to provide
testimony this evening?
>> I'm waiting for the next the
next project.
>> Oh, okay. Great. Okay. No
worries.
>> Thank you.
>> We'll we'll we'll get to
that later. Alright. Thank you,
Miss Peterson. Okay. If who
else would like to provide
testimony, please? It would
help me if you turned on your
camera. And it looks like Mr.
Grant has has raised his hand.
Thank you, Mr. Grant. You may
unmute yourself and I'll swear
you in. Do you swear or affirm
the testimony you give will be
the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth.
>> I do.
>> Great, thank you. Please
state your name. Spell your
last name. If you did not
submit public comment, please
let me know if you'd like to be
a party of record and what else?
I feel like I'm missing
something. And please state
your interest in the
application.
>> Absolutely. Thank you,
examiner Marchel. My name is
Joshua Grant, GRANT. I live at
5508 Northeast Drexel Avenue.
My west property line is this
property's east boundary the
same physical line? I'd like to
be a party of record. My May
9th comments. The independent
arborist report my Pre-hearing
memorandum or in your record,
please consider them in full. I
have three reasons this
application should cannot be
lawfully approved on this
record. First, no CPA review at
all. Staff calls this
categorically exempt, but the
city's own code. Section
20.790.830, removes that
exemption when a site is
subject to critical areas.
Chapter, and this is a mapped
geologic hazard and a severe
erosion hazard area. The
applicant filed a critical
areas permit for that reason,
and by the staff's own number,
the project moves, quote, over
1200yd³. Quote of earth against
500 cubic yard exemption level.
No threshold determination was
ever made. Second, the central
safety question whether the
hillside can hold 18 homes has
been deferred. Not answered.
The developer's own engineer
says, quote, all of the slopes
are Oversteepened quote and
calls my boundary severely
Oversteepened quote and says
walls will be necessary, end
quote. Yet no walls designed.
There's no factor of safety
calculation as record and
condition three pushes the
slope stability analysis past
this hearing in Knight versus
the City of Yelm, our state
Supreme Court reinstates a
ruling that these public safety
findings must be made as part
of plat approval. Not deferring
to a later permit stage later
is not an approval standard.
Three pedestrian pedestrian
access. The subdivision has no
pedestrian access. None. The
applicant's own letter says,
quote, no Ada or pedestrian
access is available into the
site or along any of the road
race surrounding the site, end
quote. But the state law RC w
58.17.110 forbids approving a
plat without written findings
of safe walking conditions for
students who walk to school.
The impacted schools are many,
many haha. Jason Lee and
Hudson's Bay. No findings exist
because on this record none can
be made. So I asked you that
that you deny this application
or remanded for Stapper review
and a complete geotechnical
record. Re notice for public
comment. If you approve any
over these objections, please
impose the six protective
conditions in my May 9th
comment plus the dry season
earthwork limit. The
applicant's own consultant
consultants recommend the code
asks them to develop the code.
Ask this developer to provide a
hazardous. Hillside can safely
hold 18 homes. Their own
engineer says that proof comes
later. Please deny or remand.
Thank you. I'm happy to answer
questions.
>> All right. Thank you very
much, Mr. Grant, I appreciate
it. I don't have any questions.
I'm interested to hear what the
city and the applicant have to
say to address your comments.
So thank you. Okay. Who's next?
Please turn on your camera.
Raise your hand so I may call
on you. I see.
>> And raise my hand.
>> Okay. I'm just going through
my screen. Oh. Laurie Anderson
alright, Miss Anderson, let me
swear you in. And I don't know
if you if you want to turn on
your camera, that's great. You
do not have to do so.
>> All right. Go ahead. I want
to clarify. I'm using Loriz
computer. Oh, great.
>> Okay.
>> Write my name. My name is
John McLaughlin. MC McLaughlin,
MC LAUGHLIN.
>> Okay, great. McLaughlin. Oh,
sorry, I keep interrupting you.
Go ahead.
>> 5515 northeast 23rd Avenue.
And I do want to be a party of
record.
>> Excellent. Okay, now I'll
swear you in. Do you swear or
affirm the testimony you give
will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the
truth.
>> I do.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr.
McLaughlin, and thank you for
letting us know you'd like to
be a party of record. You may
proceed with your testimony.
>> Well, briefly, I want to
iterate what Mark Anderson,
Mark Erickson stated that 18
houses on a little more than
two acres, the subdivision does
not conserve property values
and does not preserve the
neighborhood's character, which
is contrary to Washington State
Supreme Court ruling. For that
reason, I wish that the
application be denied.
Furthermore, ACS engineering
submitted the final Stormwater
Technical Information report
TIR, and in section B, .2.4,
Mr. Number four titled
Preservation of Natural
Drainage Systems. That report
states that the existing site
is primarily pasture with the
majority of the runoff
collecting in the city's
facility. However, internal
email staffs disagree that it
is primarily pasture. Brandon
Teetzel, the city's civil
engineering supervisor, has
agreed that it should be
modeled forested, not pasture,
and he I quote, I agree, I
think it should be modeled as
forested because that's the
requirement. And I'm sure every
developing engineer would
choose to model the
pre-developed condition as
field if given the opportunity.
Well, and I want to show the
city has determined it is not
pasture. Their own statements.
The TIR also states in section
E stormwater will be managed on
site with mechanical filtration
and two underground detention
tanks before being discharged
into the city's facility to the
west of the site. That's that
pond that the city owns these.
That statement is contrary to
internal email discussions by
city water engineers. Ryan
Paulson states, quote, we have
received feedback from
operation that the downstream
pond sees a lot of flow and
should not have any greater
volumes than are currently sent
to it. So the staff has clearly
said that the existing city
stormwater facility should not
see any increased water yet.
The applicant's TIR states
that's exactly what will happen.
Therefore, this application, I
think, should be denied. Thank
you. I think the I think the
Oversteepened slopes have been
addressed, and I will say if
anyone would just like drive by
and take a look this. 18 houses
and all the grading that has to
be done is absurd. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Mr. McLaughlin, I
had a quick question. You were
referencing emails, mentioned
the city civil engineer and
some of the pre-developed
condition and findings or or
maybe comments on that. Did did
you receive these emails
through a public records
request? And that's my first
question. And if so, did you
submit those with a public
comment?
>> I did receive those emails
from a public records request.
Okay. And I believe that in my
written comments submitted on
May 11th, those are included in
that, I believe so, okay, great.
>> Alright. Thank you. I just
wanted to be able to, to review
those emails myself. So thank
you for that. Okay. All right.
Who would like to testify next?
Please go ahead and turn on
your camera and or raise your
hand. I'm trying to make sure
that I'm looking at. Okay. Mike
Mills, let me swear you in real
quick, Mr. Mills, it looks like
you've got another person there
with you. You're both able to
testify. But if if you're both
going to be testifying. I'll
have both of you be sworn in.
So, Mr. Mills, do you swear or
affirm the testimony you give
will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the
truth? Oh, I can't hear you
very well. Oh, where did he go,
Mr. Mills? Oh, there you are. I
see you. Can you. Did you say I
do? Oh I can't, the sound isn't
very good. Okay. Let me see.
Miss Boguhn, do you have any
ideas on how to troubleshoot so
that we can hear? Mr. Mills.
>> I'm trying to find his
microphone. Is this is this
Lisa Miller or.
>> Mike Mills? I'm. I'm on page
three of my screen.
>> Okay. Let's see, I'm Mark.
Mark Mills.
>> Mike.
>> I'm sorry. Mike.
>> Does. Mike control shows
it's turned off.
>> There it is.
>> Okay. Oh, wonderful. All
right, Mr. Mills.
>> We. We just heard him.
>> Yeah.
>> Where did he go?
>> He's on my page three of my
screen.
>> Yeah. We just.
>> I see him, I see the video,
I just don't I, I can't hear
him.
>> We just had him let me go
here. I think. My I see my
Dayley Lisa Miller. I'm not
even seeing his name. Marchel.
This is odd.
>> So on and I'm sure it's
different on everybody. So on
my screen, on my page.
>> Here he is. Okay, okay.
>> Did you find him? Okay,
great. Okay.
>> We should be able to hear
him. He's. Yeah, on my screen.
It's not muted. Mike Mills, can
you hear us?
>> Yeah. I suppose worst case
Mr. Mills could call in. Oh.
>> Mr. Mills, can you hear us?
>> Yeah.
>> Hello? Mr. Mills.
>> Yeah. He's nodding his head
that he can hear us. Okay, so
there's a few comments on Mike.
You want to see if you're. Mike
is pointing to the correct mic,
and that's MICMIC. And then as
I just suggested, he could call
in to provide testimony. Oh,
somebody else is saying he's
here to comment on the second
issue tonight. I'll ask Mr.
Mills, nod your head or shake
your head. Are you here to
testify on the Mount Hood Vista
subdivision or on yes or no? Or
the first one, the Swifts
Terrace infill subdivision. The
first one. The Woman.
>> Terrace.
>> Swifts terrace.
>> That's what we're doing
right now. The first item on
the agenda is Swifts Terrace.
>> Yes. Oh, they got a number
two up. Okay. Well, thank you
for your patience. Maybe we can
keep troubleshooting that
before we get to the next item
on the agenda. Thank you, Mr.
Mills. And and hopefully we can
get that straightened out here
in the next 45 minutes or so. I
see another raised hand with
Laurie Anderson. And we just
had testimony from, let's see,
Joshua Grant. And Mr.
McLaughlin was the last to
provide testimony. Is there
someone else on the Laurie
Anderson Square that wishes to
provide testimony?
>> I can't put the raised hand
down.
>> Oh, I.
>> No problem.
>> Thank you. That was for John
McLaughlin. There it goes. Now
it's off.
>> Okay, great. Okay, alright.
I will just go through my
screens. If you would like to
provide testimony here on the
Swifts Terrace infill
subdivision, now is your time
to please raise your hand and
or turn on your camera. Adria
it looks like we've got an
Adria a b okay. You don't have
to turn on your camera, but let
me swear you in real quick. Oh
good. That's helpful. Oh you
almost had it. Hello Adria. Do
you swear or affirm the
testimony you give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth I do.
Okay, great. Please state your
name, spell your last name. And
if you have not already
submitted a public comment,
please. Please state whether
you wish to be a public or a
party of record.
>> Yes, I do want to be a part
of your record. Okay, so my
name is Adria Ali. Last name is
A LIALI.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> I live at 2419 North East
57th Street, Vancouver,
Washington, 98663. I also own
lot 24 and 22. So these are
front and back and the back lot.
So both of these lots have been
owned by my family for over 70
years. The lot in question is
24. It has two sides that touch
the development land. And so
that's what I'm speaking to
today. We've also our families
also known all of the owners of
the adjoining property around
it for decades. So that's
important to note because we've
we've known them, we've
purchased the land from them,
and we know where the original
land lines are. But in getting
ready for this development, I
did hire a surveyor. The
surveyor did disclose that
there was a conflict of
interest, but he did not
disclose the depth of his
involvement in the previous
development with the owner. And
there should be an unofficial
survey because that is what all
these lot lines are based on.
But that unofficial survey is
not in the computer. So with
that in mind, I believe that's
a really big conflict of
interest for me. And so I did
hire another surveyor, a
forensic surveyor, and then a
second one on top of that to do
a lot of the field work to
accompany that, because I do
believe that a lot
>> Out of the land. Lines have
been changed. The monuments
have been moved. Even the
county markers are in accurate
based on my family. So I
believe. There's a huge
discrepancy and I think that
since my land lines touch on
two sides, it's really
important for those to be. To
move this forward, because I do
not think they're. They have
never been accurate based on
the maps that have been shown
in these meetings and all these
things. I even brought out a
metal detecting team and a
sonar team to dig up every
single fence post that was
positioned on the land lines
over the last 70 years. So
those have also been noted on
the survey. But I'm working to
get I mean, that is relevant
information. And I also have
them in my own files. But I
need to get a better survey
done because the corner that
has been defended by my
grandparents for decades has
been compromised in that survey
and that it pulled it to the
east. And when it pulled it to
the east, it allowed for the
roads to come in for the
development. My grandparents
have defended that corner and
how far out that corner was for
decades, meaning that those
roads could never get in. So
this is a really important and
valuable thing for us and for
my family and for our legacy.
