Vancouver Land Use Hearings

0:00 All right, thank you, Ms. Bowen. Good evening, everyone. My name is Stephanie Marshall. I am the City of Vancouver hearing examiner. Today is Tuesday, May 19, 2026. It is 6 p.m. and I am going to call this meeting and these hearings to order. There are two items on the agenda tonight and the first item is item A and that is an application number PRJ-169176/LUP-85667. Swickard Land Rover at the Landing is the name of the proposal and this is a master plan, excuse me, conditional use permit, site plan review and MX conceptual master plan

0:56 amendment. I am going to go over some preliminary matters and then explain how the hearing will proceed and answer any questions before we officially begin with that one. Both of these matters before me tonight are quasi-judicial land use applications. That means that as the hearing examiner, I will be deciding whether to approve, deny or approve with conditions the applications on each of these agenda items. The quasi-judicial nature of these applications means that I will judge them and the testimony that will be presented tonight by the applicant, by interested members of the public and by staff, the testimony will be recorded and will also be under oath and I will swear you in before you begin testifying. One thing

1:54 that we ask is that you state your name and spell your last name and give your address. Please also state whether you wish to be a party of record on the application on which you are providing testimony and if you are associated with anyone on the applicant side, please identify what role you have with respect to the application. That would be very helpful. Any questions will be addressed at the end of public testimony so it's not going to be a Q&A session where you can ask questions of the city or ask questions of the applicant. Those questions will be written down and then at the conclusion of public testimony, the city will first have a chance to address those questions and then the applicant will. Excuse me, I've got a bit of a frog in my throat. Because I'm going to be judging these applications,

2:54 I am a neutral party and I have to adhere to items like impartiality and that will be demonstrated by the fact that A, I've not had any ex parte communications. That means nobody has contacted me either for or against or even neutral on the application prior to the hearing tonight. I have coordinated with staff in setting this hearing tonight and I've also received the staff report and reviewed the applications that exist in the record as of this evening. I have no interest in the outcome of either of these applications and I've also not prejudged in either of these applications. Again, I'm a neutral party that is reviewing the applications and I am asked to judge those on the basis of the standards

3:49 that are set forth in the staff report, the testimony and the exhibits in the record. The standards that are set forth in the staff report will include City of Vancouver standards. Some of those sometimes have been vested to a prior development application where that's appropriate. That will have been identified in the staff report. We also look at the comprehensive plan, the City of Vancouver comprehensive plan and also any applicable state statutes and regulations. If there are additional items that you believe should be addressed by me in my decision, please bring those to my attention at the hearing so that I can consider those. Anything that's not brought to my attention while the record is open either during this hearing or if there is a post hearing open record period, those arguments and that evidence

4:45 will be considered waived. This is the raise it or waive it principle. Okay, so now turning to procedure. Oh, no, I missed a step. Excuse me. Being as that I have no interest in the application and I have not prejudged the application and not had any ex parte contacts, I believe that I can hear both of these matters in a fair and impartial manner. If anyone objects to my proceeding as the hearing examiner for either or both of these applications, please state so now and state the nature of your objection. Okay, thank you. Hearing none, the procedure will be as follows on each of the applications, then I'll call them consecutively. The applicant will present their presentation first, review the proposal, review any comments

5:41 that they wish to address that might have come in during the public comment period. Bring anything in particular to my attention that they wish me to focus on. And after the applicant does their presentation, the city will then present the staff report. At that time, we will open it up for public testimony. If you're in the room and online here and you wish to provide testimony, please use the raise hand feature and Miss Bowen will elevate you to be able to provide public testimony. I'll swear you in as I will with the other witnesses and again, please state your name and spell your last name and also state whether you wish to be a party of record. After all public testimony is concluded, the city will have a chance to address anything that came up during presentation and then the final word will be from the applicant. The applicant does have the burden of proving that the proposal

6:40 that they are presenting meets all applicable criteria. And again, that criteria set forth in the staff report and if there are additional standards that you believe apply, please make sure that you bring those to my attention. Any questions before we get started? Okay, hearing none, the first item on the matter, excuse me, the first item on the agenda is the Swickard Land Rover at the landing proposal. Again, this is PRJ 169176, LUP 85667. And the applicant, if you are here, I will call on you first. Recognize you for testimony. Please raise your right hand. You swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the

7:40 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Great, thank you. I can see the spelling of your name on the screen, but this is also being audio recorded. So please state your name, spell your last name and please identify how you are associated with this proposal. Sure. Dean Masukawa, last name M as in Monday, ASUKAWA, address is 720, actually address is with LRS Architects at 720 Northwest Davis, Suite 300, Portland, OR 97209 with the IMO-KB party of record. And like I said, I'm with LRS Architects. Okay, thank you. You may proceed. All right, I do. May I share my screen for the presentation? Yes, you may.

