Vancouver Land Use Hearings

0:00 (upbeat music) - All right, thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Stephanie Marshall and I'm the City of Vancouver Hearing Examiner. Today is Tuesday, June 16th, 2026, and it is 6.03 p.m. We're gonna call this meeting to order. We have two hearings on the agenda for this evening. The first one is Swift's Terrace Infill subdivision. And the second item on the agenda is Mount Hood Vista subdivision with a zone change. The first item on the agenda is, as I stated,

0:57 the Swift's Terrace Infill subdivision. This is file number PRJ-16957, LUP-85734. The proposal is for a subdivision of property located in the R9 zoning district, 2.3 acres proposed to be subdivided into 18 residential lots. I have reviewed the staff report and I've reviewed the exhibits and the record to date, of which there are 13 exhibits to the staff report. The staff report itself is exhibit one. I'm gonna do a little bit of preliminary statements and explain how the hearing will go this evening. The purpose of the hearing is to have a public forum, essentially, for members of the public to provide testimony on the application, the first item on the agenda this evening.

1:54 And that will be, everybody will be sworn in and this hearing is being recorded as Ms. Bowen stated earlier this evening. I will be swearing you in and testimony will be provided under oath. I see that there are 32 people in the team's room this evening, some of which are staff, but in order to manage this hearing in a orderly and fair process, I'm going to ask participants to please limit your shares to three minutes. If you have submitted a public comment, I note that there are several in the record. Please note that for me. And I can take note that your comment is in the record. There is no need to read public comments into the record. And if you've brought something else this evening that you wish to be included in the record, please let Ms. Bowen know and we will make sure that that gets into the record as well.

2:54 In addition to limiting testimony, please understand that this is not a question and answer proceeding. If you have questions for the applicant and or questions for staff, please state those in your testimony. And at the conclusion of all public testimony, the city will have a chance to address questions and the applicant will have the final word and also may address questions. The applicant does have the burden of proof to have the applications approved. I have no ex parte contact. That means I've not been contacted outside of the hearing this evening. Other than communication from Ms. Bowen in which she provided me the link to this hearing, a copy of the staff report and copies of the exhibits. I've not been to this site nor have I talked with anybody

3:51 that's either in favor of or opposed to the application. I've not prejudged this application. While this application may be similar to other applications in the city of Vancouver, each application is decided on its own individual merits. Each parcel of property is different. Each traffic circulation around is different. Each neighborhood is different. So please understand that I will be deciding this application based on the merits of this application. I have not, as I stated, I've not prejudged the application and I have no interest in the outcome either for or against the application. And I believe that I have no bias that would preclude me from presiding over this hearing as the hearing examiner. If anyone wishes to challenge my ability to preside over this matter in a fair and impartial manner, please state so now, and I'll leave this for a moment

4:50 so that you can raise your hand if you wish to challenge me. Okay, I'm hearing none. The way the proceedings will happen on this first application on the agenda, first, we will hear from the applicant. The applicant will present their testimony and their evidence that they want me to consider in addition to the exhibits. They may highlight certain aspects of the application or maybe even address public comments that have already been submitted. After the applicant has made their presentation, city staff will present the staff report. They'll review the criteria. They'll go through proposed conditions of approval and may also fill in any gaps that the applicant may have left that city wishes to bring to everyone's attention.

5:48 At that time, it will be time for public comment. Ms. Bowen will help me in elevating those that wish to testify. She'll help call on each one individually. And again, given that there are so many people here this evening, it would be great if you could not have repetitive testimony. You can reference what somebody else said, or you can reference a comment letter that you have submitted and hit the highlights. I don't wish to cut anybody off or say that you can't share what's on your mind, but at the same time, we want to make sure that everyone has a chance to participate. So please do keep that in mind. After you're sworn in, I would like you to state your name and spell your last name, provide your address, and also state whether you wish to be a party of record. A party of record will be getting notice of the decision when it's issued, and it's just helpful to know whether you wish to be one of those.

6:47 After all members of the public that wish to testify have had an opportunity to do so, I will turn it back to the city. The city will answer any questions that may have been posed or make additional statements concerning comments that were made. And then as I stated earlier, the applicant will have the final say because they have the burden of proof. Again, this will not be a question and answer session. Please do not interrupt the hearing with questions or reactions. That would be helpful. And please understand that once public testimony is completed, we won't be turning back to the public for additional input. So please, when you're on the stand, that's your time. So please take advantage of that and limit your comments beyond that. So thank you. Any questions about the proceedings this evening before we get started? And I'll wait a moment for anybody to raise their hand.

7:45 It looks like we have one hand up from Mark C. - Hi, will we receive the decision even if we don't add our names to record right now, like we were on the record before to join this meeting? - I would suggest that you ask to be a party of record. Again, it looks like there's a lot of people that are gonna be wanting notice of the decision when it's issued. So I would suggest that that's the best way to ensure that that happens. - Thank you. - Examiner Marshall. - Yes, please. - If anyone who received, anyone that provided a public comment on either of these projects this evening, if we have their email address and we do, they have a hearing invite, they will receive your decision for the project

8:43 that they're a party record of. - Great, great. - Perfect, thank you very much. - If you've not already submitted a comment, please state that you wish to be a party of record and thank you for that clarification. One final statement. If at the conclusion of the hearing on this first item on the agenda, if the record is closed and the hearing is closed, the date that my final decision, my final order will be due is June 30th. So you may make a note and if that changes because the record will be left open, I will calculate a new date and state for on the record. Ms. Bowen. - We do have a holiday this week, so. - I'm sorry? Oh, we do have a holiday, that's correct. So it would be, at the earliest, it would be July 1st. - Yes, thank you and yes, absolutely. I knew of the holiday and did not account for it.

9:41 All right, thank you for that correction. So yes, please note that my final order on this application will be due on July 1st, unless the record is left open and I will make that, I will make concluding remarks at the end of hearing so that if you missed it or if I'm going too fast, we'll cover it again at the end. Okay, all right, well, thank you everybody for these preliminary remarks and description of the process. I will start by asking the applicant's representative to present the application. - Thank you. - And I'm not seeing which one is talking. - Conference room three, Vancouver. - Oh, great, oh, there we go, now I can see you, thank you. Real quick, let me swear you in. - Okay. - Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give

10:39 will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - I do. - Great, please state your name, spell your last name and describe how you are associated with the applicant and the application. - My name is Michael Andreotti, A-N-D-R-E-O-T-T-I, with AKS Engineering and Forestry. I'm the land use planner for the applicant. Our address is 9600 Northeast 126th Avenue, Suite 2520, Vancouver, Washington, 98682. - Oh, I muted myself, thank you, Mr. Andreotti. You may proceed with your presentation. - Just to make sure everyone can see what's on the screen here. - Yes, I can see that, perfect. - Yep, all right. So as I noted, I'm representing the applicant, I'm the land use planner for the Swiss Terrace Type 3

11:38 subdivision application this evening. First site location, the site is indicated by the arrow on the image there, is located in the Northwest portion of Vancouver City Limits. The site is located east of Interstate 5, north of State Route 500, south of Northeast 4th Plain Boulevard, and west of Northeast St. James Road. Vancouver City boundary is shown in purple, and Clark County's boundary is shown in white on the map. Looking a little closer at the site, the site is identified as parcel numbers 148882000, 148921000, and 148924000, again, highlighted by the arrow. Northeast 54th Street abuts the site's south boundary, and is classified as a collector arterial.

12:38 The subject site is surrounded by single family residential development on all other sides, with the exception of the City of Vancouver stormwater facility that is west of the site. For the site zoning, the site is zoned R9 for residential development, and the surrounding parcels are similarly zoned R9, with the exception of the city stormwater facility, which is zoned park, as you can see on the map there. Surrounding uses for the site, as you can see on the slide, the surrounding uses are largely detached single family residential, identified as number five, with a similar attached infill project near the site identified as number four. The city stormwater facility is, again, identified as number two, and Minnehaha Elementary to the east is identified as number three. Project overview.

13:33 The site is approximately 2.29 gross acres, with 0.56 acres set aside for open space. The proposed project includes 18 lots for attached single family homes. The project is planned to be constructed in a single phase, and timing is dependent on market demand. Parking is provided on each lot, with 11 additional parking spaces provided in track day, west of lots one and 12 here, and south of lots 16 to 18 over here. The project will include the installation of 72 new trees on site, including 12 street trees and 60 site trees, and at least 60% of those trees will be evergreen trees. Private streets will be constructed to provide access to lots and circulation in Northeast 54th Street. All necessary utilities to serve the planned lots

14:31 will be constructed with the project. Stormwater will be collected, treated, and detained on site, then released to the city of Vancouver stormwater facility, matching existing discharge rates from the site. The project will be responsible for paying traffic, school, and park impact fees, as well, excuse me, and correction or protection of the oversteepen slopes will occur based on the requirements of the geotechnical engineer and their report that's in the record. For public comment, I listed the general topics of concern from the public comments, and detailed responses to these are included in the record. As exhibit K, I'll run through a few high points on these. For lot sizes, as noted, this project is an infill project, and the proposed lots meet all dimensional requirements

15:28 for infill lots in the R9 zoning district. Sidewalks are not proposed with this project as a majority of the surrounding areas do not have existing sidewalks, and a road modification was approved for this. Additionally, related to Minnehaha Elementary, there is not adequate right-of-way for construction of sidewalks on Northeast 54th, and additionally, construction of any sidewalks require significant grading outside of the right-of-way on private property. Additionally, as noted in the letter provided by the Vancouver School Districts, students from this site will be bused to Minnehaha Elementary. Related to traffic, a traffic report is provided in the record, and the applicant, as noted, will pay applicable traffic fees for the project. Steep slopes have been addressed in the geotechnical report, and walls are planned and will be required to go through building permit review following land use approval, and the walls will be designed in coordination with a geotechnical engineer and a structural engineer

16:27 to ensure slope stability for the steep slopes. All project grading will be contained on-site. Reference to slopes off-site was simply in regards to the fact that the existing slopes continued off-site to identify where they were, and the project referencing projected two-to-one slopes was for design purposes so that site grades could be determined to ensure slope stability, identify grading catch points on-site, and the, excuse me, set the location of the retaining walls. The wellhead protection is only applicable when infiltrating stormwater, and infiltration is not proposed on this site. Additionally, the wellhead protection area that only touches the site, I believe, in the northwest corner, so it's a very limited area of the site that will be an open space. The site may have been used by wildlife in the past. However, given the site location,

17:25 comprehensive plan designation, and zoning designation, that shows that the city has intended this site to be developed as proposed. Regarding the survey conflict of interest, Dan Renton, who provided survey work for the neighbor, informed them of his previous work related to the site, and they elected to continue. Additionally, simply surveying properties in the past does not automatically create conflict of interest, and Dan Renton did not do any survey work directed by the applicant for this project. As noted in the staff report, the project is categorically exempt from SEPA, and the applicant's attorney has provided a detailed response, which is also included in exhibit K of the record that supports the categorical exemption determination. We reviewed the staff report and have no comments or requested revisions to the staff report. In conclusion, the applicable subdivision criteria are met or have been conditioned to be met, and the applicant supports staff's recommended

18:24 conditions of approval. I'd like to thank staff for their time and effort they put into this review. The project engineer, applicant, and applicant's attorney, and myself, are here to answer any questions. Thank you for your time. - Thank you, Mr. Andreotti. And thank you for stating that you've reviewed the staff, the applicant has reviewed the staff report. Salute that, I approve. That means that they have also reviewed the conditions of approval, the proposed conditions. I believe that there are, how many? Oh boy, well, I had it written down, 48. No, that's for the next one. There's a number of conditions of approval, 39 conditions of approval. Were there any objections or questions or clarifications that are requested with respect to the proposed conditions? - No.