Next. Based on time, I'll kind
of go through the next one
quickly. But the west line of
that property, 24, is a
hillside. They have put in that
they will do a south border
retaining wall, but they have
not addressed the west line of
my property. The west line also
goes up at a very steep angle.
And then we have another hill
that's almost straight up. So
we have two massive hills on
that west line, and they hold
up the front property, which is
where the land and of course
the house sits. They have also
not addressed what happens
during this process when they
remove land and then bring in
land there, making it very
difficult for the stability of
the land. They're also not
talking about runoff, meaning
they're talking about their
runoff. They're not talking
about my runoff. So when you
destabilize all that and then
you put in a development, my
runoff is going to go into
their development, right? And
so I don't want to be legally
responsible for a development
that was created and not taken
into account how important it
is for the neighbors who are
north of the development. You
know what? They're legally
going to be. They're legally
going to be responsible for
after the development is
completed. So I think that's a
valid point when it comes to
the city approving it and then
us being responsible for. I
think that leads to more issues
down the road. I think that the
other things have been noted.
Stability. Of course, a lot of
these land lines. There was
also a petition a while back in
2000 to change the land lines.
To my knowledge, that petition
went through. The city doesn't
seem to have record of it, but
I have record of it. And that
is a big thing, because the
development then took 30ft from
each one of these lots and gave
it to the development. It can
be shown in the maps over time.
So if you look at the 70s maps
and then you fast forward to
2026, those 30ft have been
given to the development, even
though there's no record of it
in the system. And with that, I
will close my book and we can
move on. Thank you Stephanie.
>> Thank you, Miss Ali. Two
questions. Did you submit a
comment letter? Yes. And if you
did? Yes. Thank you. Did you
attach your record that you
have regarding the petition to
change the the lines? Did you
enclose that? Okay, great. All
right. I just wanted to close
the loop on that. So I have
reference and can take a look
at that. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you so much.
>> Okay. Anyone else wishing to
provide testimony on the Swiss
Terrace proposed infill
subdivision. Please raise your
hand and or turn on your camera
so that I can see you and call
on you. I am not seeing any
other hands.
>> I am not either. Okay? Oh.
>> No, Mr. Jason. Boss. Boss.
All right, I, I, I won't be
able to pronounce your name
correctly, but please raise
your right hand and I'll swear
you in. Yeah. Thank you. Do you
swear or affirm the testimony
you give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, great. Please state
your name. Spell your last name.
Indicate whether you wish to be
a party of record. If you've
not submitted a comment letter
and state your interest in the
application.
>> My name is Jason Vosburgh. I
do want to be a party of record,
and I have submitted a comment
already, so I just wanted to be
on the record just just to say
that I oppose this development,
as is. Most of the things that
are that are my concern have
already been covered, but I
just want to be on the record.
My main concern is the
stability of the land. My my
property is 2401 North East
57th Street. I sit right above,
I believe, the lot. Seven and
so my concern is the
development of the project and
how much it's going to make the
the land unstable during the
project build. So.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Thank you for
your comment. All right, Mr.
Vosburgh. Okay. Any other
person wishing to provide
testimony, please raise your
hand. Turn on your camera. I
see, okay, Mr. Bosco, or. Okay.
Right.
>> I'm not seeing any others.
>> Not seeing anybody else.
Yeah, I am not seeing. Go ahead.
Okay.
>> I'm not seeing anyone.
>> Okay. So before I turn it
back to Miss Sanchez, there was
a request to leave the the
record open following the
hearing this evening. I'd like
city staff to make a comment on
that as well as the applicant,
but I will say that I'm
inclined to grant that request.
But please do address that
request as well. And, Miss
Sanchez, and then when I turn
it back to the applicant. So,
Miss Sanchez, you may proceed.
>> Thank you. Examiner Marshall,
to start with, regarding the
noticing of the staff report,
all parties are required to
provide their email during the
public comment period. Were
included in the email on June
2nd, and that provided them a
link to the staff report and
agenda. And I believe Mark
Erickson was included on that
email. Going to address the
comments mentioned regarding
the infill ordinance, the
current version of the
ordinance has been in place
since 2024. Prior to that, it
has been around for at least a
decade. They are applying for
infill development standards,
as mentioned before, for single
family Home, which allows lots
as small as 1500ft². Let's see
regarding the exemption, the
city has adopted exempt levels
for minor new construction. Any
project proposing 30 single
family units or fewer can be
exempt from Cepa. In this case,
the applicant is proposing 18
single family units, so this
project is exempt from Cepa.
The Critical Area ordinance is
a local requirement and
separate from the state
requirements by requiring a
Critical area permit on this.
On this project, it doesn't
mean that the project is no
longer exempt from severe. The
condition regarding the. The
geotechnical review going over
to the critical areas and steep
slopes. This condition is prior
to civil approval, so no
construction or grading is
permitted until this condition
is met. Let's see, what were
the other comments regarding
the. The application was
reviewed by our Solid Waste
Management Department and
transportation. Solid solid
waste receptacles will be
located at the front of each.
Not at the nod on 54th, so the
solid waste truck will drive up
and pick up trash recycling and
then back out. There is a
turnaround so that it's not
backing up, but it has room to
turn around and be facing
forward when it's coming back
down. The the development.
Let's see regarding regarding
the survey discrepancy, this
would be a civil matter between
the applicant and neighboring
property owner. Let's see. Oh,
and for the comments regarding
stormwater and erosion control
requirements, we do have the
city stormwater reviewer Ryan
Paulson here on the hearing. So
we can have him explain a bit
what the requirements were
regarding those two topics.
>> Okay. Thank you. Miss
Sanchez, did you have anything
else to add before I swear in
Mr. Paulson?
>> No, I believe that was it.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
Good evening, Mr. Paulson.
Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the
testimony you give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, great. Please state
your name, spell your last name
and your title at the city.
>> Brian Paulson, PAULSEN. I'm
a surface water engineer within
the Public Works department of
the City of Vancouver.
>> Thank you.
>> Sure. Some chatter on the
line. So I think my main
response is that, you know, the
the civil review is ongoing and
we haven't approved any of the
design for the stormwater yet.
And it's very it it's normal
for the civil review to go
several rounds and for the
design to get, you know,
modified in response to the
city's comments. So at this
point, the they've only gone
through one round of review.
The applicant has only gone
through one round of review.
And typically. You know, it can
go several rounds of review.
You know, I'd say about three
is typical. So we've been we've
let the applicant know that
there are you know, that
they're not at this point
needing stormwater standards.
And they're to my understanding,
you know, up updating the
design to meet the standards.
>> That's it. Okay.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr.
Paulson.
>> Thank you.
>> Miss Sanchez, did you have
anybody else from the city that
you wish to address?
>> No, that was it. It was just
the stormwater.
>> You're. Your honor, this is
Philip Gigler, assistant city
attorney. And I think this is
the city's last time to
interject. So I did just want
to note, for, Your Honor, that
there were several
constitutional challenges
raised, which, at least in the
city's mind, is appropriate for
the record. But I believe
beyond the scope of both the
hearing and the hearings,
examiner's authority at this
point.
>> Yes.
>> All right. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Gigler. Okay. If there
is nothing further. Thank you.
If there's nothing further from
the city, I will turn it back
to the applicants.
Representative.
>> Thank you. So I'll address a
few of the things. A lot of
what was commented on, we've
already addressed in our
response or in the application
materials on the record first
related to the neighborhood
character. The attached product
is going to be 2 to 3 units
attached, which are generally
speaking, about the same size
as your typical single family
detached home. So as far as
visual character, it's going to
appear very similar to any
other home in the neighborhood,
so the character should fit in
fairly well with the remaining
portion of the neighborhood
relating to the waste
management. So a little
correction for staff. We're
going to have collections set
out points along track A along
the main road there, so that
the waste management vehicles
only have to drive up the main
road to the turnaround at the
north end.
>> The your audio is cutting
out.
>> Sorry. About.
>> Okay, the last thing, the
last thing. Let let me
interrupt. The last thing that
I that I heard was regarding
waste management. The
collection set out points. And
then the audio was was cutting
out if you wouldn't mind
repeating. Oh hold on. Okay. Go
ahead.
>> Good. Okay, so we're going
to have a general set out point
for the neighborhood adjacent
to lots 112 and then across the
street from roughly lots 13 and
14. So the units will bring
their trash cans out to those
locations for collection. So
they'll be within the
development. They won't be
adjacent to any other
neighboring property. The
closest parcel they'll be
adjacent to is the stormwater
facility. And then the. Private
road is adequate for waste
management turnaround. I know
the the waste management
company reviewed the plan and
actually had some comments for
us. And we have updated the the
turnaround to be wider than a
typical turnaround to account
for waste management vehicles
being able to turn around on
the site. So we have adjusted
the site plan per waste
management comments. And the
collection points will be on
site. Regarding the erosion
concern from the roadway. The
private road is going to have a
curb that will direct
stormwater away from their
property, and will direct it to
our collection facilities, so
all the stormwater is going to
be retained on site for
treatment and in a detention
facility prior to being
released to the stormwater
facility. So there shouldn't be
any erosion on the neighboring
parcels at all. For the concern
on safe routes to schools, the
a letter from the Vancouver
Public Schools is provided in
the record, noting that
students from this area will be
bussed. So that is their safe
route to school. Ultimately, if
there are bus. They don't have
to have sidewalks and in this
occasion, as we've discussed in
other portions of the record,
providing a sidewalk to
Minnehaha would be
disproportionate to the
development just given the cost
of constructing it with right,
right of way acquisition that
would be necessary, and site
grading that would be off site
grading that would be necessary
to construct a sidewalk. Also
related to the stormwater. We
will be designing it to the
forested condition prior to
development. So we will be
meeting that standard. So
ultimately, all that email
correspondence was getting to
the point of staff saying that,
yes, we had to design to the
forested standard as the manual
requires. So that's what we'll
be doing. Related to Miss Ali's
comments. There's no evidence
that's recorded that there's
any difference in the property
lines besides what's shown on
our plan. The. And also she
mentioned a petition, and we
don't recall seeing any
petition in the record and
aren't aware of what that would
be for. And as staff noted, the
boundary dispute is ultimately
a civil matter. Anything else?
Oh, the conflict of interest.
Again, just to be clear. No
surveyors that she hired have
done any work for us on this
property. Any work that they
did was prior to the applicant
owning this property for other
owners. So for this project, we
have had no relation with any
of the surveys that she has
hired. And that's it. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. There was a request to
leave the written record open
for a period of two weeks. And
go ahead.
>> Marchel.
>> Yes, yes.
>> Hi. Hi. Excuse me. I don't
mean to interrupt, but I can
bring up the email dated June
2nd, 2026, showing you, showing
you all the parties of record
who received the staff report
in that email. Would you like
me to share my screen and show
you?
>> Yes, please. Yes.
>> Let me do that.
>> I did not say that it wasn't
sent. I said I did not receive
it. That is common with email.
>> Okay. I'm just I'm just
sharing my screen with the
examiner. Okay. These are the
people and you can see here.
Let's see. Mark at Erickson
law.com was also included with
everyone who provided public
comment. The applicant, the
property owner, received this
email with the link for the
staff report documents.
>> No, it was sent to them. Not
that they received it.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Well, no, no more
interruptions. I understand
that there's a there's a
discrepancy and that there is a
difference between sending and
receiving. The code does not
require that city confirm
receipt. But that being said, I
do tend to on the side of
caution, rather than keeping
the record open for a period of
two weeks, I propose that the
written record be kept open for
a one week period. But this is
not an all. You know, everybody
come on in and and submit more
comments. This will be open for.
