Building_development + Cross_cutting + Forests_green_space

1:24:54 owned and maintained by the subdivisions HOA. To provide perspective of the location of this proposed subdivision, this slide is showing an aerial view of the site and the surrounding neighborhoods. The site sits due West of Northeast 162nd Avenue between Northeast 34th Street and Northeast 28th Street. And it is within walking distance to Diamond Park to the West.

1:25:25 Here are illustrating the proximity of the site to the schools within the Evergreen School District that will serve the new residents of this proposal. Accompanying the aerial image is a snapshot of the school district's letter that states that busing will be provided for those proposed community members. With this slide, I wanted to illustrate the zoning of our site and the neighboring area. At the beginning of this presentation, I mentioned in addition to the subdivision application, we have submitted a concurrent request to rezone the site from its current R9 to R17. I use the term current for two reasons. One, it conveys what the status of the zoning is at this present time. And two, it leads to the fact that this won't always be the case regardless of our land use application and concurrent rezone request.

1:26:24 What I mean by that is explained under the next slide here. What this zoning map demonstrates is what the future holds for our site and the surrounding neighborhoods. As most are aware, the city of Vancouver and surrounding jurisdictions have been working for years now on their comprehensive plan update, which was voted on and approved by the city council on June 1st this year. What this map represents is years of work, engagement done by the city and recently the city council to approve of the preferred zoning map that you see here. And will become part of the comp plan update that will take effect July 31st of this year. As this map demonstrates our site and the surrounding neighborhood will be rezoned to low scale neighborhood or LS as the new zoning district. This slide is trying to depict in a single snapshot the reasoning why the policy makers

1:27:22 would like to see a zone change of our site, because quite frankly within the city of Vancouver, there is a housing crisis. The city, both policy makers and staff have undertaken years of study and years of planning trying to bring about some resemblance of a response to the housing crisis. That has been reflected not only in quantifying what is needed in terms of housing units, but also put in place a housing action plan through the comp plan update that will soon take effect. The two words highlighted in the middle of the slide is a term you hear time and time again, promoting density, which is one of the ways we can address the need to get more housing into a defined area. What the concurrent zone change does for this proposal is help effectively advance the adopted city policies supporting housing diversity without delay for the much needed affordable housing options within the city limits.

1:28:21 Here's our preliminary plan demonstrating the narrow lot development standards. You can see centralized in the plan, the alley loaded lots with the public alley connecting to two public streets on either end with a private storm facility underneath. Again, the HOA will own and maintain the storm facility here and throughout the site. Frontage improvements are proposed for Northeast 34th street as well as connecting to the existing sidewalk to the South on Northeast 154th Avenue. The tree grove in the Southwest corner of the site will be preserved within a separate track space that will be owned and maintained through the subdivisions HOA. This slide highlights all of the documents that were submitted to form our fully complete land use application. The narrative details out how we believe we are meeting the approval criteria and standards spelled out in the city's code,

1:29:20 which staff is in agreement of. The SEPA checklist shows higher level impacts that the overall project may have and how those impacts are gonna be mitigated. The geo report that illustrates excellent infiltration rates for the stormwater facility and general soil conditions. And our transportation analysis was produced by our traffic engineer and demonstrates how our proposal adheres to concurrency standards. Again, from a previous slide showing the school district's letter stating that they will be providing busing for the subdivision. Here we are highlighting a few key milestones in the entitlement life cycle of this project through the pre-application process where we received contingent vesting back in May of last year. March of this year, staff determined that our application was deemed fully complete and then vested our project to current standards.

