Hull, Kirsten - City of Vancouver

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Amy Busch <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 1:45 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Fwd: Testimony for Planning commission regarding VIC rezoning

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Vancouver. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Amy Busch <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:38 PM Subject: Testimony for Planning commission regarding VIC rezoning To: <[email protected]>

Hello As you consider rezoning, please consider my concerns regarding the VIC rezoning and traffic issues. My home backs up to 29th near 176. Currently, 176th is a busy road with many people speeding. I am concerned that should 29th become a thoroughfare between 164th to 192, 29th will see an increase in traffic and speeding. What steps will the city and developer take to avoid this issue? Regarding Middle School: I know that this land will one day be developed, however placing a school near two lane roads for the entrance, will cause backups and frustration by families trying to get to and from the school as well as homeowners near these busy roads. Additionally, I have spoken with the Director of Facilities at Evergreen School District, who said they have spoken with the developer but there are no immediate plans to build a school at that location. Does the city have different information? Private school? Thank you for addressing my concerns. Amy Busch 2903 SE 175th Ct Vancouver, WA 98683

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Anna & Justin Smith <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:47 AMTo: Hull, KirstenCc: Planning Commission; Snodgrass, Bryan; Kennedy, RebeccaSubject: Re: Vancouver Innovation Center Proposed Zoning Change


Dear Planning Commission, While we plan to attend and provide input about the VIC today (Nov 10th), we want to take the opportunity to submit our concerns in writing. We moved to Fisher’s Landing from Portland, looking for a safe and friendly community to raise our children. Our main concerns with this new development are traffic, congestion, safety and livability. It appears misleading when the city and developer call this a 20-minute neighborhood while at the same time requesting the parking volume to be increased from the City’s standard and estimating an additional 21,000-29,000 daily trips resulting from this development. The notion of “wishing” that people leave their cars at home is not realistic in suburban areas, especially without a supporting public transit system. Drivers regularly speed on the surrounding streets and nothing is done to enforce those speed limits, resulting in drivers also speeding through residential neighborhoods. The fear is that this development will add an increase in neighborhood through-traffic, congestion, pollution, speeding, along with a reduction in pedestrian safety and property value. How can we design solutions that ultimately create better places for its residents, not just out of state developers? I understand the need for a growing and thriving city but there needs to be some balance between development and livability. Why are you building light industrial and commercial facilities in the middle of a residential neighborhood? There is another development, Columbia Palisades, a mile away in addition to all the development on Mill Plain and SE 192nd Avenue. I hope the city will come back with a plan that is good for the entire community. For example, a parkland-to-people ratio that would include green areas, walking trails, playgrounds and picnic areas. As well as a plan for traffic mitigation such as reduced speed limits, traffic lights, speed humps and funding for additional police officers. If the City of Vancouver wants to remain a place people want to live, it needs to be safe, have public places to gather and have well maintained infrastructure. With this development, that many residents oppose, we are heading in the opposite direction. We like where we live and hope it will remain a community we want to stay in. Thanks, Anna and Justin Smith 3010 SE 172nd Avenue Vancouver, WA 98683 On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:01 PM Kathleen Mathieson <[email protected]> wrote:

2

Dear Planning Commission,

While I will attend and provide input about the VIC at the Nov 10th meeting, Brian and I are also submitting comments in writing. Our concerns center on:

Misalignment between development goals and reality of the setting: The developers note in their Type IV rezone application that “this site is located in a sea of suburbia” (p. 134), and they are 100% correct. While a 20-minute neighborhood with more alternative transportation is an admirable goal, the reality is that Fishers Landing East is a solidly suburban area without robust public transit. The developers aim to create density and intensity first, then eventually “nudge people out of their cars” (p. 123). We and many existing residents moved here because of the suburban setting; simply building a dense development is not sufficient to “nudge” people out of their cars. Making this area “an urban village environment” is not only unwanted by many current residents, it is simply unrealistic given the larger context of this area and the available transit and infrastructure.

Traffic, congestion, and safety: The rezone application estimates between 21,000 - 29,000 Average Daily Trips associated with the proposal, depending on density (p. 159). For surrounding residents already worried about speed and through-traffic, this is alarming. Of particular concern is the proposed middle school. While some students may walk or bike, since this is a suburb many will be driven. We know from experience that traffic around Shahala Middle School is terrible during pickup and drop-off, and Shahala is bordered by four-lane roads and extensive open space to the northwest, south, and west. The VIC school will be bordered by two-lane roads and has little surrounding open space. Added to the traffic associated with the rest of the development, congestion and safety are key concerns for current and future residents. Poor timing due to pandemic: Lastly, the development was likely conceived prior to the coronavirus pandemic. Moving forward on a major development like the VIC, based on pre-pandemic business frameworks, is ill-advised. As others have noted, there are vacant office and retail spaces popping up all over surrounding areas, and large nearby restaurants and businesses have closed (JC Penney, 360 Kitchen & Bar, Twilight Pizza). New multi-family housing such the192nd West Lofts have not even started renting. The landscape of professional work has changed, with an emphasis on telecommuting. A complete return to pre-pandemic professional work models is unlikely, and launching a new development of this size during this time of uncertainty, based on past frameworks, is irresponsible. Sincerely, Brian and Kathleen Mathieson 17403 SE 32nd Street Vancouver, WA 98683 On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 3:14 PM C. Fassel <[email protected]> wrote:

November 8, 2020

Dear Commissioners,

Having read the Hill’s thoughts, I must also agree with them. There is so much commercial building being erected in east Vancouver that the necessity for more is just not warranted. There are numerous apartments being built between Tech Center and 192nd Ave north of Mill Plain. There are even more apartments being erected off SE 20th and 192nd Ave. Neither of these have been completed and both will have significant impact to the area. Aside from the apartments, 1 hotel has just been completed (Candlewood Suites) with another close to completion (Holiday Inn). Let’s look

3

at the commercial property already built along 192nd Ave. The available commercial space is underutilized and companies are transient. Building more commercial property has no value in this area. Look at the commercial property build at SE 1st Ave and 192nd Ave!

Maybe for once we can do something strictly for the community that lives here. Utilize the green space for walking trains, sports events like at NE 18th and 192nd Ave, or even leave the space alone and keep the current animals. Why allow this developer in to erect buildings, over-populate the area, and walk away with their profits while forcing the residents to suffer through the aftermath it will cause. Keep Vancouver a place where people want to come!!

Thank you for your time,

Chris Fassel

18510 SE 35th Street (Right across from the entrance to the HP plant).

From: Jennifer & Bruce Hill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 2:53 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Vancouver Innovation Center Proposed Zoning Change

November 8, 2020

City of Vancouver Planning Commission

Re: November 10 workshop review of proposed Vancouver Innovation Center Comprehensive Plan and zoning map change from Industrial/IL to Commercial/MX at the 179-acre former Hewlett-Packard campus at 34th Street and 192nd Avenue.

4

Dear Commissioners,

Having read through, and agreeing with, the concerns of my neighbors, I wish to add a few comments regarding the proposed zoning change. I find it ironic that the Commission meeting is scheduled on the very same day of the Urban Forestry planting project in Homestead Park. This is a wonderful effort to help restore animal habitat that has been grossly neglected over the years. Yet, here we are, discussing the annihilation of one of the few areas of urban forest remaining in Vancouver. The 179 acre site is home to a multitude of indigenous species of birds, including red tailed hawks, owls, woodpeckers, hummingbirds, etc. There are raccoons, rabbits, squirrels and opossums, just to name a few,

living within the site, all contributing to, and surviving due to the preservation of the site itself. The site is also home to trees that should be considered as Heritage Trees by the Urban Forestry Commission.

