Building_development + Forests_green_space

28:21 I am not going to close community communication. The next five individuals would like to talk to us about comp plan, and I'm going to leave that open. Let's go to consent agenda. We are pulling item number three to be read into the record, but Councilors, are there any other items in consent that you would like to pull at this time? So I'll entertain a motion to approve items one, two, and four. Move to approve. Fox, seconded by Harless. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Now we'll go into item number three. Councilmember Hansen, I'm going to go ahead and recuse. Thank you.

29:14 Item number three is an ordinance updating and amending the city of Vancouver 2026-2045 comprehensive plan called our Vancouver, repealing and replacing the city of Vancouver zoning map, and repealing and replacing title 20 land use and development code of the Vancouver municipal code, providing for severability and an effective date. So at this point, I'm going to bring it back to community communication, and I have Paul Quimby and Mike Philbin, please. Paul go ahead. Good evening, may the mayor and city council members. My name is Paul Quimby.

30:10 I have lived in the northwest neighborhood since 1958, growing up there, going to school, coming back there, and I've resided there with my wife and children. I know the neighborhood extremely well. Last month had a northwest neighborhood meeting attended by more than 60 people, that number might even be more. Overwhelmingly we voted against this comprehensive level two development for all the reasons that everybody I'm sure is very much aware of, infrastructure, roads, curving, sidewalks, all of that. The diversity I think can be found more useful in other parts of the city where it's already developed with transportation and other amenities that would make it more of a positive result

31:09 of this mandate from the state that we're required to do. I'm here as a representative of the rest of the neighborhood association, that we are very much against it, and we would encourage you to continue further study and not vote on this to continue to find some viable options. Thank you. >> Thank you. Mike? >> Hi. My name is Mike Philbin, and I am a lifelong resident of the Vancouver area and a current resident of the northwest neighborhood. First I kind of want to go on record. I'm pro zoning reform, I'm pro increasing density, I'm very much for making homeownership more accessible, and I would like to think that my children will own a house before they're my age, to be honest with you, and I understand how complicated that is right now.

32:08 Our neighborhood is going to be zoned for what you call low rise, and I'm for that. I'm for property rights and being able to do what you want to do on your property, and I get that part. A significant part of our neighborhood is zoned what you guys are calling mid rise, and there's some definitional questions I have about how you're defining that, and you say that this is they're doing this everywhere, but not everywhere are they defining it the way you're defining it, so that's one issue. But also to the extent that we're making homeownership more accessible, putting mid rise developments in our neighborhood is simply inviting institutional investors to build big buildings that they'll rent forever, and I don't see that as a solution to this problem. We also have infrastructure issues, Lincoln is not an arterial, it's not made for that, we don't have the kind of public transit, I mean there's a bus that goes up and down

33:07 Lincoln every couple hours or whatever, but we don't have the public transportation infrastructure in place to support that, and I just kind of want to voice these concerns, I'm not against zoning changes, I'm not against increasing density, I think that mid rise development around that area, in particular I'm talking about the area around Franklin Park, and then also around Ed and Dolly Lynch Park, the infrastructure is not there, the roads aren't there, so I think that's a fool's errand to clear the way for six story buildings in those neighborhoods. Thank you.

33:49 >> Thank you, Zachary Pyle and Ben McCarty. >> Good evening, Mayor and City Council, my name is Zachary Pyle, I'm the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, and I'm here tonight to represent the Planning Commission and our unanimous recommendation to approve our Vancouver's plan and the Title 20 update. I just want to give you a few personal reflections on what it meant to be a part of the program here, this plan has been both a joy and a burden to participate in, the process has spanned several years and dozens of touch points for me as a commissioner, and personally through community forums and conversations with neighbors, for some it hasn't moved fast enough, and for others it is moving too much too fast.

34:45 It has aspirations that, if we achieve, would make me very proud to call Vancouver a home, but realizing those aspirations is going to require thousands of detailed requirements, regulations and guidelines to back them up, and in many ways a single vote felt inadequate for a document of this complexity and breadth, but it would also be misleading to suggest that the project is over. The Planning Commission reviews amendments to the comprehensive plan every year, including before the end of this year in 2026. This commission and our staff are committed to revisiting the document for as long as it serves as the governing framework for the city to ensure it continues to meet the needs of the community. I should be clear that not every element of this plan was without debate, questions about building heights in medium scale neighborhoods and the restrictiveness of buffer zones between zoning districts are just two examples of where commissioners were in opposition with one another. These were good faith disagreements and they are representative of the kind of tension