1:30:16 Again, we are preserving a tree grove in the Southwest corner of the site and we agree with the urban forester that our application is in compliance with VMC 20.770. The various approval criteria for our application is illustrated on this slide and we believe our application have met all of them. All the materials submitted to include our narrative within our application have shown how this site is a prime site for redevelopment within the city and meet the subdivision standards. For the narrow lot development standards our preliminary plot demonstrates how our design eliminates conflicts for the narrow lots. We show more than required guest parking within the site. And lastly, how solid waste and recycling can be collected within the new subdivision. The more complicated approval criteria is the text and map amendments. The narrative submitted we believe shows

1:31:16 how our plan aligns with the Vancouver strategic plan and the change in circumstance is related to the housing shortage and crisis we're experiencing in Southwest Washington. To reiterate what I've stated at the beginning of our presentation, Game Group believes we have met all the approval criteria and we do recommend approval of this application in front of you consistent with the staff report and its findings and recommendations. Thank you for listening to our presentation examiner Marshall. If you have any follow-up questions to clarify anything we have stated this evening or within our application, Jason and I are available to answer those questions. - Okay, thank you, Mr. Chadwick. I do not have any questions. I paused for a second because I may have a question on the zone change but I think I'm gonna hold

1:32:13 and hear the city's presentation and then also see what the public comments have to say. So I'm gonna hold for now. Thank you for that. - Stand by. - Okay, perfect. Okay, the city, Mr. Torricci. - Hey there. - Yes, Anthony Torricci, Senior Planner. - Okay, thank you. You swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. - I do. - Thank you, Mr. Torricci. You may proceed. - All right. So as we know, we're here tonight for the Mountain Hood Vista subdivision and zone change. The slide shows the location of the property at 15301 Northeast 34th Street. The site's currently developed with several structures and radio towers that are proposed to be removed as part of this redevelopment. Something to note on the site is an Oregon white oak

1:33:12 located on the Western portion of the property. Oregon white oaks are classified as critical area resources and the trees proposed to be retained and protected as part of the development. Again, showing the zoning, a little bit of a closer in view, R9 with R4 to the south.

1:33:33 The applicant's requesting the approval of two concurrent applications. As mentioned previously, it's preliminary subdivision to divide approximately 7.5 acre parcel into 82 single family residential lots. And the second is the zoning map amendment from R9 to R17. Both the existing R9 and proposed R17 zones are consistent with the urban lower density comp plan designation. So no comp plan map amendment is required, just a zoning map amendment. Because these two are being reviewed concurrently, the applications are processed together under a type four review procedure with a recommendation from the hearings examiner forwarded to city council for a final decision. The application followed the city standard review process for a type four land use application. Environmental review was completed under SEPA. Notice was provided to surrounding property owners and interested parties and agency and public comments were received during the review period. Public comments primarily focused on proposed density,

1:34:31 traffic and parking impacts and tree retention. Staff reviewed those concerns against the applicable approval criteria and development standards. And the findings related to those topics are discussed in the staff report. The subdivision review focuses on whether adequate provisions have been made for public facilities, infrastructure, circulation, utilities, and other improvements necessary to serve the development. Staff also evaluated the proposal against the subdivision technical standards, which include lot layout, access, easements, narrow lot development requirements and site design considerations. Based on these findings, staff concluded that the subdivision proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria as conditioned in the staff report. Won't spend too much time on this 'cause the applicant showed the preliminary plot here, but again, we see a proposal to create 82 single family residential lots, primary access being provided from Northeast 34th Street

1:35:28 with the extension of Northeast 154th to the South, a network of new internal public streets and a public alley. Staff evaluated the proposed zoning map amendment against the approval criteria of VMC-20-285-060. Staff found the proposals more consistent with the applicable strategic plan and comp plan policies than the existing zoning. While both the existing and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the urban low density comp plan designation, R-17 more effectively advances adopted policies related to housing diversity, infill development, efficient urban land use patterns and the use of existing public infrastructure. Staff considered the community's ongoing housing need, affordability challenges and the city's adopted policy direction supporting additional housing opportunities. Based on these findings, staff concluded that the zoning map amendment satisfies the applicable approval criteria as conditioned in the staff report.