Do we need housing for a few thousand more people? Do we need more retail and office space in an economic climatethat can’t support what we already have? Do we need the additional congestion? Believe it or, outside of the congestion, I say yes. Yes we do. A community without growth is stagnant. And a stagnant community ultimately falls into decay. No one wants that. However, wouldn’t it be nice if someone visiting the Vancouver Innovation Center in about twenty years, looked around and said, “Wow. Someone did a really great job when they designed and built this project. There’s housing, retail and office space, and look at the way they preserved the urban forest in the process. This project even enhanced property values.” I’m concerned, however, that that someone will instead be saying, “This is horrible. What were they thinking when they built this project? And what was up with the City of Vancouver Planning Commission to allow it in the first place?”

We have a unique opportunity before us. We can either allow the developers to move ahead with their plan of clear-cutting destruction, and packing in as much profit-yielding construction as is humanly possible, or we can ask them to go back to the drawing board and come back with a plan that is good for the entire community (animals included). Suggestions would include a natural forest buffer around the perimeter of the site, walking trails, a fitness course, picnic areas and playgrounds. The Commission needs to require that the project enhance the ratio of parkland-to-people, rather than taking it backwards. The current proposal “throws a bone” to the City and its residents by offering to keep a speck or two of green space. It will be a disaster for everyone and everything, except the pockets of the developers.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

H. Bruce Hill

18601 SE 24th Circle

Vancouver, WA 98683

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Armando Ugarte <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:17 AMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Old HP LOt


Hello Kristen; I am resident of the Firs at Towncenter Vancouver - zip 98683. My Backyard faces 176th Ave and the old HP Lot. This note is a bit selfish but alod My understanding is that the city is considering a massive development in the old HP lot. Although this will be a great economic opportunity for the developer and possibly for the city. It will be very detrimental for the city in the long term and immediately to all the households in the surrounding areas for many reasons:

Increase in traffic -- 1000 or more cars circulating daily in the area. Complete change in the character on the area and architecture of the area, this will adversely

impact the value of all the surrounding neighborhoods. A significant investment to increase the Utilities infrastructure capabilities for the city. Pollution, Traffic, pedestrian safety, Increase in population density with drive for significant changes/increases in the needed city

services A throw away opportunity for the city to protect an open green space within the urban area;

protect for its value to the environment, and for the socio economic benefits of urban open spaces

Vancouver city has the rare opportunity to plan ahead and protect within they city a pocket of open green space that has immeasurable long term value as a green area. Thank you for letting voice my point of view. Best regards, Armando Ugarte [email protected] 360-931-0817

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Brett Hawkinson <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 12:22 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Resident concerns for HP development

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Vancouver. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am writing to express my concerns with the designs of the proposed development of the former HP campus located near SE 176th and SE 34th Way. My largest concern is for the traffic impact that the developer estimated 21,000 trips will have on the immediate and surrounding areas. The speed limit on SE 34th needs to be lowered, and additional traffic signals need to be instituted for the many entryways to the numerous housing developments on SE 34th. In addition, the proposed residential friendly commercial business area should have more explicit restrictions: businesses such as marijuana shops lead to an increase in problems to the surrounding neighborhoods. It is unfortunate to see so many high density residential units proposed; the natural design for the immediate area has been for single family dwellings. I would like to see additional funding for a dedicated police presence in the area, as well as an additional fire station. We are missing 200 acres of community parks on this side of town; it would be nice if the city could buy a parcel and open up additional park space. Sincerely, Brett Hawkinson Vancouver resident Sent from my iPhone

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Cathryn Chudy <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 1:20 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Planning Commission Written Comment on VIC agenda item


Dear Kristen,

Please accept the following comment for today's Planning session:

To: Bryan Snodgrass, Principal Planner

Re: Vancouver Innovation Center Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Change

Our City of Vancouver staff is working on a Strategic Plan, intended to be completed and approved by our City Council by the fall of 2021. The focus of this Strategic Plan is on "Climate and Energy."

Public engagement on this has yet to begin formally, as the staff have been delayed because of COVID realities that unfolded since March of this year. Although climate considerations urging greenhouse gas emissions reductions have been a focus of citizen input to the City Council and staff for years, specific policy decisions have yet to be formulated into a Climate Action Plan to guide the City Staff and Planning Commission with specific climate goals and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with statewide climate goals, and to move Vancouver towards a clean energy economy.

The proposed VIC development should be formulated and approved with likely City climate action goals firmly in mind, which would provide an outcome consistent with the environmentally protective and resilient direction citizens of Vancouver are looking for in future development proposals.

Thank you for all you do,

Cathryn Chudy

1506 E. 29th St.

Vancouver, WA 98663

[email protected]

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Cathy Harris <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 2:25 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Planning Commission meeting

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Vancouver. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I live across the street from the old Hewlett Packard acreage that is now going to be filled with so many things and so many people which brings so many cars and more traffic. We have had a quiet neighborhood for many years that is already seeing increased vandalism, broken mail boxes and people routing through our garbage cans. The proposed plans can only offer increased activity such as that along with way more traffic and the need for parking which will end up on our neighborhood streets. My neighbors and I are not in favor of this huge change to our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention. Cathy Harris 17409 SE 32nd St. Vancouver 98683 260-882-6756

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Don & Anita Maynor <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:28 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: HP Property Development


We have been a resident at 17907 SE 24th St, Vancouver, WA 98683 since March 1995. When we moved in we had deer and were told the HP property was a wetland and would not be developed. Today, there has been so much development with tree removal the Vancouver Urban Forester would cry. The city has a double standard, one to replace trees with concrete and one for the residents. We left Southern Calif because of all the concrete and poor air and now Vancouver is trying to become a Southern Calif. Are you planning to increase taxes because you will need a police station, fire station & hospital. Also, how are you going to replace the wildlife and birds. Leave this area alone.. Thank You Don Maynor 360-260-8704

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Northcrest Neighborhood <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 2:36 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Planning Commission Document


October 13, 2020

Members of the City of Vancouver Washington Planning Commission and City Planners:

We represent our neighbors in the Northcrest Neighborhood. We strongly suggest that Northcrest serve as a prime example as to how an established neighborhood can co-exist in harmony with new development without the loss of charm and integrity. We will work with the city planners to achieve this end.

Both Northcrest and Harney Heights neighborhoods will be most impacted by the proposed development in the Heights District Plan.

We are proposing a maximum of 2-story buildings North of Mill Plain in each of the neighborhoods north of Mill Plain along with reasonable parking minimums restrictive to on-street parking.

All the neighborhoods surrounding the development are devoid of sidewalks. This poses a huge safety issue for children walking to Martin Luther King Elementary School and the walk-ability and bike-ability in the neighborhoods.

Three plus stories in residential neighborhoods abutting this development ignores the history, charm and livability of the neighborhoods.