19:21 - Okay, I don't have any further questions at this time, but I may have some following public testimony and the city's testimony. Thank you very much. - Thank you. - All right. All right, now I will hear from Crystal Sanchez, city planner, Ms. Sanchez. - Thank you, hearing examiner Marshall. - Great, let me swear you in real quick. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - Yes. - Okay, great, thank you. You may proceed. - Okay, let me share my presentation. - Oh, and actually, if you could just introduce yourself on the record for those in attendance, that would be helpful, thank you. - Yes, I'm Crystal Sanchez, case manager for this project. - Great. - Let's see.

20:16 Can you see my presentation? - Yes, I can. - Yep, perfect. As mentioned by the applicant, we're here for Swiss Terrace Infill subdivision. This is just an aerial overview of the site. This is for an 18 lot subdivision across three lots. The applicant is utilizing narrow and infill development standards for these lots. Narrow lots require one guest parking space for every three narrow lots. The applicant is providing 11 spaces, which meets this requirement. The project is exempt from super view as minor new construction, given the number of lots they are proposing. Another thing to know is the critical areas maps on these lots are steep slopes and severe erosion areas. A critical area report and geotechnical report were required and submitted. As stated in the staff report,

21:13 staff condition that an updated geotechnical report would need to be provided. Once a geotechnical consultant has been able to review updated grading plans to verify conformance with recommendations mentioned in the report and verify whether a quantitative slope stability analysis would be required. We did hold a notice of application and public comment period. The comment period was held from April 9th to May 11th. Public comments are included with staff report as exhibit H. We received eight public comments during this period. One public comment was received after the comment period, but they were all included together in exhibit H. Some common topics that were brought up were residential density and compatibility, traffic safety, seep exemption, the critical area and stormwater concerns. As mentioned before, this is an infill development where the applicant is proposing attached single family dwellings.

22:12 This allows a lot size to be as small as 1500 square feet. Seep exemption and the critical areas were discussed earlier in the presentation. And also the product has been reviewed by the city's transportation and stormwater departments and was deemed compliant with their requirements. Here's another aerial showing the zoning. As mentioned before, it's surrounded by R9 and to the Southwest, there is a lot zoned park. This is owned by the city and is used as a stormwater facility. And we've gone over the other applicable code sections listed here. Staff is reviewing this for subdivision approval. The approval process for this is a type three subdivision, which is required for 10 lots or more. It was reviewed against the preliminary plot approval criteria and subdivision technical standards. And with this staff recommends approval of the subdivision as conditioned in the staff report.

23:11 And do you have any questions? - Okay, thank you, Ms. Sanchez. In your presentation, you noted that the public comments, including one that was received after the comment period, those are all included in the record and you've addressed them in your staff report. And I also see that the applicant also submitted something to address the public comments that's also attached but not attached. It's also one of the exhibits in the record. Okay, I think I had one question. Oh, did staff determine that there were any revisions or conditions of approval that were necessitated by the public comments that were submitted? - No, the conditions weren't specific due to public comments. It was just during staff review that we had a few conditions that were added.

24:11 - Okay, thank you. And I appreciate the summary of the topics on which public provided comment. I don't have any further questions at this time, but I will, again, await to see if I have questions following public testimony. Thank you. Okay, and now it's time for public comment. I will be keeping track of time on my little phone timer, but I'd also appreciate if each individual member of the public also kind of kept an eye on time so that we can make sure that everybody has an opportunity to testify tonight. So thank you. And it looks like Mr. Erickson might be the first one up. - Thank you. - Sorry, Mr. Erickson here. It sounds like you were about to say you represent

25:09 and you may be an attorney or another representative, but I do swear everybody in. So let me swear you in real quick. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - Yes. - All right, thank you. Please state your name, spell your last name and explain who you're representing or what your interest is in the application. - Mark A. Erickson, spelled E-R-I-K-S-O-N. There's no C in my name. I represent Jonathan D. McLaughlin, Joshua Ford Grant, Kevin P. Devine, Timothy and Laura Sherburn and Jason Vosberg, all of whom have residence within the neighborhood of the proposal. - Okay. - I am a party of record. I did submit comment. I'm gonna get some very specific issues tonight and I'm going to request that the record be held open for two weeks.

26:09 I did not get the notification that the staff report was available on the second. In fact, I got it a week later from a client and I'd like more time to comment on the staff report. - Okay. We will address that at the end, but thank you. - My clients have recommended that the proposal be denied for the following reasons. Courts have inherent power to review an administrative action to assure that it is not arbitrary and capricious, defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of facts and circumstances. We refer to that in the law as substantive due process. The facts and circumstances that concern us maybe summarize this neighborhood character. In 1978, the court of appeals, Washington court of appeals, affirmed the denial of a variance to allow multifamily development where the applicant failed to present evidence to negate findings of fact. And I realized that this is a single family attached, which is not really different in structure than multifamily, they're townhomes.

27:08 The court in Ling v. Whatcom County Board of Adjustment, which is 21 Washington app 497 reading at 500, said that surrounding use of lots in the immediate vicinity and the zone is predominantly for single family residences. There are no special circumstances applicable to the applicant's property or to the intended use that have not been applied generally to other property and class of use in the same vicinity and zone since the S2 zoning was adopted in 1973. If the application for a variance is to be granted, it would appear that the board would have no basis for denying subsequent various applications by other owners. The single family zoning benefits enjoyed by the area would be lost. Now during the same year, the Washington Supreme Court held that the general purpose of zoning is to stabilize uses, conserve property values, preserve neighborhood character and promote orderly growth and developments. Again, that's the city of Bonnie Lake 91 wash second, 19 reading at 28.

28:07 In the present case, the entire neighborhood was developed with single family detached residences, except three lots in the present proposal and two adjacent lots owned by the city of Vancouver designated as parkland. In addition to the conflict between attached and detached residences, the minimum lot size in the original R9 zone is 5,000 square feet. That's the EMC table 2410-040-1. My clients relied upon maintenance of neighborhood character when investing in their residences. The applicant is proposing lot sizes ranging from 1,946 square feet, that's lots 14 and 17, to 3,344 square feet, that's lot one, with the remaining 15 lots ranging between 2,000 and 3,000 square feet. None of the proposed lots can satisfy the original R9 zoning minimum lot size, thus violating the neighborhood character which promoted orderly single family development. Now we are not arguing that staff misapplied regulations.

29:06 We are arguing that the infill ordinance and any statute authorizing it is facially unconstitutional under state before. Of course, the examiner can consider that, staff probably don't, but it does go up on appeal the same way as any other decision. Approval of the present proposal would destabilize uses because the size of the proposed lots and the attached townhomes conflicts with detached residential usage. Again, Duckworth said, "It is generally recognized "that the exterior architectural appeal "and functional plan of a structure "should not be so in variance "with either the exterior architectural appeal "or functional plan of structures already constructed "or in the course of construction "in the immediate neighborhood "as to cause substantial depreciation "in property value of the neighborhood." Duckworth further recognized that economic concerns as well as concerns for orderliness, adequate parking, proper supply of municipal services

30:04 are also legitimate basis for regulation. And its approval of the present proposal would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the single family residential character of the neighborhood upon which my clients relied. I'm gonna skip from that now to slope stability because time is limited. The geotech report admits that slope stability analysis is incomplete. All of the slopes are over steepened and will likely need to be addressed during site grading and construction. The staff report has conditions of approval three and 27, which report that assertion. VMC 2740-130 requires that the analysis as part of the app, the analysis be as part of the application, not as a future condition. And we have the decision in Knight v. City of Young, which is 173 Washington's second 325, 344 and 45,

31:02 and that's the Supreme Court. A local decision-making body cannot conditionally approve a preliminary plat and then disapprove a final plat application for a project that conforms to the conditions of the preliminary plat approval. The failure to challenge environmental issues at the preliminary plat stage could result in decisions by the local land use authority that have a binding impact on interested parties without their comment or consent. So in that case, they ruled that Knight, who is the challenger, was entitled to clarification of the city's zoning city council's decision and an opportunity to challenge the city's evidence before final plat approval, not at final plat approval. Now, here the proposal deprives my clients of procedural due process under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution at Article I, Section 3 of the State Constitution. In addition to that, these written submittals that I made address various other issues. I think I'm getting close to three minutes.

32:04 And I'll leave it at that. I do have several clients here tonight who may be making some of those comments. - Great, I appreciate that, Mr. Erickson. I have one or two questions. I note that your argument is that the infill ordinance on its face is unconstitutional and as opposed to an as-applied challenge here. Did I get that down correctly? - Yes. - Okay. And-- - And by the way, we do have several, in answer to the applicant, we have several objections to the conditions of approval that I have not mentioned tonight. They're in my written materials. - Oh, they are, great. Yeah, thank you for alerting me to that. Okay, well, that was my main question was just clarification on your client's challenge to the ordinance itself. And just for my background, do you know when the ordinance was adopted by city council?

33:02 - Recently, don't have a date. - Okay, thank you. I don't have to hold you to that, I was just curious. Thank you. Tony, who is up next? Please raise your hand and I can call on you. Lisa Miller, I will call on Lisa Miller. Before you get started, please let me swear you in real quick from the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. - Yes. - Thank you, Ms. Miller. Please state your name, spell your last name. I know we can see it on the screen and what your interest in the proposal is. - Okay, my name is Lisa Miller, spelled M-I-L-L-E-R. - Thank you. - I will live at the bottom of this development. So the city has an easement up against my property that I don't know how many feet it is

34:02 before the street would be there. So I have a couple of concerns being that I'm at the corner of this property. My property set six feet below that street that's proposed. I have serious concerns about erosion to my property from the runoff from this. I think there's still inadequate parking as it will overflow into our streets, which are already very narrow. And nobody does a speed limit on the street out here. So you're talking an impact. I know they proposed one car per house. I know an average Americans have 2.5 cars per household. So 11 extra slots are not enough. I worried about having my driveway blocked by traffic. I'm concerned about emergency vehicles and garbage management to access these properties. I understand we need housing, but this is I think a little bit much for this small of acreage.

35:01 So my concerns of erosion to my property, the parking situation and the waste management, cause I didn't hear where they're going to be having this garbage picked up at. And if you can imagine having 20 garbage cans setting up alongside your property, I don't think you'd like the smell or the rodents or the trash blowing in your yard. That's my objection to it. I hope that you deny it or make them go back to the drawing board and make some arrangements. - Okay, thank you, Ms. Miller. I think I saw something posted in chat. Okay, somebody said, I can't hear. Okay, there appears to be a substantive comment in the meeting chat. Please do not share comments in the meeting chat because A, I won't be reviewing them and B, when you have time, when you're called on or when you raise your hand, you can make that statement.

35:59 So thank you very much. It looks like Stacy Peterson has turned on her camera. Ms. Peterson, did you wish to provide testimony this evening?

36:18 - I'm waiting for the next project. - Oh, okay, great. Okay, no worries. We'll get to that later. All right, thank you, Ms. Peterson. Okay, who else would like to provide testimony? Please, it would help me if you turned on your camera and it looks like Mr. Grant has raised his hand. Thank you, Mr. Grant. You may unmute yourself and I'll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - I do. - Great, thank you. Please state your name, spell your last name. If you did not submit public comment, please let me know if you'd like to be a party of record and what else? I feel like I'm missing something. And please state your interest in the application. - Absolutely, thank you, examiner Marshall. My name is Joshua Grant, G-R-A-N-T. I live at 5508 Northeast Drexel Avenue. My west property line is this property's east boundary, the same physical line. I'd like to be a party of record.

