Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Responsibility for land use and development matters. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address the commission. The chair will help you keep track of time. Remarks should be directed to the planning commission as a body, not to individual members or staff, and focus on subjects within the Commission's advisory purview. Community members who wish to submit lengthy or detailed testimony are encouraged to e mail their comments to planningcommissioncityofvancouver dot us.

Please note, especially as I know there are lots of folks in the audience this evening, please note that the community forum is different from testimony provided as part of a public hearing. So when we have a public hearing item later on the agenda, your comments will be heard at that time for that hearing item. The community forum is for anything outside of that. Right? So it that relates to the Planning Commission's advisory purview. So in the case of public hearings, individuals indicating lives to testify on the public hearing item will be called upon during that portion of the agenda. We appreciate, welcome, and consider community input regarding land use policy. Do we have anyone signed up to speak for community forum this evening?

Yes, we do.

All right. Can we please call the first person?

John Bourbender.

Jan Bourbender. Jane. Jan Bourbender. Is Jane here?

I don't

think Jane is here yet.

Julia? Trappert? And Michael? Trappert?

Perfect. I was just about to ask if you could put the timer on the screen. Thank you. Please make sure that you state your name before we begin your comments, please.

Okay. Hi. My name is Julia Trabert, and I'm a homeowner here in the Hauk neighborhood. I wanted to share my support of the preferred plan to encourage you to improve the approved the preferred plan of the comprehensive plan. And also just to help us keep in mind the importance of quality of life as we grow our population and provide more housing.

I see the comprehensive plan, the preferred plan as a way to address our housing crisis, but we have to think about the quality of life and experience of those residents as we continue to expand our city. And for me that means not having more and more car congestion and giving access and opportunity to people to walk, bike or otherwise around their city and a place that we can all enjoy living from both an experience perspective and accessibility perspective, but also from our health and noise and just enjoyment of being outside in inner city. So just wanted to emphasize the importance of that quality of life and reducing our dependence on cars in our newly populated city with our housing crisis hopefully solved by our preferred plan. That's it for me. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is I'm excited for the preferred plans approval as a tool to solve the housing crisis. I also want to emphasize that in order for this plan to be successful, we need to continue to

Mike, is there a little green light on at the base of the microphone there?

It's red now.

Perfect. There we go. That's much better. Do you want to start over actually? That's fine.

Okay. Again, my name is Mike. I live in the Houck neighborhood and I'm here to support the preferred plan and to encourage you all to choose and approve the preferred plan of the comprehensive plan. While I'm excited for the preferred plans approval as a tool to solve the housing crisis, I also want to emphasize that in order for this plan to be successful, we need to continue to abate our alliance on cars and car infrastructure in the city simultaneously. Otherwise, we're going to have higher density, but with people being harmed by cars more than we have now either physically or not being able to sleep or having stress reactions due to car and motorcycle noise.

The noise part might not seem important, but studies show that it can take years off people's lives and it does. The city is already pretty noisy and I fear that it will get worse if we don't work on fixing both solutions at the same time to make Vancouver safe for everybody and always. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Please call the next couple of people.

Isabel Lopez?

Lopez. Israel, sorry. Jason Kromer.

Please be sure to state your name for the record before we begin your comments.

Sure. Hi, my name is Ezra Lopez. I live in the Central Park neighborhood. And I just I'm here to provide support for the comprehensive plan in aid of the density that we're going to have in Vancouver. That's it. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jason. I'm a homeowner here in the Lincoln neighborhood. Just wanted to express my support for the preferred plan in the comprehensive plan and hope that you also support that and push City Council to adopt that plan. I feel privileged living in the Lincoln neighborhood.

It's in my opinion very walkable, very bike friendly. We have tons of bus lines on both the East And West Corridor squeezing in the Lincoln neighborhood. So just like tonight, I have access to walk, bike and bus to get basically anywhere to town. That luxury doesn't exist for a lot of the city neighborhoods like Southcliffe, example, don't really have that walkability. And so when I think about my parents who are older and they don't they can't drive anymore due to disability and old age, I think of, okay, wouldn't it be nice if they could walk to the grocery store, write their mobility device to the grocery store, take public transit?

That's a great freedom unlocked that a lot of people in the city don't have today. And that's something that comes with a comprehensive plan. It's really unlocking freedom of movement and the lifestyle upgrade for most of the city. So walkability, reduced noise, reduced traffic congestion, more freedom with what you can do with your land, more freedom for developers, cleaner air, the list goes on, public places, more parks, more accessibility, cheaper housing. I mean, we can go on and on and on what this plan accomplish es.

And very few times in really anybody's life do you get the opportunity to really vote and push something forward like this, something that has a lasting effect beyond the lives of anybody in this room. This plan is going to outlive every single person in this room and make improvements to not only the people that are living here now and our children, but also our grandchildren. So I'd really like you to consider that and really anybody in the room that when we're looking at these plans, we're looking at what's going to come in the next forty, sixty, eighty, one hundred years and plan for a city that looks like it will in that time, not what it looks like right now. So I'm sure you'll hear feedback like don't change the neighborhood of our character. We like our leaf blowers and we like our single family homes the way they are.

But to be honest, that's less important than the housing crisis we have than all the traffic congestion that we have and all the other health and safety issues that we face today. So please support the comprehensive plan in the preferred plan and push us to a new modern world, a healthier, more active, more community oriented world where people can walk, bike, cycle or take the bus or drive if they want, but just a more community oriented free place to live. Thank you.

Thank you. Please call the next couple of people.

Taber Kelly.

And Jan Berender, if you're here, come up now too.

Please state your name for the record before we begin your comments.

Good evening. My name is Taber Kelly. I live in the Southcliffe neighborhood. In general, I would like to express my pleasure at the preferred alternative for the comprehensive plan. I did however notice there is quite a gap of density between McArthur Boulevard and Grand Boulevard along Mill Plain. And so if there is one piece of feedback that I would love this commission to give to the council,

it would be

to consider some mixed use development right on the BRT stop at Brandt Road in Mill Plain. This is a BRT stop. It's also directly on the Vancouver bike network. Other than that, I think it's great to simplify our zoning code and while maintaining good paying industrial jobs and hopefully provide more housing for residents in our community. Thank you. That's all.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else signed up to speak for community forum this evening?

No, that's it.

Okay. As there are no more individuals signed up to talk to the commission, the community forum portion of the meeting is now closed, which takes us into the next item on the agenda, the public hearing on the 58th Street rezone reapplication. So to open this hearing, a bit to read. The role of the planning commission is to review and analyze proposed ordinances, comprehensive plan amendments, zoning changes, and other land use related issues. We follow a public process, including holding hearings during which the public has an opportunity to provide additional perspectives and information.

In legislative matters, the role of the commission is advisory. City council will hold separate hearings, consider our recommendations, and make a final determination. The planning commission will conduct a hearing tonight and take public testimony. Community members may register online or submit a speaker request form in person. The chair will call upon you during the public testimony portion of the hearing. If you are in person, when you are called, please come to the microphone. If you have joined remotely, you'll be promoted to a panelist. And when you are called, unmute your phone or microphone. For all of us testifying, please state your name for the record. If you're providing the formal recommendation of a neighborhood association or other group, tell us when the association voted on the matter as well as how many people were for and against.

We ask you to keep remarks brief and to the point and direct them to the planning commission as a body, not the audience or staff. Please do not repeat testimony that has already been provided in print or verbally. As a reminder to my colleagues, please indicate to the chair when you want to be recognized. Would anyone, sorry. At the conclusion of public testimony, the commission will deliberate and make a recommendation to counsel. Would anyone on the planning commission like to disclose any conflicts of interest? Okay. Please show respect for the people testifying tonight whether you agree with their comments or not. That being said, any introductory remarks regarding this hearing item? Deputy Director Kennedy.

Thank you, Chair. So Brian will walk through the history with you, but I do just want to acknowledge that this is a proposal that came to you before and it is back now with a different rezoning proposal. It went through the process. The applicant has submitted a new application and has reinitiated the process. So I just want to make that clear that the appropriate process has been followed to resubmit this proposal. With that, I'll turn it over to Brian Snodgrass, Principal Planner with the Community Development Department.

Thank you. Thank you commission. I have a brief presentation and I'll turn it over to your questions, testimony and then ultimately your deliberations. We'll speak briefly about the process, the proposal and its analysis. You had asked also just to compare R-twenty two and R-thirty five zoning standards and that will lead to our staff recommendation.