Respectfully, Northcrest Neighborhood Glenn Miller-Chair Christina Lombardi Co-Chair Sue Pupo Secretary

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Greg <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 11:38 AMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: development in Fisher's Landing area


Dear Ms. Hull, I live on S.E. 171st court in the Fisher's Landing area and, like thousands of other residents in this area, have major concerns about the proposed "development" in our residential area. It's being called the "Vancouver Innovation Center." The proposed expansion is on the old Hewlett Packard land. It would involve the following: *530 apartments, which would adversely affect property values of homeowners *A new middle school with school traffic using S.E. 176th Avenue *Large commercial use buildings *Light industrial properties with capacity for over five THOUSAND employees *S.E. 29th would be turned from a peaceful residential street into a thoroughfare from S.E. 164th to S.E. 192nd. This would result in at least 11,000 more cars per day plus school traffic. And the posted 25 mph speed limit would be increased, adding to safety concerns. My main concern with all of this is the change in S.E. 29th and it's speed limits. The speed limit behind my house on S.E. 34th is posted as 40 mph...already too high...but people routinely drive 45-55 on it and this would no doubt happen to S.E. 29th also.The only "innovations" achieved by this would be added congestion, pollution, pedestrian safety, speeding etc. would ALL contribute to a marked drop in our property values and is being done without any input from residents. This is WRONG. People living here don't want to see our quiet neighborhood turned into another Columbia Tech Center. Imagine how you would feel if 11,000 new cars, buses, and trucks were going to start plowing past YOUR house. Please add my voice to the many you're receiving objecting to this. Thank you. Greg Murphy 3114 S.E. 171st Ct. Vancouver, WA 98683

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Jennifer & Bruce Hill <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 3:38 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: FW: Vancouver Innovation Center Proposed Zoning Change


Dear Ms. Hull, The email below was intended to include you. However, I misspelled you email address. My apologies.

From: Jennifer & Bruce Hill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 2:53 PM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: Vancouver Innovation Center Proposed Zoning Change November 8, 2020 City of Vancouver Planning Commission Re: November 10 workshop review of proposed Vancouver Innovation Center Comprehensive Plan and zoning map change from Industrial/IL to Commercial/MX at the 179-acre former Hewlett-Packard campus at 34th Street and 192nd Avenue. Dear Commissioners, Having read through, and agreeing with, the concerns of my neighbors, I wish to add a few comments regarding the proposed zoning change. I find it ironic that the Commission meeting is scheduled on the very same day of the Urban Forestry planting project in Homestead Park. This is a wonderful effort to help restore animal habitat that has been grossly neglected over the years. Yet, here we are, discussing the annihilation of one of the few areas of urban forest remaining in Vancouver. The 179 acre site is home to a multitude of indigenous species of birds, including red tailed hawks, owls, woodpeckers, hummingbirds, etc. There are raccoons, rabbits, squirrels and opossums, just to name a few, living within the site, all contributing to, and surviving due to the preservation of the site itself. The site is also home to trees that should be considered as Heritage Trees by the Urban Forestry Commission. Do we need housing for a few thousand more people? Do we need more retail and office space in an economic climate that can’t support what we already have? Do we need the additional congestion? Believe it or, outside of the congestion, I say yes. Yes we do. A community without growth is stagnant. And a stagnant community ultimately falls into decay. No one wants that. However, wouldn’t it be nice if someone visiting the Vancouver Innovation Center in about twenty years, looked around and said, “Wow. Someone did a really great job when they designed and built this project. There’s housing, retail and office space, and look at the way they preserved the urban forest in the process. This project even enhanced property values.” I’m concerned, however, that that someone will instead be saying, “This is horrible. What were they thinking when they built this project? And what was up with the City of Vancouver Planning Commission to allow it in the first place?”

2

We have a unique opportunity before us. We can either allow the developers to move ahead with their plan of clear-cutting destruction, and packing in as much profit-yielding construction as is humanly possible, or we can ask them to go back to the drawing board and come back with a plan that is good for the entire community (animals included). Suggestions would include a natural forest buffer around the perimeter of the site, walking trails, a fitness course, picnic areas and playgrounds. The Commission needs to require that the project enhance the ratio of parkland-to-people, rather than taking it backwards. The current proposal “throws a bone” to the City and its residents by offering to keep a speck or two of green space. It will be a disaster for everyone and everything, except the pockets of the developers. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, H. Bruce Hill 18601 SE 24th Circle Vancouver, WA 98683

1

Planning Commission Members

Marjorie Ledell, Chair

Steve Schulte, Vice Chair

Jack Harroun

Jim Atkins

Larry Blaufus

Zachary Pyle

Tim Schauer

My name is Jim Luce. I am an attorney, a former member of the Clark County Planning Commission, and a member of the Heights Coalition. I appreciate your service in what I know from personal experience is a challenging job. On November 10 you will hear an initial presentation by Rebecca Kennedy, Chief City Planner, regarding proposed “HX Zoning” for the recently approved Heights District Plan. As I write you, I have not seen what Ms. Kennedy will propose. And in any case, it will likely change because of public comment and your own recommendations before consideration by the City Council. The “church properties” along MacArthur and Mill Plain are not included because of your and the Council’s earlier decisions. The “Heights Coalition” supports the “Heights Plan” and will offer specific recommendations including building “height” and “parking.” Our recommendations will, like Ms. Kennedy’s, may change over time and before your final action.

The situation is this.

Generally speaking, the City proposes a “New Urban City” development in the middle of a 75-year-old, otherwise largely developed, single family residential neighborhood. The “New City” will replace what was in the 1970’s a small but

2

relatively successful “mall” which fell into disrepair and was purchased by the City.

Initially we request, consistent with public disclosure requirements, that the City provide the Commission, and the public, what specific precedents and data it relies on for the successful development of this type of development. While we have been told that these developments and this data exist, we have not been shown evidence.

If such precedents and supportive data exist, our goal will be to successfully integrate our existing neighborhood with the City’s proposal, and the HX Zoning it will advance. If there are no precedents or supporting data, we may ask you to revisit the premise upon which the City is proceeding.

For now, we ask you to carefully consider building height restrictions and parking requirements.

With respect to building heights, we urge the Commission to recommend a 3-story maximum height across the entire Heights District, and 2 stories north of Mill Plain, east of Andresen and south of MacArthur. And a parking ratio of 2:1 because under the City’s proposed parking standards, - and looking at only half of the properties in the Tower Mall Redevelopment Area - 789 cars will be looking for a place to park and are likely to go to neighborhood streets.

By successfully addressing these concerns the City and our Heights Coalition can recognize and create a new community within our existing neighborhood and provide expanded commercial and residential property for our entire City.

I request that this letter be entered into your official record of proceedings. I and other Heights Coalition members look forward to working with you and the City as we begin these HX Zoning discussions.

Best regards.