37:18 My May 9th comments, the independent arborist report by pre-hearing memorandum or in your record, please consider them in full. I have three reasons this application cannot be lawfully approved on this record. First, no SEPA review at all. Staff calls this categorically exempt, but the city's own code section 20.790.830 removes that exemption when a site is subject to critical areas chapter. And this is a mapped geologic hazard and a severe erosion hazard area. The applicant filed a critical areas permit for that reason and by the staff's own number, the project moves quote, over 1200 cubic yards, quote, of earth against 500 cubic yard exemption level. No threshold determination was ever made. Second, the central safety question, whether the hillside can hold 18 homes has been deferred, not answered. The developer's own engineer says, quote, all of the slopes are over steepened, quote, and calls my boundary severely over steepened, quote,

38:16 and says walls will be necessary, end quote. Yet no walls designed, there's no factor of safety calculation as record and condition three pushes the real slope stability analysis passed to this hearing. In Knight versus the city of Yelm, our state Supreme court reinstates a ruling that these public safety findings must be made as part of plat approval. Not deferring to a later permit stage, later is not an approval standard. Three, pedestrian access. The subdivision has no pedestrian access, none. The applicant's own letter says, quote, no ADA or pedestrian access is available into the site or along any of the roadways surrounding the site, end quote. But the state law RCW 58.17.110 forbids approving a plat without written findings of safe walking conditions for students who walk to school. The impacted schools are many, many ha-ha Jason Lee in Hudson, Spain. No findings exist because on this record, none can be made. So I ask you that you that you deny this application

39:14 or a man did for CPA review and a complete geotechnical record re-notice for public comment. If you approve any over these objections, please impose the six protective conditions in my main nine comments, plus the dry season earth work limit the applicant's own console consultants recommend. The code asks them to develop, the code asks this developer to provide a hazardous hillside can safely hold 18 homes. Their own engineer says the proof comes later. Please deny or remand. Thank you, I'm happy to answer questions. - All right, thank you very much, Mr. Grant. I appreciate it. I don't have any questions. I'm interested to hear what the city and the applicant have to say to address your comments. So thank you. Okay, who's next? Please turn on your camera and raise your hand so I may call on you.

40:11 Let's see. - I didn't raise my hand. - Okay, I'm just going through my screen. Oh, Laurie Anderson. All right, Ms. Anderson, let me swear you in. And I don't know if you, if you want to turn on your camera, that's great. You do not have to do so. - I want to clarify, I'm using Laurie's computer. - Oh, great, okay. - My name is John McLaughlin. - Okay, Mr. McLaughlin, go ahead. - M-C-L-A-U-G-H-L-I-N. - Okay, great, Mr. McLaughlin. Oh, sorry, I keep interrupting you, go ahead. - 5515 Northeast 23rd Avenue. And I do want to be a party of record. - Excellent, okay. Now I'll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? - I do.

41:10 - Okay, thank you, Mr. McLaughlin. And thank you for letting us know you'd like to be a party of record. You may proceed with your testimony. - Well, briefly, I want to iterate what Mark Anderson, Mark Erickson stated that 18 houses on a little more than two acres. The subdivision does not conserve property values and does not preserve the neighborhood's character, which is contrary to a Washington State Supreme Court ruling. For that reason, I wish that the application be denied. Furthermore, AKS Engineering submitted the final stormwater technical information report, TIR. And in section B.2.4 MR number four,

42:07 titled Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems. That report states that the existing site is primarily pasture with the majority of the runoff collecting in the city's facility. However, internal email staffs disagree that it is primarily pasture. Brandon Tizol, the city's civil engineering supervisor has agreed that it should be modeled forested, not pasture. And I quote, "I agree, I think it should be modeled as forested because that's the requirement. And I'm sure every developing engineer would choose to model the pre-developed condition as field if given the opportunity." Well, and I want to, so the city has determined

43:07 it is not pasture, their own statements. The TIR also states in section E, "Stormwater will be managed onsite with mechanical filtration and two underground detention tanks before being discharged into the city's facility to the west of the site." That's that pond that the city owns. These, that statement is contrary to internal email discussions by city water engineers. Ryan Paulson states, quote, "We have received feedback from operation that the downstream pond sees a lot of flow and should not have any greater volumes than are currently sent to it." So the staff has clearly said that the existing city stormwater facility

44:05 should not see any increased water. Yet the applicants TIR states, that's exactly what will happen. Therefore this application I think should be denied. I think the over steepened slopes have been addressed. And I will say if anyone would just like drive by and take a look, this 18 houses and all the grading that has to be done is absurd. Thank you. - Thank you, Mr. McLaughlin. I had a quick question. You were referencing emails, mentioned the city civil engineer and some of the pre-developed conditions and findings or maybe comments on that. Did you receive these emails through a public records request? And that's my first question.

45:05 And if so, did you submit those with a public comment? - I did receive those emails from a public records request. And I believe that in my written comments submitted on May 11th, those are included in that. I believe so. - Great, all right, thank you. I just wanted to be able to review those emails myself. So thank you for that. Okay, all right. Who would like to testify next? Please go ahead and turn on your camera and or raise your hand. I'm trying to make sure that I'm looking at okay. Mike Mills. Let me swear you in real quick, Mr. Mills. It looks like you've got another person there with you. You're both able to testify, but if you're both gonna be testifying, I'll have both of you be sworn in.

46:03 So Mr. Mills, do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Oh, I can't hear you very well. Oh, where did he go? Mr. Mills, oh, there you are, I see you. Did you say I do? Oh, I can't, the sound isn't very good. Let me see. Ms. Bowen, do you have any ideas on how to troubleshoot so that we can hear Mr. Mills? - I'm trying to find him. - Hold on, is this Lisa Miller or? - Mike Mills, I'm on page three of my screen. - Okay, let's see.

47:01 Mark Mills. - Mike. - Oh, I'm sorry, Mike.

47:18 - Just mic control shows it's turned off. - There it is. - Okay, oh, wonderful. All right, Mr. Mills. - We just heard him. - Yeah. - Where did he go? - He's on my page three of my screen. - Yeah, we just. - I see him, I see the video. I just don't, I can't hear him. - We just had him. Let me go here. I think, my, I see Mike Daley.

48:18 Lisa Miller. I'm not even seeing his name, Ximena Marshall. This is odd. - So on, and I'm sure it's different on everybody. So on my screen, on my page three. - Here he is, okay. - Okay, did you find him? Okay, great, okay. - We should be able to hear him. - Yeah. - On my screen, it's not muted. - No, it's not. - Mike Mills, can you hear us? - Yeah. I suppose worst case, Mr. Mills could call in. - Mr. Mills, can you hear us? - Yeah. - Hello, Mr. Mills? - Yeah, he's nodding his head that he can hear us.

49:18 Okay, so there's a few comments. Mike, you wanna see if your mic is pointing to the correct mic? And that's M-I-C, M-I-C. And then as I just suggested, he could call in to provide testimony. - Oh, somebody else is saying he's here to comment on the second issue tonight. I'll ask Mr. Mills, nod your head or shake your head. Are you here to testify on the Mount Hood Vista subdivision or on yes or no? Or the first one, the Swift's Terrace Infill subdivision? The first one, the woman behind. - Swift's Terrace. - That's what we're doing right now. The first item on the agenda is Swift's Terrace. - Yes.

50:17 Oh, they brought a number two up, okay. Well, thank you for your patience. Maybe we can keep troubleshooting that before we get to the next item on the agenda. Thank you, Mr. Mills. And hopefully we can get that straightened out here in the next 45 minutes or so. I see another raised hand with Lori Anderson. And we just had testimony from, let's see, Joshua Brandt and Mr. McLaughlin was the last to provide testimony. Is there someone else on the Lori Anderson square that wishes to provide testimony? - I can't put the raised hand down. - Oh, I see. No problem, thank you. - That was for John McLaughlin. There it goes, now it's off. - Okay, great.

51:16 Okay, all right. I will just go through my screens. If you would like to provide testimony here on the Swift's Terrace infill subdivision, now is your time to please raise your hand and or turn on your camera. Adria, it looks like we've gotten Adria. Okay, you don't have to turn on your camera, but let me swear you in real quick. Oh, good, that's helpful. Oh, you almost had it. Hello, Adria. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - I do. - Okay, great. Please state your name, spell your last name. And if you have not already submitted a public comment, please state whether you wish to be a public, a party of record. - Yes, I do want to be a party of record. - Okay.

52:14 - So my name's Adria Ali, last name is A-L-I. - A-L-I, okay, thank you. - I live at 2419 Northeast 57th Street, Vancouver, Washington, 98663. I also own lot 24 and 22. So these are front and back. And the back lot, so both of these lots have been owned by my family for over 70 years. The lot in question is 24. It has two sides that touch the development land. And so that's what I'm speaking to today. We've also, our family has also known all of the owners of the adjoining property around it for decades. So that's important to note because we've known them, we've purchased the land from them, and we know where the original landlines are. But in getting ready for this development, I did hire a surveyor.

53:13 The surveyor did disclose that there was a conflict of interest, but he did not disclose the depth of his involvement in the previous development with the owner. And there should be an unofficial survey because that is what all of these lot lines are based on. But that unofficial survey is not in the computer. So with that in mind, I believe that's a really big conflict of interest for me. And so I did hire another surveyor, a forensic surveyor, and then a second one on top of that to do a lot of the field work to accompany that. Because I do believe that a lot of the landlines have been changed, the monuments have been moved. Even the county markers are inaccurate based on my family. So I believe there's a huge discrepancy. And I think that since my landlines touch on two sides, it's really important for those to be accurate to move this forward,

54:12 because I do not think they have never been accurate based on the maps that have been shown in these meetings and all these things. I even brought out a metal detecting team and a sonar team to dig up every single fence post that was positioned on the landlines over the last 70 years. So those have also been noted on the survey, but I'm working to get, I mean, that is relevant information and I also have them in my own files, but I need to get a better survey done because the corner that has been defended by my grandparents for decades has been compromised in that survey and that it pulled it to the east. And when it pulled it to the east, it allowed for the roads to come in for the development. My grandparents have defended that corner and how far out that corner was for decades, meaning that those roads could never get in.

55:11 So this is a really important and valuable thing for us and for my family and for our legacy. Next, based on time, I'll kind of go through the next one quickly, but the west line of that property, 24, is a hillside. They have put in that they will do a south border retaining wall, but they have not addressed the west line of my property. The west line also goes up at a very steep angle and then we have another hill that's almost straight up. So we have two massive hills on that west line and they hold up the front property, which is where the land and of course the house sits. They also not addressed what happens during this process when they remove land and then bring in land. They're making it very difficult for the stability of the land. They're also not talking about runoff, meaning they're talking about their runoff.