1:36:25 This table here highlights the primary development standard differences between the existing R-9 zoning district and the proposed R-17 zoning district. R-17 is intended to accommodate a more compact residential development pattern through smaller lot sizes, reduced lot widths, increased lot coverage allowances. The requested rezone does not change the site's comp plan designation. It changes the development standards that apply to the property and allows the site to be developed in a manner that supports additional housing opportunities while remaining within the urban lower density framework. So with that, my recommendation, staff finds the proposal meets the applicable requirements of the city of Vancouver Municipal Code and recommends approval of the subdivision and zone change as conditioned in the staff report. And that concludes my slideshow. - Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Foruji.

1:37:22 I did get a little bit more from you on the zone change. So I appreciate that. Okay, all right. Now is the time for public testimony. Please use the raise hand feature on the screen so that I and Brandy Oldman. Okay, Ms. Oldman, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You've got to help her, I love it. - I do. - All right, Ms. Oldman, please state your name, spell your last name and describe your interest in the proposal. - Yes, my name is Brandy Oldam, spelled O-L-D-H-A-M. And my husband is actually on the call too. So he might pop on after to put his statement in. - Okay. - Perfect, good evening. My name is Brandy Oldam and I live in the Parkway East neighborhood. I wanna clarify that I am not opposed to housing being built on this parcel.

1:38:20 As I do know, we have a housing crisis here in Vancouver, but I understand from the previous presentations that the change from the R-19 to R-17 may be occurring throughout the city of Vancouver's new comprehensive plan process. So it may be null and void for me to even say that I oppose it, but I would like to go on record that I do not support this change. Yes, because it has the potential to not only impact this development, but also the future character of a very well established neighborhood. And obviously as a mother of a young child, I am asking the city to look very carefully at what this development means for families who already walk through this neighborhood every day. My son and I regularly walk in this area to visit his grandparents who live a street over, but we also walked to Diamond Park, which will be directly impacted by the subdivision. And our home is located along a walking path where we have young kids running up and down all day long. So this is not an abstract traffic concern for my family. This is a route we walk daily. And these are crossings that we currently navigate with a toddler. And I see many other families doing so as well.

1:39:18 These are the streets where children, grandparents and families are already walking without the level of pedestrian infrastructure that actually should be in place in this neighborhood. This is a neighborhood, like I said, with high walking traffic. Today alone, we went on a short 10 minute walk and we stopped and spoke with three other neighborhood families, all of whom had young children. And I just wanna say that this is not unusual. I do know that the surveyors, I know, I know we're talking. The surveyors came out in the evening, or sorry, in the winter time where families weren't out as much. But during these nice weather days, we're talking lots of families out all the time. Can you stand up for me? Thank you. With increased density and without adequate pedestrian protections, we are creating a real safety concern. My concern here is that additional vehicles are not going to stay isolated to just the subdivision entrance. Drivers will be using additional surrounding residential streets. And right now we don't have crosswalks.

1:40:17 We don't have sidewalks that run all the way up the street to the park. And this development is gonna be right along that same thing, that same path. And these are neighborhood streets that again, people are using to access parks, bus stops, homes, all of those things. I just wanna make it very clear to the city that the safety impact really does need to be measured on how these families move through this neighborhood every day, not just on the parcel itself and not on a bad weather day. Before allowing this level of density to move forward, I do ask that the city make specific findings that the proposed development is compatible with the existing neighborhood and that the surrounding street network can safely handle the increased cars, parking, and all of the pedestrian safety impacts that will be happening. I don't wanna see a kid run out from behind a car. At minimum, I do ask that the city require a reduced density alternative. Happy to have you build houses, but can we cut it down a little bit

1:41:15 and bind safety improvements before any approval. This should include safe crossings, continuous sidewalks, traffic calming signage protections around school bus stops, and just protections for walking routes that families use to reach Diamond Park and also the surrounding homes. So I do respectfully ask that the city to deny this proposal as presented or require a lower density alternative that will help us maintain this walkability that we love about this neighborhood. - Okay, thank you, Ms. Oldman. Did you submit a comment letter, and if not, would you like to be a party of record? - Yes, please make me a party of record. And I do have a comment letter, but it wasn't as specific about a lot of these things that I just mentioned tonight. - Okay, I appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Is your husband in the background wanting to jump on? - I'm gonna have him pop on in a minute. We've gotta go deal with my son and then we'll come back. Thank you. - Absolutely. Okay, it looks like the next person, number two, with their hand up, Robin Oldman. Oldham, Robin.