For submission of of comments
by people that have not
previously submitted comments.
And, and that would be. I'm I'm
forgetting your last name
already, Mr. Erickson. Mr.
Erickson's clients. This is not
for everybody to to flood the
city with more comment letters.
This is only for the purpose of
addressing your statement that
you did not receive public
notice in a timely manner. So I
will hold the hold the written
record open for one week for
Mr. Erickson to submit
additional comment, and the
applicant and the city will
have one week to respond if
they so wish. So let me get my
calendar out so that I can
state these dates on the record.
And so today is the 16th. A one
week period will conclude on
Tuesday, June 23rd. And
comments should not be
submitted to me, but to Miss
Bowen, the hearing examiner
clerk, and comments should be
sent by 5 p.m. Miss Bowen, is
that correct? Five or is it 444
4 p.m. so please make notes.
Comments from Mr. Erickson.
>> We also have a holiday in
there. Examiner Marchel. So I
think it should be June 24th.
>> Fourth.
>> Yes, I keep overlooking that.
Okay. So yes, so so for a full
one week period, given the
holiday on Friday, comments
from Mr. Erickson or anyone
else that alleges that they did
not receive notice. Again, if
you've already submitted
comments, please do not submit
repetitive comments. The record
will be closed at 4 p.m. On
June 24th Wednesday, June 24th.
Please submit your comments to
Miss Bowen. Do not try to find
my email or reach my email.
Miss Bowen is the clerk and
then the applicant and the city.
If either or both wish to
provide a response that will be
due one week later on Wednesday,
July 1st. At that time and. And
if neither the city nor the
applicant wish to respond to
the June 24th submission,
please do email Miss Bowen so
she can alert me and I can
close the record. If the record
does stay open until July 1st,
my decision will be due.
Counting the holiday on July
3rd, which will be observed 4th
of July. My. My decision would
then be due on July 16th.
Thursday, July 16th. That
decision date could move up if
the city and the applicant.
Both state that they do not
wish to provide further comment
to anything that comes in by
the 24th. Okay. I think that's
it for this application. I want
to thank everybody for
respecting the time periods and
and providing your testimony.
It's very much appreciated.
Okay, so the second item on the
agenda this evening is the
Mount Hood Vista Subdivision
with a request for a zone
change. This is application
number PR-169743, LUP85799.
This application is to
subdivide a 7.52 acre site into
82 residential lots, and is
also requesting a zone change
from R nine to R 17. This is a
type four process for this
application. The previous
application was a type three
process. I will go through the
preliminary statements and
disclosures for this
application, as I do for each
one. Again, I am the City of
Vancouver Hearings officer, and
the purpose of this hearing is
to collect public testimony and
any additional evidence on the
proposed proposed application.
I will be judging the
application. This is quasi
judicial, so I will be judging
the application based on the
criteria set forth in the staff
report and based on the
evidence in the record and
testimony this evening. If you
believe that the staff report
did not include all applicable
criteria, please bring that to
my attention. There is a raise
it or waive it requirement. So
if you forget to to share
something and it's not in a
comment letter or elsewhere in
the record, you cannot bring
that up later. If if my
decision is appealed after it's
issued, please limit your
testimony to three minutes.
This is not a question and
answer session. So if you have
questions for the city or for
the applicant, please ask your
question. And when testimony
turns back to the city and to
the applicant, they will
address the questions raised
during public testimony. Once
public testimony is complete,
there is not going to be an
opportunity to ask further
questions. So please make sure
that you get everything that
you wish to be addressed on the
record. When it's your turn to
testify. I've not had any ex
parte contacts, meaning that
I've not been contacted outside
of the hearing this evening.
Concerning this application. I
have received the staff report
and the exhibits that exist in
the record to date, and I have
reviewed those. I've also
coordinated with Miss Bowen on
the scheduling and the format
and the. And the time. The
agenda for this hearing this
evening. I have not prejudged
this application. I do
understand that there are
similar applications that have
been approved or may be
proposed in the future, but
each application is decided on
its own merits. I do not have
any interest in the outcome of
this application either for or
against, and I do not have any
bias either for a party or a
commenter or, you know, just I
love subdivisions, I nothing
like that. So I believe that I
can hear this matter in a fair
and impartial manner. If anyone
wishes to object to my
proceeding as the hearing
examiner for this application,
for this application, please
state. So now, in the nature of
your objection. Okay. All right.
Hearing none, the hearing will
go as forward. The applicant
will make their presentation to
begin with and bring anything
in particular concerning the
application that they wish,
wish me to focus on or
highlight. The city will then
have an opportunity to review
the staff report, discuss any
conditions of approval that
they are proposing, and maybe
to fill in any blanks that the
applicant may have not put
forth in their application at
that time. We will turn it over
to public comment. I will call
on each person individually.
After you use the raise hand
feature and or turn on your
camera, and I will swear you in
so that you can provide
testimony. Again, please ask
your questions at that time and
staff and the applicant will
address those at the conclusion
of all public testimony. Once
public testimony is concluded,
I will turn it back to city
staff and they will address any
questions that have come up,
and then the applicant will
have the final word, because
they have the burden of proof
on the applications. If the
record is closed this evening,
the date for my decision on
this application will be
Wednesday, July 1st.
Considering the Juneteenth
holiday this coming Friday. Any
questions before we get going?
All right. Thank you. All
hearing none, I will turn it to
the applicant.
>> Thank you. Hearings examiner
Marchel. My name is Morgan
Chadwick.
>> Hi, Morgan. Let me swear you
in real quick. Do you swear or
affirm the testimony you give
will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the
truth?
>> Yes.
>> Alright. Thank you, Mr.
Chadwick. You may proceed.
>> So my name is Morgan
Chadwick. I'm the project
manager for Jaejin Group, and I
will be the presenter for the
applicant this evening. And I'm
going to attempt to share. Our
presentation. And are you able
to see that?
>> Yes I am, thank you.
>> All right.
>> Along with me tonight is
Game Group's principal planner
and civil engineer, Jason
Taylor with PLS engineering.
Again thank you hearings
examiner Marshall for reviewing
our application and
presentation this evening.
Thank you to the city staff
members for all your time
leading up to and including
this evening to review and
support our project. I'll start
this evening with a quick
introduction of our proposal.
Mount Hood Vista is an 82 lot
single family subdivision
located off of North East 34th
Street within the Parkway East
neighborhood. While adhering to
the city's narrow LOT standards,
we are also proposing a
concurrent zone change for
current R nine to the proposed
R 17 zoning. As I just stated,
thank you to the city staff who
have reviewed our application
and through their staff report,
provided their findings and
recommendation of approval of
our proposal. Evinn Group
agrees with staff's findings
and recommendation of approval.
Providing a brief summary. A
summary of our application.
This proposal does utilize the
city's narrow LOT subdivision
standards. This slide outlines
the three approval criteria
items that are preliminary.
Plat demonstrates compliance
with part of the narrow lot.
Development standards include
the use of alleys when feasible,
and our proposal does include
an alley that will be public
but house underneath it a
private stormwater facility as
supported by city staff.
Stormwater runoff will be
collected and routed to an on
site underground infiltration
trench, and those private
facilities will be owned and
maintained by the subdivisions.
HOA. Our proposal does
incorporate the retention of a
tree grove in the southwest
corner of the site, and will be
housed in a separate tract
owned and maintained by the
subdivisions HOA. To provide
perspective on the location of
this proposed subdivision, this
slide is showing an aerial view
of the site and the surrounding
neighborhoods. The site sits
due west of northeast 162nd
Avenue between northeast 34th
Street and Northeast 28th
Street, and it is within
walking distance to Diamond
Park to the west. Here's an
illustrative or. Here are
illustrating the proximity of
the site to the schools within
the Evergreen School District
that will serve the new
residents of this proposal.
Accompanying the aerial image
is a snapshot of the school
district's letter that states
that bussing will be provided
for those proposed community
members. With this slide, I
wanted to illustrate the zoning
of our site and the neighbor
neighboring area. At the
beginning of this presentation
I mentioned. In addition to the
subdivision application, we are
have submitted a concurrent
request to rezone the site from
its current R nine to R 17. I
use the term current for two
reasons. One, it conveys what
the status of the zoning is at
this present time, and two, it
leads to the fact that this
won't always be the case.
Regardless of our land use
application and concurrent
rezone request. What I mean by
that is explained under the
next slide here. What this
zoning map demonstrates is what
the future holds for our site
and the surrounding
neighborhoods. As most are
aware, the City of Vancouver
and surrounding jurisdictions
have been working for years now
on their Comprehensive Plan
update, which was voted on and
approved by the City Council on
June 1st this year. What this
map represents is years of work
engagement done by the city and
recently the City Council, to
approve of the preferred zoning
map that you see here and will
become part of the Comp Plan
update that will take effect
July 31st of this year. As this
map demonstrates, our site and
the surrounding neighborhood
will be rezoned to low scale
neighborhood or less. As the
new zoning district. This slide
is trying to depict in a single
snapshot the reasoning why the
policy makers would like to see
a zone change of our site,
because, quite frankly, within
the city of Vancouver, there is
a housing crisis. The city,
both policy makers and staff,
have undertaken years of study
and years of planning, trying
to bring about some resemblance
of a response to the housing
crisis that has been reflected
not only in quantifying what is
needed in terms of housing
units, but also put in place a
housing action plan through the
comp plan update that will soon
take effect. The two words
highlighted in the middle of
the slide is a term you hear
time and time again promoting
density, which is one of the
ways we can address the need to
get more housing into a defined
area. What the concurrent zone
change does for this proposal
is help effectively advance the
adopted city policies,
supporting housing diversity
without delay for the much
needed affordable housing
options within the city limits.
Here's our preliminary plat
demonstrating the narrow lot
development standards you can
see centralized in the plan.
The alley loaded lots with the
public alley connecting to two
public streets on either end
with a private storm facility
underneath. Again, the HOA will
own and maintain the storm
facility here and throughout
the site. Frontage improvements
are proposed for North East
34th Street, as well as
connecting to the existing
sidewalk to the south on
northeast 154th Avenue. The
tree grove in the southwest
corner of the site will be
preserved within a separate
track space that will be owned
and maintained through the
Subdivision's HOA. This slide
highlights all of the documents
that were submitted to form our
fully complete land use
application. The narrative
details out how we believe we
are meeting the approval
criteria and standards spelled
out in the city's code, which
staff is in agreement of. The
Cepa checklist shows higher
level impacts that the overall
project may have, and how those
impacts are going to be
mitigated. The Geo report that
illustrates excellent
infiltration rates for the
stormwater facility and general
soil conditions, and our
transportation analysis was
produced by our traffic
engineer and demonstrates how
our proposal adheres to
concurrency standards. Again,
from a previous slide showing
the school district's letter
stating that they will be
providing bussing for this
subdivision. Here we are
highlighting a few key
milestones in the entitlement
life cycle of this project.
Through the pre-application
process, where you see, we
received contingent vesting
back in May of last year, March
of this year, staff determined
that our application was deemed
fully complete and then vested
our project to current
standards. Again, we are
preserving a tree grove in the
southwest corner of the site,
and we agree with the urban
forester that our application
is in compliance with VMC
20.770. The various approval
criteria for our application is
illustrated on this slide, and
we believe our application has
met all of them. All the
materials submitted to include
our narrative within our
application have shown how this
site is a prime site for
redevelopment within the city,
and meet the subdivision
standards for the narrow lot
development standards. Our
preliminary plat demonstrates
how our design eliminates
conflicts for the narrow lots.