56:10 They're not talking about my runoff. So when you destabilize all that and then you put in a development, my runoff is gonna go into their development, right? And so I don't wanna be legally responsible for a development that was created and not taken into account how important it is for the neighbors who are north of the development. What they're legally going to be, they're legally gonna be responsible for after the development is completed. So I think that's a valid point when it comes to the city approving it and then us being responsible for, I think that leads some more issues down the road. I think that the other things have been noted, stability, of course, a lot of these landlines. There was also a petition a while back in 2000

57:09 to change the landlines. To my knowledge, that petition went through. The city doesn't seem to have record of it, but I have record of it. And that is a big thing because the development then took 30 feet from each one of these lots and gave it to the development. It can be shown in the maps over time. So if you look at the '70s maps and then you fast forward to 2026, those 30 feet have been given to the development, even though there's no record of it in the system. And with that, I will close my book and we can move on. Thank you, Stephanie. - Thank you, Ms. Alley. Two questions. Did you submit a comment letter? - Yes. - And if you did, yes. Thank you. Did you attach your record that you have

58:04 regarding the petition to change the lines? Did you close that? - Yes. - Okay, great. All right, I just wanted to close the loop on that. So I have reference and can take a look at that. Thank you. - All right, thank you so much. Okay, anyone else wishing to provide testimony on the Swift's Terrace proposed infill subdivision? Please raise your hand and or turn on your camera so that I can see you and call on you. I am not seeing any other hands. - I am not either. - Okay, oh, no, I see Mr. Jason Bosborough. All right, I won't be able to pronounce your name correctly, but please raise your right hand and I'll swear you in. Yeah, thank you. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - Yes.

59:04 - Okay, great. Please state your name, spell your last name, indicate whether you wish to be a party of record if you've not submitted a comment letter and state your interest in the application. - My name is Jason Vosburgh. I do wanna be a party of record and I have submitted a comment already. So I just wanted to be on the record just to say that I oppose this development as is. Most of the things that are my concern have already been covered, but I just wanted to be on the record. My main concern is the stability of the land. My property is 2401 Northeast 57th Street. I sit right above, I believe the lot seven. And so my concern is the development of the project and how much it's gonna make the land unstable during the project build. - Okay, thank you. Thank you for your comment. All right, Mr. Vosburgh.

59:58 Okay, any other person wishing to provide testimony, please raise your hand, turn on your camera. I see, okay, Mr. Vosburgh, okay.

1:00:17 - I'm not seeing any others. - You're not seeing anybody else? Yeah, I am not seeing, go ahead. Okay. - I'm not seeing anyone. - Okay, so before I turn it back to Ms. Sanchez, there was a request to leave the record open following the hearing this evening. I'd like city staff to make a comment on that as well as the applicant. But I will say that I'm inclined to grant that request, but please do address that request as well. And Ms. Sanchez, and then when I turn it back to the applicant. So Ms. Sanchez, you may proceed. - Thank you, examiner Marshall. To start with regarding the noticing of the staff report, all parties of record who provided their email during the public comment period were included in the email

1:01:16 on June 2nd, and that provided them a link to the staff report and agenda. And I believe Mark Erickson was included on that email. Going to address the comments mentioned regarding the infill ordinance. The current version of the infill ordinance has been in place since 2024. Prior to that, it has been around for at least a decade. They are applying for infill development standards as mentioned before for attaching a family home, which allows a lot as small as 1,500 square feet. Let's see, regarding the SEPA exemption, the city has adopted exempt levels for minor new construction. Any project proposing 30 single family units or fewer can be exempt from SEPA. In this case, the applicant is proposing 18 single family units. So this project is exempt from SEPA. The critical area ordinance is a local requirement and separate from the state SEPA requirements.

1:02:14 By requiring a critical area permit on this project, it doesn't mean that the project is no longer exempt from SEPA. The condition regarding the geotechnical review, going over to the critical areas and steep slopes, this condition is prior to civil approval. So no construction or grading is permitted until this condition is met. Let's see, what were the other comments? Regarding the application was reviewed by our solid waste management department and transportation. Solid waste receptacles will be located at the front of each lot, not on 54th. So the solid waste truck will drive up and pick up trash recycling and then back out. There is a turnaround so that it's not backing up, but it has room to turn around and be facing forward when it's coming back down the development.

1:03:13 Let's see, regarding the survey discrepancy, this would be a civil matter between the applicant and neighboring property owner. Let's see, oh, and for the comments regarding stormwater and erosion control requirements, we do have the city stormwater reviewer, Ryan Paulson here on the hearing. So we can have him explain a bit what the requirements were regarding those two topics. - Okay, thank you, Ms. Sanchez. Did you have anything else to add before I swear in Mr. Paulson? - No, I believe that was it. - Okay, thank you very much. Good evening, Mr. Paulson, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - Yes. - Okay, great, please state your name, spell your last name and your title at the city.

1:04:10 - Ryan Paulson, P-A-U-L-S-E-N. I'm a surface water engineer within the public works department of the city of Vancouver. - Thank you. - Sure, some chatter on the line. So I think my main response is that the civil review is ongoing and we haven't approved any of the design for the stormwater yet. And it's normal for the civil review to go several rounds and for the design to get modified in response to the city's comments. So at this point, they've only gone through one round of review.

1:05:10 The applicant has only gone through one round of review and typically, it can go several rounds of review. I'd say about three is typical. So we've let the applicant know that they're not at this point meeting stormwater standards and they're, to my understanding, updating the design to meet the standards. That's it. - All right, thank you, Mr. Paulson. - Thank you. - Ms. Sanchez, did you have anybody else from the city that you wish to address? - No, that was it. - Stormwater. - Your honor, this is Phillip Giggler, assistant city attorney. And I think this is the city's last time to interject. So I did just wanna note for your honor

1:06:08 that there were several constitutional challenges raised, which at least in the city's mind is appropriate for the record, but I believe beyond the scope of both the hearing and the hearings examiners authority at this point. - Yes, all right. - Thank you. - Thank you, Mr. Giggler. - Okay, if there is nothing for, thank you. If there's nothing further from the city, I will turn it back to the applicant's representative. - Thank you. So I'll address a few of the things. A lot of what was commented on, we've already addressed in our response or in the application material on the record. First related to the neighborhood character. The attached product is going to be two to three units attached, which are generally speaking about the same size as your typical single family detached home. So as far as visual character,

1:07:05 it's gonna appear very similar to any other home in the neighborhood. So the character should fit in fairly well with the remaining portion of the neighborhood. Relating to the waste management. So a little correction for staff. We're going to have collection set out points along track day, along the main road there so that the waste management vehicles only have to drive up the main road to the turnaround at the north end. - Your audio is cutting out. - Sorry. How about-- - Okay. The last thing, the last thing, let me interrupt. The last thing that I heard was regarding waste management, the collection set out points, and then the audio was cutting out. If you wouldn't mind repeating. Hold on. Okay, go ahead. - Good, okay.

1:08:03 So we're gonna have a general set out point for the neighborhood adjacent to lots one, 12, and then across the street from roughly lots 13 and 14. So the units will bring their trash cans out to those locations for collection. So they'll be within the development. They won't be adjacent to any other neighboring property. The closest parcel they'll be adjacent to is the stormwater facility. And then the private road is adequate for waste management turnaround. I know the waste management company reviewed the plan and actually had some comments for us. And we have updated the turnaround to be wider than a typical turnaround to account for waste management vehicle of being able to turn around on the site. So we have adjusted the site plan per waste management comments.

1:09:00 And the collection points will be onsite. Regarding the erosion concern from the roadway, the private road is going to have a curb that will direct stormwater away from their property and will direct it to our collection facilities. So all the stormwater is gonna be retained onsite for treatment and in an attention facility prior to being released to the stormwater facility. So there shouldn't be any erosion on the neighboring parcels at all. For the concern on safe routes to schools, the letter from the Vancouver Public Schools is provided in the record, noting that students from this area will be bussed. So that is their safe route to school. Ultimately, if they're bussed, they don't have to have sidewalks. And in this occasion, as we've discussed

1:09:59 in other portions of the record, providing a sidewalk to Minnehaha would be disproportionate to development just given the cost of constructing it with right-of-way acquisition that would be necessary and offsite grading that would be necessary to construct a sidewalk. Also related to the stormwater, we will be designing it to the forested condition prior to development, so we will be meeting that standard. So ultimately, all that email correspondence was getting to the point of staff saying that yes, we had to design to the forested standard as the manual requires. So that's what we will be doing. Related to Ms. Ali's comments, there's no evidence that's recorded that there's any difference in the property line besides what's shown on our plan.

1:10:54 And also she mentioned a petition, and we don't recall seeing any petition in the record and aren't aware of what that would be for. And as staff noted, the boundary dispute is ultimately a civil matter. Anything else? Oh, the conflict of interest again, just to be clear, no surveyors that she hired have done any work for us on this property. Any work that they did was prior to the applicant owning this property for other owners. So for this project, we have had no relation with any of the surveys that she has hired. And that's it, thank you. - Okay, thank you very much.

1:11:49 Okay, there was a request to leave the written record open for a period of two weeks. And go ahead. - Cassandra Marshall. - Yes, yes. - Hi. - Excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt, but I can bring up the email dated June 2nd, 2026, showing you all the parties of record who received the staff report in that email. Would you like me to share my screen and show you? - Yes, please, yes. - Let me do that. - I did not say that it wasn't sent. I said I did not receive it. That is common with email. - Okay, I'm just sharing my screen with the examiner. - Okay.

1:12:46 - These are the people and you can see here, let's see, mark@arixenlaw.com was also included with everyone who provided public comment, the applicant, the property owner, received this email. - Yes. - With the link for the staff report documents. - No, it was sent to them, not that they received it. - Okay, all right, well, no more interruptions. I understand that there's a discrepancy and that there is a difference between sending and receiving. The code does not require that city confirmed receipt, but that being said, I do tend to err on the side of caution rather than keeping the record open for a period of two weeks. I propose that the written record be kept open for a one week period, but this is not an all,

1:13:46 everybody come on in and submit more comments. This will be open for submission of comments by people that have not previously submitted comments and that would be, I'm forgetting your last name already, Mr. Erickson. Mr. Erickson's clients, this is not for everybody to flood the city with more comment letters. This is only for the purpose of addressing your statement that you did not receive public notice in a timely manner. So I will hold the written record open for one week for Mr. Erickson to submit additional comment and the applicant and the city will have one week to respond if they so wish. So let me get my calendar out

1:14:44 so that I can state these dates on the record. And so today is the 16th. A one week period will conclude on Tuesday, June 23rd. And comments should not be submitted to me, but to Ms. Bowen, the hearing examiner clerk and comments should be sent by 5 p.m. Ms. Bowen, is that correct? Five or is it four, four, four, 4 p.m. So please make notes, comments from Mr. Erickson. - We also have a holiday in there, examiner Marshall. So I think it should be June 24th. - Yes, I keep overlooking that. Okay, so yes, so for a full one week period, given the holiday on Friday, comments from Mr. Erickson or anyone else

1:15:39 that alleges that they did not receive notice. Again, if you've already submitted comments, please do not submit repetitive comments. The record will be closed at 4 p.m. on June 24th, Wednesday, June 24th, please submit your comments to Ms. Bowen, do not try to find my email or reach my email. Ms. Bowen is the clerk and then the applicant and the city, if either or both wish to provide a response, that will be due one week later on Wednesday, July 1st. At that time, and if neither the city nor the applicant wish to respond to the June 24th submission, please do email Ms. Bowen so she can alert me and I can close the record. If the record does stay open until July 1st, my decision will be due counting the holiday on July 3rd,

1:16:38 which will be observed 4th of July. My decision would then be due on July 16, Thursday, July 16. That decision date could move up if the city and the applicant both state that they do not wish to provide further comment to anything that comes in by the 24. Okay, I think that's it for this application. I want to thank everybody for respecting the time periods and providing your testimony, it's very much appreciated. Okay, so the second item on the agenda this evening is the Mount Hood Vista subdivision with a request for a zone change. This is application number PRJ-169-743, LUP-85799.