35:45 that runs through a document of this scope. I raised them not to cast doubt on the plan, but because compromise was required and some of those conversations may need to continue in the months and years to come. Through it all, several through lines brought me to make a recommendation for approval. One, this plan was built on a seek to understand foundation. Staff and the commission actively listened to the industry that works within the code daily into the community it is meant to serve. The result is a plan with its priorities straight and regulations written to serve those priorities. Two, it removes regulatory barriers to meeting market demand, whether that means infill housing or neighborhood commercial services. This plan opens the possibilities for the market that was previously barred from pursuing and three is built for compromise. This plan reflects thousands of opinions, hard facts and competing interests. As conditions shift in the years ahead, I believe its underlying structure is flexible

36:43 enough to meet and adapt to the demands of the community accordingly. In closing, I want to recognize the dedication of yourselves, the council, staff and my fellow commissioners throughout the process. It has been no small undertaking and we did not take it lightly. Equally important is our commitment to remaining responsive to the realities of our market in the community for as long as the plan is in effect. In conclusion, the Vancouver planning commission unanimously recommends adoption. Thank you. Ben? Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the council. My name is Ben McCarty and I live at 906 northwest 51st street in Vancouver and I'm the president of the northwest neighborhood association. I'm here tonight on his behalf to represent its members and my neighbors. At the April 30th, 2026 meeting of the northwest neighborhood association, members voted in favor of two resolutions regarding the city of Vancouver's comprehensive plan update. Approved by a vote of 19 in favor to 17 opposed, the northwest neighborhood association requests

37:41 that the city of Vancouver continue its comprehensive plan process to allow more time for further education about the plan update and to encourage additional feedback. Approved by a vote of 38 in favor to just one opposed, the northwest neighborhood association requests that the city of Vancouver place the northwest neighborhood entirely within the low scale neighborhood designation. The northwest neighborhood recognizes that all neighborhoods in Vancouver will play a role in addressing the city's housing shortage. We embrace the desire to increase diversity, growth and responsible densification to meet the city's current challenges. What we oppose in this update is the scale of these changes through the overuse of the medium scale designation in long established neighborhoods, particularly its application to much of the northwest neighborhood. We express the following concerns regarding the application of medium scale to the northwest neighborhood while respectfully requesting that the entirety of the neighborhood be zoned as low scale. Allowing for 75 foot tall maximum infill development in long established neighborhood will create a significant strain on local infrastructure, streets and multimodal transit as well as

38:40 increased demand for utilities and emergency services. There will be significant negative safety impacts to the increase of multimodal traffic on narrow streets that do not have sufficient space to safely allow for parking, pedestrian and cycling usage and increased vehicular traffic. Maximum infill development will have a negative environmental impact on vital green spaces as well as restricting the ability of people and wildlife to access those spaces. Promoting maximum infill at the medium scale designation creates competition between first time home buyers and large wealthy developers, forcing potential home buyers to become renters and limiting upward mobility. The city claims that the impact of such projects will either be minimal or incremental but has no way of ensuring this outcome. By placing maximum infill development within long established neighborhoods, significant economic pressure and strain will be placed on those living near intensely developed locations. The city has acknowledged the necessity to evaluate the comprehensive plan, its impact and how it meets the needs of the residents in Vancouver on an ongoing basis. We encourage this evaluation to be done before committing to maximum infill development and

39:40 causing irreversible damage. The Northwest Neighborhood Association hopes that the city will be open to updating and implementing the comprehensive plan through a balanced approach that will mitigate potential negative impacts for its residents. We remain ready to be an active partner with the city in efforts to encourage positive outcomes through responsible growth and encouraging effective housing solutions in a greater variety of housing types. Thank you for your time and for your consideration tonight. >> Thank you. Steven? >> Good evening. This is mayor and the City Council. I didn't really come here prepared to provide comments, so I'm going to very quickly go through what I'd like to talk about real quickly. I'm a biologist by trade. I'm retired. It's a blessed day.

40:39 I provided comments when the comprehensive plan first came out about my concern about invasive species and non-native species. Not all those species are deleterious to the environment. But I thought in our comprehensive plan we should say something about some of that and addressing that in the future. And when I look through the comprehensive plan, what I see as a draft is that we have some very nice statements that have made their way into it about pollinator habitats. I'm looking at Chapter 6, the parks section, supporting a healthy urban ecosystem. That's great. Prioritize pesticide-free landscapes. And then we get to removal and reducing use of invasive species. And what I would like to see somewhere in there is just a short statement because that's species that are already here. The concern is future species that are showing up.

