Good evening. Welcome to
Vancouver City Council. Today
is Monday, August 17th, 2026.
This afternoon we had two
workshops. The first one was on
our Housing and Urban
development application
priorities and scoring. And
then we discussed the Arts Hub
plan and we received an update
on that. I'm Anne McEnerny Ogle
mayor for the City of Vancouver.
Please stand and join me in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
>> To the flag of the United
States of America and to the
Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
>> Spolar. Please call the roll.
>> Councilmember Harless.
Present Perez.
>> Present.
>> Fox. Paulson. Stober here.
Hansen. Mayor. McEnerny Ogle.
>> Present.
>> Mayor. Move to mayor Pro tem
Fox second.
>> Paulson. All those in favor
say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed? Motion passes.
Thank you very much, councilors,
for your approval. We have the
minutes of August 10th, 2026.
Any corrections or changes.
>> To approve?
>> Hansen. Seconded by. Perez
Perez. All those in favor, say
aye. Abstain one abstention.
Those opposed? Motion passes.
Thank you. This gives us the
opportunity to listen to the
community on communications for
the agenda items that we have
in front of us. So we have
individuals who have registered.
Let's go ahead. We have one,
two, 12345. There we go. Let's
have Enid Cox, Mark Christopher,
Melissa Judd. Come and join us.
Those microphones are easy to
turn on. Just press the little
button and you'll get a green
light. Enid, why don't you go
ahead, turn on your microphone.
>> I'm sorry.
>> There you go. Thank you.
Sarah. Go ahead. Enid, with
your testimony.
>> Enid Cox at 11919 southeast
Mcgillvary Boulevard. And I
oppose to the changing of
Mcgillvary Boulevard. First off,
it will hurt your pocketbook.
Right now, Mcgillvary is
probably the most desirable
street in Vancouver, and it has.
It helps to keep the value of
our houses and our property up
and it's on a used. It's a
development that was actually
made over 50 years ago. I
assume that with the changes
that the cars will only be
using one lane and there
probably will need more
maintenance on that one lane
than what you have on the two
lanes currently. Second,
backing out of our driveways
will become nearly impossible.
Right now, traffic uses both
lanes and there are traffic
brakes that you can back out of
the lane. People can. On the
other side streets have
difficulty now backing out or
getting out into Mcgillvary,
and it'll be even more
difficult for them after the
one lane comes up, because
there won't be the breaks in
traffic that there is now. And
is it fair for them? Is that
fair to do that to them? Third,
many of the residents use the
parking lane for walking
recreational purposes, or to
walk their dog, or to walk to
the store or the bus stop. Is
it fair to take away that form
of recreation for your
residents, your constituents?
And I have never seen a mobile,
a handicapped mobility per
vehicle being used on
Mcgillvary. There's already a
bicycle lane and please respect
the needs and desires of your
constituents. 6500 were
concerned enough about our
streets to sign a petition that
the county refused to recognize.
If it is to reduce the speed on
Mcgillvary. There are many ways
to do it other than this way.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mark. Christopher.
>> Thank you. I'm Mark
Christopher of Vancouver,
Washington. Actually, I have a
statement. I'm a mcgillvary
neighbor. I'm opposed to the
mcgillvary changes. I'll make
that very clear. I'm a neighbor
living 100ft south of it for
more than 25 years. I've got
over 10,000 trips on it. And
I'm a retired safety engineer
with a background in forensic
analysis. Tonight, I want to
focus on a single point that
the public was not involved in
the decision to remove a lane.
The city's first survey board
collected over 1000 comments,
real stories from real
residents that were 11 to 1
against the program and 8% in
favor. Instead of using that
record, the city archived it
and created a second board with
106 participants and says the
second board drove their final
decision. This means that the
planners knowingly set aside
the input of more than a
thousand people. Later meetings
with 50 of the 106 participants,
seven meetings with as few as
one participant and an average
of seven attendees cannot
outweigh a thousand plus
archived comments, hundreds
more online and in person
comments, and the voices of the
residents who were never
invited at all. This is not
representative outreach. Unlike
other Cortes, the city posted
no signage announcing a major
change was coming, and for the
single neighborhood meeting,
signs were placed at two of the
more than 30 entrances to the
McGilvray neighborhoods, which
only let three neighborhoods
know there was a meeting. Three
cannot speak for the eight, and
they cannot represent the 11%
of Vancouver's population who
lives along McGillivray. The
city did know population
density studies, so 11 of us,
11% of us, will be forced to a
two and a half mile single lane
road with 11 stop signs, 21
city bus stops with no turnouts,
and 16 school bus stops at
least twice a day. McGilvray is
not like Fort Plain with
businesses that you visit
periodically. McGilvray is 100%
residential and the only road
feeding five of these eight
neighborhoods. At the loan
meeting, 85% of the attendees
asked in writing to be involved.
None ever heard back.
Businesses saw the same pattern,
and only half were notified and
none endorsed the program. The
relationship between the
neighbors and the city planners
became so strained that both
you, the City Council and the
planning Department leadership
twice in writing, told them to
improve the relations with the
McGilvray neighbors. The
planners later listed that
outreach as a goal of the
project, but records show that
that outreach never came. They
ignored their stated goal,
their own management, and you,
the council. We're not asking
for special treatment. We're
asking for the city to follow
its own rules, honor its
commitments, and pause the
project until all neighborhoods
have a voice that is heard by
the city. Thank you.
>> Melissa.
>> Good evening. I would like
to speak tonight about my
concerns regarding the
McGilvray construction plans.
McGilvray is used as an
overflow street from Mill Plain
during rush hour. I'm concerned
that the proposed modifications
will cause traffic to back up
and make traffic worse on both
Mill Plain and McGilvray. This
problem could make it harder
for residents along McGilvray
to get home, and could make it
harder for residents to get to
work, school, medical
appointments and other places
and activities. I'm also
concerned that the overall push
from the city to decrease
single person car usage and
increase use of rideshare,
public transportation, bicycles
and walking will eventually
lead to the city becoming more
inaccessible for those with
disabilities, according to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics,
people with disabilities are
almost four times more likely
to be victimized than those
without disabilities. This risk
makes some people with
disabilities feel unsafe
traveling in rideshares or
public transit, because they
may not be able to defend
themselves. Kyann is more
accessible than regular C-TRAN
busses, but it requires
scheduling all activities at
least a day in advance and may
require the rider to leave
their house an hour early and
or wait an hour to be picked up.
For those with chronic pain,
this waiting could push them
past their body's limits and
cause them to be incapacitated
for hours to days after a
single excursion. Being able to
drive their own vehicle to work,
appointments and other
activities gives those with
disabilities their independence
back. Please do not reduce
lanes on McGilvray or other
streets so that everyone can
keep having equal access to the
city. Thank you for your time
and attention.
>> Thank you Joseph, Laurie and
Jim Williamson.
>> Good job.
>> Joe. Go ahead.
>> Is there a button.
>> You're on. Oh, now you're
off. Now you're on.
>> Okay, cool. Hi, I'm Joseph,
aren't I? 12621 Southeast Park
Street, Vancouver. I live one
block off of McGillivray. Been
there for over 40 years. I
didn't really come to talk
about the McGillivray project.
I really came to talk about. I
personally, as part of the
initiative drive, talked to
more than 2000 people of the
2000 people that are citizens
of the city of Vancouver, 80%
of them signed my petition
because they believe that the
city needs to come talk to the
people and ask them if this is
okay before they do it. And
McGillivray is one street and
it's a small neighborhood, but
there are other streets that
are planned to go from four
lanes to two lanes, or six
lanes to four lanes. And the
message from the initiative
drive is people don't want this
forced on them. They want you
to come talk to them. They want
you to come get approval from
them before you do it. So going
forwards, there's 136, then
there's 1/64. Then there is,
you know, multiple streets that
are planning in the future to
have a lane reduction each way.
As part of the modernization of
Vancouver. And I believe that
80% of the people that live
here don't want that forced on
them, that it would be better
to go ask them whether you put
it up for a vote, or whether
you find some other way to do
it, or better yet, find a way
to improve bicycle lanes
without reducing the traffic
lanes. That's it.
>> Thank you. Lori.
>> Hi. Mayor and city Council
members, city employees and
neighbors of ours. John, Lori
and his other half. We've lived
in East Vancouver since 1979.
In 1997, the city of Vancouver
annexed our neighborhood and
our area, as was told to you
before, accounts for about 11%
of Vancouver's population. We
became aware of the Complete
Streets program when it
affected our neighborhood, and
that was in February of 2023,
when there was a meeting held
at Y East. And before that, we
hadn't even known anything was
on the schedule. And we tried
to get involved and we tried to
talk to people. But by the time
we got involved in that, the
decisions had pretty much been
made about what the options
were. We've also come to many
city council meetings, as you
all know, in transportation
mobility. We've talked to
individuals of you. Thank you
very much. You name it, we've
kind of been a pain. I'm sorry.