James Luce

310 Pasadena Way

Vancouver, WA 98661

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Jenni McChesney <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:49 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Vancouver innovation center

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Vancouver. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kirsten, > > I am a homeowner in the heritage reserve neighborhood. My house currently faces the south west corner of the proposed vancouver innovation center. My family has many concerns about this project. > First, the additional traffic on an already busy road. Adding single family homes, a middle school, subsidized housing, and more business space will create so much traffic or a road that is know for people speeding. Also the idea that it will create an urban lifestyle is not a lifestyle we’re interested. We prefer the suburban lifestyle that fishers landing is. This is the reason we purchased this house 6 years ago. > Second, the multilevel subsidized housing will be visible from our house. Our view will become hindered by tall buildings. This is not something we want to view. > Third, I don’t believe we have the need for these sub sized housing and businesses. Many places have closed down with large and small footprints for businesses to use. In addition, many condo/apartments are currently being built off 192nd. > Last, I worry about the value of the homes in my neighborhood with subsidized housing building adjacent to our properties. > > Perhaps a better use for that area would be a community park. > > Thanks, > Jenni McChesney > > > Sent from my iPhone

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Judith Gill <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 8:30 AMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Heights District Development Plan


Dear Commissioners /Planning Committee As a 48 year resident of Evergreen Highlands Neighborhood I am pleased to see Tower Mall being redeveloped to become useful and profitable to our community. At the same time we are all hoping it will be compatible with all the neighborhoods that will be impacted by this development. However, Mr. Gales letter to the editor (11.7.2020 The Columbian) points out that the number of units scheduled to be built is mathematically extremely excessive. Therefore, I believe that the reduction of building heights and increased parking places, as requested by the 5 neighborhoods to be impacted, is a reasonable request and should be honored. Thank you for considering this request. Respectfully Submitted Judith Gill [email protected]

November 10, 2020

Planning Commissioners

City of Vancouver

City Hall

415 W. 6th Street

Vancouver, Washington 98660

Attn: Rebecca Kennedy

Re: Request for HX Zoning Modification

Dear Planning Commissioners and City Planners,

My name is Kate Fernald, and I'm a 40 year resident of the Dubois Park neighborhood as well as founder

and co-chair of the Heights District Neighborhood Coalition.

I respectfully request the Planning Commission allow single family residential shared equity programs to

be built on any land built on a residential road in the HX zoning boundaries. Why? Because racial and

ethnic inequality exists in homeownership, but the new zoning for the Heights presents an exceedingly

rare opportunity to confront that inequality and to begin to change it. We can design zoning to champion

equity by encouraging shared equity programs.

Shared equity programs provide affordable homeownership options to low-and middle-income

communities, which in turn works to undo the racial and ethnic inequality that exists in homeownership

(with mechanisms in place to preserve the affordability of these homes over time.)

Because, according to the US Census findings that just came out in September of 2020 "Blacks and

Hispanics continue to be over-represented in the population in poverty relative to their representation in

the overall population." Furthermore, they found that "blacks and Hispanics continue to lag significantly

behind whites in housing wealth." (census.gov)

The sad fact is that racial and ethnic inequality exists in homeownership, but the encouraging truth is we

can begin to change that. As our City leaders, you are champions of equality. You acknowledge systemic

racism that causes prosperity inequalities, and you work to empower and support our low and middle-

income residents, which includes our overly-represented Black and Hispanic families. And that's exactly

why you should jump on this rare moment to create innovative, equitable homeownership policy.

No longer is claiming to be committed to racial equality enough. It's time to put that commitment into

action.

Sounds great but how? Follow precedents of other successful shared equity projects such as those in

Seattle, WA. To follow precedent, we'd need to design inclusionary zoning that incentivizes or requires

developers to build affordable single-family housing in line with the shared equity program vision.

In this movement of Black Lives Matter and all this political angst, with so much frustration in the world

exacerbating fears and anxieties, never has there been a more germane time for our leaders to unite us in

light, encouragement and hope. The City owns this land, the City zones this land, and the City can tone

this land to be a place that represents equality. Please take action for equity by allowing shared equity

programs to build affordable, single family residential housing in the HX zone.

Best regards,

Kate Fernald

Co-Chairs

Heights District Neighborhood Coalition

208 Tucson Way

Vancouver, WA 98661

Cc: Mayor and Council members

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Kathleen Mathieson <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 4:17 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Fwd: Vancouver Innovation Center Proposed Zoning Change


FYI - I had your address wrong initially. Thank you! Kathleen ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Kathleen Mathieson <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Vancouver Innovation Center Proposed Zoning Change To: <[email protected]> Cc: Jennifer & Bruce Hill <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Snodgrass, Bryan <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>


While I will attend and provide input about the VIC at the Nov 10th meeting, Brian and I are also submitting comments in writing. Our concerns center on:

Misalignment between development goals and reality of the setting: The developers note in their Type IV rezone application that “this site is located in a sea of suburbia” (p. 134), and they are 100% correct. While a 20-minute neighborhood with more alternative transportation is an admirable goal, the reality is that Fishers Landing East is a solidly suburban area without robust public transit. The developers aim to create density and intensity first, then eventually “nudge people out of their cars” (p. 123). We and many existing residents moved here because of the suburban setting; simply building a dense development is not sufficient to “nudge” people out of their cars. Making this area “an urban village environment” is not only unwanted by many current residents, it is simply unrealistic given the larger context of this area and the available transit and infrastructure.

Traffic, congestion, and safety: The rezone application estimates between 21,000 - 29,000 Average Daily Trips associated with the proposal, depending on density (p. 159). For surrounding residents already worried about speed and through-traffic, this is alarming. Of particular concern is the proposed middle school. While some students may walk or bike, since this is a suburb many will be driven. We know from experience that traffic around Shahala Middle School is terrible during pickup and drop-off, and Shahala is bordered by four-lane roads and extensive open space to the northwest, south, and west. The VIC school will be bordered by two-lane roads and has little surrounding open space. Added to the traffic associated with the rest of the development, congestion and safety are key concerns for current and future residents. Poor timing due to pandemic: Lastly, the development was likely conceived prior to the coronavirus pandemic. Moving forward on a major development like the VIC, based on pre-pandemic business frameworks, is ill-advised. As others have noted, there are vacant office and retail spaces popping up all over surrounding areas, and large nearby restaurants and businesses have closed (JC Penney, 360 Kitchen & Bar, Twilight Pizza). New multi-family housing such the192nd West Lofts have not even started renting. The landscape of professional work has changed, with an emphasis on telecommuting. A complete return to pre-

2

pandemic professional work models is unlikely, and launching a new development of this size during this time of uncertainty, based on past frameworks, is irresponsible. Sincerely, Brian and Kathleen Mathieson 17403 SE 32nd Street Vancouver, WA 98683 On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 3:14 PM C. Fassel <[email protected]> wrote:

November 8, 2020

Dear Commissioners,

Having read the Hill’s thoughts, I must also agree with them. There is so much commercial building being erected in east Vancouver that the necessity for more is just not warranted. There are numerous apartments being built between Tech Center and 192nd Ave north of Mill Plain. There are even more apartments being erected off SE 20th and 192nd Ave. Neither of these have been completed and both will have significant impact to the area. Aside from the apartments, 1 hotel has just been completed (Candlewood Suites) with another close to completion (Holiday Inn). Let’s look at the commercial property already built along 192nd Ave. The available commercial space is underutilized and companies are transient. Building more commercial property has no value in this area. Look at the commercial property build at SE 1st Ave and 192nd Ave!

Maybe for once we can do something strictly for the community that lives here. Utilize the green space for walking trains, sports events like at NE 18th and 192nd Ave, or even leave the space alone and keep the current animals. Why allow this developer in to erect buildings, over-populate the area, and walk away with their profits while forcing the residents to suffer through the aftermath it will cause. Keep Vancouver a place where people want to come!!