8:32 Okay, great. I can see that. Okay, good evening. So this is a proposal for a Land Rover dealership in Southeast Vancouver. As you can see on the map, we are located just east of 205 and just north of SR 14. A closer look at that is that we are located on the north side of Southeast Mill Plain here in Southeast Vancouver. So this project is part of a larger master plan. You can see that we are located in the red along Mill Plain here, one of a string of dealerships, automotive dealerships that are proposed in this area. This will be a dealership with a showroom and repair garage, also inventory parking, customer parking as well. This is an excerpt from that master plan showing our parcel, parcel two, and how

9:31 we meeting the required parking, calculated 18 parking spaces, providing 18 parking spaces, and also a 19% landscape coverage. This is an exhibit showing how we are identifying or laying out some parking. So the required 18 parking spaces are identified in blue here. They're going to be located on the west side and the east side of the building, buildings in the center here, accessed by a driveway on the north side. The landscape plan identifies how we're meeting the zoning criteria. So we are required to have 15% landscape coverage. We're actually presenting 19% and we're meeting the tree density at 69 tree units. I'm getting

10:28 some feedback. There we go. This is a site plan showing some circulation. The main entrance is located on the southwest corner of the site. We have two parking lots accessed on the west side and on the east side. Customer parking is located here along the west side and the circulation you would enter in from the north, drive through a service drive here and drive out back onto the street. There's also some pedestrian connections along the west and the south and the west side of the site here. A closer look at the inside of the building. As I mentioned, this is a dealership showroom up along the long mill plane, the service drive in the center and we have the repair garage in toward the back. So the more

11:21 transparent and active part of the program is up front along the mill plane. And I'll end it with a few perspectives here. This really shows the massing, the scale and the use of materials of the project. Also transparency, a lot of windows. We're standing here along mill plane looking northeast, actually. This is the long mill plane looking north. Again, you can see transparency windows, large windows here along the front and different kinds of metal panel signing. This looks like a one-story building. It's actually a two-story, but because of the height of it, we're able to get two stories in there. And this is at the entry here pedestrian connection through here and customer parking in the far side. And that should do it. Any questions? All right. No, I don't have any questions at this time. I

12:20 may following any public testimony, but thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Now staff, Mr. Keith Jones. Hello. Oh, good evening. Good evening. Let me swear you in real quick. Please 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 tell us who you are. Good evening. I'm Keith Jones. My last name is spelled J-O-N-E-S. I am a senior planner with the city of Vancouver. I was the staff that prepared the staff report for tonight. Just go over a few items of procedure. I think the applicant did a good job of going over the overview of the project and the scope. Just again, this is a conditional use permit. It's stated as so in the MX zoning district, and that makes it a type three hearing. And

13:19 that's why it's before the hearings examiner. It's also a site plan review. And then there's also a master plan amendment and that's due to a change in the amount of parking that was originally identified in the master plan. And the code does require that that be processed as such. Going back to 2024, when the master plan was approved, this area is identified as commercial and then up towards the north and west was identified as residential. So this is a commercial portion and auto dealership was identified on the master plan as proposed, similar size, similar location. So it's consistent with the past practice. The state environmental policy act was addressed at that time. And the whole master plan was, was put through the SIPA process and final SIPA was issued prior to that hearing. And there was no appeals

14:14 on that. So the SIPA is covered and consistent. A notice of application and notice of public hearing was sent out for this hearing tonight with this hearing date identified a 30 day comment period ran one public comment was received by staff. And that was addressed in the public comment section of the staff report. And up to from the date of issuance of that staff report, which is two weeks before tonight's hearing, we have not received anything entered into the record and no written testimony so far, uh, other than the applicant's PowerPoint, which was just presented and that will be entered into the record. Uh, that would be exhibit two, I believe, uh, the staff report is exhibit one. Uh, and then, uh, the staff is recommending approval with the conditions that are identified at the conclusion of the

15:12 staff report. And that's all I have in, uh, to, to state tonight, I guess so far. So, um, I can, I guess here to answer questions if there are any. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jones. And, um, when I turn things back to the applicant, if there's a following any public testimony, I do, I did review the staff report and I see that there are 26 proposed conditions of approval. So I will be asking the applicant's representative if, um, if they have reviewed those and if they have any questions and if they're agreeable to those proposed conditions. So thank you. I don't have anything, any other questions. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh, now is the time for any public testimony. I understand from Ms. Bowen that we did not have anybody pre-register that is not to say that you are

16:08 foreclosed from providing public testimony if you so wish. And it looks like, um, we might have somebody that wishes to provide testimony. Is that Jean Kent? I don't see a hand raised yet, but let me check. Okay. Believe that person's here, but they have not raised the raise hand icon or indicated they wanted to provide testimony. Um, okay. But if they wish to, I'm, I can open up their

16:55 mic or they can open up their mic. Okay. Um, now is the time if you wish to provide testimony on the Swickard, um, land Rover proposal, um, now is the time to indicate that you wish to testify and you may do so by, uh, hitting the microphone button so that you are unmuted and happy to take that testimony. I'll give it about another 15, 20 seconds.

17:46 I don't see anyone raising the hand icon examiner Marshall. Okay. All right. Um, well, um, then now is the time that I will, I typically would turn it back to the city, but we have not had any interviewing, uh, testimony. Um, so I don't know if Mr. Jones has anything that he wishes to add, um, that you forgot to mention in your first presentation. Uh, again, it's Keith Jones, a city of Vancouver, a senior planner. I don't have anything else to add. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. I'm not going to be able to say your

18:43 name, pronounce, pronounce your name. I'm so sorry. Okay. Um, I do have one question for you, um, before, uh, you have any closing comments. Um, I always ask an applicant or their representative if they have reviewed the staff report and, uh, in particular the proposed conditions of approval. Um, in this one, uh, Mr. Jones, uh, his report set forth 26 proposed conditions of approval. Um, have you had a chance to review those? And if so, do you have any questions? Thank you. Yes. We have had a chance to review all the conditions, 26 of them, and we do not have any questions on them. Thank you. Great. Okay. Perfect. All right. Uh, do you have anything else that you wish me to consider before I go ahead and close the public hearing on this matter? No, I think Keith covered it well. And I said what I needed to say in my presentation. So thank you. All right. Thank you very much.