But that brings us to tonight
when you guys are voting to
award a contract in excess of
$5 million to redesignate a
road with only one vehicle lane
instead of two. And it's going
to be happening across the the
city. In the residential
community that just doesn't
support this change. And with
people who ride bikes that
don't even live in our
community, it's not that we
don't want them to ride bikes,
it's that do they need every
single road going east and west
and north and south? Can we
condense this so that they have
a safe passage, or can we make
a safe passage that includes
two vehicle lanes and safe
bicycle lanes? We don't want
anyone left out. There's so
many more relevant uses for $5
million in a city with that,
has homelessness crisis, a
budget deficit, growing
population and housing needs,
annexation and budget impacts.
Due to that, have you really
prioritized your needs
correctly? Are we really do. Is
this really the place we need
to go? We hear from the city
employees that we've talked
with that if it doesn't work
out, if it doesn't look like
it's proving wise, then we'll
just restripe the roads. But is
that appropriate to spend $5
million and then redo it? If it
doesn't work, why not step back
and take a look and see, is
this really what we want to go
and do? Other cities have
already found this process to
be unsuccessful and have gone
back to more vehicle lanes, and
we do need to plan for the
future. And 30 years ago, I
should have maybe been paying
more attention and I wasn't.
But I am still part of the
future and I don't plan on
dying next week. And I want you
to remember that the future is
still going to contain senior
citizens and people who need to
use cars, and they won't be
able to ride bikes for one
reason or another. So I'm just
going to leave you with a quote
that I found that seems to fit
this situation, I think, and
that is, the needs of the many
outweigh the needs of the few
or the one. Thank you.
>> Thank you Jim.
>> Well, they've said most of
it, but I'd like to say that I
went to a community forum and
talk to a couple of councilmen,
and I recognize that you guys
have a really tough job to do
that there's six of you or the
shock troops that are receiving
the the bile of the public, and
you have to look after, what,
120 employees and a $2 billion
budget. And I realize that's
that's a tough job. I wouldn't
want to do it. And I certainly
couldn't do it. But I think
there comes a time when you
have to kind of stand up and
bow your necks about against
the people that have come up
with these planning commission
studies that nobody knows about,
and $5 million budget. I don't
know if Kelly's here, but from
the. I never heard about it
until I saw it on the minutes
for the for the agenda, but I
was under the impression it was
like a million. And I haven't
pedaled down McGilvery since
2:00 this afternoon. And it's
the best bike path in the East
County as far as I'm concerned.
I pedaled in and out and had a
burger, which was a pleasant
outing, but I'm just kind of
disappointed that nobody knows
how much it's going to cost.
And maybe I get my information
from the wrong place, like by
reading The Columbian. But I
don't think anybody knew that.
Do the extent of it. And I
guess I just urge you to
encourage your permanent, well
paid staff with great jobs to
do a better job of
communicating with the public.
I mean, I got a postcard about
a neighborhood cleanup that
wasn't too tough to do, I don't
think. And it was appreciated
and the neighbors appreciated
it. So yeah, and I don't think
you need to spend $5 million to
fix what isn't broken. Other
than that, I would suggest a
name change. I mean, McGilvray
was named for a farmer that
sold 300 acres, and that was
the condition that he'd get his
name on McGilvray Boulevard,
and maybe he could change the
name to like. Anne's Ballroom
Boulevard or something like
that. So would remember how
this all came down. That's all
I got. I'm kind of I'm kind of
bitter, but I'm old and I'll
die soon, so it doesn't really
matter. Thank you.
>> Charlie and Carmen de Leon.
Carmen, come and sit and join
us. Thank you. Charlie. Go
ahead.
>> Michael.
>> Yes. Please do.
>> I don't have to turn this on
or anything.
>> I just it's already on. It's
ready for you.
>> All right. My name is
Charlie. I'm 73 years old. I've
lived in Vancouver since 1962.
I've been paying taxes and
voting since 1970. I'm very
much against removing car lanes
from our well established four
lane streets. Obviously the
council doesn't see it that way
since we're now awarding
contracts for the work and
brushing aside the opinions of
all the residents signing the
petition calling for the ballot
measure. Just considering the
McGilvray alone, it defies any
rational logic. I have nothing
against bikes, but there's
obviously plenty of room for
bike lanes on the side and
nothing against busses. But to
remove car lanes used several
times a minute for the
exclusive use of busses a few
times an hour. How can that be
justified? To actively plan
this ridiculous waste on
several other heavily used
thoroughfares is just crazy by
any logic. If there are other
funds available for projects
like this, the money would be
much better used to maintain
our existing excellent system
of streets as they're
originally intended. That's all
I got.
>> Thank you. Carmen.
>> Yeah. My name is Carmen de
Leon and I go by Melo. So I
guess I'm talking about a few
things because this other one
says, and I'm not sure if it's
this one, but it is with the
housing developments which says
adequate guest parking shall be
provided and the development
this and that. But the bottom
line is that it shall be one
parking space per three people.
So in other words, if you have
a party, you're screwed because
no parking anywhere in this
neighborhood. And I think
that's the 400 thing
development. And that's apart
from the McGilvray thing, which
is what I'm saying. It's I know
that it's the one number one
traffic jam area in all of
Vancouver is that corner, and
adding lanes is better than
subtracting lanes. When we know
that we're going to increase
the population instead of
decreasing it. And it's a
proven fact and nobody is
getting rid of their cars. If
anything, they're eliminating
lanes. And I mean busses in
Portland because it's a
decrease in public transit. And
I love the bikes. It's great.
But believe me, come Halloween,
ain't nobody going to be in
those lanes. It's going to be
all empty because it's a death
trap. And like I'm saying, $5
million. It's worth the
investment to put glow in the
dark. So when the lights go out,
it lights up. And in case you
don't know, in Roman times,
those 2000 year old streets
that are still standing that
didn't cost 5 million were made
of stones. And if you don't
remember, in the winter when it
snows and the the moon is out,
it looks like daylight. So they
would put certain stones in the
road so it would glow in the
dark no matter what. If your
lights go out, if you get the
flashing red lights because
there's been an emergency, you
at least have a lit road in the
right circumstances. So I'm
just talking about people,
generations, about 2000 years
before y'all made better roads
than today. And for not this
fee, this was just, you know,
rocks and stuff. I'm just
saying that these developers
are in for a money grab because
they're not even offering
antifreeze lanes, and they want
to take away from people who
obviously. And here's the thing
about petitions, because I was
here when you guys got 6000
signatures about not wanting
bike lanes from everybody on
Fourth Plain. And all you guys
said is, oh, we're going to
verify all the signatures. Who
cares what they said? Who cares
if the people don't want bike
lanes instead of car lanes? You
guys were going to BS everybody.
And you make it seem like
there's no competition when
there is, because you publicize
something for 20,000 people for
250 000. So who knows anything.
That's what he said. Five
people show up, two signs,
250,000 people. And even if you
tell the Colombian, that's
still a circulation of only
40,000. So the people is
uninformed and you
systematically get rid of
people. You don't like their
opinion. That's fine. Whatever.
We'll see how it goes in the
long run. But I mean, the
people have made their voices
heard. Whether or not you
listen, you'll find out at the
ballot box.
>> That concludes our community
communication on the agenda
items. We'll now bring it back
to counselors. Counselors.
We're pulling item. What other
items would you like pulled?
Item number five.
>> Number seven please.
>> Number seven. Any others?
>> Seven.
>> It's a public hearing.
That's fine. We'll pull it
anyway.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. I'll
entertain a motion to approve
item two three. I'll read
number four. Six. Item number
four is an ordinance of the
Vancouver City Council amending
chapter 3.05, Vancouver
Municipal Code to change
administrative responsibility
for certain procurement actions
to provide clarity to other
existing provisions to provide
for severability and set an
effective date. So counselors,
a motion please for items two,
three, four, and six.
>> So moved.
>> Perez. Seconded by Stose.
All those in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed? Motion passes.
Thank you very much. Item
number one, Mr. Lopossa.
Communication and engagement
for the last four years on this
project, please.
>> Good evening. Mayor. Council.
City manager. I was fortunate
enough that Kate Drennan, who I
believe is online. If we have
if we want to go deeper into
this subject, put together a
really good summary of the
citizen and public outreach
efforts that we did on this
project over the last 4 or 5
years. So I'll just talk a
little bit about those events.
And then if we want to talk
more about any one of them, we
can. So we conducted a number
of in-person events back in
October of 2022. We did a walk
audit. So it was basically
designed to walk the corridor,
and we invited invitations out
to the neighborhood
associations around the
corridor. That same month, we
did a bike audit. So instead of
walking, we several staff got
their bikes out and met with a
lot of folks who ride bikes
along the corridor. And again,
we extended that invitation to
neighbors, neighborhood
associations, as well as local
cycling groups. We had our
first in-person open house in
February of 2023. We had about
112 people that had signed in
at that event, but it looked
like there was more like
probably closer to 130 to 140
based on a head count. After
everyone was seated, we did
seven, what we called community
conversation or focus groups.