Chris Fassel


From: Jennifer & Bruce Hill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 2:53 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

3

Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Vancouver Innovation Center Proposed Zoning Change

November 8, 2020


Re: November 10 workshop review of proposed Vancouver Innovation Center Comprehensive Plan and zoning map change from Industrial/IL to Commercial/MX at the 179-acre former Hewlett-Packard campus at 34th Street and 192nd Avenue.

Dear Commissioners,

Having read through, and agreeing with, the concerns of my neighbors, I wish to add a few comments regarding the proposed zoning change. I find it ironic that the Commission meeting is scheduled on the very same day of the Urban Forestry planting project in Homestead Park. This is a wonderful effort to help restore animal habitat that has been grossly neglected over the years. Yet, here we are, discussing the annihilation of one of the few areas of urban forest remaining in Vancouver. The 179 acre site is home to a multitude of indigenous species of birds, including red tailed hawks, owls, woodpeckers, hummingbirds, etc. There are raccoons, rabbits, squirrels and opossums, just to name a few,

living within the site, all contributing to, and surviving due to the preservation of the site itself. The site is also home to trees that should be considered as Heritage Trees by the Urban Forestry Commission.

Do we need housing for a few thousand more people? Do we need more retail and office space in an economic climate that can’t support what we already have? Do we need the additional congestion? Believe it or, outside of the congestion, I say yes. Yes we do. A community without growth is stagnant. And a stagnant community ultimately falls into decay. No one wants that. However, wouldn’t it be nice if someone visiting the Vancouver Innovation Center in about twenty years, looked around and said, “Wow. Someone did a really great job when they designed and built this project. There’s housing, retail and office space, and look at the way they preserved the urban forest in the process. This project even enhanced property values.” I’m concerned, however, that that someone will instead be saying, “This is horrible. What were they thinking when they built this project? And what was up with the City of Vancouver Planning Commission to allow it in the first place?”

4

We have a unique opportunity before us. We can either allow the developers to move ahead with their plan of clear-cutting destruction, and packing in as much profit-yielding construction as is humanly possible, or we can ask them to go back to the drawing board and come back with a plan that is good for the entire community (animals included). Suggestions would include a natural forest buffer around the perimeter of the site, walking trails, a fitness course, picnic areas and playgrounds. The Commission needs to require that the project enhance the ratio of parkland-to-people, rather than taking it backwards. The current proposal “throws a bone” to the City and its residents by offering to keep a speck or two of green space. It will be a disaster for everyone and everything, except the pockets of the developers.


Sincerely,

H. Bruce Hill


Vancouver, WA 98683

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: kathy walkiewicz <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:25 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Traffic and the Vancouver Innovation Center

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Vancouver. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, We have lived on SE 172 Ave since 1993. Our street connects 29 street and 34th. Over the years with each new development in the area our street has seen a dramatic increase in traffic. We have a very popular city park on our street and have no crosswalks, stop signs or other traffic calming measures to increase the safety of both our residents and the the many visitors we receive each day. It is my understanding that traffic study data will be used to determine if our street will qualify for development mitigation. Accurate data should include weekend statistics and pre-COVID after school student and school bus occupancy counts. Since our street is the first residential street after 176, any traffic mitigation on 176th will increase our volume on 172 since it connects to 29th street. Since all schools in the Evergreen school district have traffic humps or roundabouts to ease school traffic it will present serious safety concerns if our street has no calming humps or mitigation. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Kathleen Walkiewicz Sent from my iPhone

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Monica Zazueta <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 7:35 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: PC Meeting Testimony


Hello my name is Monica Zazueta I live in the Shumway neighborhood with my son and partner. I am a concerned momma and need the world to go green and sustainable for my 6 year old sons future. Please have the developers use the latest practices and resources that are green and instal things that are not going to harm the planet. Peter Fels and Don Stienke have great ideas for this. Thank you for your time.

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: NickyKim Parson <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 12:04 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Planning Commission Meeting - VIC 11/10/20


Dear Commissioners, As residents of the Clearmeadows Subdivision who will be directly affected by the proposed Vancouver Innovation Center (VIC), we would like to take the opportunity during this meeting to voice our concerns. This area of Fisher’s Landing is desirable because of the single family homes, the pocket parks, and the numerous amenities nearby including a medical center with urgent care capabilities, several pharmanies, grocery stores, bars, restaurants, a movie theater and even a bowling center all within a 20 minute walk. We live along the north fence of the proposed development which currently has a chain link fence. Our backyard looks at the cows. Right now, we don’t have to worry about people looking in our back yard or taking something from our yard. With the proposed delelivement, there are planned streets, sidewalks, and biking trails as well as a school and apartments along the north fence. What is the safety/security plan for the residents along the north fence? How will our privacy, safety and security be protected from the increase of people from this new development? Is it expected that Fire Station 9 will provide coverage to this new development? Has the City addressed the additional trucks, personnel or fire station expansion required to support this development? We already have noise from the former HP plant, sometimes it’s so loud that we can’t have our windows open at night. We’ve lived in our current home for 11 years. In the past 18 months or so we’ve noticed an increase in the noise level coming from the plant. How much more industrial noise will an expansion of the facility create? More and more vehicles are using 176th Ave between 20th and 34th. Many bikers, runners and walkers use 176th. With the proposed increase in development, how will traffic noise and traffic safety be addressed as a part of this project? What safety improvements along 176th will be implemented? Will there be added traffic patrols to possibly enforce the speed limit and stop signs that seem to be ignored more and more as traffic increases on 176th? Has there been evaluation of how the property values will be affected with the new development? Lastly During this pandemic, the cows received a lot of attention as they were a welcome relief and a great source of entertainment and education. Please know that they will be missed greatly when they are re”moo”ved. Thank you for your consideration. Nicolette and Kim Parson 17611 SE 24th Cir Vancouver, WA 98683

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Pamela Myles <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 2:38 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: PC%20Meeting%20Testimony


To the planning commission: I just want to put in support from my husband and myself for a limit to two stories for any buildings north of Mill Plain for the Heights Project. All of the property there is close to neighborhoods of mostly single residence homes. There are a few apartments. As we have said before, we want to keep our traffic to a minimum since these are neighborhoods where folks do lots of walking and where people stop to visit one another as they walk. We want to maintain this peaceful, walkable, friendly atmosphere which could easily be destroyed by too many cars and not enough parking. Please keep the bigger complexes south of Mill Plain. Thank you for hearing us on this issue of great importance to us. Pam and Kevin Myles

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Richard Gales <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 1:25 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Letter to Planning Commission


Kirsten- Please add this to the public documents for the Planning Commission relative to the Heights District Plan. Dear Commissioners: The Heights District Plan Market Analysis (Appendix D, page 115) notes “In the next two decades, Vancouver is projected to need almost 11,000 new dwelling units at an annual average development trajectory of 540 units per year.” Looking at 2020 Permits, we see 50% of the 20 year need for dwelling units has been permitted in 2020 with two months left in the year. Simple math says Vancouver does not need to push high rise structures to meet housing demands. 4,647 Multi-Family Units 1,056 Single-Family Homes 5,703 Total Units

If 2021 sees the same rate of permitting, Vancouver will have permitted 20 years-worth of housing need in just two years.

If the current trend for permitting continues for 5 years, Vancouver will permit 28,500 dwelling units

with a need for only 11,000 units

If only half of those 28,500 permits move to construction, Vancouver will have a housing surplus of 3,250 units in 20 years, and 15 additional years of permitting and building adding to the surplus.