We show more than required
guest parking within the site,
and lastly, how solid waste and
recycling can be collected
within the new subdivision. The
more complicated approval
criteria is the text and map
amendments. The narrative
submitted, we believe, shows
how our plan aligns with the
Vancouver Strategic Plan, and
the change in circumstance is
related to the housing shortage
and crisis we're experiencing
in Southwest Washington. To
reiterate what I have stated at
the beginning of our
presentation, Jaejin Group
believes we have met all the
approval criteria, and we do
recommend approval of this
application in front of you,
consistent with the staff
report and its findings and
recommendations. Thank you for
listening to our presentation
examiner. Marshall, if you have
any follow up questions to
clarify anything we have stated
this evening or within our
application, Jason and I are
available to answer those
questions.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chadwick. I
do not have any questions. I
paused for a second because I
may have a question on the zone
change, but I think I'm going
to hold and and hear here the
city's presentation and then
also see if there see what the
public comments have to say. So
I'm going to hold for now.
>> Thank you. Standby.
>> Okay. Perfect. Okay. The
city, Mr. Tortorici.
>> Hey there. Yes. Anthony
Tortorici, senior planner.
>> Okay. Thank you. Do you
swear or affirm the testimony
you give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
>> I do.
>> Thank you, Mr. Tortorici.
You may proceed.
>> All right. So, as we know,
we're here tonight for the
Mount Hood Vista subdivision
and zone change. The slide
shows the location of the
property at 15301 North East
34th Street. The site is
currently developed with
several structures and radio
towers that are proposed to be
removed as part of this
redevelopment. Something to
note on the site is an Oregon
White Oak located on the
western portion of the property.
Oregon White Oaks are
classified as critical area
resources, and the tree is
proposed to be retained and
protected as part of the
development. Again showing the
zoning a little bit of a closer
in view. R9 with R4 to the
south. The applicant's
requesting the approval of two
concurrent applications. As
mentioned previously, it's
preliminary subdivision to
divide approximately 7.5 acre
parcel into 82 single family
residential lots. And the
second is the zoning map
amendment from R nine to R 17.
Both the existing R nine and
proposed R 17 zones are
consistent with the Urban Lower
Density Comp Plan designation,
so no comp plan map amendment
is required, just the zoning
map amendment. Because these
two are being reviewed
concurrently, the applications
are processed together under a
type for review procedure, with
a recommendation from the
hearings examiner forwarded to
City Council for a final
decision. The application
followed the city's standard
review process for a type four
land use application.
Environmental review was
completed under CPA notice was
provided to surrounding
property owners and interested
parties, and agency and public
comments were received during
the review period. Public
comments primarily focused on
proposed density, traffic and
parking impacts, and tree
retention. Staff reviewed those
concerns against the applicable
approval criteria and
development standards, and the
findings related to those
topics are discussed in the
staff report. The subdivision
review focuses on whether
adequate provisions have been
made for public facilities,
infrastructure, circulation,
utilities and other
improvements necessary to serve
the development. Staff also
evaluated the proposal against
the subdivision technical
standards, which include lot
layout access easements, narrow
lot development requirements
and site design considerations.
Based on these findings, staff
concluded that the subdivision
proposal satisfies the
applicable approval criteria as
conditioned in the staff report.
Won't spend too much time on
this. The applicant showed the
preliminary plat here, but
again, we see a proposal to
create 82 single family
residential lots primary access
being provided from North East
34th Street, with the extension
of northeast 154th to the south,
a network of new internal
public streets and a public
alley. Staff evaluated the
proposed zoning map amendment
against the approval criteria
of VMC 2285060. Staff found the
proposals more consistent with
the applicable strategic Plan
and Comp Plan policies than the
existing zoning. While both the
existing and proposed zoning
districts are consistent with
the Urban Low Density Comp Plan
designation, are 17. More
effectively, advances adopted
policies related to housing
diversity, infill development,
efficient urban land use
patterns, and the use of
existing public infrastructure.
Staff considered the
community's ongoing housing
need, affordability challenges
and the city's adopted policy
direction, supporting
additional housing
opportunities. Based on these
findings, staff concluded that
the Zoning Map amendment
satisfies the applicable
approval criteria as
conditioned in the staff report.
This table here highlights the
primary development standard
differences between the
existing R-9 Zoning District
and the proposed R 17 zoning
district. R 17 is intended to
accommodate a more compact
residential development pattern
through smaller lot sizes,
reduced lot widths, increased
lot coverage allowances.
Requested rezone does not
change the site's comp plan
designation. It changes the
development standards that
apply to the property and
allows the site to be developed
in a manner that supports
additional housing
opportunities, while remaining
within the urban lower density
framework. So with that, my
recommendation staff finds the
proposal meets the applicable
requirements of the City of
Vancouver Municipal Code and
recommends approval of the
subdivision and zone change as
conditioned in the staff report.
And that concludes my slideshow.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you very much, Mr.
Ferrucci. I did get a little
bit more from you on the the
zone change, so I appreciate
that. Okay. All right. Now is
the time for public testimony.
Please use the raise hand
feature on the screen so that I
and Brandy Oldman. Okay, Miss
Oldman. Please raise your right
hand. Do you swear or affirm
the testimony you give will be
the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. You've
got to help her. I love.
>> It,
>> Okay, I do all right.
>> Mr. old Miss Oldman, please
state your name, spell your
last name and describe your
interest in the proposal.
>> Yes. My name is Brandy
Oldham, spelled OLDHAM, and my
husband is actually on the call
too, so he might pop on after
to put his statement in. Okay,
perfect. Good evening. My name
is Brandy Oldham and I live in
the Parkway East neighborhood.
I want to clarify that I am not
opposed to housing being built
on this parcel. As I do know,
we have a housing crisis here
in Vancouver, but I understand
from the previous presentations
that the change from the R 19
to R 17th May be occurring
throughout the City of
Vancouver's new comprehensive
plan process. So it may be null
and void for me to even say
that I oppose it. But I would
like to go on record that I do
not support this change. Yes,
because it has the potential to
not only impact this
development, but also the
future character of a very well
established neighborhood. And
obviously, as a mother of a
young child, I am asking the
city to look very carefully at
what this development means for
families who already walk
through this neighborhood every
day. My son and I regularly
walk in this area to visit his
grandparents who live a street
over, but we also walk to
Diamond Park, which will be
directly impacted by this
subdivision. And our home is
located along a walking path
where we have young kids
running up and down all day
long. So this is not an
abstract traffic concern for my
family. This is a route we walk
daily, and these are crossings
that we currently navigate with
a toddler, and I see many other
families doing so as well.
These are the streets where
children, grandparents and
families are already walking
without the level of pedestrian
infrastructure that actually
should be in place in this
neighborhood. This is a
neighborhood, like I said, with
high walking traffic today
alone, we went on a short ten
minute walk and we stopped and
spoke with three other
neighborhood families, all of
whom had young children. And I
just want to say that this is
not unusual. I do know that the
surveyors I know, I know we're
talking the surveyors came out
in the evening or sorry, in the
winter time where families
weren't out as much. But during
these nice weather days, we're
talking lots of families out
all the time. Can you snag it
for me? Thank you. With
increased density and without
adequate pedestrian protections,
we are creating a real safety
concern. My concern here is
that additional vehicles are
not going to stay isolated to
just the subdivision entrance.
Drivers will be using
additional surrounding
residential streets. And right
now, we don't have crosswalks.
We don't have sidewalks that
run all the way up the street
to the park. And this
development is going to be
right along that same thing,
that same path. And these are
neighbor neighborhood streets
that, again, people are using
to access parks, bus stops,
homes, all of those things. I
just want to make it very clear
to the city that the safety
impact really does need to be
measured on how these families
move through this neighborhood
every day, not just on the
parcel itself and not on a bad
weather day. Before allowing
this level of density to move
forward. I do ask that the city
make specific findings that the
proposed development is
compatible with the existing
neighborhood, and that the
surrounding street network can
safely handle the increased
cars, parking, and all of the
pedestrian safety impacts that
will be happening. I don't want
to see a kid run out from
behind a car. At minimum, I do
ask that the city require a
reduced density alternative.
Happy to have you build houses,
but can we cut it down a little
bit and find safety
improvements before any
approval? This should include
safe crossings, continuous
sidewalks, traffic calming
signage, protections around
school bus stops, and just
protections for walking routes
that families use to reach
Diamond Park and also the
surrounding homes. So I do
respectfully ask that the city
to deny this proposal as
presented or require a lower
density alternative that will
help us maintain this
walkability that we love about
this neighborhood.
>> Okay. Thank you, Miss Oldman,
did you submit a comment letter?
And if not, would you would you
like to be a party of record?
>> Yes. Please make me a party
of record. And I do have a
comment letter, but it wasn't
as specific about a lot of
these things that I just
mentioned tonight.
>> Okay.
>> I appreciate your testimony.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Your husband in the
background wanting to.
>> I'm.
>> Going to have him pop on in
a minute. We've got to go deal
with my son and then we'll come
back. Thank you.
>> Okay. It looks.
>> Like the next person, number
two with their hand up. Robin
Oldman. Oldham. Robin. Oh,
hello. I'm not going to make
any assumptions as to how you
might be connected to our
previous person providing
testimony. I'll go ahead and
swear you in. Do you swear or
affirm the testimony you give
will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the
truth?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Please state your name.
Spell your last name, state
your interest in the
application, and also whether
you'd like to be a party of
record.
>> Okay. My name is Robin
Oldham, spelled OLDHAM. I live
at 15616 North East 34th Street.
I do wish to continue to be a
party of record. I have
submitted an email comment, but
I'm mentioning some additional
things here tonight.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. And my
statement concerns infill
development and the size of the
proposed development site. And
our city's one size fits all
approach to housing development.
The upzoning of a vacant lot
can create greater density
within the confines of a lower
zoned residential neighborhood,
and that can be somewhat
compatible, or it can be
greatly disruptive and
dangerous depending on the
development's location. Within
the lower zoned residential
area and the size of the parcel
to be developed. I maintain
that our city seeks to apply a
one size fits all approach to
upzoning requests, such as this
one, and that the situation
differs greatly. However, when
the acreage is larger and or
located in the interior of a
residential neighborhood and
not a major city streets, where
the concerned acreage proposed
for development is small from,
say, a half acre to 2 or 3
acres, it's reasonable to
expect property owners in the
surrounding area to adapt and
deal with changes. But when the
proposed development is much
larger, let's look at an
example. A two acre infill lot
with an Upzone permitting 11
houses per acre would have 22
new homes, with an estimate of
eight additional vehicular
trips per day. To and from that
parcel, there will be some 176
additional cars sharing the
roadways daily. But if the
infill lot to be developed in
that same neighborhood happened
to be, say, seven and a half
acres, the same density of
houses to be built would result
in 82 additional homes and an
additional 656 vehicles using
the roadways each day. The
first example of 22 new houses
may be compatible with the
surrounding lower zone
neighborhood, but the example
in the larger lot, with 82
houses and 656 additional cars,
will inflict much greater
impact and proportionally
greater danger to pedestrians,
along with possible loss of
mature trees and an abrupt and
harmful change to the ratio of
built environment to natural
environment, our surrounding
property owners to be penalized
simply because they happen to
live near a large infill lot
that the city can upzone. While
the city may think that simply
having code permitted
development can address every
potential issue, there needs to
be attention paid to the fact
that the location of the
development and the size of the
parcel must be considered for
equitable allocation.
Application of that same code.
For these reasons, this parcels
central location and its size
allowing more, allowing more
density. I maintain that this
proposal does not meet
requirements for rezoning to R
17 and should not be
recommended for approval. One
more thing as to how the new
comp plan would affect this
proposal. While the denser
number of homes would be
allowed, beefed up tree
protections in the new plan
would mean that both groves of
mature Douglas firs, the one in
the northeast corner as well as
in the southwest corner, would
have to be preserved. Hence,
the developer is seeking the Up
zoning under the current city
plan, rather than waiting and
taking their chances with the
new comp plan. That's all I
have for right now. Thank you
very much. Hearing examiner
Marchel.
>> Thank you, Miss Miss Oldham,
thank you very much for your
testimony.
>> All right.