And I think this was the these
were some of the groups that
were mentioned in some of the
public testimony. We sent out
8000/8000 postcards to
residents and businesses along
the corridor, inviting them to
these group discussions. And we
had 107, 106 members RSVP their
interest. All of those folks
who RSVP'd were invited to
those sessions. We held seven
of those sessions with the
intent of inviting of having
about 15 to 20 members each
attend those sessions. The
turnout wasn't great. There was
a couple of sessions where we
had 14 folks come. We did have
one session that only had one
person turn out. We did go out
to the neighborhood
associations. I myself went to
at least two of those
neighborhood associations and
talked about McGilvery, and I
know there was other staff that
attended neighborhood meetings
as well. We had ten different
workshops and briefings with
the Transportation Mobility
Commission. We did tabling at
community events. There was a
community forum at the
Vancouver Innovation Center. We
had a table there. We also
attended group meetings,
including at least one of the
meetings of the Save Our
Streets group had us come out
and talk to them. And then
again, we we did presentation
at neighborhood meetings. We
did a whole bunch of online
engagement and surveys. We've
had a be heard project page set
up since almost the beginning
during phase one, which was our,
our online community survey. We
put information out and again,
we were using postcards to let
folks know about the
availability of these surveys.
We had over 1000 responses to
those surveys. We had 700 of
those responses included
comments in addition to
completing the survey. And we
also had an interactive map on
the page. So you could identify,
you know, what specific area of
interest. And there was 94
contributions to that
interactive map. These are not
giant numbers for the amount of
folks that live in this area.
But this is not unusual in
terms of the kind of turnout
that we get when we do public
involvement. I've been doing
this work for a long, long time,
and public involvement can be
some of the most challenging
work in terms of getting folks
to come out and see what it is
you want to talk about. But the
volume of different ways we
went out and talked to folks,
this is some of the most
creative work, second only to
Main Street, of course, that
we've done for any of our
projects in a long time. We've
continued to I, you know, some
folks have suggested will the
public involvement process is
closed for us. The public
involvement process is never
closed. And so we've continued
to field phone calls and emails.
I've had conversations over
this summer with folks along
the corridor, especially as
they know that we're we're
finalizing the design. We've
done a number of different
emails. We've responded. In
fact, the information that Kate
provided was part of a response
to an individual who reached
out last week. So that's a
that's a snapshot of our public
involvement process, which,
again, I want to stress
continues today and will
continue as long as it's needed.
>> Thank you. Counselors, do
you have any questions of Mr.
Lopossa? Yes, counselor.
>> Stover thank you mayor.
Thank you. Ryan. So talk about
the $5 million number.
>> So the $5 million number,
that is the that is the figure
associated with the bid that
we've received. That's not a
that's not a figure that
surprised us. There's this is
over a mile long roadway. That
number includes the pavement
resurfacing that was planned,
which I believe represents
about half of that amount. And
then, of course, includes all
of the all of the amenities or
all of the additions that we're
going to put into the corridor
to address the repurposing of
the travel lane. There's a
number of curb ramps along the
corridor that need to be
reconstructed. There's a number
of sections of, of sidewalks
that come into the corridor
that we need to, that we need
to address. We've got some work
to do at the intersection of
McGilvery and 136 to address
some safety issues that we've
had there. There's some areas
where we need to add some
lighting because we're we're
adding cross pedestrian
crossings. So we want to make
sure those crossings are well
lit. So the $5 million is not a
it's not a surprise to us. We
do have grant money associated
with this project. So it's not
we're not having to spend all
of our own dollars here. We do
have some some I believe it's a
state grant that we were given
that is going to help us with
that project as well.
>> Can you also talk about the
delay? Because this is a
project that was supposed to
have happened at least a year
ago. Can you talk about what's
taken so long for us to get to
this point?
>> It was always scheduled for
2026. We wrapped up the
planning and design process in
2024, and then my team of
designers took over to advance
the the conceptual design to a
final design product. That did
take a little bit of time
because we were encountering
there was a lot more out there
for us to look at than what we
had originally expected. One of
the one of the challenges was,
you know, how much how much new
sidewalk could we potentially
add to the corridor? So we
paused briefly to look at that
and see if by adding some
sidewalk to the corridor, that
might offset some of the other
improvements. There were lots
of areas where, again, we have
these. We have a lot of places
along the corridor where we
have sidewalks that actually
come to the street. They come
from off site multifamily
complexes to the street and
literally to the edge of the
curb. And we weren't quite sure
what we were going to do with
those at first, because we
weren't expecting those. And so
then we, we realized we were
going to have to do some
additional design work to make
those Ada compliant because of
the portions that are in the
right of way. It does take some
time to design all of those
curb ramp retrofits to figure
out what additional lighting is
needed. And so, but yeah, we've,
we've always planned to start
this project this year in 2026.
I was hoping we could get
started on a little sooner, but
we're just trying to wrap up
all of these, all of these
design issues and get
everything finalized. It just
took a little bit longer than
we had expected.
>> I thought I heard a rumor
that the road conditions, the
condition of the road, current
condition of the road was not
as good as what we had thought
it was.
>> When we first identified
McGilvery for a pavement
treatment, our plan was to do a
seal type treatment. At that
time it was. There was a lot of
cracking that had occurred. And,
you know, we felt that a Seal
treatment would be the most
efficient and effective way to
treat it. And that treatment
was planned for back in like
2023, 2024. However, once
McGilvray was identified as a
corridor that we needed to
apply our complete street
process to, we just ran out of
time to be able to do that seal
treatment and the corridor over
a couple of winters just
degraded more to the point
where now it needs to have an
actual pavement overlay instead
of the seal treatment. And so
just, yeah, just the added time
of needing to go through and
determine what, what to do with
the corridor, going through the
public process, going through
some of the permitting
processes associated with some
of the grants that we got, just
took us beyond that window
where we could really rely on
that seal treatment to be the
to be the most effective tool.
>> Thank you.
>> Ryan, you mentioned one mile,
but is it more lane miles?
>> No, there's yeah, there's
more lane miles. The length of
the corridor is over a mile.
But if you, if you count the
lane miles, I multiply that
times four is what you're
working with.
>> Exactly.
>> So yeah. And it's a, you
know, we're resurfacing the
entire roadway curb to curb,
which will include the area
that's no longer going to be
used by cars. The entire
roadway needs to be resurfaced.
And so that's, that's where
that two, you know, probably
$2.5 million within that bid
comes from is that amount of
asphalt that needs to be put
down.
>> So it's four lane miles of
asphalt. Other questions or
comments from Mr. Lopossa?
Councilor Perez.
>> Thank you. Ryan, you heard
members of our public come and
speak before, and I was hoping
you could answer a couple of
questions that were raised
during their testimony. Can you
walk us through what to expect
as far as the level of
disruption? A member of the
public said she might have
difficulty backing out. So not
only just through the actual
construction and the disruption,
but perhaps when it's all
completed. And then secondly,
there was a comment about other
cities have tried something
like this and but they went
back. Are you aware of any of
that or can you add some
information to some of the
comments that you heard?
>> Let me let me answer that
one first, since that's the one
I'll remember the easiest. I'm
not aware of other cities that
have had to revert their what
we call complete streets or
corridor projects back to what
it was before. What we do here
at the city is when we do one
of these projects and we're
completed with the construction,
we then transition into an
evaluation period, and we'll
spend at least a year
evaluating that completed
product. We'll go back out and
we'll do additional data
collection. We'll do we did
traffic counts before the
project. We'll do traffic
counts after the project. We'll
monitor crash history. We'll
interact with the school
districts because we have two
very large schools, you know,
near the corridor. And then
we'll we'll reach back out to
the folks that we've spoken to
in the past, the community
members really just to gauge,
you know, is it working? Is it
doing what we had hoped it
would do? Is it delivering the
intended product? And through
that process, there may be
opportunities for adjustments,
for slight improvements.
There's always that possibility
that, you know, we just flat
out got it all wrong. And if
that were to happen, we would
definitely have to have a
conversation about what to do
about that. But, you know,
we've done several of these
projects here around the
community. I know these these
type this type of work has been
done in many places around the
state. And so far, as far as I
know, all of those projects are
still in effect. As far as the
first question and impact. So
there's going to be short term
impacts during construction.
Contractor will mobilize. Most
likely. The first work they're
going to be doing is, is a lot
of the curb ramp work going
through those intersections.
Since McGilvery is a four lane
road, two lanes in each
direction, there really should
be no reason why the contractor
can't provide good traffic
control and keep folks moving
through the corridor. But it is
a it is a construction project,
and the contractor wants to
make sure that their workers
are safe. So they're going to
there's going to be signs,
there's going to be cones,
there's going to be flaggers.
But all of that's done in the
name of safety for both the
traveling public as well as
those working on the project.
And those control plans are
something that we review prior
to those being implemented. So
we're going to make sure that
they're doing traffic control
in a in a safe manner, but also
in a logical manner that keeps
traffic moving as far as the
completed product. Again, our,
our hope, our belief is that
this is going to be a much
better corridor for everyone,
folks that travel by car. Our
our data suggests that that's
not going to change. You're
going to still be able to get
through this corridor with very
little delay. We've done a
bunch of traffic analysis, both
on current travel volumes as
well as on future volumes. And
there's nothing in that data
that would suggest that a two
lane road can't handle the
traffic now and into the future.