If all 28,000 go to construction, the surplus is 17,500 units with 15 additional years of permitting and

development to follow (Page 129 Heights District Plan Appendices) “Demand projections allow us to answer the question: how much development can Vancouver expect over the next 20 years, and how much development can reasonably be captured in The Heights District.” Page 129 also states “Assuming the mix of housing remains about the same for housing developed over the next 20 years, the majority of new housing will be single-family detached housing, with a small amount of multifamily and attached housing.” Vancouver’s multi-family housing, permitted in 2020, is four times the demand rate forecasted in the District Plan. The current reality is completely misaligned with data supporting the Heights Plan housing demand.

2

1. Is this high-density housing development reasonable and necessary given the numbers I’ve shared? 2. Would it be sensible to scale back density and proposed building heights? 3. If it is deemed reasonable to proceed as planned, please share why.

Thank you for taking these facts into consideration and for your timely response. Rick Gales DuBois Neighborhood

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: RICK GALES <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 4:51 PMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: Letter for Planning Commission Meeting 11.10.20 from Sandy Gales


Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to submit citizen input and inquiry. Hopefully I am addressing the group who will respond to my request to know and see financial modeling data for the Heights District Plan (HDP). As planning commissioners, you must have previously considered and studied a financial analysis. Possibly, you are even revising it presently in the implementation phase. The public respectfully looks to you as experienced professionals in building and city planning to inform us about the key economic components and $ figures important for the financial success of a City (tax-payer) real estate project. Valuable education and communication occurs when the public knows this information as well as your decision-making process related to financial viability on a huge long-term project. I submit the following questions and respectfully request answers in the Nov. 10, 2020 meeting if possible, or by the next PC meeting if not possible.

What parameters did the commissioners and city officials consider when determining financial viability?

How many housing units do you forecast are needed to make the HDP financially feasible? How much square footage of business space is essential?

What data exists that supports the above numbers for the housing units and business square footage necessary for economic viability? Please share the data.

Is there a certain dollar amount, annual percentage gain on the investment, or tax percentage the City needs to make from taxes and fees on the future buildings in a certain time frame to deem the project financially feasible?

What items in the plan do you as commissioners consider to be negotiable? Any contractor/homeowner/planner has a wish list, but not all of the items are essential and affordable.

Please name the components of the HDP considered to be amenities. Is the HDP financially viable without some amenities? If so, which ones?

The one comment the public has heard all along is that if the buildings are not built to a certain height, mostly 5-6 stories with a certain number of housing units, amenities would not be included. What do the financial models say the building heights MUST be to make it work economically with amenities?

The current topic of HX zoning will include a number of the items mentioned above. Before deciding on the zoning code, it would help the public to meaningfully engage if more detailed information was shared. Please consider posting online any tables, charts, graphics, and/or summaries with key economic details. The long range planning department has done a commendable job in preparing materials on other topics of the HDP project. I greatly value your time and thoughtful responses. Kind regards, Sandy Gales

1

Hull, Kirsten

From: Rose Stratton <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 4:41 AMTo: Hull, KirstenSubject: SE 29th Street Thoroughfare


Hello Kirsten, I received a flyer advising of the next Council meeting. I do appreciate this notice, but am unable to attend, so I'm writing this in hopes of being heard.

I am a resident of the Firs neighborhood, and our home abuts the 29th street thoroughfare revision. We have lived in our home for 26 years, and have witnessed speed chases, drifting, and midnight "tom-foolery," all from our backyard. Our greatest concern is for the many children who frequent the park, and the walkers who enjoy strolling along 29th street, increased traffic will increase speeding and danger to pedestrians. While I'm not opposed to the revision, I am opposed to the disregard for the residents who have lived in this area for the same length of time we have. We have long thought that speed bumps would slow this hazard down. Is this a consideration for the residents in this neighborhood? Rose Stratton 17007 SE 28th Street 360-904-3804

1

Vancouver Innovation Center – Public Comment received, October 27 – November 10, 2020

From: Anna & Justin Smith <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:47 AM

To: Hull, Kirsten <[email protected]>

Cc: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Snodgrass, Bryan

<[email protected]>; Kennedy, Rebecca <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Vancouver Innovation Center Proposed Zoning Change

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Vancouver. Do not click links or open

attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


While we plan to attend and provide input about the VIC today (Nov 10th), we want to take the

opportunity to submit our concerns in writing.

We moved to Fisher’s Landing from Portland, looking for a safe and friendly community to raise our

children.

Our main concerns with this new development are traffic, congestion, safety and livability.

It appears misleading when the city and developer call this a 20-minute neighborhood while at the

same time requesting the parking volume to be increased from the City’s standard and estimating an

additional 21,000-29,000 daily trips resulting from this development. The notion of “wishing” that

people leave their cars at home is not realistic in suburban areas, especially without a supporting public

transit system.

Drivers regularly speed on the surrounding streets and nothing is done to enforce those speed limits,

resulting in drivers also speeding through residential neighborhoods.

The fear is that this development will add an increase in neighborhood through-traffic, congestion,

pollution, speeding, along with a reduction in pedestrian safety and property value.

How can we design solutions that ultimately create better places for its residents, not just out of state

developers? I understand the need for a growing and thriving city but there needs to be some balance

between development and livability. Why are you building light industrial and commercial facilities in

the middle of a residential neighborhood? There is another development, Columbia Palisades, a mile

away in addition to all the development on Mill Plain and SE 192nd Avenue.

2

I hope the city will come back with a plan that is good for the entire community. For example, a

parkland-to-people ratio that would include green areas, walking trails, playgrounds and picnic areas. As

well as a plan for traffic mitigation such as reduced speed limits, traffic lights, speed humps and funding

for additional police officers.

If the City of Vancouver wants to remain a place people want to live, it needs to be safe, have public

places to gather and have well maintained infrastructure. With this development, that many residents

oppose, we are heading in the opposite direction.

We like where we live and hope it will remain a community we want to stay in.

Thanks,

Anna and Justin Smith

3010 SE 172nd Avenue

Vancouver, WA 98683

________________________________________________________________________________

From: Jean Kent <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 4:39 PM

To: Eiken, Chad <[email protected]>; Kennedy, Rebecca

<[email protected]>; Hannon, Julie <[email protected]>; Lopossa,

Ryan <[email protected]>; Ledell, Marjorie <[email protected]>

Subject: Vancouver Innovation Center planning input



To: Chair Marjorie Ledell and Planning Commission Members, Chad Eiken, Rebecca Kennedy, Julie

Hannon, and Ryan Lopossa

From: Jean Kent, Vancouver citizen and active volunteer

Re: Vancouver Innovation Center plans for parkland

Date: November 9, 2020

I’m writing to express my views on the need to set aside additional land in the Innovation Center

development for public park land. I think this is of critical importance for the well-being of park users

and is in compliance with the goal of increasing public park acreage, particularly for east Vancouver

3

residents.As I’m sure you know the northeast portion of this land is the site of native vegetation and

thus is host to native flora and fauna.

If this entire currently-wooded area was maintained as a natural area it could be used by the school

students as they study environmental issues and as a refuge of peace and beauty for residents and

visitors.

In addition, it would allay some of the deficits the city is experiencing in terms of providing the public

sufficient Community Parklands and Natural Urban Parklands.