1:17:32 This application is to subdivide a 7.52 acre site into 82 residential lots and is also requesting a zone change from R9 to R17. This is a type four process for this application. The previous application was a type three process. I will go through the preliminary statements and disclosures for this application as I do for each one. Again, I am the city of Vancouver hearings officer and the purpose of this hearing is to collect public testimony and any additional evidence on the proposed proposed application. I will be judging the application, this is quasi-judicial. So I will be judging the application based on the criteria

1:18:30 set forth in the staff report and based on the evidence in the record and testimony this evening. If you believe that the staff report did not include all applicable criteria, please bring that to my attention. There is a raise it or wave it requirement. So if you forget to share something and it's not in the comment letter or elsewhere in the record, you cannot bring that up later if my decision is appealed after it's issued. Please limit your testimony to three minutes. This is not a question and answer session. So if you have questions for the city or for the applicant, please ask your question and when testimony turns back to the city and to the applicant, they will address the questions raised during public testimony. Once public testimony is complete, there is not gonna be an opportunity to ask further questions.

1:19:28 So please make sure that you get everything that you wish to be addressed on the record when it's your turn to testify. I've not had any ex parte contacts, meaning that I've not been contacted outside of the hearing this evening concerning this application. I have received the staff report and the exhibits that exist in the record date and I have reviewed those. I've also coordinated with Ms. Bowen on the scheduling and the format and the time, the agenda for this hearing this evening. I have not prejudged this application. I do understand that there are similar applications that have been approved or may be proposed in the future, but each application is decided on its own merits. I do not have any interest in the outcome of this application, either for or against. And I do not have any bias either for a party or a commenter

1:20:27 or just I love subdivisions, nothing like that. So I believe that I can hear this matter in a fair and impartial manner. If anyone wishes to object to my proceeding as the hearing examiner for this application, please state so now in the nature of your objection. Okay, all right, hearing none. The hearing will go as forward. The applicant will make their presentation to begin with and bring anything in particular concerning the application that they wish me to focus on or highlight. The city will then have an opportunity to review the staff report, discuss any conditions of approval that they are proposing and maybe to fill in any blanks that the applicant may have not put forth in their application. At that time, we will turn it over to public comment.

1:21:25 I will call on each person individually after you've used the raise hand feature and or turn on your camera. And I will swear you in so that you can provide testimony. Again, please ask your questions at that time and staff and the applicant will address those at the conclusion of all public testimony. Once public testimony is concluded, I will turn it back to city staff and they will address any questions that have come up. And then the applicant will have the final word because they have the burden of proof on the applications. If the record is closed this evening, the date for my decision on this application will be Wednesday, July 1st, considering the Juneteenth holiday this coming Friday. Any questions before we get going? All right, thank you all. Hearing none, I will turn it to the applicant. - Thank you, hearings examiner Marshall.

1:22:25 My name is Morgan Chadwick. - Hi Morgan, let me swear you in real quick. Do you swear or affirm the testimony give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - Yes. - All right, thank you, Mr. Chadwick. You may proceed. - So my name is Morgan Chadwick. I'm the project manager for Game Group and I will be the presenter for the applicant this evening. And I'm going to attempt to share our presentation and are you able to see that? - Yes, I am, thank you. - Right, along with me tonight is Game Group's principal planner and civil engineer, Jason Taylor with PLS Engineering. Again, thank you, hearings examiner Marshall for reviewing our application and presentation this evening. Thank you to the city staff members for all your time leading up to and including this evening to review and support our project. I'll start this evening with a quick introduction of our proposal.

1:23:23 Mount Hood Vista is an 82 lot single family subdivision located off of Northeast 34th Street within the Parkway East neighborhood. While adhering to the city's narrow lot standards, we are also proposing a concurrent zone change from the current R9 to the proposed R17 zoning. As I just stated, thank you to the city staff who have reviewed our application and through their staff report provided their findings and recommendation of approval of our proposal. Game Group agrees with staff's findings and recommendation of approval. Providing a brief summary of our application, this proposal does utilize the city's narrow lot subdivision standards. This slide outlines the three approval criteria items that our preliminary plat demonstrates compliance with. Part of the narrow lot development standards

1:24:22 include the use of alleys when feasible and our proposal does include an alley that will be public, but house underneath it a private stormwater facility as supported by city staff. Stormwater runoff will be collected and routed to an onsite underground infiltration trench and those private facilities will be owned and maintained by the subdivisions HOA. Our proposal does incorporate the retention of a tree grove in the Southwest corner of the site and will be housed in a separate tract owned and maintained by the subdivisions HOA. To provide perspective 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. And I do state that I agree that we do need more housing in Vancouver and support that houses be put

1:47:08 on this property, but not at the planned density. The Mount Hood Vista proposed project has a planned housing density that is between 60 and 65% more dense than the surrounding neighborhood of Parkway East. The average lot size in Parkway East exceeds 8,000 square feet. And in the R4 section exceeds 10,000 square feet.

1:47:32 The lot size for the new development averages about 2,800 square feet per lot. And I excluded lot 33, which I understand from Morgan a few minutes ago will be operated by the HOA. Not quite sure I understand that, but. So 2,800 square feet is only two thirds. It's two thirds smaller than the existing lot sizes. Parkway East lot sizes are in the top one third of R9 where they're in R4 and then a proposal one third of R17. And I don't agree with that density. In the last five or so years, there have been 39 infill houses built in Parkway East in three projects, one with 28 houses, a habitat development with nine houses and one with only two houses. Each on approximately 4,000 square foot lots.

1:48:32 To accomplish putting 82 houses on seven and a half acres, the plan will have 75% of the land in impermeable surface streets, driveways, sidewalks and roofs. There are also 81 five foot wide pathways between houses. In essence, they're row houses that have to be struck. And presumably they won't be growing anything. This plan will create an amount of hard surfaces and dark surfaces that create a heat sink in the middle of our residential neighborhood at a time when climate change is negatively affecting the whole world. The development area will be absorbing heat every day, all summer and radiating it back to the atmosphere every single night. And that will cause an effect on all of the surrounding area as well as the people who purchased property there.

1:49:30 The proposed project will likely also have 60 to 65% more cars from the area than the rest of Parkway East. Car exhaust is the leading cause of climate change gases, specifically carbon dioxide. So besides warming, we will have an increased concentration of carbon dioxide from the Mount Hood Vista area. At the same time, 41 of the 51 mature trees are planned for removal. 35 of those trees approximately are mature Douglas fir, which is a conifer and it photosynthesizes year round, removing carbon dioxide from the air, sequestering carbon in the woody structures and creating oxygen. Carbon sequestration is essential to combat climate change and large trees are essential to create oxygen. These dug fir are 65 to 70 years old

1:50:25 and have more than a hundred year of peak potential photosynthesis to create oxygen and sequester carbon. After cutting these trees, GIN will meet code, as they said, by leaving 10 mature dug fir on one lot and one Oregon white oak and planting 226 saplings, mostly smaller ornamental species. All nine remaining dug firs are on lot 33, which I now understand will be, I guess, owned by the HOA. I'm not quite sure I get that, how that'll work, but. Approximately 180 of the 226 trees planted are ornamental deciduous that were selected for their small size and are within the list the city recommends. Because of their small size and the fact that they will only photosynthesize in the summertime and lose their leaves in the fall,

1:51:24 they will sequester much less carbon for more than half the year. These trees will be planted in very small spaces. And if water, which is a question mark, according to Charles Ray, the urban forest manager, future homeowners have to water these trees for them to survive. These trees, even though small in stature, will likely overgrow their spaces in a few years. About 100 of the 180 trees are being planted along the streets, 34th, 35th, 152nd, and 155th. These trees will have to be regularly pruned in order to allow garbage truck access to the sidewalks where the garbage is planned for pickup. The end result will be that there will be much less carbon sequestration, much less pulling of carbon dioxide from the air by these small trees if they survive.

1:52:22 There will be 40 native incense cedar planned in the backyards of the boundary lots along the perimeter. Incense cedar is a native conifer and it has the potential to grow to 70 plus feet tall and at maturity exceed spreads of 30 feet, being planted in backyards with 10 foot setbacks and 26 foot wide yards. It seems pretty clear these trees are gonna overgrow their space before they're mature. That is if they are watered in their early part of their life. So I looked up the code for density and as I said, Ginn will meet that with the planting of trees. There are no codes for us to cite to protect current and future residents from the additional negative climate change consequences. And I would contend that the city which has not collected

1:53:20 any data on survival growth or longevity of planted trees actually doesn't know for how long. Walking the neighborhood, I can tell you there is not 100% survival. In some cases, it seems much closer to 50% survival than 100% of newly planted trees. So I'm asking that you please consider not recommending this density of housing to the city council. A lower density either at the bottom of our nine or very top end of our 17 would allow for more houses or fewer houses to be built but allow more mature trees to remain onsite, create a smaller percentage of impermeable heat absorbing surfaces and fewer cars out in our neighborhoods. Thank you.

1:54:15 - I realized I was on mute. Thank you, Ms. Cain. And thank you for your testimony. It did go a little bit longer than three minutes. I forgot to do a reminder at the beginning of this portion of the agenda. So, and it looked like also that you might've been referring to a submission you made. So just a reminder to the other members of the public, if you've submitted something, please let me know that it's in the record. And then I will also review that as well. Try to hit the highlights so that everyone can have a chance to testify this evening. Ms. Rust, it looks like you are next. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. - Yes. - Okay, thank you. Please state your name, spell your last name. See whether you'd like to be a party of record and what your interest is in the application.

1:55:12 - My name is Lynn Rust, R-U-S-T. I live at 15216 Northeast 36th Street. I'm a Parkway East resident that I've, and I've been here for 33 years, which is my interest in this application. I'm omitting the words Northeast Street and Avenue in my comments to save time. I would like the city to build the infrastructure for 34th prior to or concurrent with the development before building the 82 homes. Address lack of sidewalks, street lights, curb and gutter on 34th, then build the homes. Use your adopted complete street policy framework. 34th needs an improvement project from Diamond Park to 162nd, similar to the partially funded 28th Street improvement project that's in the tip.

1:56:12 There is not a continuous sidewalk on the south side of 34th Street for the residents to safely access the bus on 162nd. Residents presently walk on 34th Street, which fails to calm speeding traffic. The traffic study does not include present and future configurations for the intersection at 34th and 159th. 159th connects 34th to 39th. This will be used as a cut-through for non-peak hours when you remove the left turns from eastbound 34th to 162nd. 154th and 157th are also cut-through streets, but they have the configurations in the study. Pheasant woods and pheasant run neighborhoods

1:57:08 of 300 plus homes east of 162nd are excluded from the study. Trips will be rerouted from westbound 34th when the city eliminates the left turn to mitigate postponing the signal. Trips will move to 28th or 39th to access 162nd. The pheasant neighbors are likely unaware of this traffic change because they're half a mile from the posted public notice sign. The study predicts 82 homes generate 62 AM and 82 PM peak trips. Has the city analyzed the added non-peak and peak trips to 162nd signals at 28th and 39th caused by a left turn closure, including queue length for U-turns originating from the 300 pheasant homes?

1:58:08 Give 34th Street some love before adding 820 daily trips to our neighborhood and fund the 28th Street project first to provide relief to the south. In closing, 82 homes does not fit the dynamics and character of the existing Parkway East neighborhood because of higher density. I oppose the zone change. Neighborhood residents want meaningful input into our neighborhood similar to the process that the city-led Vancouver Heights project is following. Thank you. - Again, my microphone was off. Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Rest. It looks like Ms. Oldman, perhaps it's your husband that is available now to testify. You have your hand up again, Ms. Brandy Oldman? - Yes, this is- - She's talking about Brandy. - Yes, all right.