The citywide updates to larger conference plan as you know well and especially from this afternoon's discussion anticipated in spring twenty twenty six. The council recently reaffirmed their direction that to not hear proposed comprehensive plan text or map zone changes with the one exception of those that can facilitate short term housing. This proposal falls under that category. And so that's why we're bringing it forward at this point. In terms of timing, if this zone change is approved and the applicant submits a site an application for future site plan review, they could develop under the newly requested R35 zoning and or if they choose to develop under the R22 zoning that has not been proposed in the past.

So we don't anticipate an application coming forward for that. But that would be need to be submitted prior before adoption of the new plan in the 2026 to go into effect. The criteria is same as has been for many years, same as it was when this proposal in slightly larger form was heard in May. May 13 was the Planning Commission hearing. The two fold criteria, one is the consistency of the proposed designation with the applicable policies of the city comprehensive plan and strategic plan in comparison to the existing designation.

Also, change in circumstances need to be found since the existing designation was established. So this should look very familiar. It's same site, same applicant. We'll look at the building plans and the footprint, same footprint on the site, same general type of use going down from five to three stories is what the applicant indicates is anticipated if the rezone is approved located in the same portion of the site. The prior application the applicant indicated they anticipate seven unit market rate development.

In this case, a 54 unit market rate development is anticipated. The applicant is here tonight to explain their proposal. I mentioned the comprehensive, the pending comprehensive plan the property would is likely to be zoned although those decisions obviously haven't been made in any final form medium scale neighborhood. That is what is emerging through the process to date as a likely designation for the site. Surrounding areas you can see here, Schaeffer Park to the north in the process of being redeveloped or excuse me, improved and developed for the first time.

The site itself is in cross hatch, two adjoining parcels, large lot single family to the east and to the west. Property to the south is zoned park. It is a city storm water facility which has been the subject of some recent testimony as well. The applicant's site plan looks largely as before. Again, the principal difference, it's located in the same portion of the site.

It would be fewer units and fewer stories. Three stories are anticipated. Approximately a 50 foot high building included in your materials is the elevations of that building. It looks largely similar to the prior proposal except shorter. And in terms of the allowed densities and allowed heights, If R35 is approved, it would allow the base zoning up to 57 units and a 60 foot high building.

The existing R22 unit would allow a 36 R22 zone would allow 36 units and a 50 foot high building. One of the pieces of testimony tonight made a good catch in that the city does have allowances in its what's called its transit overlay district which is a mapped portion of some of the central and western parts of the city that would allow a density bonus either of up to perhaps 25% which could be applied to an R-twenty two proposal under the existing zoning or an R-thirty five proposal. So 57 units could conceivably be bumped to 70, the 36 unit allowance under R-twenty two could conceivably bump to 45. This is an elevation of the site again should look familiar same as was the prior proposal except three stories. The earlier proposal was denied six to one at the council following a four to three recommendation of denial by the Planning Commission.

Both bodies had similar levels of concern or similar types of concern, height, overall density between the proposal and the existing area in terms of the for those votes against it. In both cases, both bodies raised the possibility of going to a lesser density than the previously proposed R50 that was in the planning commission's vote that was mentioned in a couple of the votes against the possibility of going to a lesser density. At the city council, in fact, the applicant did formally bring forward the idea of a proposed change from R50 dollars R35 dollars at that juncture that would have required a reapplication. So they went forward with the R50 proposal which was denied by the city council. But through that process, the R35 option was I think noted and discussed by all as an option.

In terms of the analysis and findings, the additional capacity created by the rezone if approved would be for about 21 additional higher density units. It wouldn't simply be more units. It would also be more likely smaller units which are likely to be lesser in cost. This is a market rate development. These are the applicants not proposing affordable housing.

But when up zones do occur, there is it's not just more units, it's smaller units that are typically built. The applicant proposes as they did in the last go round which and then that became a bit more specific at the city council stage. They're proposing to locate the building at the Northeast corner of the site further the nearby single family and most of the adjacent housing and to retain trees particularly at the Southeast corner which you see here in this photo of the site providing screening to the areas to the South and to the Southwest. Off-site improvements are envisioned to be required at the point of site plan review by the city. As discussed in the last before the planning commission that would include a crosswalk with flashing beacon likely that specifics to be determined at the time of site plan review from the site to the soon to be improved park across 58th Street.

But also and this came out in more detail at the City Council, also on the two adjacent properties on the full extent of those a five foot wide asphalt path would be required. Those are off-site not the rezone site, but the adjacent properties in order to link the rezone site to the surrounding sidewalk to get across those properties, which currently don't have a sidewalk. A five foot wide asphalt path would be required. And those are essentially the basis of the staff's recommendation. This is as mentioned a scaled down proposal.

We've received quite a bit of testimony today, which we have read and trust you have had a chance to read and you'll hear from testimony tonight regarding that. And I'm happy to answer questions regarding those rather than attempt to address those now. There is a sample motion language here. I think the recommendation from staff hinges on and as you recall, we did recommend approval of the R50 proposal. First, I think foremost, the pending housing crisis, which I think the Planning Commission is quite familiar with, but just for the record I think is worth mentioning here.

Just its context that I don't think we can overlook of the problem with affordable housing that has been in this community and others like it too for some time has led to a series of pretty substantial state laws that we're having to comply with as part of this comprehensive plan update. We will be required to find room in the city of Vancouver for over 36,000 new housing units. Other laws require us to in single family zones, all single family zones to allow what's called middle housing and to allow up to two accessory dwelling units per property. So a number of changes I think in recent years. We certainly addressed the change in circumstance requirement of the rezone criteria.

I think also informing the staff recommendation as it did originally back in the spring was that off-site improvements can address some of the concerns. We have with us tonight on the phone, Eric Hahn, who can address specific traffic questions. The traffic conclusions from staff at the earlier proposal to R50 were that although the area would get busier in terms of traffic. And it would I believe at that point, it looked like it would have about one additional car every four minutes during the PM peak hour would be created by that up zone. There would not be any level of service violation created by this the rezone proposal in the surrounding intersection and road network or a safety hazard created by this development.

The area certainly would be a little bit busier because of the rezone, but those more tangible issues would not be reached by the rezone. Is part of the staff's thinking as well. In terms of nearby infrastructure and services, is mixed. As indicated in the staff report, the nearest commercial and transit service is not particularly close currently. Those can change over time but those are both about over 2,000 feet I believe away.

The other services though that we've heard are very important as part of this comprehensive plan update to locate folks near in terms of parks and schools are very approximate. Shaver Park is right across the street. Walnut Grove Elementary which has recently been remodeled and expanded is a short distance away just to the Northwest. So those were considerations as well. I think with that I'll turn it to the Planning Commission for any questions you have now and happy to answer any questions after you've heard testimony.

Thank you. Commissioner Cavill? Thank you. Vice Chair Pyle?

No questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Liddell? Thank you. Commissioner Beck?

Yes. Thank you, Brian. Appreciate the presentation. On the surface, everything feels good to me like this aligns with, I think, the initial concerns that several of us on the commission had and so forth. I do need to know more about the transit overlay option here to understand what could trigger that, what requirements will go with that, and how that overlay option possibly would be considered within the comprehensive plan as well as this rezone. Can you please elaborate?

I can provide a high level review. The transit overlay district, it's somewhat of a vestigial standard. It's been on the city zoning books for a good twenty years. It essentially to encourage higher densities in areas relatively near transportation in the central and western parts of the city. It allows it establishes a couple of tiers, but essentially allows higher density if some conditions are met that this application would probably meet.

The applicant has not indicated they wish to seek that. We don't know that. So perhaps the applicant can speak more to their intent on that but they've given no indication that that's a desire of theirs, but it would be an option. So if What would they

have to do to seek that option? Please help answer.

At the time of site plan review that could be

They would apply for that.

They could apply for that and they would likely be able to receive it under their for this kind of a proposal at this location. The TOD is essentially a mapped area. City code has a map which defines it. This property falls within it. So it would be likely if they wish to pursue that that they could achieve another 25%.

So I don't mean to cut you shorts, but essentially we're saying that if the Planning Commission agrees and council approves with the R35 rezone that it could be increased by another 25%, which would bring it back to the same level that we had previously disagreed with. Is that correct?

I wouldn't agree with that framing.

Okay, please.

Because the prior that option to have to invoke the TOD standards existed with the prior proposal that was denied. The option to get that 25% density bonus in the TOD exists with R-twenty two as well. So does allow at the point of site plan review for areas in locations such as this to go higher. But I think it just would caution just to be careful in making the comparisons because those other zones can go higher too.

I understand. So the R22, please remind me, I'm looking at the number of units that could be obtained in the R22. Was still three stories, right?