And then, of course, it's also
going to provide a space for
those who choose to travel by
something other than the
automobile. And that's a much
safer space than what we have
now. We do believe that this is
going to help slow speeds. You
know, one of the metrics that
we discovered during data
collection was over 90% of the
cars that travel the corridor
are, are traveling in excess of
the 25 mile an hour posted
limit that that's just that
that's very unsafe. And then
the work that we're doing at
136 McGilvery, we're hoping
we'll just better highlight
that all way stop control. And
you know, the, the many, many
different folks that are
walking through that
intersection to get to and from
the schools as far as being
able to back out of your
driveway, I don't anticipate
that being an issue. You know,
McGilvery is a, for the most
part, a nice long, straight
roadway, gentle curves, lots of
available sight distance. The
volume of traffic on it should
not preclude folks from being
able to get out of their
driveways, or being able to get
out from the intersecting side
streets. I travel this corridor
a lot, and I liken this
corridor to MacArthur Boulevard,
which we did the same treatment
on about ten years ago. We
heard the same concerns then,
and and we did the work and
came to realize that it's
performing as intended. And,
you know, no backups, no
difficulties in getting out of
the neighborhoods. We think the
same will happen here.
>> Thank you. Ryan. And then
one last comment about
monitoring. And is it possible
to engage the neighborhood
residents to help with the
monitoring?
>> Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, I
would welcome folks who want to
be our eyes on the ground to
help us with that. Again, we
want to make sure we got this
right. And if they see things
out there that don't seem like
that's what right should be,
then yeah, I definitely want to
hear about it. And, you know,
we'll take the time to go back
out to the neighborhood
associations. We'll take the
time to reach back out to some
folks that, you know, we've had
these ongoing conversations
with. And yeah, I would
definitely encourage folks to,
to help us with that, with that
effort.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other questions or
comments? Hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion.
>> Move to approve.
>> The contract bid award for
Southeast McGillivray Boulevard
safety and Mobility project.
Bid number 26-21-C102337.
>> Move to approve.
>> Thank you. Seconded by
Harless. All those in favor,
say aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion
passes. Thank you very much.
That concludes item number one.
Moving into item number five.
This is an ordinance
authorizing the implementation
of 0.1% public safety sales and
use tax pursuant to CW
82.114.345 an ordinance of the
City of Vancouver, Washington,
enacting an additional sales
and use tax of one tenth of 1%
for criminal justice purposes,
as authorized by CW 82.114.345.
Adding a new section to the
Vancouver Municipal Code,
chapter 5.98, providing for
severability and establishing
an effective date. Good evening.
>> Good evening, Council
members. Troy Price, chief of
police for the Vancouver Police
Department. Just to reacquaint
you with the the challenge we
were faced with back in 2024,
the voters had an opportunity
to vote on a. What we called
prop four back then, which
would have provided additional
bodies for our police
department. Right now,
southwest Washington is the
lowest staffed. It's an area of
the country with the lowest
staff, law enforcement agencies.
When you compare the population
size and the number of officers
available to answer the calls
for service in those in our
communities, we realize that
and we put something forward to
the voters in missed by a
narrow margin. And so we went
back and prop five was the
result of our work, and it was
actually the work of the
community members. Our police
advisory committee took a lot
of their time to come and study
what the problem was and to
help us develop a, a method for
funding additional officers for
our city that passed. And that
was part of a that was part of
a kind of a three legged stool
for providing funds for us to
increase our police presence
here so that we could serve the
city of Vancouver with
appropriate resources.
Understand, under prop five,
that was 80 officers and 30
civilian staff brought under
prop four. Prop five is a
scaled down version of that.
The other two legs of that
stool, in addition to the prop
five, was House Bill 2015,
provided an opportunity for us
to apply for some grants, and
so that application has been
approved. And so our grant
application is actually in. And
we're looking to hear back from
from folks up there in Olympia
on that. In addition to that,
there is an opportunity for
City Council to impose a point
1% sales tax. And again, that
money would go to for the
training and to actually
present an additional. 13
officers for the City of
Vancouver for for service to
the citizens of the City of
Vancouver. And so that's what
we're here to discuss tonight.
I have with me our business
intelligence analyst, Jake
Elliott. He was instrumental
and he was pivotal in actually
getting our application across
the line with the folks up
north. And he can we between
the two of us, we can probably
answer whatever questions come
our way.
>> Thank you very much. So,
Jake, is the state grant about
75% of the salary and benefits
for those 13 officers?
>> That's correct. 75% of
salary and benefits up to
$125,000 per year, which will
be will be matching the other
25%. Assuming that this sales
tax is passed with that money.
>> And city manager, this does
not only help us acquire 13 new
officers, but what about public
defenders?
>> Yeah. So both with a lot of
Pluckhahn city manager, the
proposition five as the chief
referenced and the estimates
we've put together for the
hiring that we would do with
the sales tax or what we would
call fully loaded positions. So
you put in an amount per
officer that has all of the
required support costs built in
that individual costs. So that
would include things like your
squad car, your uniforms, the
computer, all of the other
equipment that they're assigned,
but also allowances for other
things that you would provide.
The city of Vancouver, for
example, we do all the
prosecution of misdemeanors, so
we would hire additional
prosecutors to be able to
support that. That comes out of
that fully loaded number. The
same is also true for public
defense. So there is money
built into these estimates to
make sure that we've got
support to hire the public
defenders that were needed. It
is part of our longer term
strategy to make sure that we
are rightsizing our public
defense with the number of
officers and our caseloads that
we have.
>> Thank you very much.
Additional questions.
Councilors. Councilor Harless.
>> Yeah, I wanted to first get
an update on how things are
going since, what, last week
before that, maybe with
addressing what I would
consider a crisis as far as
public defense and how we can.
So in the last week, sat down
with both our police chief,
thank you for your time, as
well as the guild president, to
try to, you know, just have
more detailed information and
really see all the perspectives.
And there's a lot of valid
concerns all around. And what I
left walking away from those
conversations is just making
sure we're addressing this like
the crisis it is. And so I
wanted to see if there was an
update. And I see, you know, in
the ordinance itself, it's not
specific to how we use those
funds. So I'm glad to see that
flexibility there because we
can use it for public defense,
as well as a number of other
public safety. That's all under
that umbrella. So that
flexibility is really nice. So
but first, I was curious if you
had an update.
>> Yeah. So there are a couple
of actions that we've taken
already. You.
>> It shows these the one right
here. But it's.
>> It's got a green light on
the bottom here. Last time. Oh,
okay. Better. Okay. Yeah. So
we've taken some actions
already.
>> Oh hold on. Not quite.
Counselor.
>> I'm not hearing the.
>> Got to love it when new
technology glitches. Yeah. So
there are a number of actions
that we've already taken in
order to make sure that we move
past the bottleneck that we ran
into starting in June. And one
of the primary ones was the way
that we were working with our
public defense firms. They were
taking their total caseload
that they are allowed per year,
and they were metering
themselves, dividing it by 12,
and assuming that that was the
maximum amount of caseloads
that they could handle per
month in order to preserve that
capacity later on in the year.
So what we've done is we've
asked them to take the brakes
off and make themselves
available and start working
towards that total number
throughout the year. And so
that gives us more capacity.
Now the trade off is, is, you
know, much like what happened
in Spokane County at the end of
the year last year, we don't
want to get to October or
November and not have people
then. We have done much more
intensive work with our current
providers to bring new
attorneys on. And so we wanted
to get past this initial crux
and then have the other people
up and ready before the end of
the year. So we had additional
capacity.
>> Councilor Harless so where
where is the moment where we
can go back to the way it was,
so to speak, with regard to the
policy changes that were made
in the memo.
>> So I think that's something
that we'll have to kind of
continuously monitor and make
sure that we can guarantee that
we have that we have public
defenders available, because
one of the things that we'll
run into is that. The number of
cases or the number of
citations that the officers
issue is not necessarily linear
or steady. So if we have a
month where we have or two
months where we have a number
that's higher than what we were
experiencing before, we don't
want to utilize all of those,
say, in September and then not
have people available later in
the year. I would say the
earliest opportunity probably
would be about the end of this
calendar year, to be able to
look at making that switch back
just so we can make sure that
we get those additional
attorneys on board. They're up
and ready to go and position
ourselves so that we don't run
into the same problem again in
calendar 2027.
>> Thank you. And, you know, I
have seen updates as far as
there has been improvements as
far as training and with our
officers and continuous
improvement there, so that when
officers are on the scene, they
feel protected. They know what
they need to do because there
are valid concerns that were
presented so they can feel
comfortable in knowing what
they need to be doing. So I
hope to see that continuous
improvement. And yeah, our
police chief, if he had
anything to add there.
>> Yes, actually, we just today
and we have another meeting
scheduled as well. But just
today we met with the city
Attorney's office, miss cook
and two of her associates were
able to just do a presentation
to our officers who were out
there on the streets, and that
have voiced some concerns and
some expressed some ambiguity.