>> Okay. So it looks like
Margaret Cain is number two
with her hand raised. Miss Cain,
do you swear or affirm the
testimony you give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
>> I do.
>> Great, if you could turn
your volume up a little bit.
>> Okay.
>> Now it's at 100%. I can't
get higher.
>> Okay, that's.
>> That's better for, for me.
So thank you for that. And it
will also pick up better on the
recording. Please state your
name, spell your last name and
your interest in the proposal.
And if you'd like to be a party
of record.
>> I do want to be a part of
your record. I did submit a
comment. My name is Margaret
Cain, KAIN, and I live at 15214
northeast 35th circle, about a
block from the development. And
I do state that I. I agree that
we do need more housing in
Vancouver and support that
houses be put on this property,
but not at the planned density.
The Mount Hood Vista proposed
project has a planned housing
density that is between 60 and
65% more dense than the
surrounding neighborhood of
Parkway East. The average lot
size in Parkway East exceeds
8000ft², and in the R-4 section
exceeds 10,000ft². The lot size
for the new development
averages about 2800ft² per lot,
and I excluded lot 33, which I
understand from Morgan a few
minutes ago, will be operated
by the HOA. I'm not quite sure
I understand that, but so 28 or
2800ft² is only two thirds.
It's two thirds smaller than
the existing lot sizes. Parkway
East lot sizes are in the top
one third of our nine, or
they're in R4. And the proposal
one third of our 17. And I
don't agree with that density.
In the last five or so years,
there have been 39 infill
houses built in Parkway East in
three projects, one with 28
houses, a habitat development
with nine houses, and one with
only two houses each on
approximately 4000 square foot
lots. To accomplish, putting 82
houses on seven and a half
acres, the plan will have 75%
of the land in impermeable
surface streets, driveways,
sidewalks and roofs. There are
also 81 five foot wide pathways
between houses. In essence,
they're row houses that
>> Have to be unobstructed.
>> And.
>> Presumably they won't be
growing anything. This plan
will create an amount of hard
surfaces.
>> And dark surfaces that
create a heat sink in the
middle of our residential
neighborhood, at a time when
climate change and negative is
negatively affecting the whole
world. The development area
will be absorbing heat every
day, all summer and radiating
it back to the atmosphere every
single night. And that will
cause an effect on all of the
surrounding area, as well as
the people who purchase
property there. The proposed
project will likely also have
60 to 65% more cars from the
area than the rest of Parkway
East. Car exhaust is the
leading cause of climate change
gases, specifically carbon
dioxide, so besides warming, we
will have an increased
concentration of carbon dioxide
from the Mount Hood Vista area.
At the same time, 41 of the 51
mature trees are planned for
removal. 35 of those trees,
approximately, are mature.
Douglas fir, which is a conifer,
and it photosynthesizes year
round, removing carbon dioxide
from the air, sequestering
carbon in the woody structures
and creating oxygen. Carbon
sequestration is essential to
combat climate change, and
large trees are essential to
create oxygen. These Doug Fir
are 65 to 70 years old and.
Have more than 100 years of
peak potential photosynthesis
to create oxygen and sequester
carbon. After cutting, these
trees again will meet code, as
they said, by leaving ten
mature Doug fir on one lot and
one Oregon white oak and
planting 226 saplings, mostly
smaller ornamental species. All
nine remaining Doug Firs are on
lot 33, which I now understand
will be, I guess, owned by the
HOA. I'm not quite sure I get
that how that will work, but
approximately 180 of the 226
trees planted are ornamental
deciduous that were selected
for their small size and are
within the list the city
recommends because of their
small size and the fact that
they will only photosynthesize
in the summertime and lose
their leaves in the fall, they
will sequester much less carbon
for more than half the year.
These trees will be planted in
very small spaces and if
watered, which is a question
mark, according to Charles Ray,
the forest manager, the urban
forest manager, future
homeowners have to water these
trees for them to survive.
These trees, even though small
in stature, will likely
overgrow their spaces in a few
years. About 100 of the 180
trees are being planted along
the streets. 34th, 35th, 1/52
and 1/55. These trees will have
to be regularly pruned in order
to allow garbage truck access
to the sidewalks where the
garbage is planned for pickup.
The end result will be that
there will be much less carbon
sequestration, let much less
pulling of carbon dioxide from
the air by these small trees.
If they survive, there will be
40 native incense cedar planned
in the backyards of the
boundary lots along the
perimeter. Incense cedar is a
native conifer, and it has the
potential to grow to 70 plus
feet tall and at maturity,
exceeds spreads of 30ft being
planted in backyards with ten
foot setbacks and 26 foot wide
yards, it seems pretty clear
these trees are going to
overgrow their space before
they're mature. That is, if
they are watered in their early
part of their life. So I looked
up the code for density and as
I said in will meet that with
the planting of trees. There
are no codes for us to cite to
protect current and future
residents from the additional
negative climate. Climate
change consequences. And I
would contend that the city,
which has not collected any
data on survival, growth or
longevity of planted trees,
actually doesn't know for how
long the.
>> Walking the neighborhood.
>> I can tell you there is not
100% survival. In some cases,
it seems much closer to 50%
survival than 100% of newly
planted trees. So I'm asking
that you please consider not
recommending this density of
housing to the City Council, a
lower density either. At the
bottom of our nine or the very
top end of our 17, would allow
for more houses or fewer houses
to be built, but allow more
mature trees to remain on site,
create a smaller percentage of
impermeable, absorb heat
absorbing surfaces and fewer
cars out in our neighborhoods.
Thank you.
>> I realized I was on mute.
Thank you, Miss Cain, and thank
you for your testimony. It did
go a little bit longer than
three minutes. I forgot to do a
reminder at the beginning of
this portion of the agenda. So,
and it looked like also that
you might have been referring
to a submission you made. So
just a reminder to the other
members of the public, if
you've submitted something,
please let me know that it's in
the record. And then I will
also review that as well. Try
to hit the highlights so that
everyone can have a chance to
testify this evening. Miss rust,
it looks like you are next.
Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm? The
testimony you give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Please
state your name. Spell your
last name. State whether you'd
like to be a party of record
and what your interest is in
the application.
>> My name is Lynn Rust, RUST.
I live at 15216 northeast 36th
Street. I'm a Parkway East
resident that I've. And I've
been here for 33 years, which
is my interest in this
application. I'm omitting the
words northeast Street and
Avenue in my comments. To save
time, I would like the city to
build the infrastructure for
34th. Prior to or concurrent
with the development before
building the 82 homes. Address
lack of sidewalks, street
lights, curb and gutter on 34th.
Then build the homes. Use your
adopted complete street policy
framework. 34th needs an
improvement project from
Diamond Park to 162nd, similar
to the partially funded 28th
Street improvement project
that's in the tip. There is not
a continuous sidewalk on the
south side of 34th Street for
the residents to safely access
the bus on. 162nd. Residents
presently walk on 34th Street,
which fails to calm speeding
traffic. The traffic study does
not include present and future
configurations for the
intersection. At 34th and 159th,
159th connects 34th to 39th.
This will be used as a cut
through for non-peak hours.
When you remove the left turns
from eastbound 34th to 162nd,
154th and 157th are also cut
through streets, but they have
the configurations in the study.
Pheasant, woods and pheasant
run neighborhoods of 300 plus
homes east of 162nd are
excluded from the study. Trips
will be rerouted from westbound
34th when the city eliminates
the left turn to mitigate
postponing a signal, trips move
to 28th or 39th to access 162nd.
The pheasant neighbors are
likely unaware of this traffic
change because there are half a
mile from the posted public
notice sign. The study predicts
82 homes generate 60 2 a.m. and
80 2 p.m. peak trips. Has the
city analyzed the added non
peak and peak trips to 162nd
signals at 28th and 39th,
caused by a left turn closure,
including queue length for
U-turns originating from the
300 pheasant homes give 34th
Street some love before adding
820 daily trips to our
neighborhood and fund the 28th
Street project, first to
provide relief to the south. In
closing, 82 homes does not fit
the dynamics and character of
the existing Parkway East
neighborhood because of higher
density. I oppose the zone
change. Neighborhood residents
want meaningful input into our
neighborhood, similar to the
process that the city led
Vancouver Heights project is
following. Thank you.
>> Again. My microphone is off.
Thank you very much for your
testimony, Miss Rust. It looks
like Miss Oldman, perhaps it's
your husband that is available
now to testify. You have your
hand up again, miss Randy
Oldman. Oldham.
>> Yes. This is talking about
Brandy. Yes.
>> All right. Let me swear you
in real quick. Do you swear or
affirm the testimony you give
will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the
truth.
>> I do.
>> Okay, please state your name
and spell your last name and
what your interest is in the
application. And I will also
note for everybody, Miss Boguhn
has put a three minute timer at
the top of the screen. Just
keep an eye on that as well.
Thank you.
>> My name is Jackson Oldham.
Oldham, spelled OLDHAM. I'm a
resident of Parkway East. I
live at 15924 northeast 33rd
Circle. So just to the east of
the proposed development, in
the interest of saving the
examiners time, I would just
I'll just say that I have put a
comment in in the record, and I
would like to remain on the
record. And I would like to
reiterate what everyone else
has already said, that I
support those comments. Two
points that I'll bring up
specifically, one that has not
been mentioned so far is the
city's commitment to tree
canopy. The city's current goal
is 28% tree canopy coverage.
The Parkway East neighborhood
sits at 15% for one of the
lowest in the city. No number
of small trees that a developer
puts in can replace the
absolutely irreplaceable,
established Doug Firs that are
already on the property. This
is an opportunity for the city
of Vancouver to put their money
where their mouth is and
protect trees. As we say, we
like to. The second point I
will say is I would just remind
the examiner, and obviously
you're aware that the impetus,
the burden is on the applicant
to prove why a zone change and
why these developments are
necessary. There's obviously a
housing crisis. As a public
safety professional, I see that
crisis every single day.
However, I do not believe that
82 houses versus a proposed
slightly lower amount is going
to solve that problem
significantly. And I don't
believe that qualifies as an
unusual circumstance or
condition to justify the
changing and rezoning of this
property. I appreciate your
time and I will end my comment
there.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Thank you very
much for your testimony, Mr.
Oldham. Okay. Next up is it
looks like Robin Oldham also
has her hand up again. If there
is someone else.
>> Yes.
>> Alright, great. Let me swear
you in real quick. Do you swear
or affirm the testimony you
give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, great. Please state
your name. Spell your last name.
>> Okay.
>> I'm John David Oldham. I go
by David and the last name is
spelled OLDHAM. And I have
submitted comments earlier and
would like to be a.
>> Party of record.
>> Party of record.
>> Thank you. Yes. All right.
Thank you. Yeah.
>> I just I have a short
comment that I believe that
this parcel's large size over
seven acres and its infill
location makes up zoning to our
17 as opposed to what we've
heard from some others. I
believe it's incompatible with
surrounding R4 and R9
neighborhoods. I oppose as it
will overcrowd the streets,
making them dangerous for
pedestrians and for motorists.
And that's all I wanted to say.
Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr.
Oldham.
>> Okay, okay.
>> Stacy Peterson, you are next.
Hi. Let me swear you in. Do you
swear or affirm the testimony
you give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but
the truth.
>> I do.
>> Okay, great. Miss Peterson,
please state your name. Spell
your last name. Indicate
whether you'd like to be a
party of record or remain a
party of record. And what your
interest is in the application.
>> My name is Stacy Peterson.
Last name PETERSON. And yes,
I'd like to continue to be a
party of record. I have made a
comment previously and I to
live in the neighborhood at
3108 northeast 1/51 Avenue. So
I'm just one block over from
the development on 1/51 Avenue.
I feel like I agree with the
rest of the comments that have
been coming up this evening.