1:59:07 Let me swear you in real quick. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? - I do. - Okay, please state your name and spell your last name and what your interest is in the application. And I will also note for everybody, Ms. Bowen has put a three-minute timer at the top of the screen. Just keep an eye on that as well. Thank you. - My name is Jackson Oldham. Oldham spelled O-L-D-H-A-M. I'm a resident of Parkway East. I live at 15924 Northeast 33rd Circle. So just to the east of the proposed development. In the interest of saving the examiner's time, I'll just say that I have put a comment in the record and I would like to remain on the record. And I would like to reiterate what everyone else has already said that I support those comments. Two points that I'll bring up specifically, one that has not been mentioned so far is the city's commitment to tree canopy. The city's current goal is 28% tree canopy coverage. The Parkway East neighborhood sits at 15%

2:00:06 for one of the lowest in the city. No number of small trees that a developer puts in can replace the absolutely replaceable established hug furs that are already on the property. This is an opportunity for the city of Vancouver to put their money where their mouth is and protect trees. As we say, we'd like to. The second point I will say is that I would just remind the examiner and obviously you're aware that the impetus, the burden is on the applicant to prove why a zone change and why these developments are necessary. There's obviously a housing crisis. As a public safety professional, I see that crisis every single day. However, I do not believe that 82 houses versus a proposed slightly lower amount is gonna solve that problem significantly. And I don't believe that qualifies as an unusual circumstance or condition to justify the changing and rezoning of this property. I appreciate your time and I will end my comment there. - Okay, all right. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Oldham.

2:01:05 Okay, next step is it looks like Robin Oldham also has her hand up again. If there is someone else. - Yes. - All right, great. Let me swear you in real quick. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. - Yes. - Okay, great. Please state your name, spell your last name. - I'm John David Oldham, I go by David and the last name is spelled O-L-D-H-A-M. I have submitted comments earlier and would like to be a-- - Party of record. - Party of record, thank you. - Yes, all right, thank you. - Yeah, I just want to have a short comment that I believe that this parcel's large size over seven acres and its infill location makes up zoning to our 17

2:02:04 as opposed to what we've heard from some others. I believe it's incompatible with surrounding our four and our nine neighborhoods. I oppose as it will overcrowd the streets, making them dangerous for pedestrians and for motorists. And that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. - All right, thank you, Mr. Oldham. - Okay. - Okay, Stacy Peterson, you are next. Hi, let me swear you in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? - I do. - Okay, great. Ms. Peterson, please state your name, spell your last name, indicate whether you'd like to be a party of record or remain a party of record and what your interest is in the application. - My name is Stacy Peterson, last name P-E-T-E-R-S-O-N. And yes, I'd like to continue to be a party of record. I have made a comment previously.

2:03:03 And I too live in the neighborhood at 3108 Northeast, 151st Avenue. So I'm just one block over from the development on 151st Avenue. I feel like I agree with the rest of the comments that have been coming up this evening. The zoning does not match the low density residential neighborhood and will create a safety zone problem within our neighborhood. And that the city is using our existing infrastructure but not maintaining it. Based on your safety study, there was a suggestion to put a traffic light at the end of 34th Street, but instead they're just blocking it so that you can only head South on 162nd

2:04:03 as a resolution that is not safe and that does not maintain our infrastructure. Currently, a lot of the traffic comes down my street to go out to 28th and turn East up to 162nd. During peak hours, it's really difficult to make that left-hand turn onto 28th Street. And based on the traffic flow and the size of additional homes, we're really gonna have a difficult time. Those cars are gonna be headed our way and it's gonna be really difficult to turn left onto 28th. I see it as a safety hazard. So I'm asking that you deny this zone change

2:04:59 or at a very minimum request a traffic light on 34th Street with the sidewalks for safety, speed bumps in the current connecting neighborhoods all the way up to Diamond Park and more parking to maintain the current infrastructure. And maintain it. Thank you. - Thank you very much, Ms. Peterson. Okay, it looks like we've got another person that has just raised, oh, actually that was number four. Number three, Gang Liu has your hand up. - Hi, yes. - Let me swear you in real quick. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - Yes, I do.

2:05:59 - Okay, thank you. Please state your name, spell your last name and if you would like to either be or remain a party of record. - Sure, my name is Gang Liu, L-I-U. I think our church members have submitted some written documentations and communications so we want to remain on the record. Yes, my interest, I'm a member of the church in Vancouver. So our meeting hall is on the east side of the development side. We actually share the borderline or the law line. So we have a lot of members with young children. So my concern is mainly about youth safety, right? Both during the construction period and after.

2:06:57 Especially during the construction, I heard that the developer company planned to build a fence all around. But the question is, even before that fence was built, how do we ensure the safety for the children and young people? A few questions to both the city and the developer, right? Besides the fencing, is there any plan to have security personnel during busy time to make sure safety? And then is there a plan for background checks for the workers, which is very common in school adjacent projects? And also, especially during the summer,

2:07:56 there will be some activities going on in our church properties, right? Both in the front and backyard. How can we avoid or restrict the working hours during that time? Also, there's a noise and dust, right? Since we are the immediate neighbor of the construction, I think we'll be impacted quite heavily by that. So that's the main concerns I have. I support all the neighbors concerned about the zoning. So I don't think I need to repeat that. I think that's all. Thank you. - Thank you, Mr. Liu. Thank you. Okay, it looks like Dan Castenson.

2:08:46 - Yes, my name is Dan Castenson. His last name is spelled C-A-S-T-E-N-S-O-N. And I do want to be on the record. I've actually submitted a record as well, but I have some additional comments tonight. - Okay, let me swear you in real quick. All right, do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - I do. - Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Castenson. You may proceed. - Well, I wanna make reference in the beginning to the application that was made by the applicant back in May of 2025 and draw the attention to the municipal code 20770.070. It clearly states that when there are feasible

2:09:46 and prudent location alternatives on site for proposed building structures or other site improvements, existing native vegetation and trees are to be preserved, even if the minimum tree density is exceeded. Well, this application applied for 87 homes and they clearly said that they would retain and protect the Douglas fir groves in the Southwest corner and the Northeast corner of the site. That has all been changed. And so this is something that's not obviously following the code. It clearly says that the trees would certainly offer an increased canopy as Peggy has pointed out earlier in her testimony. The trees, and again, I need to make this clear,

2:10:41 the trees that are being preserved in the Southwest corner was the smaller grove. The larger grove was in the Northeast corner and they're, interestingly enough, they are located in a very convenient place to be saved and that's in the corners of the property. So it would make it a lot easier to actually reserve those trees. And that's the comment I wanted to make. I'm not sure why they changed this because it certainly would, even if the homes were decreased to 70 homes, that would clearly be enough lots given up to save that larger grove in that Northeast corner and still satisfy the density that the city is wanting. I will also reiterate just the whole idea of supporting the code for one and for two

2:11:38 is that the city wants to have more of a canopy and this is not the way to do it. So I agree with all the comments that have been made previous. I don't have anything else to say, but this is an important part of the project. I think it needs to be changed. Thank you. - Thank you, Mr. Castenson. Okay, I do not see any other hands raised at this time. - I would like to speak. - Mike Mills. - I can't find the hand button on mobile. - Is that Mike Mills? I'm sorry, oh, on a mobile. Oh, okay, yes, absolutely. And let me double check here. It does look like Mike Mills has his hand up as well. Okay, so Rebecca, adding, Altig. - Altig, A-L-T-I-G. - Altig, okay, thank you.

2:12:37 Let me swear you in real quick, Ms. Altig. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - I so swear. - Okay, I appreciate it. All right, please, you already spelled your last name. Please state whether you'd like to be a party of record and what your interest is in the application. - I would like to be a party of record. I did previously submit a comment that is less precise than what I'm about to say. - Okay. - And my interest is I'm the chairperson for the Parkway East Neighborhood Association. And I live three blocks from the property at 3017 Northeast 157th Court, 98682. - Okay. - And first, we do oppose the zone change,

2:13:33 but we obviously, we don't oppose more housing being built. We need more houses, like that much we acknowledge. But the neighborhood has a lot of concerns about safety and just the increased traffic and the infrastructure, as other people have already said. I wanted to, but I also wanted to speak more about the heat island effect that would be caused by the removal of the trees on the Northeast section and build on what Peggy had to say. The large number of trees that would be removed would increase the ambient temperature of the neighborhood for both the current residents and the future residents of our neighborhood. And that increased heat island effect

2:14:32 would have significant negative health impacts for our residents and for myself, just walking around the neighborhood. It's going to get a lot hotter without those trees pressed. The additionally, it is on the record that there was 375 signatures signed by the surrounding residents of both the Parkway neighborhood and the Parkway East neighborhood opposing the zone change. I believe that is everything and I reserve my time. Thank you. I yield my time, there we go. - Okay, wonderful. Thank you, Ms. Altig, I appreciate it. Mr. Mayor Mills. - You're very welcome. - Yes, thank you. Mr. Mills, Mike Mills.

2:15:22 Mike Mills has, you have your hand up. Oh, there you are. Oh no, I'm still having trouble hearing you.

2:15:42 Mr. Mills, is your volume on your device all the way up? 'Cause I'm not showing your microphone is muted. Can you check the volume level on the device you're using?

2:16:12 I can't hear you. Mr. Mills, we still can't hear you, I'm sorry. I'm not showing you as being muted though. So is there, do you see the volume button? I'm not sure if you're on a laptop or a PC. You're on your phone? Chairman Marshall, I'm not sure what to do. I'm showing him as not being muted. - I know, I can see that. Yes, and there is the suggestion again that Mr. Mills, if you would call in, we can take your testimony that way. - Just like Rebecca did.

2:17:13 - Yeah. - And the phone number is listed in the hearing information. Let me see if I can pull that up. Let's see, the phone number, let's see if it's in here. Looks like five, three, two, I'm sorry, where did it go? Dial in by phone, one, three, four, seven, nine, four, one, five, three, two, four.

2:18:13 There's a bunch of numbers after that. I've never had to have someone call in. Let's see. - Yeah, I think Mr. Mills said in the messages that he was going to call in. - Okay.

2:18:42 - Should we move to the next person and then wait for them to call in? - That's great. Yes, I see two other hands raised, but I believe that those are folks that have already testified. - Yes. - Jason and Dan Caskinson. Is there anyone else online that has not provided testimony and wishes to do so? If so, please use the raise hand button. I'm not seeing anyone else. Oh, Candy J. - Candy J just raised her hand, yes. - Yes, okay, Candy. I will call on you while we wait for Mr. Mills.

2:19:40 It looks like you're unmuted. You are not going to turn on your camera. That's okay, I can just swear you in. Candy J, do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

2:20:11 - And I'm not hearing any sound. - There's no audio and that microphone is not muted. - Correct. - So they may need to check their volume level on the device they're using or like Mr. Mike Mills call in to provide their testimony.

2:20:41 - We cannot hear you, Candy J. - That's correct. I cannot hear you, yes, okay. - They will call in. - Okay, so they will call in as well, okay. Yes, thanks for letting us know. Okay, so we are awaiting two phone calls.

2:21:09 And let's see. I'll let you know when they, I know they have to dial the phone number and then there's a code they need to enter as well. - Yeah. - So that may take a minute or two. - Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. - Now Candy J's microphone, here we go. - Okay, all right. You're welcome, Brandy. Brandy says in the chat, thank you for letting us all have this time and for being patient with tech and kids. And I do want to reiterate that. Thank you to all the participants and thank you for your patience with tech.