And and what the path forward
looks like. And then after the
presentation they took, there
was a Q&A session that officers
were actually able to ask
questions and get some get some
clarity. And this is an ongoing
process. Whenever we do changes
on this scale, there's always
going to be things that we
didn't actually that we didn't
consider or weird situations
that that can come up that
we're going to have to address
as one offs. But I think we
have a good path forward with
our folks gaining some
understanding. We opened it up
to half of the department today,
and we'll open that session up
to the other half. I believe
it's Monday next week.
>> Thank you.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Yeah, thank you. This one
was a tough one for me. This is
this is a tough one. I strongly
support our law, our law
enforcement officers, and
making sure that they have the
staffing and resources
necessary to keep Vancouver
safe. I also recognize that too
many of our working families,
seniors, and people on fixed
incomes are struggling with
affordability right now, and
that is real. And even staff
acknowledges that a sales tax
can disproportionately affect
our lower income residents. But
at the same time, we're looking
at generating an estimated 6
million annually, with a
significant portion of that
going towards matching funds.
City manager had stated at the
last discussion we had
regarding public defenders,
that really wasn't an issue of
money, but the issue of actual
public defenders. And I, I
strongly believe that with the
county moving forward with
putting it out to the voters
for a county jail tax, us
moving forward with hiring a
new chief, I think I'm erring
on the side of pausing before
we add another tax. At this
point, I'd love to hear what
the voters have to say about
the county's jail tax proposal.
I want to move forward with
hiring our police chief and
then take a clear look at our
public safety needs. Vancouver
has had this issue of not
meeting the demand of public
safety. In other words, our
population size relative to the
number of officers we've had,
we've had that issue for over
ten years. And it just seems
like we're always trying to
catch up and things don't get
us where we need to be. However,
we're now seeing that the
voters have helped us move
forward with two props in the
last few years. We have some
new officers that are going to
be graduating very soon, and I
think that supporting law
enforcement and being mindful
of what our community can
afford are not competing
priorities, and they should not
be. I think right now it's an
issue of timing, and therefore
I will not be supporting this
ordinance at this time.
>> Councilor Hansen.
>> Thank you, mayor, I will be
supporting this tonight. But I
think what we have here is an
issue of communication, because
I would hate for this to be
reported that we're just simply
going to hire more police
officers and not have any
public defense for any of the
folks that they arrest, because
what I've heard so far is that,
you know, what we're going to
be looking at is, you know,
this is like a line item cost
in a fully loaded employee.
This is like HR or I.t, and
this is just one more component.
Oh, I think we've gone far and
above. Excuse me, I guess I
think we've gone far and above
that. And the reason I say that
is because when we were short
of police officers, it was a
matter of money. It was a
matter of putting out bonuses
to get folks to want to be
employed with us, or to work
with somebody who's going to
help us with public defense. So
I do think this comes down to
money to some extent, and at
least it will in the long run,
in my opinion. I'm going to be
supportive of this tonight. But
once again, I'm really
concerned about how this is
going to be communicated to the
public, because I don't want
this to come across as we're
just simply going to hire more
police officers for catch and
release.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other comments? Council
Councilor Paulson?
>> Thank you, mayor. I also
will be supporting this this
evening. One of the reasons for
me that hasn't yet been
mentioned is the fact that
although we do have an
imperfect tax set of tools in
the state to use, our previous
measures have all focused on
property tax, and that's an
appropriate way to ask the
citizens to protect themselves.
If you own property, you should
pay to have your property
protected. And I think that's
part of the reason why property
owners in the city passed
proposition five and said, yes,
please protect us. But there
are other people who come to
our community and use our
public safety services who
aren't property owners in the
city of Vancouver. And this is
where the property tax can come
in, because these are folks who
come and shop and otherwise
generate property tax revenue.
And so again, although our tax
tools are flawed, I think
adding this additional element
of a sales tax to help fund
public safety helps level the
burden within our community of
those who are actually
benefiting from the public
safety resources that our city
provides, so that not only
property owners who live in the
city and own property in the
city, but also folks who come
here for other reasons but are
taking advantage of our public
safety resources. So I think
that's an important aspect of
the decision that hasn't yet
been mentioned. Thank you mayor.
>> Thank you. Additional
comments? I'll entertain a
motion.
>> To approve.
>> Hansen. Seconded by Paulson.
Roll call. Vote, please.
>> Councilmember Harless. I
Perez nay.
>> Paulson I.
>> Stover. I. Hansen. Mayor
McEnerny Ogle.
>> I motion passes. Thank you
very much. And that concludes
our consent agenda for this
evening that moves us into the
public hearing. This is an
ordinance rendering findings
and issuing a decision. Thank
you. Staff issuing a decision
on the Mount Hood Vista zone
change from R nine lower
density residential to R 17
lower density residential and
an 82 lot subdivision and
providing for severability and
effective date. Counselor
Hansen. Thank you. Councilor
councilor Recuses himself. Okay,
tonight's hearing is now open.
As this is a quasi judicial
hearing, it implicates the
appearance of fairness doctrine.
Therefore, I'll ask the city
attorney to describe tonight's
process and walk us through the
required disclosures. City
attorney.
>> Thank you. Mayor Nina Kolke,
city attorney, as the mayor
mentioned, you are conducting a
public hearing for the purpose
of taking final action on a
land use application submitted
to the City of Vancouver, based
on the public record presented
at this hearing, including the
application, the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation
applicant and public testimony,
and the information included in
your council materials. You
will rely on criteria set forth
in the Vancouver Municipal Code
to decide whether to approve or
deny the application. Because
this subdivision and rezone
application arises as
standalone site specific
request, and because City
Council makes the final
decision on the proposed zoning
map amendment, review of these
matters is deemed to be a quasi
judicial action. This means
that for purposes of the public
hearing, Council is acting more
like a judge deciding a case
than a legislative body
directing policy. Quasi
judicial actions give rise to
the appearance of Fairness
doctrine set forth in chapter
42.36 of the R, C, W and
Council Policy 139 the
Appearance of Fairness,
Doctrine and Council Policy 139
requires Council Member to give
consideration as to whether you
have one, a demonstrated bias
or
>> Prejudice for or against any
party, to the proceeding to a
direct or indirect monetary
interest in the outcome of the
proceedings. Three. A
prejudgment of the issue prior
to hearing the facts on the
record, or for ex parte contact
with any individual, excluding
administrative staff, with
regard to an issue prior to the
hearing, and disclose any ex
parte contact with any
proponent or opponent of the
proposal. Not otherwise already
publicly disclosed in response
to the required disclosure of
ex parte contact and in advance
of tonight's hearing. The city
records manager conducted a
public records search for
emails sent or received from
any current City Council member
between February 25th, 2026
through August 4th, 2026,
containing the following words
Mount Hood, Vista Subdivision,
Mount Hood Vista Rezone G.
Group chat. Rod Stewart 15301
North East 34th Street
PRJ-169743. LUP dash 85799. Tax
lot 16432 9000 Inteli LLC sent
or received from the date of
application, which was February
25th through August 4th. When
we conducted a review of those
search results, we did not
identify any council
communication, not otherwise
publicly disclosed. However,
recognizing that the public
records search does not capture
verbal communication or written
communication, not on public
devices, I will give each
council member an opportunity
to respond individually to this
query. Have you engaged in any
ex parte communications with
either proponents or opponents
of the application? That is,
any communications on the
proposed outside of sorry, any
communications on the proposal
outside of prior council
workshops or meetings? Not
otherwise publicly disclosed.
Since the land use application
was submitted to the city. If
any of you respond
affirmatively, please also
state the substance of any such
communication for the record,
so that interested parties have
an opportunity to comment on
that information now publicly
disclosed during this public
hearing. Finally, if any
council member answers yes to
the appearance of fairness
inquiry resulting in disclosure
of additional information
relevant to the hearing, the
applicant and public in
attendance at this hearing will
be asked if they wish to
challenge participation by that
Council member with the
statutory restriction that
disqualifications cannot result
in a loss of quorum and remove
council's ability to take final
action on the matter. Any
challenge must state the reason
for the disqualification
requests, and the council
member, subject to the
challenge, will be given an
opportunity to recuse
themselves from participation
in the hearing. I'll now go
around and ask each of the
council members the following
questions. Do you have won a
demonstrated bias or prejudice
for or against any party to the
proceeding? Do you have a
direct or indirect monetary
interest in the outcome of the
proceedings? Have you prejudged
any issue prior to the hearing
the facts on the record, or
have you engaged in any ex
parte communication with either
proponent or opponent of the
application? Since the land use
application was submitted to
the city Mayor McEnerny Ogle.
No mayor pro Tem Fox is not
online. Council member Hansen
has recused himself. Council
member Harless no. Council
member.
>> Paulson no.
>> Council member Perez. No.
Council member Stober.
>> No.
>> Now that this inquiry is
complete, mayor, we can turn
the proceedings back over to
you. Thank you all.