The zoning does not match the
low density residential
neighborhood and will create a
safety zone problem within our
neighborhood. And that the city
is using our existing
infrastructure but not
maintaining it. Based on your
safety study, there was a
suggestion to put a traffic
light at the end of 34th Street,
but instead they're just
blocking it so that you can
only head south on 1/62 as a
resolution that is not safe and
that does not maintain our
infrastructure. Currently, a
lot of the traffic comes down
my street to go out to 28th and
turn east up to 162nd doing
during peak hours, it's really
difficult to make that left
hand turn onto 28th Street. And
based on the traffic flow and
the size of additional homes,
we're really going to have a
difficult time. Those those
cars are going to be headed our
way. And it's going to be
really difficult to turn left
onto 28th. I see it as a safety
hazard. So I'm asking that you
deny. This zone change, or at a
very minimum, request a traffic
light on 34th Street with the
sidewalks for safety speed
bumps in the current connecting
neighborhoods all the way up to
Diamond Park and more parking
to maintain the current
infrastructure and maintain it.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, Miss
Peterson. Okay. It looks like
we've got another person that
has just raised. Oh, actually,
that was number four. Number
three, gang Lou has your hand
up.
>> Hi. Yes.
>> Are you in real quick? Do
you swear or affirm the
testimony you give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. Thank you. Please
state your name, spell your
last name. And if you would
like to either be or remain a
party of record.
>> Sure. My name is on Liu. I
think our church members have
submitted some written
documentations and
communications. So we we we
want to remain on the record.
Yes. Yes. My interest. I'm a
member of the church in
Vancouver. So our meeting hall
is on the east side of the
development side. We actually
share the the borderline right.
Or the, the lot line. So we
have we have a lot of members
with young children. So my, my
concern is mainly about youth
safety, right? Both during the
construction period and after,
especially during the
construction, I, I heard that
the developer company planned
to build a fence all around.
But the question is, even
before that, that fence was
built. Right? How do we ensure
the safety for the for the
children and young people? A
few a few questions to both the
city and the developer. Right.
Besides the fencing, is there
any plan to have security
personnel during busy time to
make sure you know, safety and
then is there a plan for
background checks for the
workers, which is very common
in school adjacent projects?
And also especially during the
summer, there will be some
activities going on in our
church properties, right, both
in the front and back yard. How
can we, you know, avoid all
restricted the working hours
during that time? Also, there's
a noise and dust, right? Since
we are the immediate neighbor
of the construction, I think
will be impacted quite heavily
by that. So so that's, that's
the that's the main concerns I
have. I, I support all the
neighbors concerned about the
zoning. So I don't think I need
to repeat that. I think that's
all. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Liu. Thank
you. Okay. It looks like Dan
Carstensen.
>> Yes, yes. My name is Dan. My
name is Dan Carstensen. The
last name is spelled CASTENSON.
And I do want to be a on the
record. I've actually submitted
a record as well, but I have
some additional comments
tonight.
>> Okay, let me swear you in
real quick. All right. Do you
swear or affirm the testimony
you give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
>> I do.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Carstensen. You may proceed.
>> Well, I want to make
reference in the beginning to
the application that was made
by the applicant back in May of
2025, and draw the attention to
the municipal code, 20770.070.
It clearly states that when
there are feasible and prudent
location alternatives on site
for proposed building of
structures or other site
improvements, existing native
vegetation and trees are to be
preserved even if the minimum
tree is exceeded. Well, this
application applied for 87
homes, and they clearly said
that they would retain and
protect the Douglas fir groves,
groves in the southwest corner
and the northeast corner of the
site. That has all been changed.
And so this is something that
is not obviously following the
code. It clearly says that the
the the trees would certainly
offer an increased canopy. As
Peggy has pointed out earlier
in her testimony, the trees.
And again, I need to make this
clear. The trees that are being
preserved are in the south west
corner was the smaller grove.
The larger grove was in the
northeast corner, and they're.
Interestingly enough, they are
located in a very convenient
place to be saved. And that's
in the corners of the property.
So it would make it a lot
easier to actually preserve
those trees. And that's the
comment I wanted to make. I'm
not sure why they changed this
because it certainly would.
Even if the homes were
decreased to 70 homes, that
would clearly be enough. Lots
given up to save that larger
grove in that northeast corner
and still satisfy the density
that the city is wanting. I
will also reiterate that it
just the whole idea of of
having the supporting the code
for one and for two is that the
city wants to have more of a
canopy, and this is not the way
to do it. So I agree with all
the comments that have been
made previous. I don't have
anything else to say, but this
is an important part of the
project. I think it needs to be
changed. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Carstensen.
Okay. I do not see any other
hands raised. At this time.
>> I would like to speak.
>> Mike Mills.
>> I can't find the hand button
on.
>> Mike Mills.
>> I'm sorry. Oh, on a mobile.
Oh, okay. Yes, absolutely. And
and let me double check here.
It does look like Mike Mills
has his hand up as well. Okay,
so Rebecca adding Altree.
>> A LTIG.
>> Altree okay. Thank you. Let
me swear you in real quick,
miss Altig. Do you swear or
affirm the testimony you give
will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the
truth.
>> I so swear.
>> Okay, I appreciate it. All
right. Please. You already
spelled your last name. Please
state whether you'd like to be
a party of record and what your
interest is in the application.
>> I would like to be a party
of record. I did previously
submit a comment that is less
is less precise than what I'm
about to say.
>> Okay.
>> And my interest is I'm the
chairperson for the Parkway
East Neighborhood Association,
and I live three. I live three
blocks from the property at
3017 northeast, 1/57 court.
>> 98682. Okay.
>> And first, the. We do oppose
the zone change, but we
obviously we don't we don't. We
don't oppose more housing being
built. We need more houses like
that much that much we
acknowledge. But the
neighborhood has a lot of
concerns about safety and just
the increased traffic and the
infrastructure, as other people
have already said, I wanted to,
but I also wanted to speak more
about the heat island effect
that would be caused by the
removal of the trees on the
northeast section, and build on
what Peggy had to say. The
large number of trees that
would be removed would increase.
The ambient tape would increase
the ambient temperature of the
neighborhood for both the
current residents and the
future residents of our
neighborhood, the. And that
increased heat island effect
would would have significant
negative health impacts for our
residents. And for myself just
walking around the neighborhood,
it's going to get a lot harder
without a lot hotter without
those trees present. The.
Additionally, the. It is. It is
on the record that there. There
was a 375 signatures signed by
the surrounding residents of
both the Parkway neighborhood
and the Parkway East
neighborhood opposing the zone
change. I believe that is
everything and I reserve my
time. Thank you. I yield my
time. There we go.
>> Okay.
>> Wonderful. Thank you, Miss
Altig. I appreciate it, Miss
Mills. Yes, thank you, Mr.
Mills. Mike Mills. Mike Mills
has. You have your hand up. Oh,
there you are. Oh, no. I'm
still having trouble hearing
you.
>> Mr. Mills, is your volume on
your device all the way up?
Because I'm not showing your
microphone is muted. Can you
check the volume level on the
device you're using?
>> Can't hear you.
>> Mr. Mills. We still can't
hear you. I'm sorry. I'm not
showing you as being muted,
though. So is there. Do you see
the volume button? I'm not sure
if you're on a laptop or a PC.
You're on your you're on your
phone. Marchel. I'm not sure
what to do. He's I'm showing
him as not being muted.
>> I know.
>> I can see that. Yes. And,
and there is the suggestion
again that, Mr. Mills, if you
would call in, we can take your
testimony that way.
>> Just like Rebecca did.
>> Yeah.
>> And the phone number is
listed in the. Hearing
information. Let me see if I
can pull that up. Let's see.
The phone number. Let's see if
it's in here. Looks like. 532.
I'm sorry. Where did it go?
Dial in by phone. 1347. 941.
5324. There's a bunch of
numbers after that. I've never.
I've never had to have someone
call in. Let's see.
>> Yeah. I think Mr. Mills said
in the messages that he was
going to call in.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Should we move to the next
person and then. Yes, wait for
him to call in.
>> That's great. Yes. I see two
other hands raised, but I
believe that those are folks
that have already testified.
>> Yes.
>> They. And Dan Carstensen, is
there anyone else online that
has not provided testimony and
wishes to do so? If so, please
use the raise hand button. I'm
not seeing anyone else. Oh,
candy J.
>> Candy J just raised their
hand. Yes, yes.
>> Okay. Candy. I will call on
you while we wait for Mr. Mills.
You could. It looks like you're
unmuted. You are not going to
turn on your camera. That's
okay. I can just swear you in.
Candy J. Do you swear or affirm
the testimony you give will be
the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. And I'm
not hearing any sound.
>> There's no audio. And that
microphone is not muted.
>> Correct.
>> So they may need to check
their volume level on the
device they're using. Or like
Mr. Mike Mills, call in to
provide their testimony. We
cannot hear you, Candy J.
>> That's correct.
>> I cannot hear you.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> They will call in.
>> Okay. So they will call in
as well.
>> Thank you. Okay.
>> Yes. Thanks for letting us
know. Okay. So we are awaiting
two phone calls.
>> And let's see. You know,
when they. I know they have to
dial the phone number and then
there's a code they need to
enter as well.
>> Yeah.
>> So that may take a minute or
two. Now Kenny G's microphone.
Here we go.
>> Okay. All right.
>> You're welcome. Brandi.
Brandi says in the in the chat,
thank you for letting us all
have this time and for being
patient with tech and kids. And
I do want to reiterate that.
Thank you all to all the
participants and thank you for
your patience with tech.
>> Yeah, that's odd that they
weren't being. Here we go.
Here's an external 503 number.
I'm not sure if this is Candy
or Mike Mills.
>> Okay.
>> We'll find out.
>> Hello.
>> Okay.
>> Sounds like a woman's voice.
Hello. This is an examiner
Hounshell.
>> Yeah. Give me a moment to
put this on mute, because I'm
getting an echo.
>> Oh, yes.
>> Please. Thank you.
>> Okay, now, can you hear me?
And I wanted to see if I can
still hear you.
>> Yes.
>> I can hear you.
>> Perfect.
>> Can you still hear us? Okay.
Great. Wonderful. Alright, let
me swear you in real quick.
Candy, do you swear or affirm?
The testimony you give will be
the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
>> I do.
>> Thank you. Please state your
name. Spell your last name. Let
me know if you've already
submitted a public comment. And
if not, if you'd like to be a
party of record.
>> I have.
>> Oh.
>> I think you hit mute.
>> No, I.
>> Oh.
>> I did examiner Marshall, I
apologize. I thought I was
muting the the other caller
that came in I apologize. Candy
J yeah, that was my error.
Let's see if we can get her
back.
>> Okay.
>> Let me. I apologize. That
was my mistake. I, I thought I
was muting the other person who
called in.
>> No problem.
>> Yes. Kenny G sorry. I that
was my mistake. You may need to
call back in. Once again, I
apologize. There was another
caller who called in just right
after you, and I thought I
muted them instead of you, I
apologize.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you, thank you,
Candy J all right, so, Miss
Bowen, do we have another
caller that we could go to,
perhaps Mike Mills?
>> I'm looking for Mike Mills.
Is it the 360 number? Mike? Mr.
Mills, are you on the the other
line? The other phone call that
called in. There's a lot of
people in here.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> I think what I'll do. Is
when the next. If Mr. Mills has
to call back in as well, when
both callers call back in, I
will not mute them. If they
could just hold their testimony
until their name is called,
that would be very much
appreciated.
>> Okay.
>> And again, thank you all for
your patience. We appreciate it.
>> So I have two callers.
>> Oh, great.
>> Okay, here's Candy J. I
believe that we got you sworn
in and I just asked. Yes, if
you could state your name,
spell your last name, and
whether you'd like to be a
party of record and what your
interest is in the application.
>> Yeah. So yes, I'd like to be
a party of record. I did submit
a comment. Candy Jenkins,
JENKINS. And my my concerns I
have to do with both traffic
and also the old growth trees.
So within the neighborhood we
do get also, I don't know if
this has been mentioned. We do
get a lot of cut through
traffic to. So I don't know if
it's just me seeing this or if
it truly is what I think it is.