Yes. And the transit overlay district doesn't provide any kind of height variances. It doesn't allow one to change on that. It's strictly about the densities.

So the R20 I'm sorry, R22 has what height requirements?

60 or excuse me, 50 on R-twenty two, sixty on R-thirty five.

Okay. So based on what they are proposing, they could build it under R-twenty two with less units now, ask for the transit overlay district option and increase that by 25%, which would be another nine, twelve units, something like that to be up to 48 units. So it wouldn't be as much as our 35, but it also wouldn't allow our 35 to go from 57 up to 70 something, right?

That's right, although nine the 25% bonus on R-twenty two would take you to 45 units. And in this case, proposing 54 units.

Okay. And can you or Rebecca, you help me understand how the transit Overlay district will interface with the comprehensive plan if the, when the designation is changed ultimately to a medium density neighborhood here?

The transit Overlay District will no longer exist in the new code.

So if the rezone is approved prior to the comprehensive plan, then the transit Overlay district is an option. But if it's not, then it's not an option for this proposal.

Correct, but under medium scale neighborhood, the maximum height is anticipated to be

75 feet. Yep, yeah, I understand. Thank you.

And just to be clear, the trigger on the timing would be the later submission of site plan review. So even if the rezone is approved now or not approved for future development to be reviewed under the current standards as opposed to the new comprehensive plan. It's the triggering of the site plan review process.

So it doesn't have to be reviewed or so if it is reviewed later after the comprehensive plan.

Then it would be subject to the new plan.

Then it would be subject to new plan. Okay. I have some concerns about the overlay district allowing, I think, more density of development than felt appropriate for that neighborhood in that one location. And I still have those concerns. Now, I appreciate you highlighting the overlay.

I did not find it in the memo or the presentation. So if you could amend the memo to please make sure, or maybe I'm missing it there, Please make sure that that's included. I would appreciate that. I'm just gonna have to sit on that for a little while longer here. Thank you.

We should say that we were surprised that the Transit Overlay District existed here given that this area was annexed into the city in 2017, which was after the TOD Overlay was established. So we're just trying to figure this out.

Yes, credit to one of the folks who testified who alluded

Yes, and to thank you. I appreciate that. I'll I have no further questions at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Wheeler?

No questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Jay?

No questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Just one for me. And that's I just I do appreciate that you've taken a lot of the comments that were given the last time that we looked at this and the council comments as well and addressed those here. I think that helps to sort of pre answer a lot of the questions that I had, but I do have to also sort of underscore commissioner Beck's comment. So I'm I'm a little uncertain how to consider that overlay as as part of this. Or it sounds like you're saying we we shouldn't consider it, but it is something that is a viable option.

The the overlay dis the transit overlay district? It it's currently a a it's currently on the books. So it is currently something an allowance as Rebecca mentioned, it's something that we don't anticipate at all going forward in the updated comprehensive plan. But if the rezone is approved a site plan application follows within the next six or so months, then they may be able to enjoy that additional benefit.

Okay. Do we have a presentation from the applicant today?

I understand we do. Can I just, Brian, just want to make

sure that the planning commission understands that if there is a desire to move forward with the proposal as it's currently outlined, There is a mechanism to do that by recommending council have a DA with it that requires compliance? What do we usually say? Substantial compliance with the site plan proposed. So you could essentially, there is a way to recommend council approve the rezone while taking the transit overlay density bonus off the table so that you can guarantee, I mean it depends on what the council does, But you can make a recommendation that would require the applicant and require the city to process a proposal that would substantially look like this.

Thank you, that's helpful. Thank you, Brian.

Good evening. My name is Jason Taylor, and I'm with PLS Engineering, and I'm representing the applicant on this subject. Some may be wondering why we're sitting here again and why are we not just waiting for the comprehensive plan process to run its course. The I guess the reality is once it seems more likely now that the site will be zoned medium density residential and it will allow considerable flexibility for the development of the site up to a five story building and unlimited density. We started this process.

I think the applicant purchased the property a little over two years ago or one of the sites two years ago, the other site probably a year and a half ago. And looking at the comprehensive plan at the time and looking at the position of this site decided that this would be a good site for apartments and apartment density. The original rezone request was submitted, I believe, in December. So, we've almost been doing this for a year. The first rezone request, we thought, let's ask for the most flexibility that we can go for and go for our 50.

It was a zone that city council created, but nobody no developer had ever proposed that as a zone. And at this point, no, that zone will it will have been created on paper but will have never existed in reality on a zoning map. We understand the first time that we went through this process, it seemed like a lot of people thought it was premature. We didn't quite know where the comprehensive plan would sit and whether the site would go to low density development or if it would stay. I think in both alternatives, was always shown as medium density.

But obviously, can change with the process. We're now at a point where it seems a little more certain with the preferred plan that this area would remain as a medium density site, allowing for the density that we would expect or that we would propose on the site. The decision to move forward with another rezone request is more client has been sitting on this, the applicant has been sitting on this property and they're one of the few apartment developers that's still optimistic and financially able to make apartment complexes work. I feel like there's a lot of sites that are on hold because of interest rates and other things. This developer, the applicant is confident in the City Of Vancouver and the development that he's done and is financially able to move forward with these apartment projects.

So he's eager and willing to provide these extra housing units within the city. There's always risk with comprehensive plan updates. I'm not sure exactly how it works with the city, but I think a decade ago when the county was doing their comprehensive plan update, were appeals, there were zones that were proposed that got changed after the appeals went through. So, in looking at this, the zone may be changed in early spring. It could be subject to appeal.

It could be tied up in litigation. We don't know when those zones will come into effect. So, as far as looking at the risk of sitting and waiting until the site can be developed, the applicant thought it was worth it to try again to do this rezone. It's not a comprehensive plan rezone. It's a rezone within the same comprehensive plan designation.

And it would allow for site development to proceed quicker than if we just waited for the comprehensive plan update to run its course. We've submitted material for the R50 rezone, for the R35 rezone that indicated what the maximum density would be allowed. The client or the applicant, you can look at projects that they've done on in this area on 62nd Street. They have another one proposed on 63rd Street. And then there's one off of Andreessen where they've built these three story walk up apartment buildings in the density of 25 to 30 units an acre.

And that and some duplex townhouse developments, that's the extent to what this developer has built within the city. The developer has never constructed a four story building that would require elevators, never built a five story building. It's a possibility that he's considering. And so we don't want to show up here and say, Oh, we're just going to plan on doing a three story walk up apartment building and then turn around and say, Oh, we're actually going to go higher density. He hasn't made up his mind.

So we don't actually know exactly what's going to be built on the site, but we're trying to be transparent and say whatever the maximum is allowed, that is a possibility. We're not trying to hide anything. If there's a density bonus, that too would be on the table is something that we would consider. The in looking at while that overlay isn't listed on this property in GIS, it does appear that it could apply to the site. And briefly looking over the transit overlay district, are a lot of strings attached to it that require, I believe, open spaces, more connectivity, it limits parking and restricts the placement of the building or how far away from the street is or where the parking can be placed.

So there are strings attached. I have not talked to the applicant about whether or not it would be worth it to go after that density increase given the other requirements that would be that would come with that. But in the end, the purpose of this request is to allow for development to happen sooner or slightly sooner than the comprehensive plan would allow. It does not change what would be built here if this proposal is rejected or if for some reason we're limited to R30 instead of R35 in some form, there's a chance that we would just wait for the comprehensive plan to run its course and a very similar development would occur on the site anyway. But we believe that it's certainly, it's in the developer's best interest to move forward with development, but we think it's also in the community's best interest to have that extra housing and to not have housing be put on hold because of a planning process that's going on in the same time.

We would have hoped that we could have had this a little bit sooner, but we don't think it's too late to approve a zone change like this and allow development to proceed. There are a lot I think we have a lot more detail at this time than you typically would at a zone change request. We've had a lot of discussions with the city about traffic and other requirements that typically would be reserved for a site plan application. But we have comments from transportation staff indicating that with this application, we're going to be required and probably any application we're going to be required to extend sidewalks to the east and to the west and put a crossing in from our site to the city park across the street. And we work great with the city.

And at the time of plan application, we'll certainly work with them to try to get right of way dedication if required and propose those improvements that they're requiring of us. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. We hopefully are we're trying to be transparent and we think that the approval criteria has been met. I think a lot of these meetings kind of gloss over the approval criteria and talk about a lot of other things. But we do believe that the two approval criteria have been met with this.

And for that reason alone, should hold a lot of weight as far as the approval or recommendation of approval for this application. But given the likelihood that the site does get rezoned to a very similar zone, we think that it would prudent to allow this development to go forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Beck?

