Agenda: https://vancouverwa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/824/files/agenda/2366
Workshops
In attendance: Mayor McEnerny-Ogle, C. Stober, C. Paulson, C Harless, C Perez, C Fox, C. Hanson
#1: Board & Commissions discussion
Presentation for Board & Commissions
Discussion, evaluation and recommendations regarding interview and recruitment process for boards and commissions
Alignment, communication and process – too much email increased frustration and documents too long to process effectively
C. Fox: Once a year application process is appreciated
Current plan is recruitment process is twice a year
C. Perez: What goes on re the “preference” choices of candidates & Councilors
Against having others in the interviews other than candidates
Majority of Council agrees on this point
C. Harless: Ask staff what other cities are doing and what planning tools are being used by others. The mass of emails and huge PDF document does not work. Appreciates the letters of recommendation
C. Stober: How do we make our candidates more successful
Candidates need a place to learn about the positions and what that entails. Would like in-person interviews.
C. Hansen: in favor of virtual interviews and working on Saturdays
C. Paulson: We made changes – what has been the outcome? Better candidates? More candidates? Need better communication. Candidates need to be clear about which position they are interviewing for
Teams is convenient, prefers in-person. Against one sub-committee having the ability to appoint a quorum on a board or commission
Select a candidate and also select an alternate
Need a more complete picture of who is going to be rolling off the board and need to know what the gap will be – create a matrix
At present, City has 25 boards & commissions
Need to evaluate the need of these boards and evaluate the need for any new boards and commissions – are there needs to be met?
There is a Housing Advisory Board – support 4 committees right now
Adding another board or commission also adds to staff duties, research, new positions, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
#2: Comprehensive Plan Update
Presentation for Comp Plan Update
Further links in agenda for additional maps and details
Went over state requirements (population, housing, climate) – what are the drivers and priorities, how did we get to the preferred map?
Slide 8: Review changes/edits from feedback on November 10th Council meeting, Nov 18 Planning Commission mtg and 450 public comments received.
Specific details in presentation re: Historic District, Rose Village, Fruit Valley, Columbia Tech Center, Columbia Business Center, increased density around parks and schools and major corridors
New Zoning Districts as pictures on new map – what is included in each zone (slide 9)
Slide 10: New Preferred Map
Coming back to Council on Dec 15 with Council endorsed map. Beginning in Jan, 2026, brining chapters of the Comp Plan will come to the Council, public review, final adoption in May, 2026
Q. – How can you make this attractive to private developers with all that is required by this plan? Building community is working with the city all along the way, testing projects, long-range planning, making sure the BC can deliver on this plan. New code standards, flexibility are being well received.
Q –Wants specific parcel restrictions to be removed – process to do that.
City does not support expanding the Vancouver Urban Growth Boundary, city is in conversations regarding some annexation.
Still working on refining the final numbers regarding reaching our 38,000 housing units. Getting close.
Q – appears to be a broad stroke, rather than parcel specific in this recent map. C. Paulson recommends a strategy somewhere in the middle – more analysis of specific parcel. We need MORE trees throughout the city.
A. – code will add trees everywhere
Density does not mean no trees. . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
City Council Meeting
In attendance: All
Public Comment
**from Southcliff neighborhood – appreciate changes have been made but object to 5-stories allowed along Mill Plain and around the park. Wants to maintain the tree canopy. Eagle’s Nests will be destroyed. This is not the right neighborhood for mixed use density of middle scale. The City developed the covenants for this neighborhood 70 years ago
**Dubois Park neighborhood representative – objects to increases the new density reflected in the preferred map. Established many years ago.
**Exec Dir of Odyssey World in favor of preferred map
**Dubois Neighborhood – have participated for 8 years in the Heights plan – please do not include our neighborhood in increased density. Difficult to navigate maps online. Please include us in the planning
**CEO YWCA – in favor of present preferred map
**Dubois neighborhood, objects to tall bldgs new plan, objects to the increased density that is recommended. Concerned about what the Heights development is going to do our neighborhood, people will park in our area as there will not be enough parking in the Heights development
**Appreciate city staff. In support of preferred map and appreciates the edits/changes that have been made. Every neighborhood must participate in increased density,
Consent Agenda
Pulling #3 and #7
Items 1/2/4/5/6/8 – approved
#3: City Council Meeting Schedule 2026
With slowdown in developments, how to best use time
Discussion about when to have community communications
Also have to factor in the remodel of council chambers and the
Difficulty in setting up in other bldgs. Back in current remodeled
Chambers in June, 2026.
When to take mid-year break?