Thank you for reading this and for considering my recommendations and concerns.

Best wishes - please stay safe!

Jean Kent

[email protected]

Volunteer

________________________________________________________________________________

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:01 PM Kathleen Mathieson <[email protected]> wrote:


While I will attend and provide input about the VIC at the Nov 10th meeting, Brian and I are also

submitting comments in writing. Our concerns center on:

Misalignment between development goals and reality of the setting: The developers note in their Type

IV rezone application that “this site is located in a sea of suburbia” (p. 134), and they are 100% correct.

While a 20-minute neighborhood with more alternative transportation is an admirable goal, the reality is

that Fishers Landing East is a solidly suburban area without robust public transit. The developers aim to

create density and intensity first, then eventually “nudge people out of their cars” (p. 123). We and

many existing residents moved here because of the suburban setting; simply building a dense

development is not sufficient to “nudge” people out of their cars. Making this area “an urban village

environment” is not only unwanted by many current residents, it is simply unrealistic given the larger

context of this area and the available transit and infrastructure.

Traffic, congestion, and safety: The rezone application estimates between 21,000 - 29,000 Average Daily

Trips associated with the proposal, depending on density (p. 159). For surrounding residents already

worried about speed and through-traffic, this is alarming. Of particular concern is the proposed middle

school. While some students may walk or bike, since this is a suburb many will be driven. We know from

experience that traffic around Shahala Middle School is terrible during pickup and drop-off, and Shahala

is bordered by four-lane roads and extensive open space to the northwest, south, and west. The VIC

4

school will be bordered by two-lane roads and has little surrounding open space. Added to the traffic

associated with the rest of the development, congestion and safety are key concerns for current and

future residents.

Poor timing due to pandemic: Lastly, the development was likely conceived prior to the coronavirus

pandemic. Moving forward on a major development like the VIC, based on pre-pandemic business

frameworks, is ill-advised. As others have noted, there are vacant office and retail spaces popping up all

over surrounding areas, and large nearby restaurants and businesses have closed (JC Penney, 360

Kitchen & Bar, Twilight Pizza). New multi-family housing such the192nd West Lofts have not even

started renting. The landscape of professional work has changed, with an emphasis on telecommuting. A

complete return to pre-pandemic professional work models is unlikely, and launching a new

development of this size during this time of uncertainty, based on past frameworks, is irresponsible.

Sincerely,

Brian and Kathleen Mathieson

17403 SE 32nd Street

Vancouver, WA 98683

________________________________________________________________________________

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 3:14 PM C. Fassel <[email protected]> wrote:

November 8, 2020

Dear Commissioners,

Having read the Hill’s thoughts, I must also agree with them. There is so much commercial building

being erected in east Vancouver that the necessity for more is just not warranted. There are numerous

apartments being built between Tech Center and 192nd Ave north of Mill Plain. There are even more

apartments being erected off SE 20th and 192nd Ave. Neither of these have been completed and both

will have significant impact to the area. Aside from the apartments, 1 hotel has just been completed

(Candlewood Suites) with another close to completion (Holiday Inn). Let’s look at the commercial

property already built along 192nd Ave. The available commercial space is underutilized and companies

are transient. Building more commercial property has no value in this area. Look at the commercial

property build at SE 1st Ave and 192nd Ave!

Maybe for once we can do something strictly for the community that lives here. Utilize the green space

for walking trains, sports events like at NE 18th and 192nd Ave, or even leave the space alone and keep

the current animals. Why allow this developer in to erect buildings, over-populate the area, and walk

away with their profits while forcing the residents to suffer through the aftermath it will cause. Keep

Vancouver a place where people want to come!!


5

Chris Fassel


________________________________________________________________________________

From: Jennifer & Bruce Hill [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 2:53 PM

To: [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]

Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Vancouver Innovation Center Proposed Zoning Change

November 8, 2020


Re: November 10 workshop review of proposed Vancouver Innovation Center Comprehensive Plan and

zoning map change from Industrial/IL to Commercial/MX at the 179-acre former Hewlett-Packard

campus at 34th Street and 192nd Avenue.

Dear Commissioners,

Having read through, and agreeing with, the concerns of my neighbors, I wish to add a few comments

regarding the proposed zoning change. I find it ironic that the Commission meeting is scheduled on the

very same day of the Urban Forestry planting project in Homestead Park. This is a wonderful effort to

help restore animal habitat that has been grossly neglected over the years. Yet, here we are, discussing

the annihilation of one of the few areas of urban forest remaining in Vancouver. The 179 acre site is

home to a multitude of indigenous species of birds, including red tailed hawks, owls, woodpeckers,

hummingbirds, etc. There are raccoons, rabbits, squirrels and opossums, just to name a few,

living within the site, all contributing to, and surviving due to the preservation of the site itself. The site

is also home to trees that should be considered as Heritage Trees by the Urban Forestry Commission.

Do we need housing for a few thousand more people? Do we need more retail and office space in an

economic climate that can’t support what we already have? Do we need the additional congestion?

Believe it or, outside of the congestion, I say yes. Yes we do. A community without growth is stagnant.

And a stagnant community ultimately falls into decay. No one wants that. However, wouldn’t it be nice if

someone visiting the Vancouver Innovation Center in about twenty years, looked around and said,

“Wow. Someone did a really great job when they designed and built this project. There’s housing, retail

and office space, and look at the way they preserved the urban forest in the process. This project even

6

enhanced property values.” I’m concerned, however, that that someone will instead be saying, “This is

horrible. What were they thinking when they built this project? And what was up with the City of

Vancouver Planning Commission to allow it in the first place?”

We have a unique opportunity before us. We can either allow the developers to move ahead with their

plan of clear-cutting destruction, and packing in as much profit-yielding construction as is humanly

possible, or we can ask them to go back to the drawing board and come back with a plan that is good for

the entire community (animals included). Suggestions would include a natural forest buffer around the

perimeter of the site, walking trails, a fitness course, picnic areas and playgrounds. The Commission

needs to require that the project enhance the ratio of parkland-to-people, rather than taking it

backwards. The current proposal “throws a bone” to the City and its residents by offering to keep a

speck or two of green space. It will be a disaster for everyone and everything, except the pockets of the

developers.


Sincerely,

H. Bruce Hill


Vancouver, WA 98683

________________________________________________________________________________

From: Peter L. Fels <[email protected]>


To: Snodgrass, Bryan <[email protected]>

Subject: Vancouver Innnovation Center - public comment



Peter Fels

5121 NW Franklin Street

Vancouver WA 98663

telephone: (360) 737-3154

cell: (360) 609-1655

[email protected]

7

November 9, 2020

Bryan Snodgrass

Vancouver Planning Commission

RE: Vancouver Innovation Center – public comment

Dear Mr. Snodgrass,

The proposed development of the VIC unfortunately precedes by at least a year the completion of

Vancouver’s new Strategic Plan and promised attendant Climate Action Plan. Therefore I urge the

Planning Commission to consider likely future City climate goals when working with the developer to

plan this project.

Comments by the neighbors show a concern for increased traffic and loss of open space. The developer

has indicated plans to create a park, dedicated land for a new school, and a forested trail connecting the

park with some other parts of the overall development.