19:42 Um, as Mr. Jones indicated, the PowerPoint will be included in the record as exhibit two. Um, the, uh, the code requires that I issue a final order within, uh, 10, uh, it's not 10 business days. I think it's 10 working days is the term used in the code. Um, being as it next Monday is Memorial day. Um, the deadline for my decision on this matter will be the 3rd of June. Um, so I will have a decision out by that day, if not before. Um, and so I will go ahead and close the public hearing and close the record on this first item on the agenda, item a, and now we will turn to item B. That's out here. Item B is going to

20:36 call up, uh, application number PRJ 1-6-9-8-5-3. This is the, uh, this is a proposed subdivision. It's called the 132nd Avenue subdivision. It's a proposal to subdivide a 2.2 acre site into 25 residential units within the R9 zoning district. Um, the applicant proposes to use the infill and narrow lot subdivision, um, standards, and there will be an extension. There's a proposed extension of 132nd Avenue through the site to Northeast 49th street. Um, as, as before I will, uh, go through my opening, um, statements. Uh, this is a quasi judicial land use application. Um, the hearing is being recorded. All testimony will be provided

21:30 under oath. Um, this is not, uh, an opportunity for questions and answers from members of the public. Um, but, uh, if you do wish to provide testimony, please state your name, call your last name and provide your address. Please also state whether you wish to be a party of record and any questions that you, um, ask during your presentation will be addressed when, uh, the city and then the applicant has a chance for rebuttal. Um, I am going to be a judging this application based on the criteria set forth in the staff report, um, and, uh, applicable state statutes and regulations as well as the comprehensive plan. If there are additional criteria that you believe, um, apply to this application, please bring that up, um, in your testimony. And please also present any evidence. If you'll have a competing traffic report or, or anything else that you wish, um, to be considered,

22:29 uh, now is the time to bring that into the record so that I have everything before me, anything that is not raised, um, in these proceedings or during an open record period, if one is provided, uh, that those arguments in that evidence will be deemed waived. Um, I am reviewing this, uh, application impartially. I've not had any ex parte contact by any member of the public. Excuse me. I'm about to sneeze. Um, maybe not. I've not had any ex parte contact by any member of the public or by any, uh, about or by the applicant or by anyone that's interested in or opposed to, pardon me, the application. Excuse me. I don't have any interest in the outcome of this application and I have not prejudged the application. I have had a chance to review the staff report and the exhibits that are in the record. And I have

23:27 coordinated with staff and setting this, um, time and place for this hearing. And, um, that's the evidence that I have looked at so far. I believe that I can hear this matter in an, in a fair and impartial manner. If anyone has any objections to my proceeding on this application, please state so now and the nature of that objection. Okay. Hearing none. Uh, the procedure will be as follows. The applicant will go first and present the application and then any evidence that they wish to highlight for me and the city, the city will provide, um, an overview of the staff report and make any additional comments that they wish to, uh, bring to my attention. Then we will open it up for public testimony. If you're here and you wish to provide testimony at that time, please use the raise hand feature and we will make sure that we will call on you in order. After that, I will turn it back

24:25 to the city to address any comments that, um, that, uh, were raised during public comment. And the applicant will have the final word because the applicant has the burden of proof on this application. Any questions before we get started? All right. Thank you. Hearing none, uh, we will turn it over to the applicant and it looks like Mr. Johnson is, um, he's turned on his camera. So I am presuming you are going first, Mr. Johnson. Is that correct? That's correct. Examiner Marshall. Thank you. All right. 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. I do. Great. Please state your name, spell your last name and, uh, let us know how you are associated with the application. Um, my name is Travis Johnson. I work for PLS engineering and I'm, uh, the engineer of record and principal engineer at PLS and

25:23 representing the applicant. Last name, G O H N S O N. Great. Thank you. All right. You may proceed. I'm going to share a presentation. This is just an over overview of the project. And can you see the screen examiner Marshall? Yes. Yes, I can. Thank you. Thanks for checking. It shows how one 32nd extends through the parcel shows the French improvements that we plan to do on 49th Street. It's been reviewed under a U P 856 97. And then we're doing concurrent review. Angie 856 98. We've already been through first. I apologize. I've been a little bit under the weather, so sorry if I start coughing, um, bid through to concurrent. Excuse me. We're going through the concurrent engineering engineering review process. So engineer storm

26:20 water, sanitary water, transportation, traffic engineers, involved with the construction drawings twice already providing comment on project. This shows the project where it sits shows I think what's important. It shows where one 32nd Avenue has been stubbed to the property, which makes the assumption that it should be extended in the future. Um, as always, the city's always planning on how roadways and roadway networks are planned, and you can tell in this situation they did plan for one 32nd to be stepped through this partial in the future. Right here, we're showing that we're within the R nine zoning and City Vancouver. Uh, we're proposing a 25 lot in fill subdivision. Minimum lot size is 23 90. I think, uh, based

27:19 on code, I think the minimum allowed is 2000 if memory serves. Yes, 2000 square feet. So we're about the minimum in the infield. Uh, applicants proposing detached homes with garages. Of course, we're used utilizing the infill narrow lot development standards, um, access to all lots via driveways to Northeast one 32nd AB. We planning on constructing friendly improvements on Northeast 49th Street, meeting the minor collector arterial standards. Um, stormwater on the site. We've got really good soils on the site. All these areas they infiltrate so Lauren gravelly long. So we plan on treating the stormwater from the roadway and infiltrating at the roofs also will be directly infiltrated. Um, the site does have, uh, it is served by public sewer and water rail readily available. And the proposal is consistent with the city's