2:22:08 - Yeah, that's all the, they weren't being, here we go. Here's an external 503 number. I'm not sure if this is Candy or Mike Mills. - Okay. - We'll find out. - Hello, hello. - Okay, sounds like a woman's voice. Hello, this is- - Yeah, this is Candy. Yeah, give me a moment to put this on mute 'cause I'm getting the echo. - Yes, let's see, please. - Thank you. - Okay, now, can you hear me? And I wanted to see if I can still hear you. - Yes, I can hear you. - Perfect. - Can you still hear us? Okay, great, wonderful. All right, let me swear you in real quick, Candy. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - I do. - Thank you. Please state your name, spell your last name. Let me know if you've already submitted a public comment

2:23:07 and if not, if you'd like to be a party of record. - I have. - Oh, I think you hit mute. - No, I did examine her, Marshall, I apologize. I thought I was muting the other caller that came in. I apologize, Candy J. That was my error. Let's see if we can get her back. - Okay. - Let me, I apologize. That was my mistake. I thought I was muting the other person who called in. - No problem.

2:24:05 - Yes, Candy J, sorry. That was my mistake. You may need to call back in. Once again, I apologize. There was another caller who called in just right after you and I thought I muted them instead of you. I apologize.

2:24:36 - Yes, okay, thank you. Thank you, Candy J. All right, so Ms. Bohn, do we have another caller that we could go to? Perhaps Mike Mills? - No, I'm looking for Mike Mills. Is it the 360 number? Mr. Mills, are you on the other line, the other phone call that called in?

2:25:04 - There's a lot of people in here. - Yeah. - I think what I'll do is when the next, if Mr. Mills has to call back in as well, when both callers call back in, I will not mute them. If they could just hold our testimony until their name is called, that would be very much appreciated. - Okay, and again, thank you all for your patience. We appreciate it. - So I have two callers. - Oh, great, okay, here's Candy J. I believe that we got you sworn in and I just asked, yes, if you could state your name, spell your last name and whether you'd like to be a party of record and what your interest is in the application.

2:26:02 - Yeah, so yes, I'd like to be a party of record. I did submit a comment, Candy Jenkins, J-E-N-K-I-N-S, and my concerns have to do with both traffic and also the old growth trees. So within the neighborhood, we do get also, I don't know if this has been mentioned, we do get a lot of cut through traffic too. So I don't know if it's just me seeing this or if it truly is what I think it is, but a lot of times I think a lot of times people would want to avoid the traffic light at 39th. So they might cut through on 34th and then cut up on 157th or 154th to get to 39th. So we don't just have the neighborhood traffic, we also have cut through traffic of people going to other neighborhoods that might live just north of us. The tree growth definitely would like to see

2:26:59 the northeast corner remain as well and possibly be accessible maybe as a auditorium for the neighborhood for people to be able to walk around and enjoy those trees as part of a neighborhood since they have been here for so long. We get a lot of children running around the neighborhood when they're playing on their bicycles. And because of that added traffic, that would also become more of a safety concern as well. I just also want to say that I agree with all the testimony that's been provided today. And there's been a lot of good information that I've been hearing that I would also like to say that I agree with. I think that's pretty much what I have and I just wanted to make sure that I showed my support as well. - All right, thank you. Ms. Jenkins, I appreciate your tenacity and follow through to make sure that you were able to testify. So thank you again. Okay. - Thank you. - Yes, thank you.

2:27:58 Mr. Mills, looks like there is a 360 call. - There is and they're muted. I did not mute them. - Right, okay. - Let's see if I can, oh, I cannot unmute them. - Okay. - Let's see. I'm not able, I do not have the option to unmute. - Okay, Mr. Mills-- - I'm not sure if that's Mr. Mike Mills or-- - It might not be, right. To the caller and what I see is one, three, and then I see a bunch of symbols and in those six, if you would like to testify,

2:28:55 it sounds like you have muted yourself. So if you could unmute yourself so that we can hear from you, that would be excellent. Okay. I'm trying to give this a minute or two. And if you, I do believe that Mr. Mills had included in the meeting chat that he was calling in. If he could, Mr. Mills, if you could enter the meeting chat again and let us know if you've called in and are waiting to try to provide testimony, that would be helpful.

2:29:54 - I am keeping an eye on the hearing meeting chat. Oh, okay, there we go. Mike Mills, here we are. - Oh, wonderful, okay. Mr. Mills, please unmute yourself and I'll swear you in real quick.

2:30:19 Mr. Mills, if you're calling in, the mute function on your phone appears to be activated. Is there a way for you to turn the mute off? - And Mr. Tortorice offered to the Google star six unmutes on a phone. (silence) Any luck? Oh, could the comment period be kept open specifically for Mr. Mills? That's a question for Ms. Altig.

2:31:20 I have done that in a previous hearing. So yes, I think we will address that. I hate to have anybody not able to provide comment when they've appeared and tried several ways to participate. At this time, I will turn it back to Mr. Tortorice and if in the meantime, Mr. Mills or another caller that has been trying to provide testimony is able to do so, I will take that testimony out of order. So please use the chat function. Ms. Bowen is keeping an eye on that, but we will continue moving forward at the time with a rebuttal from Mr. Tortorice. You may proceed, Mr. Ferrer. - Sounds good, thank you.

2:32:19 First I'll note that Charles Ray from Urban Forestry and Eric Hahn from Transportation are here with us tonight. So I'm not gonna go into those items on detail, but they can definitely speak to some of the concerns that were brought up. I guess, I did write down some notes for each one. First, I'd say generally that I understand and staff understands many of the concerns regarding urban heat islands and the density as they are higher policy level concerns. And for my findings in the staff report, I rely on the approval criteria that is within Title 20. So some of those more specific concerns don't directly relate to approval criteria, but I do acknowledge that there are valid concerns in their larger policy ideas. So it seems like with the first one, we had some talk about transportation and requesting a reduced density alternative. Generally speaking here with the subdivision,

2:33:18 - I know, that was painful. - Oh, it sounds like somebody's un-muted. Maybe it was Mike. - Maybe Mr. Mike Mills. Someone called in and they came up. I admitted Mike Mills, but I don't see.

2:33:40 - His microphone is live according to my screen. - It looks like Mike from my perspective. Yes, hello, Mr. Mills. - Am I here? - Okay, yes, I can hear you. Hooray, hooray. All right, let me switch you in real quick. Yay, I like the thumbs up. Okay, do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - Yes, I do. - Oh, great, and we can see your face as well. Thank you for that. All right, please state your name, spell your last name, indicate whether you've submitted a comment letter and if not, if you'd like to be a party of record and what your interest is in the application. - My name is Mike Mills, last M-I-L-L-S. And I did submit and I would like to be on record. - Okay. - You ready to go? - Yes, I am, thank you.

2:34:39 - Okay, my wife, Julie and I have lived here for 30 years in this neighborhood. I live at 2804 Northeast 155th Avenue. I've been a certified arborist for 35 years and I've seen a lot of these trees grow up in this neighborhood and the towers there, where the towers are at, those trees help preserve habitat and beauty of the neighborhood. And I agree with everyone in the neighborhood about reducing the amount of houses that are in there and also increasing, adding another park area for the neighborhood for people to go to and be at.

2:35:34 I, and as far as that goes, you know, we're gonna have, it's gonna be a lot of traffic going through this neighborhood. I live on 28th Street and along 28th Street or adjacent 28th Street. And there's been a lot of traffic going through here within the last five to 10 years, it's doubled. There's been a lot of wrecks and high people speeding through the neighborhoods and increasing, with increased amount of housing that is proposed for that area is going to be a strain in the neighborhood. And, you know, I'd like to say I agree with everybody with what they have to say and that's, I guess that's what I have to say, so. - Okay, well, thank you very much for your testimony.

2:36:33 I'm glad you were able to join us online. - Okay, great, thank you. - Take care, okay. - Okay, bye. - Bye bye. Okay, so we will go back to rebuttal testimony from Mr. Tortorice, thank you. - Thank you. Yes, so as I was mentioning, we have a few folks here from the city that may be able to speak to trees and transportation. I was gonna make a general kind of comment about density. I think if you were to calculate the density it is within the range of R17, but when approving a subdivision, we look at the dimensional standards for the lots, which include a minimum and maximum lot size, lot width and depth. So pretty much those calculations shape how many lots can be created. And to that, with our finding that the rezone and subdivision meet the approval criteria, you know, the city cannot require a reduced density alternative or require additional open space.

2:37:32 Any of that would be at the developers, you know, their initiative. And then moving down to, we talked about infill development. I think we're, I understand. And even the compliance stuff talks about infill. I will make a clarification that we have, the city of Vancouver has something called infill capital I infill development, which is four lots, no larger than two and a half acres. So of course that doesn't apply. I just wanted to draw a line here that we are in, the proposal is to infill, but given that it's a larger than two and a half acres, it's not eligible for infill development. So the rezoned R17 still within the lower density comp plan designation is the way to develop what people classify as underutilized or underdeveloped lots. Let's see, keep going here. Yes, again, things like the urban heat island, I understand the concern and then how these relate to these larger policy goals identified by city council and the city,

2:38:32 but in staff's finding it doesn't, it's not essentially approval criteria. Moving on, I think so. So there was a condition in the staff report where the one lot was larger than allowed. And there were some options discussed about what can be done. And it seemed like the applicant tonight has proposed basically a non-developable tract to retain trees and the community members input that I'm getting to now is they were asking about how the HOA retains control. And that's basically like any common space like condos, et cetera, where the HOA, the housing, they're responsible for the maintenance and upkeep, et cetera. And that's a private agreement, but I just wanted to see if I could provide any clarity there. Moving on.

2:39:29 Someone brought up a concern. I think it was Lynn about the transportation infrastructure being required prior to building homes. And while I can't necessarily speak to the particular requirements for the transportation infrastructure, I will note that all of that is required prior to final plat. And of course you won't be able to construct a home until the final plat is recorded. So all of that kind of sidewalk and frontage improvements, those are completed before the houses are built. Let's see, moving down here. Some things of course, as the city cannot speak to us and maybe the applicant will with a security or background check for construction workers. A community member brought up and Charles Reagan will speak to this 20770-070 where it pretty much states that when feasible prudent location alternatives exist,

2:40:28 basically the city can require redesigning the site to preserve trees. And the only thing I am not an urban forester. The only thing I will note is that that is an option. The city may require it and it was reviewed by our urban forester. And it seemed like at least according to the findings, that wasn't something that was discussed or required by our urban forestry department. They found it to meet the code as conditioned in the report.

2:40:55 - Yes, and I think that that's pretty much it. I know a lot was discussed. I'm trying to condense my response. Yes, and generally speaking as a planner, we're looking to the approved development code and standards that were approved by city council and applying those. We find it to meet or can meet as conditioned, acknowledging those larger impacts that are policy decisions and then deferring to urban forestry with Charles Ray or Eric Hahn with transportation concerns. - Okay, thank you, Mr. Todorishi. - Yes, you're welcome. - Mr. Ray, let me swear to you real quick. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? - I do. - Great, please state your name, spell your last name and what your title and position is of the city. - Sure, good evening, this is a hearings diameter.

2:41:53 I'm Charles Ray, last name is R-A-Y. Urban forester with the city of Vancouver, certified arborist, urban forestry professional and ISA qualified tree risk assessor. I have testified as an expert witness in Clark County courts regarding tree issues. I've responded to and assist with resolving tree issues within the city, which includes supporting community development, reviewing tree plans and development proposals. In my professional opinion, the project was designed to minimize vegetation loss. The project is proposing to retain trees, existing trees along the West and Southeast section, as well as planting additional trees to meet the code requirements. This part of development is not feasible to retain all trees or all large or old trees due to the density, due to transportation requirements, due to utilities and due to grading, there just simply is not enough space.