No questions.

Commissioner Wheeler?

No questions. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Jay? No questions. Thank you for presenting to us.

Commissioner Cavill?

I'm saying no questions.

Vice Chair Pyle?

I do have a clarifying question. You stated that we have a lot more detail in the application than we normally would at zoning change. I happen to agree, but you've also stated that there are no commitments to the detail provided about the building height. So I need to understand what what what what is it? Is it the detail is in here is what's going to be proposed? And as Rebecca alluded to, we might make a recommendation that states that's what we want you to stick to, or do you, as the applicant, you know, do you wanna maintain your flexibility because they're going against each other?

I think Yeah. I think the flexibility is desired with this site. The I don't think we would have an issue with the developers agreement to, let's say, restrict density or restrict the placement of the building. My understanding is that developers agreements have other strings attached that the developer would not want attached to this project. I think there's are there lead like lead silver building requirements or things like that? Or is that a separate issue?

That is an issue that I forgot about. Yes, I believe that two or three years ago, perhaps longer council did kind of create a policy that for discretionary decisions that involve a development agreement, they would like to see some sustainability requirements above and beyond like what our typical standards require.

So in the case where yeah, if it went down the road of a developer's agreement, I think for that reason alone, wouldn't be feasible to do that. And in that case, it would be better just to wait for the comprehensive plan to run its course and develop with that. And that's yeah, it's I guess, a sticking point on a lot of projects that potentially could be approved through a DA but have that requirement.

Thank you. I'll reserve my later comments.

Thank you. Commissioner O'Dell?

Yes. Does the applicant just plan on taking advantage of the opportunity to up the density?

The so as far as the transit overlay

density?

Yes. I haven't talked to the applicant about that. So that's not something

So you're representing the applicant? Yes. I am. Oh, and you didn't talk about that?

I so I I discussed I haven't talked to him about the transit overlay density, a 25 increase. I have not talked to him about the the strings that are attached to that either, whether that would be something that we wanna go for. But for the purpose for the purpose of this meeting and for transparency, I think it's fair to assume that anything is on the table and we should be considering the maximum density that is allowed with the zone with this transit overlay. So I think that is fair to assume. I indicated that the applicant has never built a four or five story building and does not have experience with that.

So, would say it's more likely that a walk up apartment building gets built here. But they're yeah, it would I think it would be dishonest to say that that's what we're going to do because if there is an option, we'll explore those options that we have for developing the site.

So, in the units, do you have any idea what size those units will be like studio or will they accommodate large families or?

So, up until this point that in all of the developers' apartment complexes, they've had a fairly even mix of one and two bedroom units. The two bedroom units being on the scale of like 1,100 or 1,200 square feet, 800 or 900 square feet for the one bedroom units.

But not three bedroom units.

He has done some three bedroom units within apartment complexes for Clark County project. So, it's possible. In order so the yeah, a more affordable building is a walk up apartment building. Once you go up to four stories or something like that and that requires an elevator becomes a much more expensive building. So, it may make sense to have larger units that you could rent for more in situation like that. But I'm at this point, I would just be speculating.

I'm sure you know that larger units are in demand.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The other thing I was thinking about, maybe you don't know this either, what the applicant plans, is it an automatic thing now where developers put in bike racks, accommodations for people to or is it just carport or

So on the other projects that we've done for this application, we or for this applicant, we've done covered covered parking kind of carport style. I don't know if we've included bike racks, but that's I believe that's that's one of the requirements of the transit overlay district. Like, if if we go that route, then there will be a requirement likely to have bike racks or or other other things like that. My brief look at that, there's there's a list of things that you're required to do and Mhmm. That improve mobility given the fact that the site's in an area that could use other modes of transit.

Yeah. Okay. That's it. Thanks.

The applicant hasn't made up their mind. It's not the most comforting thing to hear when we're talking about decisions that impact neighborhoods. And so I'm curious if you had a chance to talk with the applicant about the public comments that were received during the last part of this process, the council comments, the commission comments, the public comments in general. I know that we've seen some of those addressed here in this presentation, but then to underscore vice chair Powell's comment, if this presentation isn't meant to be the detail that the applicant intends to move forward with, and it leaves us in this sort of nebulous state where what are we actually here to to review and make a recommendation on?

Yeah. And I I think the answer is the you know, we're reviewing a a zone change with a very specific approval criteria. There's there's not it's we're kind of in this it does seem a little strange that it's we're doing this at a time where there are large scale zoning changes that are being proposed across the city. And if everybody in the city knew exactly what was happening with the comprehensive plan, I think you could fill a stadium of people that would have concerns about what is happening to their neighborhood or what's going to happen in their backyard. Nobody I think a lot of people like the idea of making housing more affordable, but often you get a response of, well, yes, over there and downtown, but not in my backyard.

And I think the comprehensive plan update has the benefit of being so large scale that it's not involving a lot of people that are that would otherwise be effective or they're not being made aware of it in a way that they actually understand the impacts to them in their neighborhood or to their house. This is a case where we're looking at a very specific case of how the comprehensive plan update is going to affect a single parcel and the neighborhood around it, which does generate a lot of interest from the neighborhood. But I don't see it as any different than the comprehensive plan process. These changes will affect the neighbors. It will cause changes.

It will result in an increase in traffic. But those impacts are no different than what is already being proposed. So, we can zero in on the details of the application or the lack thereof. But my perspective is this is just a rezone that's not only consistent with the current comprehensive plan and the approval criteria, but also consistent with the future plans that the city has.

Do you know if the applicant intends to move forward with the indicated crosswalk sidewalk asphalt path improvements? Is that something that they they intend to do in your understanding Yeah. Regardless of what density they seek or if they seek to leverage other opportunities for further density? Yeah. Clear on that part, or is that something they're still making up their mind about?

That's something that we're more than happy to do. It's probably something that would be a requirement in any case. But we I mean, as a company, PLS Engineering and even Sergey, the applicant has a history of working with the transportation group and providing those improvements that they deem are warranted based on the impacts of development. He's been required to build sidewalk, off-site sidewalk to make a connection that wasn't there before on a previous project, and he was more than willing to do that. And this case would be no different.

Okay, any other further comments, questions from my fellow commissioners? All right, thank you so much. Think we will go ahead and open the floor for public testimony. Can we call the first couple of people please?

Charles Brasher and Ena.

Could you put the timer back on the screen for them?

Is it on?

Yes. Yes. Just give us one second, please. If you could just put the timer back on the screen for them. Perfect. Please make sure that you state your name before you begin your comments.

My name is Charles Brasher and I'm a retired registered professional engineer. My wife and I have lived in the Walnut Grove, Robins Glen neighborhood for over twenty years. At the public hearing on 08/11/2025, the proposed R-fifty rezone was rejected by the city council. Developers said they would not seek an R-thirty five rezone if the R-fifty was denied. This was not true and here we are again looking at a proposed R-thirty five which would still let the developer build a large multi storey luxury apartment building on a small lot in an inappropriate area.

The project is the same as before, only it is proposed to be a little bit smaller, but can be changed during construction to be almost as big as the R50. The developer has in fact changed very little if anything from the previous R50 proposal. The R-thirty five proposal has the same problems as the original R-fifty rezone proposal had and I will summarize these problems below. Streets and traffic, 58th Street between Andreessen and Thurston Way is a designated school zone. School buses stop at 76th Avenue and 58th Street to pick up children for grade and high school.

Walnut Grove Elementary School is nearby on 72nd Avenue. Large portions of 58th Street are narrow and without sidewalks and curbs and not just in front of the proposed development. It will be costly and difficult to put sidewalks and curbs in because of lack of available space. Another 300 plus cars in 58th Street were only caused more congestion and safety issues. Many accidents have already occurred on 58th Street and I know because I was in one of them.

Public transportation, the proposed development is not close to public transport. It's a long four block walk to Andreeson on 58th Street which is not in many places have sidewalks and curbs. It is even a longer walk, a mile or more to the Van Mall Transit Center. Trees and vegetation. Both of the lots are heavily wooded with beautiful old trees, most of which will be taken out for the development.

An assessment of the trees on two properties should be done before removing them all. After all, is an officially designated Tree City USA. Also, why put a luxury multi storey apartment building right in between Schafer Park and the water quality treatment storage facility? Would not a lower density R-twenty 2 development be more appropriate given all the hard work by the city to purchase and maintain the community park and to keep the water quality site safe for people living in the city. There are water quality issues and storm drainage issues, which I don't have time to go into, but it's in written testimony.

