VANCOUVER, Wash. — Vancouver City Council on Monday announced it would take no action on a citizen‑led initiative that would have required public votes before the city reallocated vehicle lanes for bike lanes, transit or other non‑motorized uses, after the city attorney and city manager advised the petition is legally deficient.

City Manager (name not specified in record) told the council that, after review by the city attorney and city clerk, “we recommend that no further be action be taken on the initiative subsequent to the public hearing.” The city attorney, Jonathan (last name not stated in the public record), told council staff had concluded “the initiative is invalid for 4 reasons,” including that it would unlawfully interfere with the council’s legislative and administrative authority and conflict with state planning law.

The matter drew more than 50 people to testify in a public hearing that lasted more than 90 minutes and drew sharply divided testimony. Supporters of the initiative — organized as Save Vancouver Streets — said residents were not adequately notified of lane‑reallocation projects such as the McGilvery Boulevard redesign and wanted a binding public voice on major lane changes. Opponents, including mobility advocates, neighborhood residents and several transportation planning groups, argued the initiative would create costly delays, hinder safety improvements and undermine state and regional planning obligations.

Why it matters: The council’s decision to accept staff’s recommendation halts a path that could have placed the proposed ordinance on a ballot and, if adopted, required voter approval before the city could repurpose travel lanes. City staff and many speakers said that would slow or block safety‑focused “complete streets” changes and could jeopardize grants and compliance with state planning requirements.

What staff told council: Deputy Community Development Director Rebecca Kennedy and Transportation Planning Manager Kate Jordan summarized outreach on the McGilvery project — the corridor cited most often by petition supporters. Staff said the planning process included walk/bike audits, an in‑person open house (about 130 attendees), two web surveys (collectively more than 1,600 responses and thousands of map comments), targeted school outreach and three mailings of roughly 8,000 postcards to project area addresses. Jordan said those efforts produced hundreds of community contacts and multiple neighborhood presentations and that staff had adjusted recommendations in response to feedback where feasible.

Arguments at the hearing: Supporters of Save Vancouver Streets said the city did not present an option that would simply preserve two travel lanes each way in some projects and that residents learned late or after decisions were effectively made. Justin Wood, a Save Vancouver Streets organizer, said the group turned to a citizen initiative after “exhausting the reasonable options we as a community felt” and gathering signatures.

Opponents said the initiative would create expensive, frequent elections and prevent staff from making smaller technical or safety changes. Josh Harmon, who testified against the measure, said the initiative would “hinder the city's ability to work quickly and efficiently” and could imperil grant funding and coordinated regional projects.

Legal and procedural summary: The city clerk verified the petition signatures and forwarded them for legal sufficiency review. The city attorney’s office concluded the proposed ballot language fails legal tests set out in the Vancouver City Charter and Washington law, citing four legal defects described to council, including interference with council legislative and administrative authority and conflict with state Growth Management Act requirements. The attorney advised the council’s review is governed by the charter process (city attorney and clerk review under section 10.04 precedes any council submittal under section 10.08) and recommended council take no action. The attorney also said that if petitioners proceed, any dispute over legal sufficiency would be for the courts to resolve and could lead to expedited litigation.

Public comment and numbers: The clerk reported about 57 people had signed up to testify. Speakers included neighborhood residents on both sides of the issue, representatives of community groups supporting complete‑streets measures, and counsel for the Save Vancouver Streets group. Petition organizers said they collected more than 6,500 signatures in support of the initiative.

Votes at a glance: While the initiative hearing resulted in a staff recommendation that council take no action (a procedural outcome requiring no formal roll‑call vote), the council also considered consent agenda items earlier in the meeting. Key consent actions that were approved during the same session included:

• Item 4 — Housing authority loan/bond approval: Council approved a resolution allowing a housing authority refinancing; staff clarified no city funds or obligations would back the loan and that the project is currently occupied. (Motion moved by Councilor Stover, seconded by Councilor Hanson; final action approved as part of the consent agenda.)

• Item 5 — Ordinance adopting a construction sales‑tax deferral program: Council approved an ordinance to implement a state‑authorized construction sales‑tax deferral program (new code DMC 5.98.070) intended to support affordable housing development on qualifying public parking lots; staff estimated the program represents a limited but useful tool for leveraging other funding. (Motion moved by Councilor Fox; seconded by Councilor Perez; approved as part of the consent agenda.)

Council and staff next steps: Council members and staff repeatedly told the meeting they expect to monitor completed projects and revisit changes that do not meet safety or operational goals. Staff said project evaluations — including counts, speed data and public feedback — are standard after construction and that implementation can be adjusted if problems emerge. Several council members expressed interest in continuing to refine public outreach methods so nearby residents feel better informed earlier in project planning.

Closing note: After hearing more than an hour of testimony and the city attorney's legal opinion, councilors agreed to follow staff recommendation and take no further action on the initiative petition. Petitioners retain the option to pursue judicial review.