1:42:14 Oh, hello, I'm not gonna make any assumptions as to how you might be connected to our previous person providing testimony, but I'll go ahead and swear you in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? - Yes. - Okay, please state your name, spell your last name, state your interest in the application, and also whether you'd like to be a party of record. - Okay, my name is Robin Oldham, spelled O-L-D-H-A-M. I live at 15616 Northeast 34th Street. I do wish to continue to be a party of record. I have submitted an email comment that I'm mentioning some additional things here tonight. - Okay, thank you. My statement concerns infill development and the size of the proposed development site and our city's one-size-fits-all approach to housing development. The up-zoning of a vacant lot can create greater density

1:43:14 within the confines of a lower-zoned residential neighborhood, and that can be somewhat compatible, or it can be greatly disruptive and dangerous depending on the development's location within the lower-zoned residential area and the size of the parcel to be developed. I maintain that our city seeks to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to up-zoning requests such as this one, and that the situation differs greatly, however, when the acreage is larger and/or located in the interior of a residential neighborhood and not on major city streets. Where the concerned acreage proposed for development is small, from, say, a half-acre to two or three acres, it's reasonable to expect property owners in the surrounding area to adapt and deal with changes. But when the proposed development is much larger, let's look at an example. A two-acre infill lot with an up-zone permitting 11 houses per acre would have 22 new homes. With an estimate of eight additional vehicular trips per day to and from that parcel, there will be some 176 additional cars

1:44:12 sharing the roadways daily. But if the infill lot to be developed in that same neighborhood happened to be, say, seven and a half acres, the same density of houses to be built would result in 82 additional homes and an additional 656 vehicles using the roadways each day. The first example of 22 new houses may be compatible with the surrounding lower-zone neighborhood, but the example in the larger lot with 82 houses and 656 additional cars will inflict much greater impact and proportionally greater danger to pedestrians along with possible loss of mature trees and an abrupt and harmful change to the ratio of built environment to natural environment. Are surrounding property owners to be penalized simply because they happen to live near a large infill lot that the city can up-zone? While the city may think that simply having code-permitted development can address every potential issue, there needs to be attention paid to the fact that the location of the development

1:45:11 and the size of the parcel must be considered for equitable application of that same code. For these reasons, this parcel's central location and its size allowing more density, I maintain that this proposal does not meet requirements for rezoning to R17 and should not be recommended for approval. One more thing, as to how the new comp plan would affect this proposal, while the denser number of homes would be allowed, beefed up tree protections in the new plan would mean that both groves of mature Douglas firs, the one in the northeast corner as well as in the southwest corner, would have to be preserved. Hence, the developer is seeking the up-zoning under the current city plan rather than waiting and taking their chances with the new comp plan. That's all I have for right now. Thank you very much, hearing examiner Marshall. - Thank you, Ms. Oldham. Thank you very much for your testimony. - All right.

1:46:08 - Okay, so it looks like Margaret Kane is number two with her hand raised. Ms. Kane, do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - I do. - Great, if you could turn your volume up a little bit. Okay. - Now it's at 100%, I can't get higher. - Okay, that's better for me. So thank you for that. And they will also pick up better on the recording. Please state your name, spell your last name and your interest in the proposal. And if you'd like to be a party of record. - I do wanna be a part of your record. I did submit a comment. My name is Margaret Kane, K-A-I-N and I live at 15214 Northeast 35th Circle, about a block from the development.