But a lot of times I think a
lot of times people would want
to avoid the traffic light at
39th, so they might cut through
on 34th and then cut up on
157th or 154th to get to 39th.
So we don't just have the
neighborhood traffic. We also
have cut through traffic of
people going to other
neighborhoods that might live
just north of us. The tree
growth definitely would like to
see the northeast corner remain
as well and possibly be
accessible, maybe as a
arbitrium for the neighborhood,
for people to be able to walk
around and enjoy those trees as
part of a neighborhood. Since
they have been here for so long,
we get a lot of children
running around the neighborhood
when they're playing on their
bicycles, and because of that
added traffic, that would also
become more of a safety, a
safety concern as well. I just
also want to say that I agree
with all the testimony that's
been provided today. And
there's been a lot of good
information I've been hearing
that. I would also like to say
that I agree with. I think
that's pretty much what I have,
and I just wanted to make sure
that I showed my support as
well.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Miss Jenkins. I'm appreciate
your your tenacity and follow
through to make sure that you
were able to testify. So thank
you again. Okay.
>> Thank you miss.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mills.
Looks like there is. A a 360
call.
>> There is. And they're muted.
I did not mute them.
>> Right.
>> Okay.
>> Let's see if I can. I cannot
unmute them.
>> Okay.
>> Let's see. I'm not able I do
not have the option to unmute.
>> Okay. Mr.
>> I'm not sure.
>> If that's. Mr. Mike Mills or.
>> It might not be right to the
caller. And what I see is one
three, and then I see a bunch
of. Symbols. And in six. If you
would like to testify, it
sounds like you are. You have
muted yourself. So if you could
unmute yourself so that we can
hear from you, that would be
excellent.
>> Okay.
>> I'm trying to give this a
minute or two. And if you I do
believe that Mr. Mills had
included in the meeting chat
that he was calling in. If if
he could. Mr. Mills, if you
could enter the meeting chat
again and let us know if if you
are you've called in and are
waiting to try to provide
testimony. That would be
helpful.
>> I am keeping an eye on the
the hearing meeting chat. Oh,
okay. There we go. Mike Mills
here we are.
>> Oh, wonderful. Okay, Mr.
Mills. Please unmute yourself
and I'll swear you in real
quick.
>> Mr. Mills, if you're calling
in the mute function on your
phone appears to be activated.
Is there a way for you to. Turn
the mute off?
>> And Mr. Tortorici offered in
the Google Star six to unmute
on a phone. Any luck? Oh, could
the comment period be kept open
specifically for Mr. Mills?
That's a question for Mr. Mills.
All altig.
>> I.
>> I have done that in a
previous hearing. So yes, I
think we will address that. I
hate to have anybody not able
to provide comment when they've
appeared and, and tried to
tried several ways to
participate. At this time. I
will turn it back to Mr.
Tortorici. And and if in the
meantime, Mr. Mills or another
caller that has been trying to
provide testimony is able to.
To do so, I will take that
testimony out of order. So
please use the chat function.
Miss Boguhn is keeping an eye
on that, but we will continue
moving forward at time with
rebuttal from Mr. Tortorici.
You may proceed. Mr. Trixi.
>> Sounds good. Thank you.
First of all, note that Charles
Ray from Urban Forestry and
Eric Hahn from transportation
are here with us tonight, so
I'm not going to go into those
items on detail, but but they
can definitely speak to some of
the concerns that were brought
up. I guess, you know, I did
write down some notes for, for
each one first, I, I say
generally that. You know, I, I
understand and staff
understands many of the
concerns regarding urban heat
islands and the density as they
are, you know, higher policy
level concerns. And, and for my
findings in the staff report, I
rely on the approval criteria
that is within title 20. So
some of those more specific
concerns don't directly relate
to approval criteria. But I do
acknowledge, you know, that
there are valid concerns and
their their larger policy ideas.
So it seems like with the first
one, we had some some talk
about transportation and
requesting a reduced density
alternative. Generally speaking,
here with the subdivision.
>> That was painful.
>> Oh.
>> Sounds like somebody's
unmuted. Maybe it.
>> Was Mike Marchel that maybe
Mr. Mike Mills. Someone called.
>> In and it came up. I
admitted Mike Mills but I don't
see.
>> All.
>> Oh.
>> His microphone is live.
According to my screen.
>> It looks like way. Can you
hear me from my perspective?
Yes. Hello, Mr. Mills, am I
here okay? Yes.
>> Hey, you! Hooray, hooray!
>> All right, let me swear you
in real quick. Yay! I like the
thumbs up. Okay. Do you swear
or affirm the testimony you
give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but
the truth.
>> Yes, I do.
>> Oh, great. And we can see
your face as well. Thank you
for that. Alright, please state
your name. Spell your last name,
indicate whether you've
submitted a comment letter and
if not, if you'd like to be a
party of record and what your
interest is in the application.
>> And my name is Mike Mills.
Last MILLS and I did submit and
I would like to be on record.
Okay. Ready to go?
>> Yes I am, thank you.
>> Okay. I've my wife, Julie,
and I have lived here for 30
years in this neighborhood. I
live at 2804 northeast, 155th
Avenue. I've been a certified
arborist for 35 years, and I've
seen a lot of these trees grow
up in this neighborhood. And
the towers there were where the
towers are at. Those trees help
preserve habitat and beauty of
the neighborhood. And I, I
agree with everyone in the
neighborhood about reducing the
amount of houses that are in
there, and also increasing, you
know, adding another park area
for, for the neighborhood, for
people to, to, to, to go to and,
and be at. I. And as far as
that goes, you know, we're
going to have a, it's going to
be a lot of traffic going
through this neighborhood. I
live on 28th Street and along
28th Street or adjacent 28th
Street, and there's been a lot
of traffic going through here
within the last 5 to 10 years.
It's doubled. There's been a
lot of wrecks and high people
speeding through through the
neighborhoods and increasing
with the increased amount of
housing that's that is proposed
for for that area is going to
be. A strain in in the
neighborhood. And I, you know,
I like I say, I, I, I agree
with everybody with what they
have to say. And that's, I
guess that's what I have to say.
>> So okay. Well, thank you
very much for your testimony.
I'm glad you were able to join
us online.
>> Okay, great.
>> Thank you. Take care. Okay.
>> Okay. Bye.
>> Bye. Bye. Okay. So we will
go back to rebuttal testimony
from Mr. Tortorici. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Yeah. So as I was
mentioning, we have a few folks
here from the city that may be
able to speak to trees and
transportation. I was going to
make a general kind of comment
about density. I think if you
were to calculate the density,
it is within the range of R 17.
But when approving a
subdivision, we look at the
dimensional standards for the
lots, which include a minimum
and maximum lot size, lot width
and depth. So, so pretty much
those calculations shape how
many lots can be created. And
to that, with our finding that
the the rezone and subdivision
meet the approval criteria, you
know, the city cannot require a
reduced density alternative or
require additional open space.
Any of that would be at the
developer's, you know, their
initiative. And then moving
down to, to we talked about
infill development. I think
we're, I understand and even
the comp plan and stuff talks
about infill. I will make a
clarification that we have. The
city of Vancouver has something
called infill capital I infill
development, which is for lots
no larger than two and a half
acres. So of course that
doesn't apply. I just wanted to
draw a line here that we are in.
The proposal is to infill, but
given that it's larger than two
and a half acres, it's not
eligible for infill development.
So so the rezoned R 17 still
within the lower density comp
plan designation is the way to
develop what what people
classify as underutilized or
underdeveloped lots. Let's see.
Keep going here. Yes. Again
things like the urban heat
island. I understand the
concern and how these relate to
these larger policy goals
identified by City Council and
the city. But in staff's
finding it doesn't it's not
essentially approval criteria.
Moving on, I think so. So there
was a condition in the staff
report where the one lot was
larger than allowed. And there
were some options discussed
about what can be done. And it
seemed like the applicant
tonight has proposed a
basically a non developable
tract to retain trees and the
community members input that
I'm getting to now is they were
asking about how the HOA, you
know, retains control. And
that's basically like any
common space like condos, etc.
where, where the HOA, the
housing, they're responsible
for the maintenance and upkeep,
etc. And that's, that's a
private agreement. But I just
wanted to see if I could
provide any clarity there.
Moving on. Someone brought up a
concern, I think it was, Lynn,
about the transportation
infrastructure being required
prior to building homes. And
while I can't necessarily speak
to the particular requirements
for the transportation
infrastructure, I will note
that all of that is required
prior to final plat. And of
course, you won't be able to
construct a home until the
final plat is recorded. So all
of that kind of sidewalk and
frontage improvements, those
are completed before the houses
are built. Let's see. Moving
down here. Some things of
course, as the city cannot
speak to this and maybe the
applicant will with security or
background checks for
construction workers, a
community member brought up.
And Charles Reagan will speak
to this. 20770070 where it
pretty much states that when
feasible, prudent location
alternatives exist. Basically
we can the city can require
redesigning the site to
preserve trees. And the only
thing. I am not an urban
forester. The only thing I will
note is that that is an option.
The city may require it, and it
was reviewed by our urban
forester, and it seemed like,
at least according to the
findings, that wasn't something
that was discussed or required
by our urban Forestry
department. They found it to
meet the code as conditioned in
the report. Yes. And I think
that that's pretty much it. I
know a lot was discussed trying
to condense my my response. Yes.
And generally speaking, as a
planner, we're looking to the
approved development code and
standards that were approved by
City Council and applying those.
We find it to meet or can meet
as conditioned, acknowledging
those larger impacts that are
policy decisions, and then
deferring to urban forestry
with Charles Ray or Eric Hahn
with transportation concerns.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Tortorici.
>> Yes, you're.
>> Welcome.
>> Mr. Ray, let me swear you in
real quick. Do you swear or
affirm the testimony you give
will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the
truth.
>> I do.
>> Great, please state your
name, spell your last name and
what your title and position is
at the city.
>> Sure. Good evening, Mrs.
Hearing Examiner, I'm Charles
Ray. Last name is RAY urban
forester with the City of
Vancouver certified arborist,
urban forestry professional and
is a qualified tree risk
assessor. I have testified as
an expert witness in Clark
County courts regarding tree
issues. I've responded to and
assist with resolving tree
issues within the city, which
includes supporting community
development, reviewing tree
plans and development proposals.
In my professional opinion, the
project was designed to
minimize vegetation loss. The
project is proposing to retain
trees, existing trees along the
west and southeast section, as
well as planting additional
trees to meet the code
requirements. As part of
development, it is not feasible
to retain all trees or all
large or old trees due to the
density, due to transportation
requirements, due to utilities
and due to grading. There just
simply is not enough space.
Retention of the emerging and
mature trees is ideal, as they
can withstand some impacts to
the root system and can
acclimate to the site. And some
of the comments for that we
heard tonight regarding
retaining additional trees
under the new code, the. The
new code does require a
percentage of quality trees on
site, or healthy trees on site
of 33%, but that is under the
new code. There was also
discussions about tree canopy
goals and tree canopy goals is
not a code requirement at this
time. In the new code it is a
requirement. And just to point
out that every parcel and
development is a contributing
piece to reach, meet and exceed
those citywide tree canopy
goals.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. Mr.
Ray, did you have anything
further on that?
>> No, I think that addressed
all of them. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. Eric Hahn. All right, Mr.
Hahn, let me swear you. Do you
swear or affirm the testimony
you give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Please state your name,
spell your last name and state
what your position is at the
city.
>> My name is Eric Hahn. Last
name is spelled HAHN. I am a
senior civil engineer in the
transportation division. I head
up the Transportation
Development Review team within
that division.
>> Okay, you may proceed. Thank
you.
>> First of all, let me start
by kind of describing the
neighborhood from a
transportation perspective.