41:35 And I would make reference to the emerald ash borer, which is now occurring in Washington County. Two weeks ago they had golden mussels that occurred at the southern Oregon border that were found at a boat checking station there. And there's really nothing in this plan that says we need to have some kind of a way to immediately respond to invasions that are occurring at the time. So I'd like to propose some kind of a statement that we proactively address future infestations by being able to provide an immediate response in our plan. And we've got removal and reducing of invasive species and future invasions. And I think we just proposed that we have some type of response plan or are we able to put through the Parks Department, whether through maintenance or anybody else, is that people are there to immediately respond to future infestations because they can occur

42:35 very rapidly and they're very expensive to treat. If we, having worked for a federal agency, it can take three or four years to get an appropriate response and that's too late for a lot of things that are trying to make their way into our environment. Thank you very much. - Thank you, Steve, yes, Steve, hold just a second, Councilor Fox, go ahead. - Councilor Fox here, I just wanna say that the city's comprehensive plan likely wouldn't have something specific about invasive species, but our critical areas ordinances and our Shoreline Master Program would, and I'm looking to Rebecca, but those are requirements as part of our state's comprehensive planning framework and all of the other regulations that go a lot deeper than a comp plan. So perhaps staff can-- - Understood. A lot of this comp plan is way up here. - Yes, as a biologist, you know, yes.

43:33 - Yeah, and I'm kind of, as I've said before, I'm kind of a down in the weeds kind of guy. I mean, I looked at freshwater invertebrates and little bugs that swim in the water and that was what I studied a lifetime doing. But I just, yes, thank you. - I'm just wondering if since our, some of our subsequent work after the comp plan gets adopted is fine tuning our zoning ordinances and our critical area ordinances and everything that follows, perhaps we could, staff could connect with you to make sure that those provisions are within those particular regulations. - Yeah, I'm just, my concern is about future infestations, if we wanna call it that, that we have some type of response prepared that we can put together an action team of whatever it takes. - Great, thanks, Stephen. - Okay, thank you. - All right, that concludes our communication.

44:31 Ms. Dollar, no one online for any of this? - No, no one else online. - Okay, let's go ahead and bring up staff. So, Rebecca, while that note is the most current comp plan or the two other shoreline critical areas, all of the above or just the last two? - So, we added the language around removing and essentially addressing invasive species based on this comment, this was a change we made at the policy level, so that's where you see it. The details would be in regulations per Councilman Fox. - All right, thank you, okay, you, Rebecca, you heard a couple points that were brought

45:29 up about medium scale and a couple other items, let's talk about that after you go through your presentation. - Okay, great. Okay, Rebecca Kennedy, Deputy Director, Community Development Department, I'm on the team that has been updating, working on the update to the comprehensive plan and Title 20 for the last several years, I'm joined by Mark Person, Senior Planner in Development Review, he's been the task lead on the code and you all have seen us here before you presenting at workshops several times now on this topic.

46:27 So we'll just do a quick review on the things we start out every workshop on this topic with, review some changes that were in the draft plan and code since the last time we had a workshop with Council which was on April 27th, review briefly the role of SEPA in this type of process and then outline next steps in our recommendation. So the comprehensive plan update is mandated under the Growth Management Act, so that is our sort of statewide land use planning system in Washington, it's been around for nearly three decades, the city does comprehensive plans every 10 years, sometimes more, or sorry, sometimes less, in this case we've, because of COVID we were delayed as were as every other jurisdiction in the state. It's called, what we're doing now is called the periodic review process and so every 10 years you must, under the Growth Management Act, look at your plan and you're implementing

47:26 regulation and update it to look full 20 years out and to plan for the population and jobs that you will need based on your, or sorry, housing and jobs you will need based on your population projections for the future. This has been I'd say a complex update, more so than perhaps other times because of a lot of action, or a lot of changes at the legislative level to state laws that cities needed to address and incorporate into their comprehensive plans, that includes HB 1110, which was the middle housing law that required cities of a certain size to allow four to six units per residential lot in your low scale residential zoning districts, HB 1220, which required us to plan not just for more units, but also plan for those units by income band, including permanently supportive housing, and it also required us to account for racially disparate

48:22 impacts, HB 1337 required us to allow two accessory dwelling units per residential lot, the council's already taken action on that, we took early action on that as part of our series of housing work. There's a lot of regulations at the state level about parking minimums, we are going to be aligning our impact fees to the size of housing so that there's proportionality between the size of the house and the impact fees they pay, and then this was also the first periodic review cycle where jurisdictions were required to have a climate chapter and a greenhouse gas emissions inventory, as well as a climate vulnerability analysis. These are the key tasks and processes, so in terms of the way I think about it, the buckets of work that take place under the header of the comprehensive plan update, one is the public engagement piece of that, there are requirements at the state level for public