During the public hearing for a proposed 25-lot subdivision, local residents provided testimony raising concerns about traffic safety, parking, and the adequacy of the project's public notice process. In response to claims that the initial site postings and mailed letters failed to adequately inform the neighborhood, the hearing examiner agreed to hold the written record open for an additional week. This extension allows more community members the opportunity to submit public comments before the final rebuttal period and the ultimate closure of the hearing.
Cross_cutting
Vancouver Land Use Hearings · May 19, 2026 · 1:05:11–1:05:37 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: public hearing public testimony public comment
What was said
1:04:10 open record period and no additional testimony. I'm okay. I'm okay with this first Mr. Payne and then Mr. Santel. I just like some clarity as to how the public is supposed to know about the extension, how that goes about getting them notified and giving them the opportunity. Right. Well, it's a very short amount of time for that. It is a very short amount of time. Yes, yes. And to to come Well, first to comment and then an answer to the question. This public hearing has been noticed for some time. And so that was kind of weighing towards me, you know, like, well, do I need to leave the record open? It's it's not incumbent on the applicant or the city to notify folks, I'm hoping that the three of you can let folks know if you've heard from people that they wished that they didn't see it that they wish that they would
1:05:04 have known. Please spread the word. But that would be my answer. This is this is an extension that's being provided in the context or during a public hearing. So there's no further notice requirement on the city or on the applicant to see that through. Mr. Santel looks like you have your hand up and then Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, thank you. So earlier, Mr. Johnson stated in his slides that there is a traffic study and then I think he corrected and said maybe that wasn't actually the case. I'd like to formally request that a traffic study does get completed. Whether or not code states that that's needed. I think it would be an error on the city's part based on my observations at this point. I would like a traffic study to include how often cars actually stop at
1:05:59 the stop sign and how often cars are parked in the fire lanes along 50 for Northeast 51st and Northeast 132nd. And I think that the city would be surprised at what they find. And then looking at what kind of additional traffic may come through and how those obscured sight lines through that intersection may present a considerably greater danger. But I think the city is quite remiss saying this project is too small at this point to warrant a traffic study. And Mr. Johnson will be able to address that during his rebuttal following the first open
Evidence (1 match)
cross_cutting keyword 1:05:11–1:05:37 public hearing, public testimony, public comment
s know if you've heard from people that they wished that they didn't see it that they wish that they would have known. Please spread the word. But that would be my answer. This is this is an extension that's being provided in the context or during a public hearing. So there's no further notice requirement on the city or on the applicant to see that through. Mr. Santel looks like you have your hand up and then Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, thank you. So earlier, Mr. Johnson stated in his slides that there