>> City attorney. Were there
any citizens calling in to have
any concerns about the
council's responses?
>> No, mayor.
>> Thank you. Okay. Let's go
ahead and have city planning
staff present their staff
report, please.
>> Good evening. Anthony
Tortorici, planner three with
the Community Development
Department. Tonight, I'm
presenting the Mount Hood Vista
subdivision and zone change.
There we go. The applicant is
requesting approval of two
concurrent applications. The
first is a preliminary
subdivision to divide and
approximately 7.5 acre parcel
into 82 single family
residential lots. The second is
a zoning map amendment from R
nine to R 17. Their process as
a type four application. The
hearings examiner reviewed the
proposal and provided a
recommendation to City Council.
First, a note on vesting and
why we're here tonight.
Resolution M 4360 adopted
December 1st, 2025. Continued
to allow housing related comp
plan and zoning map text
changes to move forward during
the Development Code and
Comprehensive Plan update. This
allowed the city to intake and
process this application, which
then vested to the code. In
effect, at the time the
application was deemed fully
complete. The application
followed the city's standard
review process for a type four
application agency and public
comments were received during
the comment period and are
addressed in the staff report
and the hearings examiner's
recommendation. The zoning map
amendment is evaluated against
two primary approval criteria.
First, whether the proposed R
17 zoning is more consistent
with the goals and policies of
the Vancouver Strategic Plan
and Comprehensive Plan than the
R nine zoning. Second, whether
circumstances have changed
since the current zoning
designation was established to
support the requested amendment,
the preliminary subdivision is
evaluated under a separate set
of criteria focused on whether
adequate provisions have been
made for public facilities and
services, including utilities,
infrastructure and emergency
access. Staff also reviewed the
proposal for compliance with
the city's development
standards, including narrow lot
development standards, critical
areas and other applicable
requirements. This slide shows
the location of the subject
property at 15301 North East
34th Street. The site is
approximately 7.5 acres and is
currently developed with
several structures and radio
towers that are proposed to be
removed as part as part of the
redevelopment. The site is
shown within the R nine zoning
District with R four
immediately to the south. The
city zoning code update became
effective on July 31st, 2026,
and the subject, property and
surrounding area are now
designated neighborhood low
scale neighborhood. However,
because the application vested
before the new code took effect,
it's reviewed under the
previous Zoning and Development
Code regulations. Here's a
table summarizing the primary
development standard
differences between the R nine
zoning district and the R 17
district. Reduced lot area
requirements, along with
increased lot coverage,
accommodate the proposed 82 lot
subdivision while maintaining
consistency with the lower
density Comprehensive Plan
designation. And this slide
shows the proposed preliminary
plat. It would create 82 single
family residential lots primary
access provided from North East
34th Street, with an extension
of northeast 154th Avenue from
the south, with a network of
new public streets and an alley.
The proposal also includes
public utilities, stormwater
facilities and other
infrastructure necessary to
serve the development. And the
hearings. Examiner recommended
approval of both applications,
subject to the conditions
contained in the hearing
examiner's recommendation and
the staff report. And that
concludes my presentation.
>> Thank you. Counsel, do you
have any questions of staff?
None at this time. I'll now
open the public for public
testimony. We'll start with the
applicant and who will be
speaking in support of the
applicant.
>> Thank you.
>> Chad here from Jin and Jason
Taylor as well.
>> Thank you. Gentlemen, you
have you'll divide up your 15
minutes. Thank you.
>> Good evening Council. My
name is Chad Stewart. I'm the
director of land development
for Jin Group, the applicant of
tonight's proposal. I'm joined
tonight by Jason Taylor with
PLS engineering, who, in
addition to being a
professional engineer, is a
senior land planner. My hope
tonight is to go through this
presentation to speak to a
little of the why in some
additional details, Anthony's
presentation gave a great
overview of the what that we're
doing. Once we're finished here,
we're happy to answer any
questions. You may have this
initial slide for the Mount
Hood Vista subdivision
highlights the two
characteristics. The two
components of this application,
first and foremost. And the
only reason it's in front of
you tonight is the zone change
from R one or from R nine to R
one seven. Concurrent with that
is a 82 lot subdivision. If we
weren't seeking a zone change,
this process would end as all
type three applications in. And
that is a public hearing in
front of a hearings examiner.
But because we're proposing to
get greater density via a zone
change, it comes in front of
council. The other nice thing
is this picture. I like this
picture for a couple reasons.
One, it's the picture I took on
day one of setting foot on this
property. It shows that
beautiful Mount hood in the
distance. It shows some of the
fir groves that will be
preserved as part of this
subdivision. And then it shows
the very interesting
characteristic of the property.
And out of these AM radio
towers that have existed out
there for decades. This
vicinity map shows the property
7.5 acres in East Vancouver,
specifically within the Parkway
East neighborhood. I think
probably the best reference
point is the intersection of
205 and SR 500. It also shows
some of the main arterials that
surround the property, namely
northeast 1/62 Avenue. You can
see down to the southwest of
the property, the schools that
will serve this subdivision,
namely Burton Elementary,
Cascade Middle School and
Evergreen High School. And I
think it also shows one of the
unique aspects of this property,
that it really is an island of
undeveloped residential amongst
an entire built out
neighborhood. As we zoom in a
little closer, you get a little
better idea of what I'm talking
about. All the neighborhoods
surrounding this were built out
literally decades ago. So you
see the two that I've
highlighted adjacent to the
property, both on its southern
and western property lines,
Valley Glen and Valley Glen two,
each of which received their
their final plat recording back
in the late 1970s, when this
area was still unincorporated
in Clark County. It also shows
a little more detail there of
those AM radio towers that I've
been talking about that have
existed since the 80s. This is
an image I pulled off of GIS
recently that shows a couple of
areas south into the west of
the property that at the time
were undeveloped. But you can
see here that this neighborhood
has pretty much been built out
for the last three decades. And
of course, it was built out
under the zoning and conditions
that were present at that time.
The timeline here is
informative for me to get into
a little bit of the why that
you may be asking, Anthony
mentioned that this application,
like any meets at some point in
the process of vesting date,
our application vested when it
was deemed fully complete back
in March of this year. We as a
company started well before
that, both in our negotiations
with the property owner as well
as the land use process as a
whole. Specifically, we started
the land use process 15 months
ago, back in May of 2025. So we
are, you know, almost a year
and a half from that point that
we started making decisions on
how to proceed with this
proposed development, not only
from a layout standpoint, but
how do we get there and how we
get there was deemed to be a
process that we've done a
couple of times in front of you
that's been very successful,
and that is changing the zone
within the same comprehensive
plan designation solely to get
greater density within the area.
Taking that approach adds more
time to the land use process.
If this was a standard
subdivision, we would have
finished up back in June when
we had the public hearing in
front of the hearings examiner,
but we chose to go this route
merely because of what comes
next, because of of the process
of doing a concurrent rezone as
opposed to waiting until this
body adopted the Comprehensive
Plan update and its effective
date of July 31st. That allows
us, as I've highlighted in gray,
to start site development in Q3
of this year, because this
property is flat and has great
soils, we're going to be able
to continue site development
throughout the winter, which
allows us to start breaking
ground on the first homes in
the summer of 2027. Had we have
waited until the new zoning
came into effect with the comp
plan update that would push all
of us this out at least a year
and a half. So that's the why.
Why we're in front of you today
with a concurrent rezone
request. A couple of the the
bullet points from a project
summary standpoint, the rezone
right is the first component.
And as Anthony mentioned
earlier, we believe this rezone
within the same comprehensive
plan designation is consistent
with the Vancouver Strategic
Plan. While it's not part of
your consideration, I think it
is important to to note that
this proposal is also
consistent with the newly
adopted zoning framework,
namely the low scale
neighborhood. As part of your
comprehensive plan update
recently adopted the 82 lot
subdivision. While it's going
to be denser with smaller lots,
the neighborhoods that surround
it again, those neighborhoods
that were built out in the late
70s and early 80s, we believe
it is going to be compatible
with the surrounding
neighborhoods, namely, because
these are going to be homes
that are set up for home
ownership. They're going to be
detached homes, two stories not
higher. Both of these
components, both the rezone
request and the subdivision
itself, received approval
recommendations from staff and
the hearings examiner. The last
two components are a couple of
things I want to tout, mainly
because of the strong working
relationship that that my
company has developed with
staff over the years, and that
is working with coordinating
with collaborating with staff
early in the process to
ultimately come up with a
project that serves everyone,
not only the developer and
homebuilders, but also the
public as a whole. This project
is designed to retain trees,
namely a large fir grove in its
and an Oregon white oak. If
Ryan is still here. We also
have a strong history of
working early and collaborative
with the Transportation
Department, and there were
several components to the
subdivision that addressed both
vehicle and pedestrian safety
and connectivity. The same map
that the same map that Anthony
showed earlier, the preliminary
plat. What's highlighted in
gray are the new roads that
we'll be building, as well as
the additional right of way
that we'll be building out
along 34th that additionally,
that obviously provides greater
service for any vehicles out
there. It also builds a large
stretch of sidewalk that
doesn't exist along our
frontage. Anthony mentioned
that this subdivision is going
to have an alley. So you see
that center island of lots will
all be alley loaded, while
driveways accessing onto a
street don't inherently create
an unsafe situation, I think it
definitely makes it safer if
you don't have driveways that
are crossing those sidewalks or
accessing that main street. So
all that center island of of
homes will all be accessing
their garage off of that alley
down there in the lower left
corner or the southwest corner
of the site. You see the area
that's been set aside to retain
the retain the grove of fir
trees, and then in the rear of
lot 41, which is towards the
upper right hand corner, that
will be the retained Oregon
White Oak. There'll be a
conservation covenant put in
place both around that Oregon
white oak, as well as the grove
of trees, to to retain them in
perpetuity. This is the zoning
map that we're vested to. You
can see our property R9
relative to the surrounding
area, also R9 and to the the
south and that northwest R4.