And so, I will conclude by saying the proposed R35 zoning change from the current R22 has all the same problems as a previously proposed R50 zoning change and should not be approved. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello. My name is Ina Kozlovska and I am a Walnut Grove resident, boarding Sunlights to the Southwest. Who can guarantee that Sunlights will build 54 units instead of 70? Only one thing can guarantee. It's keeping R22.

Sunlight is trying to achieve its goal of maximum luxury apartment by any means, including deception. Why should this happen at the expense of our neighbors? They have done nothing. No plan to do anything to really improve our neighborhood. They've already built two huge luxury complexes with a half mile radius here and are planning three more.

Our neighborhood doesn't have the resources for that kind of growth, and they are not the only ones building. Our school are already overdraft. Traffic is terrible, and 58th Street remains narrow and unsafe for traffic pedestrians. Sunlights promised to build a crosswalk as one of their main levers for zoning change in in Alstow Falls as none of our neighbors have had any contact with them. They throwing you bone promising to leave the trees on 57th Circle.

These trees were illegally planted and very old with all the branches dead, which are falling into our cars and property. We also haven't heard anything about how they plan to handle the water backing up, or they don't have access to center drainage system. Their plan calls for a large three, four story building as well and the entire 1.6 acre to be covered with concrete for parking. All the water from the uneven ground will flood our homes, property lines and road. We believe that rezoning R35 is absolutely impossible as it will cause a huge number of irreversible problems for the entire Valengrund community.

We urge you not to allow sunlights to use manipulation and deception to achieve their goals. Those who are here against, but there is one, please stand.

Please make sure that your comments are addressed to the commission as a body and not to the audience or individuals or staff. Thank you. Can you please call the next two people?

Shay Welchow and Ralph Harris.

Please make sure to state your name for the record before we begin your comments.

All right. Oh, there it is. Okay. I wasn't sure if the lights on. My name is Shay Welchel, and I have resided at 7705 Northeast 58th Street for nearly seventeen years. My husband and I are both educators. We were lucky enough to be able to afford this house with a good sized backyard in a quiet neighborhood. Today, current housing prices and current housing building trends, we would not be able to afford such a nice home. We're both more than aware of the current affordable housing shortage. However, the development being proposed on 58th Street has little to do with this and has everything to do with a local developer wanting to increase his wealth and holdings by imposing himself on our neighborhood.

Walnut Grove currently has hundreds of apartments, more than 200 of these have been built in the time that I have lived in this neighborhood. That does not take into account the pocket neighborhoods that have been created on 58th with The Grove on 58th and the newer development to the west of my property. They started out as lovely mid century single family homes with large yards. These houses were torn down and replaced with anonymous apartment buildings that have led to a significant increase in traffic noise and instances of fly tipping and abandoned cars that are changing our neighborhood for the worse. The new Walnut Grove Elementary School is already at capacity.

More apartments will lead to the necessity of portables and a greater strain on the traffic in the neighborhood, which is already a significant problem with parents dropping off at the elementary school in the morning and picking up in the afternoon. The people of Walnut Grove have already addressed this development when we opposed r 50. We spoke our minds, we're very clear about our concerns. Now, the developer proposes yet another change to the zoning for his financial benefit. This change in zoning is going to lead to further traffic noise and a greater strain on our neighborhood resources.

I have been told by other Walnut Grove residents that the developer claims to have been in contact with me about these changes. I've had several unsolicited text messages from him which I have ignored because I am not interested in selling. I fear that the development that he is proposing is going to negatively affect my property value. I also know that the construction is going to make it impossible for the surrounding families to their backyard spaces while it is underway. We do not hold the issue of noise pollution in high enough regard in Vancouver.

It is a health hazard and a nuisance. The lovely green space that now occupies 7809 And 7711 will be gone and covered with concrete, taking away the benefit of these trees which have been growing here for decades. I've seen for myself what this developer means when he promises to leave trees behind. I cannot know if the single tree left in the middle of Sunlight Meadows was meant to be ironic or not. Why should the desires of a developer mean so much more to the city of Vancouver than the rights of tax paying homeowners? I realize that this apartment complex is going to be built, but I would appreciate the city of Vancouver considering how they can lessen the negative impact on the surrounding community by denying this rezoning request. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Ralph Farris and I guess we're here again because somebody wants more money. You know, they wouldn't be here unless there is something in it for them. We talked about this last time. We already have enough crime in our neighborhood. I talked about last time my vehicle got hit in a road rage.

You might remember that. There is a lot of crime in our neighborhood. Just a few weeks ago, a guy stops right in front of my house, right under the street lamp, and he gets out of his car and urinates right in the middle of the road. How do I know this? Because there is a big wet spot in the middle of the road I looked on the camera to see what it was.

Let's see here. That is right in front of her house which is Catacorner from my house. So one lot over, two guys get out of their car and there they go speeding off. I've got it on camera. Did the police take a report?

No. It's not enough. They can't see any license number. Our mailboxes have been broken into multiple, multiple times. Did they take a report? No, because they can't get no license number. They say, oh, crime is improving. No, they are just not making reports. Did the state police take a report when my vehicle got shot up out on the road rage incident? No.

They said unless I have got a license number, they can't do anything. Having this apartment is going to put a lot of cars parking on our street. She has got maybe one spot in front of her house, I have got one spot in front of my house. This is for my company or my cars. Is that I don't want 50 people or 100 people parking in front of my house, they don't live there.

Putting this big apartment a small neighborhood just doesn't work. I know they're here for more money, so I encourage you to vote no. Yeah, that's all I can say.

Thank you for your testimony. Can we call the next two people?

Chester Feen and Robert Segert.

Please make sure to state your name for the record before you begin your comments.

My name

is Chester Toon. I've lived here fifty four years, seeing lots of changes and I'm very upset with the state of the was put into the city of Vancouver because fifty four years ago, my house was hooked up to city water and that was a yes vote without a ballot. That's democracy, isn't it? And the next thing I wanna say is that this when you increase traffic, you have to put up traffic controls. So this outfit is so rich, why don't they put a traffic light up at 58th And 72nd Avenue because when you come down 58th going towards 72nd from Walnut Grove Grade School, the brush is clear out to the stop sign, you cannot see the car coming down 58.

And people have been hit there, and if that's why they finally made it a four way stop, they kept that was a solution. The solution is to cut back so you can see cars coming to see if they're gonna stop for you. Just today, I was standing there, sitting there waiting, the cars in front of me stopped on 72nd going south. Here comes someone from 58th. They just roll right through the stop sign.

This outfit, if it's so rich, it can put up traffic light there. That would take care of that problem. Those cost over $80,000 I know at least. That would be a lot of help. And we have the schools pick up kids there and they back clear up and block our my street off of 57th Street.

The neighbor has to put up pint cones so that he can take and get out of his driveway. Now if you have an emergency and someone's parking in your in front of your street or in your driveway, how are you gonna get in and out? And if this building is gonna be so big, does our fire trucks do our ambulance systems and all that. Who pays for those? We do as taxpayers.

If they want to increase the population, let them pay for some of those things. We as taxpayers don't have to pay for everything that someone else is making money off of. And, let's see what else do I have to say here. Well, anyway, I've seen a lot of changes as you might know. And, I think that the sneaky business of trying to say you're going to build something with an option to increase it back to what it was, I think that's underhanded. And that's why we have too much trouble in our country today is this underhanded stuff. My time is up, I guess. I hope you do better.

Thank you for your testimony.

My name is Robert Siegert. I appreciate everyone's time this evening. My family and I have lived in Amherst Commons townhomes for over twenty years. We're on the north side facing Northeast 58th Street, which is adjacent to the land that Sunlight now wants approval for R35 after being turned down by the council for R50. This has been voiced and expressed by a number of people already.

But I'm here to voice my objection to the proposed rezoning of the lot across from Raymond Schafer Park from the current R-twenty 2 that restricts the number of new units to 34. The R35 allows, which I've learned, up to 54 to 70 units, a dense complex that if approved could be up to five stories tall. This is simply unacceptable in a neighborhood of single family homes and is a blatant underhanded way to get what the city council previously disapproved. The street is a narrow two lane residential street with no sidewalks of any consequence. The street is already heavily traveled as expressed by a number of people already.

Heavily traveled by just neighborhood cars, motorcycles, trucks of all sizes. Many use Northeast 58th Street as a cut through from Andreessen to the Vancouver Mall and 500. We also have so called speed bumps in certain areas that were added about a year ago have done little to slower reduce the amount of traffic and noise. This potential five storey complex of up to 70 units is totally unreasonable, out of place and non eco friendly for our neighborhood. Anything of this size and type will not only lower adjacent property values, it will dramatically increase the noise, the traffic and congestion and only serve to lower the livability on Northeast 58th and the surrounding area.