Motion to have open public comment at the end of every council mtg in 2026- PASSED
Motion to continue quarterly public forums other than city hall in 2026 -
PASSED
Specific scheduling to come later, remodel considerations
Council Mid-year break: Week of July 6
#7: 2026 Model Business & Occupation Tax Ordinance Update
City Treasurer spoke on this item.
Mandatory changes in the state Law since we have a local B & O program. City collecting more B & O tax, net positive. How many more retail businesses are affected? That is a great question – won’t know until new filing data comes in. Business changing from services to retail under the new law. PASSED
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Public Hearing:
Continuing to allow Housing related Comp Plan map and text changes.
Public Comment:
**Would like luxury apt applications put on hold until new map is approved and density requirements are put in place. Affordable housing is more important to be approved.
**in favor of increased density and affordable housing
** How many apts vs houses in the city? Who is bearing the property taxes in this city. Too many apartments built in this area – school classes are too large – overfilled – so, too much population for the infrastructure
Continuing to allow Housing related Comp Plan map and text changes.
APPROVED
Motion to only allow housing for 80% of AMI or below until comp plan completed – motion failed (by one)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Council Communications:
Perez: Spoke with City of Hillsboro in dealing with ICE – their approach may work here. We need to understand the impact of ICE on all of our community
Fox: Most recent community forum – 2 rooms. One focused on ICE, the other one talked about all sorts of different issues in the city – mixed topics, very civil conversations. Kudos to Code Enforcement officers
Children’s Justice Center – mtg agendas do mention cases, one summary of a case – want to ask lobbyist to bring up at state legislature to strengthen law around child endangerment with fentanyl.
Paulson: C-Tran topic: 4 seats for Vancouver, 3 seats for County, 2 seats for smaller cities. BCRC (Composition Committee) rules: – restricts the County ability to name a councilor from Dist 1 to the board as that person would be considered to represent Vancouver and not the county. Also provided restrictions on allowing funds to be spent on light rail (if and when it comes to Clark County)
City Attorney opinion: The statute covers composition. BCRC does not have the power to restrict the selection of a rep or to restrict the use of funds.
Way forward:
- Adopt recommendation as made
- Send it back to the committee because of legal challenges
- City approves 4-3-2 and disregard the rest of the motion
Need to adopt the composition to be in alignment with the RCW
BCRC not a legal entity – they do not have legal council
Ctran was in opposition with the State as they did not a composition in line with the RCW. After a certain date, funds would be denied to Ctran unless they put together the correct composition. Ctran wants to change what the requirement is for them. Once a recommendation is made (the above BCRC ruling did that – whether legal or not) and so the stay has been removed and Ctran has 40 days to come into line or funds will be denied.
Council voted to instruct C. Paulson to go back to Ctran with option 3
PASSED
Stober: World Aids Day
Is there a possibility to creating a safe walk to get to the Amtrak station? No public transit to the train either.
Check out Seattle Sock Puppets
https://publicola.com/2025/08/27/an-interview-with-the-creator-of-the-seattle-city-council-sock-puppets/
Hansen:
Thank you to staff for Community Forum and Tree lighting
Really appreciated 5th St being closed to add more parking
Can we do that for the concerts in the part?
Mayor Comments
Tree Lighting under direction by the Rotary, 8.000 people attended the tree lighting
Drive & Drop this coming Saturday
4 new sites in Vancouver to monitor air quality. City Hall is one of the new sites
City Manager Comments
No comments
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Added to agenda – consideration of re-zone for a development
58th St zoning change – re-application to R-35 instead of R-50
Planning Commission approved this
1.6 acres, 54 units, 3 stories, retain all trees on south property line and some on west side. Transit Overlay District
Paulson: Wants a developer Agreement and NO Transit overlay, max R-35
Fox: Developer Agreement, crosswalk, safe ped connections, no Overlay
Stober: show long have they owned this property – why develop now
Harless – development agreement, no safe way to get to public transit
Hansen: - development agreement, agrees with previous comments
Continuation of City Planner workshop – added to agenda
Is the Council in agreement with the preferred map or not?
Fox: a zone change is made – just how many of these established homes will be affected? How many will be sold and then the new owner will build a 4-plex in the middle of this established single-family homes? i.e. – Southcliff, Dubois Park, Lincoln neighborhood, etc.?
Kennedy (City Planner): feasibility of re-development in these areas is low
Perez: okay with preferred map
Stober: fine with draft
Harless – fine with draft
Clear direction City Planner – draft of preferred map that was presented tonight.
Went into detail of next steps over the next 7 months
Adjourned – 5 hours, 43 minutes – whew! (1/2 hour dinner break)