28:17 comprehensive plan. I'd also like to note on page 31 of the conditions recommends recommendation by staff and the approval. I don't think I need to read all of it. It's already in the staff report, so we'll move on. This is a blurry picture of the preliminary flat. You can see the numbers we are proposing. Um, again, the minimum is 2350 square feet. Like everybody in the public in you, uh, examine Marshall to understand that the infield standards to allow 1500 square foot lots and applicant coat can go down to townhouse 1500 square foot locks utilizing the infield standards. This proposal with detached homes, they're allowed to go down to 2000, but they've exceeded that minimum by quite a bit. The majority

29:16 of them are 23 to 2400 and some are up to 3000 square feet. Um, approval criteria. Um, we need to meet all this approval criteria. And I think that the thing that I didn't hear was the subdivision lower density residential district narrow lots and fill the zero lot line. We are proposing zero lot line lots. I don't think that was mentioned in your opening statement. We do have an oak tree, so we have to meet the critical areas code. And of course, we have to meet, uh, tree vegetation, soil conservation and landscaping code. Also, uh, we have a subdivision narrow lot development submitted for an application and a level five tree plan submitted for this application. Um, yeah, we've used the middle for type three

30:12 application fees, narrative, preliminary civil plans. We submitted a geotech port traffic study, school district letter and a public health department letter showing that we meet the applicable codes in the city of Vancouver. Uh, this goes through when we got our pre application or vesting dates fully complete staff report. And then, of course, the public hearing tonight, May 19th, uh, existing conditions plan. Um, it just shows how the sites fairly flat. It does have a little bit of slope for connects into 1 32nd, but it's generally flat in this area in the city. One single family home, all buildings will be, um, uh, demoed and course construct a subdivision. You can see the oak tree and the oak tree drip lines that are are shown on the West property line. This is showing how we meet the narrow lot

31:10 development standards showing tree placement, additional trees, um, location for garbage garbages, streetlights, fire hydrants, all the applicable standards of the narrow lot development plan. And it also shows on lot 17 where the oak tree is at, how we're preserving the oak tree. Utilities readily available, sewer water, storm water, of course, as mentioned earlier, good soils, infiltration meeting all the requirements of the Western Russian manual in the city of Vancouver code. Level five tree plan shown how we meet, uh, 30 tree units per acre in the narrow lot plan. Also, um, all all application requirements met after

32:01 facility criteria met, uh, requirements standards met. We, uh, we wish that the I guess we request the examiner marshal for approval. It's consistent with staff port, the findings and recommendations, and we've read everything and we request approval of this project. The only the only thing I would like to share with we've reviewed all of the neighboring comments and I didn't see anything that pertain to code issues. The only thing I did see was there were comments expressing that we weren't meeting. We were exceeding exceeding density on the project and the infill standards 2920. This parcel meets applicability standards for infill development,

32:58 so it should be subject to the standards of chapter 2920. Not 2410 the regular R9 standards. So I'd like to conclude my testimony. And if you have any questions, yeah, thank you. Yeah, I don't. I've also reviewed the comments as summarized in the staff report. And if there are, if I have any additional questions, I think you've addressed the ones so far. But after we open up to public testimony, I may have some follow up questions. So thank you, Mr. Johnson. Yes. Okay, now it's time for the city, Mr. Tortorice. Good evening. Good evening. Let me swear you in real quick. You swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Okay, great. You may proceed.

33:55 Please state your name, spell your last name and tell us who you are. Anthony Tortorice senior planner with the city of Vancouver. We've got a presentation as well. One moment here while I while I get into presentation mode and share my screen. All right, that should be coming through. Yes, I can see that. Thank you. Perfect. Um, yes. Both sides. I'm a Marshall and you're the applicant did a good job of going over the proposal. So some of this may be a little bit redundant, but I won't take up too much time. 132nd have subdivision here, another aerial of the site, just overview of the size and the R nine zoning. It is a 25 lot subdivision. A few things to note, similar to what the applicant showed

34:55 here. You could see, uh, to our right, which is the north of the site is where attract a will have guest parking, which is what's required of narrow lots. There are two Oregon white Oak trees, uh, which are considered critical areas. And you could see on lot lot 17, there's kind of the white Oak drip line there to show that those trees will be protected and retained. Again, they're usually utilizing infill narrow lot development centers. It's exempt from SIPA review as minor new construction. Given the number of lots, we did hold a notice of application and public comment period on the common period was held from February 17th to May 19th. Uh, public comments are included with the staff report as exhibit G we received seven public comments during this period. Uh, one public comment was received after the comment period. They were all included in exhibit G, um, already addressed by the

35:50 applicant, but some comic topics that came up or traffic and safety, uh, potential for increased noise, density, compatibility, and parking availability. I'll also kind of elaborate a little bit on what the applicant was saying there about, uh, density. And this is outlined in the staff report, um, with a subdivision density isn't calculated, uh, as you would, let's say an apartment building with units per acre, basically the, the dimensional standards guide how many lots can be created. So let's say 2000 is the minimum or in whatever width and depth you're looking at how many of those can fit into an area and adhere to those dimensional standards as opposed to first calculating the density and then filling in from there. And another aerial showing the zoning is surrounded by our nine zoning gone over the applicable code area. Uh, and reviewing this for subdivision approval, we have the approval process for

36:48 a type three subdivision, which is 10 lots or more. It, uh, was reviewed against the preliminary plat approval criteria and the subdivision technical standards. And, uh, given that, uh, staff recommends approval of the subdivision as conditioned in the staff report. Okay. Um, thank you very much, Mr. Richard. Okay. Um, now is the time for public comment and it looks like we have a few people online. Um, please raise your hand if you