Again, I don't know the exact
date that each one of these
neighborhoods were developed,
nor when they were annexed into
the city. But I would surmise
that a large number of these
developments came into the city,
already built out under
standards and zonings at the
time that they were done. So
within Clark County. When you
consider a zone change, city
code highlights a couple of
aspects to consider, namely a
change in circumstance, the
change in circumstance that we
believe supports our requested
zone change is the same change
in circumstance that has driven
many of your policies and
overall strategy. And as the
housing deficit, the only way
that we address that housing
deficit is to build homes, and
the way we do that most
effectively and efficiently is
to create policies that will
allow you to do so quickly and
in greater density. This map,
while not necessarily
applicable because we're not
invested in this map, shows
what is in place now and going
forward under your new
comprehensive plan designation
and the zoning structure that's
built upon a zone zoning
framework of low scale, medium
scale, high scale developments,
our property, as well as all
the property surrounding it are,
are deemed low scale
neighborhood, which has no
minimum density requirements
whatsoever. Excuse me, have no
maximum densities, only minimum
densities that must be met. And
as I mentioned earlier, our
proposed development meets
those minimum minimum density
requirements as set forth in
the new low scale neighborhood.
A similar list to what Anthony
showed in his slide. Many of
the sections of title 20 that
are deemed to be approval
criteria for the project to
include the text and map
amendment section there at the
bottom. In all cases, our
application meets or exceeds
each of these criteria. Lastly,
because our application meets
all application requirements,
all approval criteria, as well
as all development requirements
and standards, we're
recommending approval, which
will be consistent with the
staff report as well as the
hearings, examiner's findings
and recommendations. We're
available for questions.
>> Thank you very much. Let me
go ahead and take the other
testimony, and then we'll come
back. If there are questions. I
have one individual who's
registered, Carmen de Lehan.
Carmen, please use the
microphone over here on your
right.
>> Yeah. Hi. I'm the other
speaker. Yeah. And I do want to
talk about Carmen.
>> I'm going to have you
address the council, not the
applicant, please.
>> Oh, hey, how are you doing?
I know that you guys are doing
this because it's a public
hearing. That's by definition,
going through the process,
because I've actually been to
hundreds of these meetings now,
and not once have I seen public
opinion sway your votes. So I
know it's just going through
the process of hearing what the
public has to say. Like you
said, let the other person talk.
Okay, fine. And this is the
thing that I read that all this
is for the people. And, you
know, to hell with the critters.
Because if you know, on
Manhattan, they have that big
old Central Park to keep some
nature, to keep some trees, to
keep some outdoor activity. But
I know the goal here is to turn
everything into concrete, which
is to make the city hotter. And
we've seen the maps where
things like this make heat in
the summer, and there's nothing
here that says to add more
green spaces and have some
consideration for the land
that's going to be damaged. And
I'm not even going to take into
account the hundreds of little
kids that are going to be
they're going to go to school,
they're going to break their
arms. And guess what? There's
no hospitals on that side of
town. So you're talking about
adding more population but less
services. So the schools are
going to get more crowded and
all of this and they're going
to make their money. But are
they going to contribute to the
more police that are going to
be called to this neighborhood,
and the more fire that's going
to be needed, protection on
this new subdivision, which, by
the way, I've lived in one. And
it's a nightmare because you
have no yard, you have bricks
here. You have another house
here. You got your neighbor's
window right here. That's what
you're talking about, right?
And getting in through the
alleyway is a pain in the you
know where because that's what
they did. There's an area I
think you know the area right
down here. And it's all back
alley. And that's what we're
talking about. That only one
parking space for three people
for three houses. So that when
when somebody has a party,
there's not going to be any
parking. Is that the one I read?
>> Please address the council.
>> Is there's only going to be
one parking spot per three
people houses, so that when you
have a party, you guys are
screwed anyways. Or you can
just fill up the back alley.
That's what I'm saying is,
where's the forethought on
people's comfort level? Because
they're going to move into this
house. They're going to realize
they bought a box and want to
leave in an emergency situation
you're stuck in, you're screwed.
And they don't care about the
animals that are going to lose
their homes. Like I said, they
purposely left Central Central
Park in New York to have some
green space. And unfortunately,
the city of Vancouver doesn't
want to leave any green spaces.
So, okay, you're not going to
listen to me. Can you at least
add some plants, some hanging
plants? Because that will help
the earth stay green instead of
attracting more heat, like
those parking buildings that
are painted black, that are
just making it all hotter in
the summer and not helping the
situation. And they're going to
be killing birds homes. They're
going to be killing animals
homes, but who cares, right?
>> That concludes our public
testimony. Council. Do you have
questions of staff or any of
the witnesses who have
testified this evening? Hearing
none. Thank you. The question
posed to you is whether you
approve of a preliminary
subdivision to create 82 single
family residential lots and a
concurrent zone change from R
nine low density residential to
R 17 lower density residential
on approximately 7.52 acres,
located at 15301 North East
34th Street Council. I'll
entertain a motion.
>> Move to approve. Paulson.
>> Paulson. Seconded by.
>> Perez.
>> Perez. Hearing no further
discussion. Roll call. Vote,
please.
>> Councilmember Harless. I
Perez I Paulson I Stauber. I
mayor McEnerny Ogle.
>> I motion passes. Thank you
very much. That concludes the
business of the City Council
except for communications. So.
Councilor Harless.
>> Yeah, I had two things. One,
I just wanted to add on to some
of the the comment that Council
Member Hansen brought up about
how number five is communicated.
And just be very clear that,
you know, the action requested
was for us to move forward to a
second reading. The ordinance
and the ordinance says that
it's to provide funding for
criminal justice purposes as
authorized under our C, w, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah. And you
go under our CW8214345 and it's
very clear about what it can be
used for. It includes domestic
violence services, staffing,
adequate public defenders,
diversion programs, reentry for
inmates, local government
programs, blah, blah, blah,
blah to reduce homelessness, as
well as improving behavioral
health. Community placements
for juvenile offenders,
community outreach and
assistance programs,
alternative response programs.
And that is what was approved.
Not that we approved, you know,
for it to move forward for X
number of officers. So I just
want to be very clear about
that. And then second, today,
myself and Council Member Perez,
we went on a tour of the Humane
Society of Southwest Washington.
Colleagues, you should have
gotten an email from them as
well, inviting you to go out.
And one of the things that was
brought up that I was
reflecting on today, on my way
here, was about how they
mentioned that one of the I
can't remember if it was the,
the primary or like one of the
top reasons that people are
surrendering their pets is
because of changes in their
housing, where they can't
afford, where they're going to
be moving because of a pet
deposit or a pet fee and or
just outright, you know, the
housing isn't allowing it. But
I was more focused on the pet
fee and the pet deposit because
last week, Seattle passed a ban
on those fees, considering them
junk fees. And I looked it up.
And, you know, there's a number
of cities throughout the state
that have done something
similar, whether it's caps or
reductions, and it's part of a
package of just junk fees in
general when it comes to or
caps on deposits, security
deposits and whatnot. And we
have very little of that in our
city right now. And I know
we've talked about it over the
years. It's come up in
conversations. And as we
continue talking about housing,
as it has these last several
workshops, this is another area
where when we when we talk
about the what the rent cost is
with all those junk fees
attached, I don't think we're
actually analyzing the true
cost. And I would love to
explore in the future at some
point, looking at how we can
help our residents that are
renters. And I'm not asking for
that. And to get a second today.
It's just something I'm
reflecting on from a tour I had
today. So there's still more to
to digest and get into, but I
just wanted to share that. But
it was a great tour. They're
doing excellent work out there
and have expanded out into
Hazel Dell and Orchards and
Longview, and really excited
about the work they're doing.
Thanks.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Thank you. Just wanted to
add a little bit to the context
for the field trip we had at
the Humane Society today. It
was good for me to understand
how our city works with the
Humane Society and the contract
that we have for them to do
services, not just with us, but
throughout the region. And it
got me thinking about the
bridge shelter and our
community, who's going to be
living there and their pets.