I respectfully urge this planning commission to disapprove the Sunlight position to change the current R-twenty two to R-thirty five. Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you for your testimony. And please call the next two people.

Igor Miedinger.

Miedinger. Believe it's mispronunciation but doesn't care

too Sorry.

It's okay. It's hard to pronounce and understand.

Israel Lopez.

Okay. Please make sure to state your name for the record before you begin your comments.

Okay. So my name is Ihor Madanik. So I'm here to share my concern and asking to reject this proposal. On my behalf, where I believe this proposal will definitely not improve safety, the proposal will not improve the life of the people and neighborhood, so neighborhood, on my belief, will not become safer. And also, we should not forget about environment impact.

It definitely will bring more pollution and bring more noise. So I'm here, so, asking to reject this proposal. And on my beliefs, the area cannot handle this impact on people, on school district, on the sewer system, on the traffic, and that's why I'm asking to reject proposal and those rezoning to r 35. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Israel Lopez, and I live in the Central Park neighborhood. I'm wearing a pineapple costume because I wanted to match the flavor of some of the submitted written testimony tonight about the proposed project and how amazing, dramatic and apparently tropical level hurricane change in the area. I read predictions of floods, landslides, traffic collapse, tree apocalypses, dog waste disasters and how a three story building somehow threatening civilization as we know it. Even if half of these things are true, a female official would be here to testify.

But we all know how this actually works. Construction decisions are based on engineering, code and objective standards, not imagination, fear or personal preference. And here's a part that gets lost in all the drama. New development requires stormwater engineering. New development requires sidewalks.

New development consolidates footprint and can preserve open space more than slicing land for single family homes. And most importantly, new housing is something Vancouver desperately needs. When the loudest voices claim that a code compliant building will cause breathtaking destruction while ignoring the actual data, it tells you more about the anxiety than the project. So tonight, I simply ask that you anchor your decisions in the real world, the world of staff reports, engineering standards and planning principles, not the world where an apparent where an apartment building triggers the pineapple flying level chaos that I've described. If the sanest voice in the room is the person wearing a person dressed like a pineapple, I think that says everything.

Humor aside, I'm passionate about housing. Recently, my mother-in-law suffered a fall and subsequent heart attack. Thankfully, she's recovering. Now these kinds of serious life events usually come with a change in housing, usually smaller. It's not uncommon. Luckily, she doesn't need a change in housing, but if she did, she would not be able to stay close to her friends and family and that would impact her recovery and mental health. I personally would not argue against housing opportunities because one day I might need that small one bedroom in the future. Thank you. Have a good night.

Thank you for your testimony. Can you please call the next two people?

We have one more person in person, Taber Kelly.

Perfect. Thank you. Is there anyone virtual signed up?

Yes.

Okay. Good

evening, Commission. My name is Taber Kelly and I'm a renter in Vancouver. I would like to point out that Vancouver has a housing action plan. It talks about many things. It talks about how our rental vacancy rate is too low.

It alludes to the fact that a low rental vacancy rate leads to rent increases that outpace wage increases. But perhaps most importantly, it sets a minimum target for new housing construction in Vancouver every year. I would like to point out this is the minimum, the floor, this is not the maximum and that minimum is 2,500 units. And to the best of my knowledge, since Vancouver has had a housing action plan, it has never met that minimum. It's never met that target.

And so, Mr. Snodgrass has to come and present from time to time about how we never meet that target. So with that said, this up zone application at fifty eighth is this commission's chance to actually build 54 more homes for people to live in and on the margin to actually make a difference with the rental vacancy rate. And I understand that that's like a very sort of theoretical marginal 54 people, but they're well, 54 families, but they're a real 54 families, they're a real 54 homes and mathematically on the continuous function of supply and demand, they're real empty units that really impact price for renters in our community. So I encourage the commission to support this rezone application.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Let's move to the online folks.

Anastasia Kozlowski or Kozlowski.

Hello, commission. My name is Anna Kuzolska. I'm an inviting property resident. I'm appreciative of the planning commission's time today and here to set the record straight. Before I begin, can you all hear me?

We can hear you. We're just gonna start the timer here.

Okay. Alright. First issue, and I will just focus on the facts and not mockery. I will just simply reiterate what I know. Sidewalks.

R 35 is not actually a prerequisite to offside sidewalk improvements and a crosswalk. These same improvements would still be required under the existing r 22. Plus, the little patch of sidewalk will not address the remaining large percentage of gaps elsewhere, which I submitted a picture of for you. The sidewalk abruptly ends after the stoplight on Northeast Anderson Road, then it's intermittently nonexistent from the c trans stop to our elementary school to senior housing and to Schaeffer Park. Sunlight's improvements will help, but not enough to account for their increased vehicle traffic if r 35 were approved.

Trees. Make no mistake. Sunlight still made no commitments to keeping the 100 year old evergreen trees on the north end of the property, which is what we've been testifying about. The trees they're talking about saving are on the Southwest end, which are sick, dry willows with the roots burrowing through the sidewalk, breaking a fence on 57th Circle, and compromising integrity of land grading. Instead of addressing our true concern, protecting the evergreens, Sunlight instead offered to check a box.

You must know that Sunlight already utilized the transit overlay bonus in the past. In 2021, they have stated that they would build 50 something units on 62nd Street, and they ended up with 79 units. Precedence speaks louder than words. Unless you have a way to hold sunlight legally liable to only 54 units and three stories, please do not approve r 35. That is the only way to keep the matter still in the public's hands. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony.

Paulo Rollano. I don't see him online.

Okay, do we have anyone else signed up? We'll circle back. No. No, that's

it? Yes.

Okay. There being no further comments, this concludes the public testimony portion of the hearing. Discussion?

I concur with Commissioner Cavell. However, my recommendation would only be to proceed if the proposal what's the language, Rebecca? Is substantially similar or the

Substantially conforms to the site plan they've submitted as part of

A their

substantial conformance to the set plan they've submitted for this application.

Commissioner Wheeler, Commissioner Jay, any thoughts?

I do not think that, that is necessary. I think that allowing the option of the transit overlay is in the best interest of the city.

Given all the extreme difficulties with the create building of new housing, interest rates, tariffs on Canadian wood, statewide rent control, I think it's absolutely imperative that we enable a partner, a developer that is willing to invest at this given moment. And knowing that the only way I think to actually create affordable apartments is that luxury apartments eventually turn into them as the building degrades and or not degrades, but depreciates. And so, think this is a I think we need I agree with Commissioner Cavell that this is how we show that we're serious about this. We've only built about 10% of our annual goal. Last time I checked on the charts that we have been shared with to the commission by staff.

So if we want to build housing, then there's never going to be a perfect location to build housing. There's always going be problems with it and there's always going to be issues raised, but we can't let the perfect be the obstacle of the good. So, I think we should move forward with this.

Okay. Commissioner Wheeler, seems like you had an additional thought there.

Yeah. Had a few more thoughts that I wanted to say just aside from the the transit overlay aspect of it. I guess just my my general thoughts, my perspective on where we're at with this rezone is, I mean, as we've acknowledged multiple times, we're we're in a severe housing crisis and that's largely driven by a supply shortage. That supply shortage, a lot of that came from restrictive zoning and from bodies like the one I'm sitting on voting no on things like this. So a lot of how we ended up in this situation is from things like this happening over and over again.

And voting them down for for what reason, you know, less than one car going by every four minutes, some trees being lost from a corner, having to look at an extra 10 feet of building. But on the other side, when we're looking at the the housing crisis that we're in, it's it's costing human lives. It's holding back economic growth, and it's making life difficult for a lot of people. So I I wanna concur with commissioner Jay and commissioner Cavill that if we're serious about combating this housing crisis, this is an opportunity right in front of us to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Lodell, any thoughts?

I could support the motion with the substantial conform for the overlay.

Vice Chair Powell?

I think we went through a lot of this similar discussion at the R50 zoning. And there was my primary comments were surrounding the the development standards of the zone, not necessarily the proposal because that's ultimately what our review approval criteria is based upon is zone to zone. I think this is a instance of a a poor application. I wanna make that very clear. Like, you shouldn't come to some to one of these with an application that you're not ready to commit to.

I think that's poor form. I agree with some of the folks that have commented today that that seems underhanded. That said, I'm gonna focus my comments and criteria, and I think we all should, on the zone to zone development standard differences, what would be possible, and whether or not that's appropriate for this location. Regarding specifically the standards that could be altered by the transit overlay, I hear loud and clear and and can see via photos, via, you know, driving by that the the lack of sidewalks to me disqualifies this in the spirit of the transit overlay. Like, in order for transit overlay to work, you gotta be able to get there safely, and clearly, that's not an option here.