37:24 wish to provide testimony and Ms. Bowen will call on you. Like we have, let's see. I don't have the raised icon. Um, oh, wait, I'm sorry, Mr. Galen. Galen pain. Correct. Am I saying that correct? Okay. Mr. Payne. Uh, yes. Wonderful. I will start with you. Um, 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. Thank you very much. Uh, please state your

38:22 name, spell your last name and provide your address. And also please let me know if you'd like to be a party of record in this, um, in these proceedings. Galen Payne, last name spelled P a Y N E. My address is one three two four zero Northeast 51st street. And yes, I would like to be a party of record. Thank you. Okay. You may proceed. I want to speak to two things today. One is the safety impacts from traffic and the other is the adequacy of public notice. Uh, first let's talk about traffic and safety. The proposal creates the extended the 100 second to connect through a very busy road. We've always known it could be extended, but we did not know it would be, it would be connected to such a busy road. Our neighborhood separates a public school, a public elementary school and a very busy public, um, uh, park. So the concern is that right now the neighborhood is a very low traffic

39:20 and many families walk with their children to the nearby schools and the park, the pronounced connect connection would bring cut through traffic, segregating those two areas, meaning more cars, higher speeds, greater risk for pedestrians. This is a concern for the families in our areas and especially our kids. I'm not completely opposed to the development, but I am asking for a safer design, a reasonable alternative to make the subdivision a dead end and not connected through to one 32nd. Uh, this would, this would still allow for sidewalk connections. So that way the new residents there would still have walking access to the schools and to the parks. By preventing traffic from cut through traffic in our neighborhood or safe walking corridor would be preserved for us. And our neighbors would also have that access. We do ask you guys to really consider the safety as this will segregate those, that area where all the kids travel between those two, between those two areas.

40:18 The second thing I want to bring up, I want to raise a concern about is the public notice. The sign is posted on the property is not readily available and is not readable from the road. It is very small and there's no way to safely read it while driving. There is no sidewalk and there is no shoulder to stop and look at it. Because of this many neighbors would not have the, may not be aware of the project. Since this site is, since site posting is a requirement of the notice process, this limits meaningful public participation. In closing, I'm asking for two specific actions that the hearing examiner required changed to the design for safety, such as the dead end and to address the safety impacts that cut through traffic to better protect the families that walk in this neighborhood. The current site does not provide, and the second, I want to please address the adequacy of public notice to be addressed before the final decision is made. The current site posting does not

41:15 provide meaningful public awareness and undermines public trust. I ask that this be taken into account and the public be given adequate notice and extended opportunity for public input. Again, I'm not trying to stop the development. I'm just asking for there to be a concern for the kids and the traffic in the area and also that the public has fair public participation. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. Okay, next up. Thank you, Senator Marshall. We have Octavia Rodriguez. I apologize for mispronouncing the name. Mr. Rodriguez. Hello. 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, I do. Great. Thank you. Please state your name. You already stated your name. Please spell your last name, provide your

42:11 address, and please also state whether you wish to be a party of record. Yeah, so my name is Octavia and my last name is Rodriguez. R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z. And yeah, I want to be part of the recording. Okay. All right. You don't have to keep your hand up while you testify, but no, you don't have to keep it up. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Rodriguez, you may provide your comment or ask any questions, and we will address your questions when the city and the applicant have their rebuttal. So you may proceed. Okay, so we're going to be the most affected with this project. So I live in 132-37 Northeast 51st Street, so

43:05 the small parking lot they're planning on making is going to be right, I guess, my backyard. So I just want to thank you guys for the opportunity to talk in this meeting, and basically I just want to share the same concern we have with a few of my neighbors. I mean, it's like there's a lot of neighbors that are not aware of what's going on, but we talk all the time, and it's basically the same concern. So I'll start with safety. I think right now, our neighborhood is very peaceful, and this project is going to affect the tranquility and the safety of this community. And especially adding these many units, honestly things are going to create more crime rates. I mean, it's just the way it goes. And then the second thing I want

44:01 to talk about is this traffic. I mean, this proposal through traffic is going to increase traffic quite a bit, and the safety and the children and the families that walk around to the parks and school is going to be definitely affected. So just as my neighbor addressed, I mean, it would be great if there was a different way to -- if it was a different -- it was possible to keep that road open to people but not to traffic. That would be great. And the next theme I want to talk about is the layout. I mean, the layout, it's way different

44:50 than what -- if you have the opportunity to drive by the neighborhood, you see these projects is going to definitely impact the values of our houses in the long run. And obviously these new units, they don't look nothing like the layout of the houses that already exist. I mean, to start, there's no room for children to go out and play at all. They'll most likely have to go to one of the nearby parks which is already very crowded. So it's just going to be different. And lastly, like my neighbor stated, the parking is going to be definitely

45:41 an issue. I believe that to say in the one car per person, per family, it's just not enough, honestly. That's what I think. And so you'll see pretty soon the overflow parking -- you'll see people overflow parking everywhere in front of our houses and everywhere else. And that's pretty much my concerns. And like I said, I talk to my neighbors about these all the time. And I thank you for your time and for listening to what we have to say. >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. It looks like we have another person. >> We have David Santel, examiner Marshall.