This this existing neighborhood
surrounding this site is
fortunate in that it has a very
fine grained, well spaced
system of street networks
currently. As a result of that,
the volumes on each individual
street are very low currently,
and also since the spacing is
is very good and you know,
fairly closely networked, the
capacities
>> For any sort of changes are
strong. And so there's, there's
a good a good ability for these
streets to absorb changes such
as this changes such as the
increased traffic that we're
going to see from this site, as
well as the changes that may be
resulting from changes at
intersections, in particular,
the intersection of 34th Street
and 1/62 Avenue. As was pointed
out earlier, the intent for
that intersection is to block
left. Turns out that would be
left turns coming out of 34th
Street on either side and allow
all other movements. The reason
for that treatment is that that
that intersection currently is
at a failure level of service
for volumes essentially coming
through from the north to the
south, causing other problems,
you know, coming from the east
and west. Typically, we would
have a signal there for, for
something like that, and it is
going to be added to our tip
plan to add a signal there. It
will be unfunded initially.
There was some discussion about
whether or not we could ask the
developer to put the signal
there. And we very quickly
determined that that was simply
disproportionate to the impacts
created by the development,
regardless of the density. So
the interim, if you want to
look at it that way, the
interim mitigation would be to
place that median as proposed
with the placement at medium
median, the level of service
improves significantly from a
level of service F to a level
of service C immediately. So it
will bias a lot of time to to
to get a signal there at some
point in the future. Again, the
changes in traffic patterns
resulting from that can be
relatively easily absorbed by
the existing street network.
Also, that street network does
have quite a bit of existing
capacity. Most of these streets
are only carrying 500 cars per
day or fewer. I know that
sounds like a lot, but local
streets like this have
capacities well in excess of
that. We typically would look
at, you know, 2 to 5000 at at
peak maximum capacity. Clearly,
we have no intention of ever
having a street like that. But
that would be the, you know,
the capacities we would be
looking at. Then finally,
relative to pedestrian
facilities here, 34th Street,
the largest missing piece in
the 34th Street pedestrian
system is this site. So with
the construction of the
frontage improvements along
34th Street by this site, there
will be very little missing
pedestrian facilities along
that entire corridor. So I
think, you know, with with that
and with the existing
pedestrian facilities in the
surrounding neighborhoods, we,
we don't see that we're going
to have an unsafe situation.
They are also going to be
adding some crossings of 34th
Street. The one element that we
are a little concerned about
that really has nothing to do
with this subdivision, but has
come to light with our traffic
counts, the 85th percentile or
the overall percentile of
speeding in the 34th Street
corridor overall is fairly low.
In fact, it doesn't meet our
criteria for traffic calming.
However, there are some small
number of very high speed
vehicles at certain times of
the day. We've captured a few
of those. So they don't they
don't. They don't add up enough
to to meet our criteria for
traffic calming. But they
certainly at this point require
us to, to take a closer look at
this and perhaps perhaps
determine that we need to do
some traffic calming, even
though it doesn't meet the
official warrants. So that's
something we're going to be
working with the developer on.
And it's something we're going
to, you know, be monitoring
pretty closely. That's all I
have.
>> Okay. That's that's that's
good. So it sounds like, so
when you say that you're
keeping or you're taking a look
at this or you're keeping an
eye on that, how what, how does
that work? Just I'm, I'm
curious, first of all, and, and
some of the members of the
public may, may wish to hear.
>> The speeding. Well, we have
a baseline that we've
established now. We took some
some counts as soon as we had
the pre-application meeting for
this project, we went out and
took some counts. So we have a
baseline. That baseline
identified again, that that the,
the, the warrants are not being
met to put any kind of traffic
calming in. But it did capture
some, some very small number of
very high speed trips. So what
we would do is, one, we're
going to have some negotiations
with the developer about
potentially adding some traffic
calming, you know, voluntarily
on that corridor. And then
beyond that, once the
development is is established.
And now that we know that that
we're that we potentially could
have a problem here, we will
put this, you know, on our on
our radar, if you will, to be
checking it on a regular basis
to, to see, you know, if it's
basically tipping, tipping the,
the, the warrant. I personally
feel like we probably need to
get something out there sooner
than later. It only takes 1 or
2 cars traveling down a local
street in excess of, you know,
50 or 60 miles an hour to
demonstrate that something
needs to be done. So I think we
can we can work out something
with the developer, frankly.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you
for answering that. I
appreciate it, certainly. Okay.
Mr. Tortorici, is there
anything further that the city
wish to add in their rebuttal?
>> No. Thank you.
>> Okay. All right, all right.
Well, then we'll turn it back
to the applicant for final
rebuttal. Okay, great. You're
unmuted. Go ahead.
>> My name is Jason Taylor with
PLS engineering. And I'll be
responding to to some of the
comments.
>> Okay. Let me swear you in
real quick, Mr. Taylor. Do you
swear or affirm the testimony
you give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, thanks. You may
proceed, Mr. Taylor.
>> I think the city did a great
job at responding to a lot of
the a lot of the questions,
especially the questions about
the tree retention and traffic.
I'll I'll go over some of these
same issues briefly. You know,
the the new development that
we're proposing will meet all
the current standards, which
will include detached or for
the most part. I guess it's
detached and attached. Sidewalk
on sidewalk will be on both
sides of the road for the new
development that we're
proposing. That'll provide
connectivity along 34th Street
and will provide a new
connection to the roadway stub
to the south of the site. So
that will that will provide
additional additional
connections with within the
neighborhood. We. You know,
both engineering and we, we
have a history of working with
with Eric and. Eric Khan at the
city and the transportation
group and, you know, working
through some of these, these
transportation issues and
mitigation that that could be
could be proposed to improve
the neighborhood. And we'll,
we'll work with Eric to, you
know, talk about what kind of
traffic calming can can be
installed. And I'm sure, you
know, if we're just talking
about a few speed bumps and
that's, that's something that,
that we would be able to work
with the city through final
engineering process to add into
our plans to, to address some
of those issues. We. Yeah, Eric,
Eric did a great job responding
to traffic comments. We, we,
you know, we followed the
procedure as required by code.
The city required us to provide
a traffic report that addressed
that analyzed ten intersections
and looked at traffic counts.
So we we believe that, you know,
a lot of those impacts were
captured and, and where there
was mitigation required, we are
we are providing that
mitigation to meet concurrency
standards. Regarding the trees.
One neighbor commented on the
code section that says, you
know, where, where feasible and
prudent existing vegetation
should be retained. At the
pre-application conference that
we had a little over a year ago,
we we submitted a plan that had
more lots and showed very
little as far as tree retention,
the. I think the neighbor
indicated that. That we had
proposed to retain trees in the
southwest and northeast corner.
That was actually a comment
from the city saying, hey, you
have these, you know, two
opportunities to retain trees.
One location in the south west
corner, one location in the
northeast corner. You know, you
need to do a little bit more
than, than what you're, you're
proposing currently. So we, we
redesigned our plan, dropped
the number of lots and retained
the trees in the southwest
corner. So that that was in
response to in response to
comments that the city provided.
And we believe that. The trees
that we are retraining are the
trees that we are retaining,
its feasible and an additional
loss in lots to retrain, retain
trees would would then make
make the project not
financially feasible. So we
believe that we're we're
complying with that code
section. As far as as far as
tree retention goes regarding
the trees in the south west
corner, the current proposal
that's in front of you shows
one large lot, lot number 33,
as Anthony mentioned there,
there's a code crime or a
condition of approval that says
that we shouldn't have any lots
larger than, I believe, 5000ft².
So we are we're currently
working through options to
comply with that. That will
likely result in the creation
of a tract in addition to a
smaller lot. 33. Those those
details will, I imagine, be
worked out after after this
hearing or after council
approval will likely be
reflected in the final
engineering drawings that are
required to show compliance
with those those conditions of
approval. We're also looking at
options for the maintenance and
ownership of of that of that
tract. So I nothing has been
decided but those those trees
that we're committing to retain,
they will be retained within
that area. There have been lots
of comments about density. And
the approval criteria for, for
the density. I think one, one
interesting thing to. To
mention with, with this new
zoning code and zoning map
that's coming into play that
was approved two weeks ago, and
that will become effective in,
in six weeks, is that
everything that we're proposing
is, is compatible with, with
the new zone, the density, you
know, much higher density could
be provided not not only under
the R 17 zone, but under the,
the low, low scale neighborhood
zone. It's, you know, you look
at the, you know, the, the
change in circumstance. And
that's and that's what we're
saying. There's this housing
crisis and there's the need to
provide more housing to help
with the affordability of
housing. The City Council has
looked at, looked at that,
looked at that crisis,
acknowledged that there is a
change in circumstance, gone
through a multi year process to
redo these zones, and they've
determined that there needs to
be much higher density in in
the lower, lower density zones.
And their, their, their action
based on, on that is to
basically make, make all of the
low density zones, you know,
similar to the R 17 zone. So
this, this R 17 zone isn't
something that is going to be
isolated within this community.
This, the density and the units
that are available under the R
17 zone will be allowed in
every single low density
neighborhood within the city
within within six weeks. I
don't, I don't believe, I don't
believe that smaller single
family homes are, are not
compatible with single family
homes on, on larger lots. I
think all all housing is
compatible with housing. And I
think the, the price point of
these homes and the, the
families that are going to live
there will fit in well with the
neighborhood and be very
compatible with with the
existing existing features,
existing homes and, and the
people that live there. One
neighbor commented on the, the
adjacent church and impacts
from construction. We are
required to have an erosion
control plan that limits. That
helps limit some of those
impacts or. It provides. You
know, provides a way to monitor
and kind of control
construction activities on, on
projects to make sure that
we're not having impacts from
impacts, you know, due to dust
or, or runoff coming from, from
properties and those, those,
those plans are regulated by
the city and city inspectors.
So there will be city employees
that are monitoring and
regulating the construction
that goes on on this site.
There's also construction hours
that contractors will need to
adhere by regarding impacts to
the church. The the applicant
does have a relationship with
the. The leaders of the church
and have have made private
agreements to mitigate some of
the impacts to to the church,
including installing a fence
and other and other things that
are outside of the scope of
this, of this hearing. But, you
know, again, again group when
they when they are looking at
purchasing a property in the
community like this, they while
it's not required, they, you
know, they, they reach out to
neighbors, they send letters,
they knock on doors and let
people know that they are
coming into this neighborhood
and what their plans are. So
that that was one, one
situation where they, they
reached out to the church and,
and started conversations with
them early to, to discuss the
proposal and, and address any,
any impacts that they, that
they might see with, with this
development. So I believe, I
believe that we're meeting the
code requirements for
addressing impacts and also the
the applicant has gone above
and beyond. And in reaching out
to neighbors and addressing
some of those some of those
impacts. And I believe that
they will continue to do that
through through construction.
And in addressing these, you
know, potential impacts that
that might arise from from this
activity. And I believe I
believe that is all that I have.
But if if you have any
questions, I'm here to answer
them.
>> Okay. Thank you. I don't
believe it's a code requirement,
but there was a question from
public testimony regarding
background checks for
contractors. I don't know if
you want to address that. Again,
it's not a code criterion, but
if you have anything to share
on that, you may do so. Or you
may say, I don't have anything
to say.
>> I yeah, I'm not involved
with the hiring of contractors
or managing the employees that
work for said contractors. So I,
I don't have any any comments
on that?
>> Okay. Thank you. I don't
think I have any additional
questions. Double check my
notes here real quick. Covered
a lot of ground tonight. No, I
don't think I have anything
further, Mr. Taylor. Thank you
and your team for being here
tonight. Thank you, Mr.
Tortorici. Thank you to every
one that has been with us
throughout, not only this
application, but the previous
one. I will go ahead and close
the public hearing on this
matter and I will close the
record. My decision is due in
14 working days. This Friday is
a holiday, so my decision, my
final order will be issued,
which will include a
recommendation to the City
Council on the rezone
application. My order will be
due on Wednesday, July 1st,
2026, and I want to thank again.
Thank everyone again and have a
great evening.
>> Thank you