In order to help meet neighborhood concerns as well as climate warming issues, I suggest the Planning

Commission work with the developer to enhance electrified public transportation to, from and within

the VIC, improve neighborhood interconnectivity with separated biking and walking trails not only as

proposed but also between the proposed school, residential areas, commercial areas and surrounding

areas, and increase overall tree canopy not only within the development but between the surrounding

residential neighborhoods, Vancouver Tech Center, Section 30, Columbia Palisades and the Columbia

River.

This development should not be considered in a vacuum. Good planning should consider how a new

development will fit into the overall community plan. A number of us, including the Sierra Club Loo Wit

group (Clark County Sierra Club chapter), Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility and ACE

(Alliance for Community Engagement) have been working with the developers of the VIC (New Blueprint

Partners) and Section 30 (HP) to encourage net zero construction and other climate benefits. We are

asking the City to help coordinate these developments into an East Vancouver Clean Technology

Corridor which will highlight and showcase green construction and transportation.

All of the proposed new development will result in millions of additional built square feet as well as

greater traffic loads along existing corridors, which could result in an immense increase in GHG

emissions at a time when the City, State and world need to drastically reduce emissions below current

levels to avoid permanent damage to the climate.

8

In addition, as a result of traffic and employment increases, the community will be asked to improve and

expand existing and possibly create new traffic corridors, public transportation, water and sewer

connections and the like. New Blueprint Partners and HP have stated their commitments to avoiding and

mitigating environmental harms. City planners should be asking them to make those commitments firm

and specific.

A coordinated approach to these major developments in east Vancouver can create a dynamic hub in a

part of Vancouver that is now lacking in iconic features with continuously diminishing open space and

less carbon-absorbing vegetation.

Please work with all of the developers to plan for an environmentally sustainable future in East

Vancouver that will please and even excite not only the new occupants but also the existing neighbors.

Thank you.

Peter Fels

I am also forwarding to you separately a copy of my email sent last week to the Mayor and City Council

on the same subject, which I ask you to include in the record of the Planning Commission comments on

the VIC.

________________________________________________________________________________



To: Snodgrass, Bryan <[email protected]>

Subject: Fwd: East Vancouver Clean Technology Corridor



Please include the email below in the Planning Commission record of comments regarding the

Vancouver Innovation Center.

Thank you,

Peter Fels

---------- Forwarded message ---------


Date: Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 11:38 AM

9

Subject: East Vancouver Clean Technology Corridor

To: Mayor Anne Mcenerny-Ogle <[email protected]>, Councilmember Laurie

Lebowski <[email protected]>, Glover, Linda <[email protected]>,

Stober, Ty <[email protected]>, Councilmember Erik Paulsen

<[email protected]>, Councilmember Bart Hansen <[email protected]>,

<[email protected]>

Cc: Holmes, Eric <[email protected]>, Eiken, Chad <[email protected]>,

<[email protected]>, Aaron Lande <[email protected]>,

<[email protected]>, Young, Jonathan <[email protected]>, Marc Esrig

([email protected]) <[email protected]>, Nick Manning <[email protected]>, Ron Schinik

([email protected]) <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Don Steinke

<[email protected]>, Mark Leed <[email protected]>, Rick Marshall

<[email protected]>, Randal Friedman <[email protected]>, Cathryn Chudy

<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,

<[email protected]>

Peter Fels

5121 NW Franklin Street

Vancouver WA 98663

telephone: (360) 737-3154

cell: (360) 609-1655

[email protected]

November 5, 2020

RE: Proposed East Vancouver Clean Technology Corridor

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

At last week’s Council meeting you received a presentation about the proposed Vancouver Innovation

Center at the former HP campus. You may recall I addressed you in December about their request to

retain vesting of permit requirements along with their request to extend an earlier development

agreement. The developers voluntarily agreed to drop the vesting request and since have indicated their

desire to make this an environmentally sustainable development.

10

Besides the Vancouver Innovation Center, there is the new HP development proposed for Block

30/English Pit, and proposed developments at Columbia Palisades. Some of you have noted that the lack

of a Climate Action Plan makes it difficult to limit Greenhouse Gases in these large new planned

developments.

It is important that new developments in Vancouver do not increase our total GHG emissions before a

Climate Action Plan is in place. Rather than digging deeper into the climate warming hole, we need to

take steps now to assure reduced future emissions.

A group of environmental leaders has been communicating with the developers in support of their

commitment to green and sustainable development practices. We are asking them and you to

coordinate efforts in the area to create the East Vancouver Clean Technology Corridor. It is critical that

you help this along even without a Climate Action Plan.

At your Nov. 2 meeting, Councilmembers Glover, Stober and Lebowsky asked what will be innovative at

the VIC and what will be iconic. The principals at New Blueprint Partners have told us they think the way

to attract new businesses and residents of their development is to showcase its sustainability. We agree

with them and I believe that if all of the new development in east Vancouver becomes a hub of major

environmentally sound building and planning, that can be what makes all of these developments

“iconic”. *

VIC needs a zoning change to reach its goals. The other developments may also need or request

concessions or contributions from the City. Recognizing the massive scale of these developments against

consideration of a future Climate Action Plan, you can offset them by asking for binding promises by the

developers that they will work to meet or exceed state climate goals for reducing GHGs with zero or

negative emissions by making new construction fully electric, solar ready, using very tight building

envelopes and facilitating electric vehicle transportation. The developers at HP and VIC have already

indicated their commitment to sustainable development. Working with the developers now to achieve

zero or negative emissions will preserve the integrity of the coming strategic planning process and allow

these developments with their contributions to the city and regional growth and economy to go

forward.

In each case, the developers can achieve zero or negative emissions by

• meeting or exceeding new and proposed energy code requirements (even before the code

becomes effective)

• meeting or exceeding passive building air infiltration standards

• fully electric buildings (saving the cost of gas hookups for heating and cooling)

• increasing the tree canopy within the developments and along the corridors linking them to other

parts of the City

• assuring flexible provisions for electric vehicle charging such as is being done in San Jose

11

• contributing to electric buses for C-Tran or other electric commuter transportation

• assuring good bike and pedestrian paths (including development of the existing underpass under

SR 14 to the Columbia River to connect to the proposed Lewis and Clark Regional Trail - see notes 12 and

13, p. 49 Detail Four, https://clark.wa.gov/sites/default/files/dept/files/public-

works/Parks/L+C%20Regional%20Trail_Concept%20Plan_Final%20May%202020.pdf)

• helping develop ground source heat pump technology and infrastructure

• utilizing heat pumps for all residential units

• working with Clark PUD to provide new renewably produced electricity sources (i.e., adding wind

and solar to their portfolio to meet any increased demand from the developments) and coordinating

demand with grid availability

• rooftop solar and solar ready construction

• creating some emergency resiliency with off-grid community centers using solar generation and

batteries (e.g. at the new proposed school site in the VIC) and more.

Please consider these ideas and work with your planning staff to adopt them. The City's official

consideration of the Corridor concept, including Columbia Cascades as its gateway, will help brand this

area throughout the greater region to achieve the iconic status you and east Vancouver's citizens are

looking for.

Peter Fels

Cc: New Blueprint Partners; HP; LSW; McKay Sposito; Otak; Hurley Development

* Spokane is developing a South Landing Eco-District which can be a model

Hull, Kirsten - City of Vancouver

Documents

Transcript of Hull, Kirsten - City of Vancouver