46:40 >> Okay. Mr. Santel, 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? >> I do. >> Great. Please state your name, spell your last name, provide your address, and state whether you wish to be a party of record. >> Thank you. My name is David Santel. Last name is spelled S-A-N-T-E-L. I reside at 5100 Northeast 132nd Avenue here in Vancouver. And yes, I would like to be a party of record. >> Okay. All right. You may proceed. >> Great. Thanks. I would mostly like to echo Mr. Payne and Mr. Rodriguez's comments. I'll start by saying that I agree that the 25-unit division doesn't really fit with the rest of the outline. When you look at the aerials from around, I mean, you can count nearly 25 houses in the entire surrounding area that was there. And then the maybe one-sixth of

47:40 that entire aerial photo is now going to double the amount of housing in there. So that really boils down to concerns with traffic and parking, as Mr. Payne and Mr. Rodriguez outlined. I don't recall seeing anything come across as far as a traffic study. So Mr. Johnson earlier stated that a traffic study was completed. I have concerns about how that may have been completed at this point and the validity of it. If I were to take my laptop and just sit outside and face the intersection out there right now in the five minutes that I'm talking, we would see no less than 15 cars not stop at the stop sign on the eastern end of the intersection between 51st and 132nd. That's directly across in front of Octavia's house and a house down from Galen. And my driveway looks right out into that. So the concern

48:34 I have being on the northwest corner of this intersection, if we have more traffic coming through based on this, I do anticipate overfill parking coming down the street into where like right in front of my house. If you look out right now, there is a truck in the fire lane parked out there. And there is a Dodge Challenger on the north side of my house parked in the fire lane. As I stated in the public comments, people traveling east on 51st before you make the bend to come through that intersection essentially have a blind corner to people that are running the stop sign coming west on 51st at that point. When we add in the connection from 49th up to 132nd to extend that road and almost certainly have cars lining the road through the fire lane because that's 25 houses with about 10 parking spots worth

49:30 of area for the residents there. That is almost certainly going to build the fire lane and further reduce visibility coming through that intersection. And since we've been here in eight years, it's been no less than six times that people have had to take evasive maneuvers coming through that intersection and have run over my lawn and destroyed our sprinkler system. So not that I want to prevent a subdivision going in to help my sprinkler system, but it just speaks to the already dangerous layout of this. Mr. Johnson spoke to the kind of pre-planning of how Vancouver stubbed out 132nd with the intention of going through there. I have concerns about that pre-planning and how dangerous this intersection already is. I know Octavio has children. I have a four-year-old and to have the volume of cars coming through there that are almost certainly going to be more accidents at this point has

50:29 major concern for me. So I will again echo what Mr. Payne said. I am not here to say that we should completely leave that land as is. I'm totally fine with it being developed. I think a subdivision that kind of matches or extends out from what was already here. I mean, you can tell that the road houses that we all reside in connected to older parts of the neighborhood. To see that kind of extend down with similar housing would I think alleviate most of the parking issues just because of the density, the lack of density compared to having 25 dwellings go in there. But more so, to echo what Mr. Payne said, that if we don't actually connect the road through four vehicles, but make a walking lane, that would alleviate the vast majority of my concerns at this point. I don't think that anything

51:28 that the City of Vancouver could say as far as adding another stop sign or anything would improve safety because the stop sign that is currently there does absolutely nothing. I can count on one hand in the past year, the amount of times I've seen a vehicle actually come even close to a complete stop there at this point. So adding another stop sign is not going to do anything. The City of Vancouver does absolutely nothing for parking enforcement within the fire lanes. I have tried to make that known several times and have never had any kind of response to that. So I have concerns again that the density is going to increase parking in the fire lanes, which will decrease visibility through an already dangerous intersection on that. And that's what I have. Thank you for the time. I didn't realize that I was still alive, not muted. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Ms. Bowen, are there any other members of the public that have raised hands

52:26 or indicated they wish to testify? I don't see any more at this time. Examiner Marshall, just let me scroll down. I'm not seeing anyone. Okay. All right. Well, thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony this evening. I will now turn it back to Mr. Tortorice to begin with. And then I will turn it back to the applicant, Mr. Tortorice. Yes, I can generally address some of the comments. I think as we know in my role in development review as the planner, I'm looking at the Title 20, the development code, all applicable requirements and standards and determining if those standards are met as far as the land use section goes. And the infill requirements and narrow lot standards were created to accommodate

53:26 more dense development, which was put forward by city council. And we require one parking space per single family union. And the narrow lots do include seven additional guest parking spaces. I'm not, you know, I'm simply reiterating the requirement, which I know isn't always applying for community members or the applicant, but as my role of the planner, that is my role is to ensure that the proposal meets or conditions a proposal to meet those requirements. I was curious about the, you know, given that a lot of the comments were about 132nd connecting down to 49th, I went back, there's a pre-app and for the community members and folks who don't know, a project of a certain level requires a pre-application process. So back in that pre-app, it looked like the applicant had proposed a cul-de-sac and a trans city transportation staff recommended that to improve circulation for fire and solid waste and eliminate the

54:25 need for the proposed lots to gain access all through the North. The applicant shall extend 132nd to the South so that it intersects with 49th. So, so just looking at the life of this project and where it started with the pre-application, it looks like the transportation folks made that known from the beginning. And that's what the applicant reflects on their plans. And briefly about noticing they, we do have a 500 foot mailing radius for, for written notice. As mentioned there, the site does get posted for a hearing. We don't have any standards on the side from what I could see in our code on the size of that printout to be honest, it just says that it has to be posted for the hearing onsite. So that would be my kind of general response to what I heard, but of course I'm here and