So whatever staff needs to do to help explain that to city council, and they can make judgments on whether or not there needs to be extra criteria layered on top of this application to guarantee some sort of safe passage should the trans overlay be utilized. I to me, that's fair game. But when I look at the overall zoning development standards for R 35, I do feel that they're appropriate for this location, and I agree with my fellow commissioners that that this that this is an appropriate place for for for more housing just as many locations across the city will be. That's my opinion.

To me, I go back to the idea that, you know, the city is engaged in this long lofty effort of updating the comprehensive plan. And when we think about planning for the future and what this particular, you know, site will be, it sounds like part of that process has identified something that is more in line with the the question at hand before us today. Right? And so I'm I'm inclined to to give some thought to that as well in addition to to the comments here today. And I I wanna underscore vice chair Powell's comment about really just looking at this on on the merits and less so and thinking of it as us seeing the the the final product here in presentation today because that so rarely happens and is also not the purview of the of the commission.

So is further discussion needed on this item?

I think the challenge I'm having is with the transit overlay approving the up zone, the change in zoning, would allow a building as big as what we recommended against previously. And so my challenge now is to really understand from from my my fellow commissioners who felt similarly to me at that time, what has changed and trying to understand that. And I and I'm fully aware of you know, for me, one of the things that has changed, and I'm not sure that this affects my opinion, but one of the things that has changed is seeing what the ultimate comprehensive plan would be for for that area, for 58th Street, and understanding the impact that could occur in six months, nine months, regardless. Without a transit overlay, there could be more density and higher buildings there, than what the transit overlay would allow for R35. At the same time, As a homeowner, I certainly feel the impact of the idea of any neighborhood, my neighborhood included, changing.

I think we all take it personal in some way, that it all feels like it's our neighborhoods changing, when really it's the world changing. And we know the city needs housing. We know the state needs housing. We know the country desperately needs housing. So, having said that, I just wanted to say that I do not have a motion on the floor.

I had a thought that I was putting out, but I have not made a formal motion yet on that.

Noted. Do any of my fellow commissioners want to address the question from commissioner Beck about what may have changed in their considerations since we last saw this?

Be happy to. I think one that the transit overlay is new information. So I think that's impactful and notable. And as I said, I I don't believe this location qualifies and certainly in spirit for the transit overlay. That said, I I recognize that the medium scale neighborhood as currently written would allow for this level of project.

I I think that that is that is projected as not yet codified. This is codified, and we need to vote on something that's codified. And so I'm trying not to look at that too speculatively because I think things could change. Right? And and, also, r 50 is substantially different from r 35 in terms of allowable density and potential height. Like, again, if I'm looking directly at what could have been, I think R50 is 70 feet, Brian. Yes. And that's certainly different than what we have

in front of us.

Any further discussion, further thoughts, questions, go backs for staff? Commissioner Wheeler?

I just wanted to speak a little bit to the income the comprehensive plan changes that are happening. I I agree that it's speculative, but I do think that it's relevant information to see what we're thinking about doing right now because we know that when it comes to developing housing, every delay in the process adds cost. And so if it ends up being the case that this doesn't end being a medium scale neighborhood and they are able to build up to 75 feet, denying them from doing I know the height does not change at the transit overlay, but restricting density that may be allowed once the comprehensive plan finalizes is really just adding cost to development is what we're doing if we're doing that.

Commissioner Liddell?

I have a question for Brian. Is that okay?

Yeah, absolutely.

Who decides on the transit overlay?

The ultimately, it's it's it's a it's part of the code. So staff would the applicant would it's an it's a voluntary set of standards. Applicants have to indicate they want to apply under it. If they do, then staff essentially makes the decision of as to whether they're whether it applies and what standards or what other additional issues flow out of that. And that's handled through the site plan review process.

So it's ultimately a stat it can be appealed to site plan review decision can be appealed, but it's essentially a staff decision interpreting a code which is less subjective than say a zoning change which is you look at a balance of many policies. It's interpreting the zoning code and staff does it.

Okay, thank you.

I just want to clarify that it's staff interpretation of the zoning code, but it is by right. TOG density is by right. So like we interpret the code, but if it applies, it is not a discretionary decision.

Commissioner Beck?

It's also my understanding that if an applicant applies for the transit overlay district increase, there are certain requirements that they will be that will have to be included in their proposal. And that those requirements are primarily sustainability requirements. Is that correct?

No. The sustainability components that we discussed were about development agreements. So if we were to if the commission were to want to sort of lock them into substantial conformance with the site plan they put forward, that would require a development agreement and that is a discretionary decision that goes to counsel that they have a policy of attaching a different additional sort of conditions upon. The the TOD overlay is it's by right, right. So if you are in the area, it applies. You can do less, but it applies as long

as And there's no additional requirements?

Not that I do not believe there are additional requirements, but I can confirm that.

I have a motion. So based on the findings in the staff report in 11/18/2025 public hearing, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the 58th Street zone change from R-twenty two to R-thirty five at 7711 and 7809 Northeast 58th

A motion has been offered. Is there a second?

Second.

Please call the votes.

Wait, no, wait, have some discussion. Discussion? Yeah, I just want the answer to your.

Yeah, so 125% density bonus has no additional requirements. If you want the 150% increase, there is requirements that are put on you, there's also that option.

Thank you, that's valuable. Okay, a motion has been offered and seconded. Please call the votes.

Commissioner Jay?

Aye.

Commissioner Wheeler? Aye. Commissioner Beck?

Nay.

Commissioner Cavill? Aye. Commissioner Liddell?

Nay.

Chair Payoh or Vice Chair Payoh?

Yes.

And Chair Aragwami?

Yes. The motion passes. And the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of the 58th Street zone change from R-twenty 2 to R-thirty 5 at 7711 and 7809 Northeast 58th Street, which brings us to the closing of the public hearing item.

Chair, if may, we had a there was a mistake online on the agenda on the community forum time. We're not sure it was correct last week, so I'm not sure how it changed. But so we would like to just open the community forum again for Jan Berender who signed up if she is here. If she was looking at the wrong time, if that's okay with you.

That's absolutely fine.

I don't see Jan, but just wanted on the record that we reopened it for folks who had registered just in case that I'm not sure how that happened. My apologies.

Okay. Thank you for catching that and making space for people who may not have had the right time written down. So that brings us, I think, back to the item from before, if we can address the comments that were and questions that were entered into the record briefly before we move to Staff and Chair Communications or Commissioner Communications, rather.

Okay. Marjorie and Chair Atawama, if you could please help me if I miss anything. Was writing quickly. So Marjorie asked about what we currently and lovingly call the blob map, that is our growth concept that is in the current comprehensive plan land use chapter. The new centers and corridors do represent and will will be graphically presented in a updated hopefully, we don't end up calling it the blob map, maybe we can call it something else, but growth concept.

But it will be a bit more provide a bit more information in terms of right now it's just in our current map just centers and corridors, Just places we're going to do sub area planning and concentrate growth and the new one will have sort of a hierarchy of types of centers and corridors and it will prioritize areas of higher intensity for sub area planning. There will just be some neighborhood corridors that we're going to put some growth there and we don't really need to do a lot of planning or we're already making transportation investments. So there's just it will be a little bit more complex, probably equally blobby. I

had three other questions. Do you want those?

Please, yes. Do

you expect annual reviews as we've done in the past?

Yeah. We are required to consider privately proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map changes annually.

And then, looking at the designation for employment land, I do a lot of walking in my area. There's a lot of buildings there with big parking lots that are consistently empty. So, when you allocate for employment land, how do you allocate for the future? I'm assuming there's less parking. I mean, if there's not that much parking now, and we have a lot of parking lots.

Yeah. I I would say industrial land is light industrial land, heavy industrial land, both. Right? They they it can evolve over time in sort of how much parking is needed or whatever. What I do know about them is that they prize a thing called lay down space, which is space where you can lay down big things, and leave them into where you're gonna do something with them, you know.

So I I I think, you know, there's probably opportunities for better utilization of parking lots and I think we should know a characteristic of industrial land is that you're going to see lay down space or big areas where you don't see buildings and that is actually a really important function of those uses.

And the other just to comment, how do we prevent the corridor areas from becoming the new high impact areas? High impact? Negative impact.

Sorry, can you say more about negative impacts?

The traffic, I mean there's certain areas of town now and this what we've done. We just stick more stuff there because it looks like there's it doesn't look that good anyway.

Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for the clarification. I mean, that that's part of the reason that we've identified so many more areas for growth is to disperse it around the city in a way that is more evenly you know, that yes. We have to look at the things like our infrastructure capacity and stuff like that, but the approach has been you know, we still have to understand areas where we think more growth will occur.

We have to analyze that. Certainly, streets and mobility are a big piece of that, but but this strategy very much disperses it more. I think we had maybe like, I don't know, maybe 15 sub areas called out in the blob, the current version of the blob map. We have 49 called out. They're much broader and more dispersed, so that we get the both the benefits of growth and, absorb the impacts on things like transportation network.

Distributed.

Okay. Thank you.

Do you need me to restate my questions or do you have those?

I have messy notes. What is redevelopables? One note I have.

Yeah. That's that's predicated upon the public comment regarding the zoning of golf courses. There was mismatch I think between two different golf courses that were rezoned according to the map. And I think you made a comment in a prior session about what that might look like, right? When you're talking about zoning something that's not likely to redevelop. So I just wanted to enter maybe a response to those comments into the record here.

Can't remember what he said previously. And I did see that comment, and we do need I mean, I do think it's a fair comment we need to look at. I think, you know, I need to look back at how we applied various, you know, sort of methodologies to get to this, but I don't think it's a fair question to ask why is Green Meadows one thing and Royal Oaks another thing, especially given that Royal Oaks is on transit and very close to services, and probably more reasonable to think about some level of I wanna say parity, but, like, make sure we've applied the framework in ways that we can kind of articulate especially given now that we're gonna have an HOA deduction which will really account for some of that loss redevelopment potential that exists in probably both those areas but certainly in Royal Oaks.

I don't know if it's consistent with the surrounding designations or not. Didn't have time to

Yeah. And I that's why I would need to look at the whole framework. So sorry if I can't get get

the answer. Perfectly fine. And then I think I had a question regarding whether or not the preferred alternative still hits the target based on the deductions, and you're gonna check into that, it sounds like, already.

Yeah. I mean, yes. We have to run it. Right? We have to put it back through our our our LCR, our land capacity model.

We think so. We anticipate the numbers are gonna be much lower. The housing numbers are gonna be a lot lower, both because we've, you know, taken a more refined, nuanced look at things, and because we have some new assumptions in the LCA. Some of the big numbers coming out of the LCA were driven by the rack and mixed use application on areas that already have master plans, and, you know, I think that's what you do is you refine as you go. We wanted to have a very big range to analyze, right, so that our DEIS covered like a big range of stuff.

But as we get more, we just anticipate that some of those big master plan areas on the East Side, those numbers are gonna go down a lot when we apply their actual master plan development agreement numbers to

them. Okay. And then lastly, think it was just to to underscore, right? I think it's really helpful contextualizing these discussions, what the state law requirements are Yes. Versus what the city is aiming towards, right, through this comprehensive planning process. Because I I think a lot of the comments that we get maybe aren't aware or haven't gotten that context or maybe just need to to see it each time that we're presenting it right. Because it really does come down to the fact that much of what's being done here is predicated on that state level requirement. Right? So I really just hope to see that as part of the context when we talk about this in forums like this or with the community

and Yep.

Of that nature.

Yeah. I I mean, do you want me to put it on the record now?

I mean, if if you got a quick hitter, might as well

Yeah. I mean, I can do a quick thing. So, you know, there's been a lot of legislation recently related to both housing and climate in the last three to four legislative sessions. The major ones were h b eleven ten in 2023, which eliminated exclusively single family zones and required, jurisdictions to allow four to six units minimum on every residential lot in the city. H b thirteen thirty seven required you allow a minimum of two accessory dwelling units at a minimum of of a thousand square feet each on every residential lot in the city.

H b twelve twenty, which is a a really huge policy bill, not just assigned, jurisdictions number housing numbers to accommodate, but they assigned them by income band. So it basically required you to show not just that you had zone capacity for x units, but that you had zone capacity that could deliver housing types that were affordable in those income bands. That that's a big, big difference because it requires people to look at both the feasibility, and likelihood of what will be built, not just we have room for for x units. Also required us looking at racially disparate impacts and analyzing, our housing policies to not perpetuate those. There was there's, bills on single stair buildings, so six story single stair buildings.

There's bills on what is called the TOD bill, so, eliminating regulations for development around, what we call high capacity transit stations, so that's light rail and BRT. We have bills that facilitate lot splitting, and the division of land for middle housing. So there's just been a lot of stuff that the city, is required to do, and, frankly, we want to do these things. We're generally supportive of raising the the the floor so that we're all doing more across the state to help address the fact that we are over a million units short of housing for Washingtonians who need it.

Thank you. I think that's very helpful context. That being said, unless there are any other items as go backs. Right. Which I think will be hopefully in the staff and chair communications or sorry, commission communications that we move into here.

Okay. I just wanna be clear because we struggle a bit with how much back background to preface every presentation with, but it sounds like we really actually want the state laws in every single presentation. If there's other things that people think need to be in every presentation, that that that would be really helpful direction for us. And so email me, let me know.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Just going to say, particularly when we're dealing with controversial issues like tonight, think they're very helpful.

Yeah, absolutely. Anything else?

Any other commissioner communications? And I believe Marjorie is correct or Commissioner Liddell is correct. Right? We will be in the other room for this next session that we have coming up.

Yes. So starting early next year.

Yes. Right. So that they have postponed for December.

Okay.

So they're gonna move it to the end of the year. So our last meeting in December will be here.

So, yes, so we will be in this room in December.

December.

So we can do dinner in Birch, which is a little nicer than where we do dinner downstairs. It's like, it's the staff cafeteria. So we so yeah. And then starting in January, we will be in update all the invites. And

the one for next week is canceled. I just didn't want to cancel it and confuse everyone. So I'll be doing all the calendaring tomorrow.

Okay, excellent. So we'll see some updates and we will not have a meeting with the commission next week, but we will have our next regular scheduled one in December.

December 9. December 9. Yep.

Alright. If there are no further communications from the commission or from staff

I have a few more.

You do. Alright. Let's dive into it, please.

So wanted to just give you all an update. We are putting together the the 2026 work plan. We got very clear feedback from council last week that they want to start seeing more of the plan chapters, elements immediately, which means we, need to also sort of align that cadence with the planning commission. And so I'm mapping it out. But, typically, we don't have a meeting in January.

We are gonna have a meeting in January This year typically, we have a retreat in February and maybe we have a meeting, we're not having a retreat unless the chair directs me. I think we're, you know, we I think people are understanding their purview and we can probably do that later in the year because we're gonna need the workshop time. I think we will start starting workshop times at 04:30 to make sure the comp plan has enough time and you may see two comp plan items a meeting. And there was one more thing I was gonna say. We may need to have two meetings a month some month to get to get through June.

So we will always try to be as efficient with your time as possible, but we are sort of in go mode now and have been doing a lot of work behind the scenes. So we're pretty ready actually actually for for that. That. But But just it's it's gonna be an unusual year in terms of, you know, how we how how our schedule works. It's just gonna be a little different. So just wanted to to flag that for the commission. Also wanted to let you know that on December 15, the council will appoint a new planning commissioner. That person will be filling rather big shoes. Marjorie Liddell's last meeting with us is December 9 after nine years on the commission. I think that followed six years on the commission in aging for at the county.

So, I think you were chair for seven of the nine years or six of the nine years. So, I mean, really, just, we'll we'll make a big deal of it, no surprise, on the ninth. But, just wanted to give everybody a heads up and then, also say, you know, we'll have a new member. And so, in lieu of a full sort of, you've all been through the onboarding, we do that pretty extensively. But in lieu of a, a full sort of retreat thing, Becky and I will do a presentation in January reviewing the bylaws, OPMA, and conflict of interest. Just I I think it's really good to do it publicly, occasionally, and so probably a good time now. So we'll be doing that as well.

That's excellent. I don't know if you saw that email yet.

I responded.

Oh, you did?

In two two venues.

Excellent. And then I I don't know if it's worth I'm not certain if you can find when the last time the commission actually revised those bylaws were, but I don't know if it's worth

talking about. We we can take feedback on them and see. I will need to look back at the procedure. I don't know if that's it requires council approval or we'll have to look at that. I know we revised 20020, which is like the what the sort of process for planning commission review and voting of things was in maybe 2017, 2018, but it's been a while.

Okay, very cool. Anything else for the good of the order? No. Any other feedback? All right. Then the 11/18/2025 meeting of the City of Vancouver Planning Commission is hereby adjourned.