And with the spay and neuter
program, if that's I don't know,
if Jaimie's been talking to the
Humane Society to see if
there's a program to go ahead
and have all those pets
serviced under our current
contract. Something to think
about. But I did ask for some
some numbers as far as getting
a better understanding of some
of the comments I heard from
when we went on the field trip
about the city, the Humane
Society, subsidizing a bit of
our contract and how they wish
to do some modification on some
language in in our ordinance.
So just a heads up city manager
that perhaps one of them is
like striking the word feral
and just being able to service
any animal that comes that
there's no owner to be found
with. So I thought it was a
really good, productive trip
for me. And to see this better
infrastructure as far as
helping our community. And
they'll be sending a hot map of
where we have the most need for
picking up pets, the dogs and
cats. I'm sure the mayor, you
understand some of that. Just
wanted also to mention we had
our meeting last week, and part
of that is moving forward with
including two members of the
community to sit on echo that
have lived experience, to be
able to add to the dialog that
we are talking about. And part
of that city manager is the
drafting of an interlocal
agreement to be able to move
forward with that assessment of
the systems that we have within
the homeless ecosystem world
and how we can be better
efficient. So their legal
analyst is out on maternity
leave. And so I believe the
deputy county manager was going
to reach out to you to see if
there's some work that could be
done together in drafting that
interlocal agreement. And I
thought that was a good thing
to work together on that, if
that's possible. And that
concludes my comments.
>> Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you. Mayor, briefly, I
want to talk about two
opportunities last week,
starting with the C-TRAN tour
that we took, and thank you,
Board Chair Hansen, for helping
lead and presumably organize
the facilitate that. I thought
it was a really informative
tour. We without regaling you
with all of the different
things that we did and learned,
we traveled a pretty extensive
amount of the network and we
toured the maintenance facility
and we went to many of the key
nodes within the system, but
also went to areas that we are
anticipating growth and talked
about how we can continue to
serve the growing needs of our
community, not just within the
city, but throughout the entire
service area. And we learned
about how our busses are
sometimes given priority and
traffic signals and other ways
that they very surreptitiously
allow themselves to go a little
bit faster, but more reliably
for our transit users. And so
it was a great tour and learned
a lot. And I really appreciated
the opportunity. And then the
second thing is that I had the
opportunity to attend the
ribbon cutting for the Ed Lynch
Trade Center on Friday morning,
and I think there was pretty
good press coverage of that
event. So I won't go into the
details there. But one of the
things that I don't think was
elevated enough is not only is
that an opportunity for folks
to take advantage of this new
facility, to learn really
important trade skills that are
highly in demand in our
community for good family wage
jobs. We're talking about
welding jobs and other types of
careers. But because of that
new space exists, they've been
able to repurpose the space
that had been used for that to
expand. For example, the
culinary program, which is
another trades area which
provides another opportunity
for more students to take
advantage of those types of
training opportunities. And so
really, it's, it's, you know,
building new capability with
this new facility, but then
backfilling and other areas so
that the, the aggregate amount
of growth and that type of
education at Fort Vancouver
High School specifically is
much greater than you might
expect. Just looking at that
one facility alone. And it was
also announced at that event
that the funding has been
secured to do the next site,
which will be out at Sky view.
And so it's just it's a great
example of educators coming
together with philanthropists
and city leaders to build the
capacity to create skills in
our community that are needed
for great jobs. And it's a
tremendous success that we're
celebrating. Thank you.
>> Councilor Stoeger.
>> Thank you, mayor. Two things
I want to talk about tonight.
The first is E motorcycles. So
in the state of Washington, a
something that doesn't have
pedals, that has more than 750W
of power is considered a
motorcycle no matter what the
engine is. And I think we've
all experienced folks on these
types of vehicles zooming
around the city without license
plates. I experienced one being
ridden by someone who was
definitely under the age of 16
on Mill Plain. Luckily, wearing
a helmet and I, I know our
police resources are stretched
thin, but I think we need to be
somehow proactively addressing
this issue, that these things
need to be licensed. People
need to be 16. People need to
be wearing a helmet, and they
shouldn't be going on the
sidewalks either. So this is we
had a conversation about
requests from council. This is
a request from a council member.
And I would love to have a
discussion about how, if
there's other people who think
we should be talking about this,
other council members, and if
so, hearing from the city
manager potential ways to move
forward. So I'll start there
with my first one. Okay.
>> Yes, I this is Councilor
Perez. I would love to continue
this conversation and learn
more about what we are doing,
being mindful of the impacts to
our community. We've heard from
many members of the public to
address this topic, and I think
it's good timing for us to do
that.
>> Mayor. Council member Hansen.
I would love to discuss this as
well. I would also like to
discuss how we can communicate
people of the proper age and
how they can use them in a more
a safer way. And how do you
communicate that message to
parents, to the users?
>> City manager, you have four
individuals who have asked to
take a look at this and have
staff help us understand all
the ins and outs of this.
>> Yeah.
>> Legislative priority also.
>> Yeah, this is actually
timely because we visited with
our outside advocacy firm today.
And this is one of the things
that we anticipate being on our
legislative priorities for this
fall. To Councilor Stover's
point, this is not just an
issue for Vancouver. It's an
issue for the Association of
Washington Cities, something
that's cropping up around the
state. We'll seek to set up a
workshop to come back to the
council and have more
discussion on what options we
might have, and as well as what
type of things might need, some
advocacy for more local tools.
>> Okay.
>> A recent article I read
highlighted the dramatic jump
in hospitalizations and not
just hospitalizations, but the
severity of injuries that are
occurring with with these
vehicles. Second one council
now has approved moving forward
with our operations center,
something I brought up before
this is a 225 million project.
It is currently buried within
the main website with a lot of
unspecific and I dare say,
stale information. And I think
the size of this project needs
to elevate it to be something
that is is more visible. I
think probably moving it to be
heard. Vancouver as as the
platform so that more
information can be exposed to
the public for, for following
along with what's happening.
But the, the current website is,
is pretty thin on any kind of
detail. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councilor Hanson.
>> Thank you, mayor, and I
agree with you, Council Member
Stover. I'd like to see that as
well. But I'd just like a
report on Spolar how things are
going, what's new? Maybe we can
discuss where we're at. I think
you got an energetic staff that
wants to see this move forward
and has the right energy to
make that happen, so would love
to hear from them and see where
they're at, what they got
cooking. Do I have three other
council members?
>> Yes, yes. Council member
Perez.
>> Thank you.
>> Mayor.
>> Councilors vigor put out
their second maneuverable
support vessel. That is the
landing craft, not for the Navy,
for the Army. And so that is a
part of the Department of
Defense contract for 14 of
these. These are union jobs
with craftsmen and women in
plumbing and welding and
electricians. ET cetera. ET
cetera. An excellent job. It's
not a ship. It is a boat.
However, it is huge. So we were
happy to see that. And it'll be
going out on the Columbia River
and then heading over to Hawaii.
We had our 2,000,000th Subaru
come floating in off of a ship.
Thank you to the Port of
Vancouver for an incredible
opportunity. The true asset and
the Port of Vancouver has a
contract with Subaru until 2040.
So we're very excited that
we'll be seeing more and more
of those. I also had a tour of
the old former cadet
manufacturing. It was purchased
by an Irish company, the Glen
Dimplex, and once again, an
incredibly wonderful
manufacturer down at the Port
of Vancouver. They sold the
land to the port. They lease it
back from the port. They build
all of the floorboards, the
heaters to Home Depot, Lowe's.
ET cetera. ET cetera. ET cetera.
You know, ace and the whole
nine yards. So what is
interesting is the industrial
symbiosis. All of their scraps
are beautiful flat pieces of
aluminum that then go to our
recycling down at the port. So
it number one stuff. So it's
all clean and everything. Lots
of back to school events.
Pearson had its flight through
time. Lots of old airplanes
down there showing off with old
cars and the number of
different pieces. The museum
was open. A great turnout,
wonderful weather as you are,
I'm sure well aware all of the
national night outs were
postponed, so we still have
several of them this week. And
Hawk is one of them. So there's
an opportunity. And the Main
Street Promise Road work is
coming along beautifully, and
hopefully the trees will be
ready to rock and roll here in
another month. So City Manager,
any comments from you?
>> Yeah, a couple of different
things. Just items that I've
noted for follow up. There's a
few that I would consider to be
policy level. And then a couple
that I think are administrative
that I'll just follow up. So on
the administrative side, I will
reach out to April over at the
county to talk with her about
the Echo update. And then I can
work with communications on
getting our website updated to
a more prominently feature the
operations center for Council.
Follow ups we have will
schedule a workshop for Emoto,
and in a serendipitous piece of
timing, next Monday, the
climate team is going to be
here for Climate Workshop,
which would be a great time to
do a solar update.
>> There you go. Okay.
>> City attorney.
>> Nothing more from legal
tonight. Mayor. Thank you.
>> Thank you that it is 815. We
will adjourn our regular
council meeting, having
completed all of our business,
will now open it up to the
community forum where
individuals may come and talk
to us about items of their
interest. We do not video
record these. We do audio
record them. So, Miss Dollard,
please ask CVTV to clear the
cameras.