55:24 happy to answer any questions that I can, if that provokes more or you have any questions. Okay. I think actually I'll, I'll first hear from the applicant. I do have a question about perhaps an open record period, but we don't have to get there yet. I'd like to hear finally from the applicant and then we can discuss any procedural matters before I close, close the hearing. So thank you, Mr. Tortorice. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, examiner Marshall. First I'd like to correct the record. Mr. Santel is correct. I just looked back on the pre-application notes and a trip distribution trip generation distribution report was required by the city of Vancouver. And that's what was submitted by the traffic engineer. It's

56:21 the issue with these small projects. It's just low volume counts and impacts are minimal. Just going back, looking at the PMP hour trips, which is what all, all the failures come from our PMP trips. And it looks like we're a total of 24 and that is during the PMP hour. That's when failures do occur. A lot of this area has already been analyzed. The reason why it is analyzed city Vancouver plans ahead and they, they require additional fees when you send trips through corridors that they're looking at improving or have improved. And, and this is a good example of that city Vancouver in their traffic department transportation department did a really good job of looking at the 137th corridor and there, I think they're almost done with those improvements through that section. So the city of Vancouver knows

57:18 about all the failures in the city, what intersections are and aren't failing. If the project was a little more significant, a traffic report would have been required, but the situation with just the minor impacts traffic full blown traffic report was not required. We did submit a dead end roadway that staff does have an obligation to make sure we are meeting the code and we have to meet block lengths and block parameters. And that was one of the things that the product pre-op that why they wanted this road extended through the 49th street in their defense. So I am sympathetic to the neighbors. I do understand that is currently a dead end roadway. And if I lived there, it'd be, it'd be different if it was punched through and I would have traffic that didn't go through my front yard now going through my front yard along the roadway. So again, sympathetic to what the development

58:14 around them, but we do meet all applicable criteria in the city of Vancouver. If you have any additional questions, be happy to have the answer. I don't think I do. And the only thought that, that came to my mind when I was listening to Mr. Payne, I think in particular stating that he had concerns about the adequacy of public notice due and, and, and I heard the city's response and I would not find that there was inadequacy based on mailed notice, but the, the concern about the, the, the size of the sign, understanding that there's no standards for what size a sign is posted. So it's a little bit out of order, but I was going to ask Mr. Mr. Payne, are you aware

59:12 of additional neighbors that have stated that they would have provided comment? I mean, now this, this, this hearing has been posted for some time and notice of the hearing has been out. In addition, I'm just trying to figure out what's fair to all. So I'm asking you a question. I'm sorry, go ahead. I have to talk with a lot of the neighbors and many people did not know about this process and they were not able to comment. I've been talking to them since the public comment time. And so many, many of the neighbors did not realize what was going on. And part of it was that the notice is not there. And even the letter that went out probably technically meets the guidelines, but it was all focused on the trees preservation. A copy of the plat was not included. There was not a lot of information included with that. So a lot of people did not understand the act of what this is going

1:00:06 to do to our neighborhood. And again, because it's, because this road separates the school from the park and put all that traffic right down the middle between that area, which is right now a public safety area for all the families to walk between those areas. It's just, it's a public safety concern. Well, I'm, I like to err on the side of ensuring that all public participation has occurred. But I'm also mindful of the fact that this hearing has been posted and noticed for some time as well. And we don't have folks that have showed up raising the concerns that you have, Mr. Payne. So forgive me while I, while I debate this. Examiner Marshall. Yes, please.

1:01:02 If it if the, if you feel like the city didn't notice properly, but I think they did a 99 percent sure they did. If we'd like to keep a one week open record period for the neighbors to comment, we were okay with that. Just we'd like to keep it just one week, though, and one one additional week for rebuttal. And if, if, if we can close that second week, by the time we reply to staff, let's say one week open the next week, if we reply by Monday, and we'd like to close that record on Monday, but we would be comfortable with another week of open record period. Okay, well, I very much appreciate that. Oh, I was just making sure that my microphone is on. And thank you, Mr. Johnson. Yeah, I, you know, again, I, I try not to have an error

1:01:56 that on a procedural matter. It does sound to me that the city provided appropriate mailed notice. But just in an exercise of caution, since the applicant is agreeable, I will at the end of this, I will be closing the public hearing, the public hearing will be completed, there will not be a continuation of the public hearing, I will leave the written record open for a period of one week reminder to all that we do have a holiday on Monday, the 25th. The one week open record period will conclude and this is for people that that have not already provided public testimony. I want to make that clear as well. So it's not an invitation to Mr. Payne or Mr. Santel, or Mr. Rodriguez to submit more more comments. So this is for anyone that wish to provide public testimony and what felt like they were

1:02:51 unable to do so. And that would be a deadline of Tuesday, May 26. And, and those comments would not be submitted to me directly, those would be submitted to Miss Bowen by 4pm. And Miss Bowen, yes, yes, great. And then the rebuttal period would would end on Tuesday, June 2. That would be rebuttal only for the applicant. The city of course is also entitled to to weigh in during the rebuttal period that would end at 4pm on Tuesday, June 2. And at that point, the record will close. And I then have 10 working days to issue a final order on the application. And the way that time periods are calculated, you don't calculate you don't count the first day you count the last day, that would be June 16,

1:03:51 Tuesday, June 16 is the deadline for my final order. And I do see that a couple of hands are raised. As long as your as long as what you're going to be asking is limited to this open record period and no additional testimony. I'm okay. I'm okay with this first Mr. Payne and then Mr. Santel. I just like some clarity as to how the public is supposed to know about the extension, how that goes about getting them notified and giving them the opportunity. Right. Well, it's a very short amount of time for that. It is a very short amount of time. Yes, yes. And to to come Well, first to comment and then an answer to the question. This public hearing has been noticed for some time. And so that was kind of weighing towards me, you