2:42:53 Retention of the emerging and mature trees is ideal as they can withstand some impacts to the root system and can acclimate to the site. And some of the comments that we heard tonight regarding retaining additional trees under the new code, the new code does require a percentage of quality trees onsite or healthy trees onsite of 33%, but that is under the new code. There's also discussions about tree canopy goals and tree canopy goals is not a code requirement at this time in the new code, it is a requirement. And just to point out that every parcel and development is a contributing piece to reach, meet and exceed those citywide tree canopy goals. - Okay, all right. Thank you, Mr. Ray.

2:43:52 Did you have anything further on that? - No, I think that addressed all of them, thank you. - Okay, thank you very much. Okay, Eric Hahn. All right, Mr. Hahn, let me swear you, when you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. - Yes. - Okay, please state your name, spell your last name and state what your position is at the city. - My name is Eric Hahn, last name is spelled H-A-H-N. I am a senior civil engineer in the transportation division. I head up the transportation development review team within that division. - Okay, you may proceed, thank you. - First of all, let me start by kind of describing the neighborhood from a transportation perspective. This existing neighborhood surrounding this site is fortunate in that it has a very fine-grained,

2:44:50 well-spaced system of street networks currently. As a result of that, the volumes on each individual street are very low currently. And also since the spacing is very good and fairly closely networked, the capacities for any sort of changes are strong. And so there's a good ability for these streets to absorb changes such as this, changes such as the increased traffic that we're going to see from this site, as well as the changes that may be resulting from changes at intersections. In particular, the intersection at 34th street and 162nd Avenue. As was pointed out earlier, the intent for that intersection is to block left turns out.

2:45:47 That would be left turns coming out of 34th street on either side and allow all other movements. The reason for that treatment is that that intersection currently is at a failure level of service for volumes essentially coming through from the north to the south, causing other problems coming from the east and west. Typically we would have a signal there for something like that. And it is going to be added to our TIP plan to add a signal there. It will be unfunded initially. There was some discussion about whether or not we could ask the developer to put the signal there. And we very quickly determined that that was simply disproportionate to the impacts created by the development, regardless of the density. So the interim, if you want to look at it that way, the interim mitigation would be to place that median as proposed.

2:46:47 With the placement of that median, the level of service improves significantly from an level of service F to a level of service C immediately. So it will buy us a lot of time to get a signal there at some point in the future. Again, the changes in traffic patterns resulting from that can be relatively easily absorbed by the existing street network. Also that street network does have quite a bit of existing capacity. Most of these streets are only carrying 500 cars per day or fewer. I know that sounds like a lot, but local streets like this have capacities well in excess of that. We typically would look at two to 5,000 at peak maximum capacity. Clearly we have no intention of ever having a street like that,

2:47:43 but that would be the capacities we would be looking at. Then finally, relative to pedestrian facilities here, 34th Street, the largest missing piece in the 34th Street pedestrian system is this site. So with the construction of the frontage improvements along 34th Street by this site, there will be very little missing pedestrian facilities along that entire corridor. So I think with that and with the existing pedestrian facilities in the surrounding neighborhoods, we don't see that we're going to have an unsafe situation. They are also going to be adding some crossings of 34th Street. The one element that we are a little concerned about that really has nothing to do with this subdivision, but has come to light with our traffic counts,

2:48:40 the 85th percentile or the overall percentile of speeding in the 34th Street corridor overall is fairly low. In fact, it doesn't meet our criteria for traffic calming. However, there are some small number of very high speed vehicles at certain times of the day. We've captured a few of those. So they don't add up enough to meet our criteria for traffic calming, but they certainly at this point require us to take a closer look at this and perhaps determine that we need to do some traffic calming even though it doesn't meet the official warrants. So that's something we're going to be working with the developer on, and it's something we're going to be monitoring pretty closely. That's all I have. - Okay, that's good. So it sounds like, so when you say that you're keeping

2:49:40 or you're taking a look at this or you're keeping an eye on that, how does that work? Just, I'm curious, first of all, and some of the members of the public may wish to hear. - The speeding. Well, we have a baseline that we've established now. We took some counts. As soon as we had the pre-application meeting for this project, we went out and took some counts. So we have a baseline. That baseline identified again, that the warrants are not being met to put any kind of traffic calming in, but it did capture some very small number of very high speed trips. So what we would do is, one, we're going to have some negotiations with the developer about potentially adding some traffic calming voluntarily on that corridor. And then beyond that, once the development is established, and now that we know that we're,

2:50:39 we potentially could have a problem here, we will put this on our radar, if you will, to be checking it on a regular basis to see if it's basically tipping the warrant. I personally feel like we probably need to get something out there sooner than later. It only takes one or two cars traveling down a local street in excess of 50 or 60 miles an hour to demonstrate that something needs to be done. So I think we can work out something with the developer, frankly. - Okay, thank you, thank you for answering that. I appreciate it. - Certainly. - Okay, Mr. Tortorice, is there anything further that the city wished to add in their rebuttal? - No, thank you. - Okay, all right, all right, well then we'll turn it back to the applicant for final rebuttal.

2:51:38 Okay, great, you're unmuted, go ahead. - My name is Jason Taylor with PLS Engineering and I'll be responding to some of the comments. - Okay, let me swear you in real quick, Mr. Taylor. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? - Yes. - Okay, thanks, you may proceed, Mr. Taylor. - I think the city did a great job at responding to a lot of the questions, especially the questions about the tree retention and traffic. I'll go over some of these same issues briefly. You know, the new development that we're proposing will meet all the current standards, which will include detached, or for the most part, I guess it's detached and attached sidewalk on, so sidewalk will be on both sides of the road for the new development that we're proposing.

2:52:36 That'll provide connectivity along 34th Street and will provide a new connection to the roadway stuff to the south of the site. So that will provide additional connections within the neighborhood. Both PLS Engineering and gang group, we have a history of working with Eric and Eric Hahn at the city and the transportation group, and working through some of these transportation issues and mitigation that could be proposed to improve the neighborhood, and we'll work with Eric to, you know, talk about what kind of traffic calming can be installed. And I'm sure, you know, if we're just talking about a few speed bumps, and that's something that we would be able to work with the city through final engineering process to add to our plans to address some of those issues.

2:53:38 We, yeah, Eric did a great job responding to the traffic comments. We, you know, we followed the procedures required by code. The city required us to provide a traffic report that analyzed 10 intersections and looked at traffic counts. So we believe that, you know, a lot of those impacts were captured and where there was mitigation required, we are providing that mitigation to meet concurrency standards. Regarding the trees, one neighbor commented on the code section that says, you know, where feasible and prudent existing vegetation should be retained. At the pre-application conference that we had a little over a year ago, we submitted a plan that had more lots and showed very little as far as tree retention.

2:54:37 I think the neighbor indicated that we had proposed to retain trees in the Southwest and Northeast corner. That was actually a comment from the city saying, hey, you have these, you know, two opportunities to retain trees, one location in the Southwest corner, one location in the Northeast corner. You know, you need to do a little bit more than what you're proposing currently. So we redesigned our plan, dropped a number of lots and retained the trees in the Southwest corner. So that was in response to comments that the city provided. And we believe that the trees that we are retaining, the trees that we are retaining, it's feasible and an additional loss in lots to retain trees would then make the project not financially feasible. So we believe that we're complying with that code section

2:55:33 as far as tree retention goes. Regarding the trees in the Southwest corner, the current proposal that's in front of you shows one large lot, lot number 33. As Anthony mentioned, there's a code requirement or a condition of approval that says that we shouldn't have any lots larger than I believe 5,000 square feet. So we're currently working through options to comply with that. That will likely result in the creation of a tract. In addition to a smaller lot 33, those details will, I imagine, be worked out after this hearing or after council approval will likely be reflected in the final engineering drawings that are required to show compliance with those conditions of approval. We're also looking at options for the maintenance

2:56:32 and ownership of that tract. So nothing has been decided, but those trees that we're committing to retain, they will be retained within that area. There have been lots of comments about density and the approval criteria for the density. I think one interesting thing to mention with this new zoning code and zoning map that's coming into play that was approved two weeks ago and that will become effective in six weeks is that everything that we're proposing is compatible with the new zone. The density, much higher density could be provided, not only under the R-17 zone, but under the low-scale neighborhood zone.

2:57:29 You look at the change in circumstance and that's what we're saying, there's this housing crisis and there's a need to provide more housing to help with the affordability of housing. The city council has looked at that, looked at that crisis, acknowledged that there is a change in circumstance, gone through a multi-year process to redo these zones. And they've determined that there needs to be much higher density in the lower density zones. And their action based on that is to basically make all of the low density zones similar to the R-17 zone. So this R-17 zone isn't something that is going to be isolated within this community. The density and the units that are available

2:58:28 under the R-17 zone will be allowed in every single low density neighborhood within the city within six weeks. I don't believe that smaller single family homes are not compatible with single family homes on larger lots. I think all housing is compatible with housing. And I think the price point of these homes and the families that are going to live there will fit in well with the neighborhood and be very compatible with the existing features, existing homes and the people that live there. One neighbor commented on the adjacent church and impacts from construction. We are required to have an erosion control plan

2:59:25 that helps limit some of those impacts or it provides a way to monitor and kind of control construction activities on projects to make sure that we're not having impacts from impacts due to dust or runoff coming from properties. And those plans are regulated by the city and city inspectors. So there will be city employees that are monitoring and regulating the construction that goes on on the site. There's also construction hours that contractors will need to adhere by. Regarding impacts to the church, the applicant does have a relationship with the leaders of the church and have made private agreements

3:00:23 to mitigate some of the impacts to the church, including installing a fence and other things that are outside of the scope of this hearing. But again, Ginn Group, when they are looking at purchasing a property in a community like this, while it's not required, they reach out to neighbors, they send letters, they knock on doors and let people know that they are coming into this neighborhood and what their plans are. So that was one situation where they reached out to the church and started conversations with them early to discuss the proposal and then address any impacts that they might see with this development. So I believe that we're meeting the code requirements for addressing impacts and also the applicant has gone above and beyond in reaching out to neighbors and addressing some of those impacts.

3:01:21 And I believe that they will continue to do that through construction and in addressing these potential impacts that might arise from this activity.

3:01:36 And I believe that is all that I have, but if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them. - Okay, thank you. I don't believe it's a code requirement, but there was a question from public testimony regarding background checks for contractors. I don't know if you want to address that. Again, it's not a code criterion, but if you have anything to share on that, you may do so or you may say, I don't have anything to say. - I, yeah, I'm not involved with the hiring of the contractors or managing the employees that work for said contractors. So I don't have any comments on that. - Okay, thank you. I don't think I have any additional questions. Double check my notes here real quick.

3:02:35 I covered a lot of ground tonight. No, I don't think I have anything further, Mr. Taylor. Thank you and your team for being here tonight. Thank you, Mr. Tortorice. Thank you to everyone that has been with us throughout not only this application, but the previous one. I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this matter. And I will close the record. My decision is due in 14 working days. This Friday is a holiday. So my decision, my final order will be issued, which will include a recommendation to the city council on the rezone application. My order will be due on Wednesday, July 1st, 2026. And I want to thank again, thank everyone again and have a great evening. - Thank you.

3:03:34 [BLANK_AUDIO]