1:04:47 know, like, well, do I need to leave the record open? It's it's not incumbent on the applicant or the city to notify folks, I'm hoping that the three of you can let folks know if you've heard from people that they wished that they didn't see it that they wish that they would have known. Please spread the word. But that would be my answer. This is this is an extension that's being provided in the context or during a public hearing. So there's no further notice requirement on the city or on the applicant to see that through. Mr. Santel looks like you have your hand up and then Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, thank you. So earlier, Mr. Johnson stated in his slides that there is a traffic study and then I think he corrected and said maybe that wasn't actually the case. I'd like to

1:05:42 formally request that a traffic study does get completed. Whether or not code states that that's needed. I think it would be an error on the city's part based on my observations at this point. I would like a traffic study to include how often cars actually stop at the stop sign and how often cars are parked in the fire lanes along 50 for Northeast 51st and Northeast 132nd. And I think that the city would be surprised at what they find. And then looking at what kind of additional traffic may come through and how those obscured sight lines through that intersection may present a considerably greater danger. But I think the city is quite remiss saying this project is too small at this point to warrant a traffic study. And Mr. Johnson will be able to address that during his rebuttal following the first open

1:06:39 record period. And yes, so I appreciate your elaborating on what you're hoping to see from them during the open record period. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez, you have your hand up? Yeah, I just want to say about what, so the way I learned about these, this project is because Mr. Payne told me about it in my phone yard. I received the letter, but like you said, the letter was more focused on the two trees that they're saving and there was like nothing else. It was just really like big letter and then there's nothing else. So after I start following when was this year was going to happen and all of that. And so I agree with him, but it was just, there was not enough information about this project out there. And of course it was probably too late for that. And then I want to say about, and then

1:07:34 after he, Mr. Payne told me, then I told Mr. Santel about what's going on and he had no idea either. So after that, we started talking about it and that's why we're here. And then I also want to agree with what he's saying. You see in front of my house that you see cars driving, I don't know, like 30 miles and I got a sign in front of my house saying and uh, just like those kind of sign that you buy at the store, just saying children's a play, you know, 10 miles per hour. But you see people driving there that like 30, 40, you name it, the non-stopping, you know, so it's, these new projects, these many homes, it's just gonna make everything way worse. So I agree with Mr. Santel about the study is needed for this area. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Well, we did, we did kind of veer

1:08:33 into kind of more, more to the merits of the application, um, uh, with, with your, your questions following, uh, the, the setting of the open record period. So I am going to give, um, both Mr. Tortorice, uh, Tortorice and Mr. Johnson, um, a chance to rebut some of the substantive comments that you all made. And, um, and then we'll proceed to closing the hearing. Mr. Tortorice, did you have anything else that you wish to, um, rebut in these, in these final questions? Uh, thank you. I just wanted to add, I guess that, um, the request on the, uh, the notice of hearing and application, uh, begins with 25 lot subdivision within the R9, uh, zone. So it does mention the trees and whether or not, uh, CEPA, CEPA is, um, required, et cetera, but it does a lead off with a 25 lot subdivision. I do,

1:09:31 I do agree that there was no preliminary plat in there and I hate to rely all the time on the requirements, but, but we, we do map the site and we do give a brief description and that, and that meets the intent of our code for, for noticing. Okay. Thank you. Anything else you wish to add? No. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, a final, uh, rebuttal here in this hearing. Yeah, the traffic study, um, isn't going to fix, um, speeding, uh, people driving that are speeding. Uh, that's, that's an enforcement issue. That's where the police to deal with the traffic study also doesn't fix cars that are parked in fire lanes. It doesn't even address that traffic studies look at failures of intersections. Um, and uh, the, the proposals create a new intersection for traffic to flow. I don't know what stop

1:10:31 sign that, um, I don't know who mentioned it from Mr. Santel or Mr. Payne, but, um, but traffic studies look at failures of intersections and cities already is already studied this entire area. They know exactly what intersection is failing and is not failing. So, uh, they, they're really good engineers down there. Uh, this Patrick's down there and Mr. Hahn, and they understand when the traffic port is needed, not needed. So a traffic report isn't going to solve the problems that are mentioned, um, by the public here this evening. It's, it's just going to look at intersection failures and that's it. And it, um, regards the notice I did look at it too. Um, and it does say a 25 lot subdivision within the R nine subdivision. So it does discuss critical areas and I think it addresses, uh, the app go code, code criteria

1:11:27 for notice for, and leaving the record open. I think we're doing the best we can to make sure we're getting all the public comment. All right. Thank you. Yes. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Um, all right, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. The hearing will not be continued to another date and time. Um, the record will be left open as summarized in my previous public comments. Um, please do, uh, if you have other neighbors that you know, uh, that either expressed concern, they did not receive notice or wish to provide, um, comment. Um, please let them know, um, that they may submit comments to Ms. Bowen, um, at the city of Vancouver, no later than 4 p.m. Tuesday, the 26th. Um, from there, there will be an additional one week period of time for the city and the

1:12:24 applicant to respond to additional public comments. And that period will close at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, June 2nd. I will be issuing my final order on the application no later than Tuesday, June 16th. I want to thank everybody very much for coming and, uh, participating in the public hearing. Um, any other questions, uh, before we go ahead and close this public hearing and adjourn the meeting. All right. Well, thank you again. I appreciated hearing from all. And, uh, this hearing is closed and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, examiner Marshall. Thank you.