Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to the Canby Planning Commission dated March 23. We will call this meeting to order and begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Thank you very much.

The first item is our consent. I'm sorry. Consent item is draft meeting minutes for 06/09/2025. Even though some of the commissioners are not present, this is, mostly procedural, type items. No real hearings or anything from from that. Well, we did have the public hearing on Canby Transportation System Plan update. No. I'm sorry. We did not either. It was the Planning Commission work session.

So I'm going to propose that we take a motion to adopt the meeting minutes as written. Do we have a nomination? I'm sorry. Do we have a motion?

I move we accept the draft meeting minutes for 06/09/2025. We have a second?

I second.

Alright. We have a second. And all in favor by sign of aye.

Aye. All opposed? The

ayes have it. We have adopted draft meeting minutes for 06/29/2025 as written. Moving on to citizen input on non agenda items. This is a opportunity for members of the public to address the planning commission on non agenda items. Each person will be given three minutes to speak. Staff and the planning commission will make every effort to respond to questions raised during citizen in citizens input before the meeting ends or as quickly as possible thereafter. Do we have any, citizen input on non agenda items? Negative. Okay. Moving on to old business, there's none.

And new business, there is none, which means we will now turn to the public hearing portion of the session. Tonight, there's a matter before the hearing body that requires a public hearing. All interested persons in attendance shall be heard on the matters. If you wish to testify on these matters, please fill out a public testimony card and give it to the recording secretary. When your name is called, please step forward to the microphone at the front table, state your name, address, and interest in the matter.

For longer presentations, proponents and opponents may buy time from each other. In doing so, those either in favor or opposed may allocate their time to a spokesperson who will represent the entire group. All questions must be directed through the chair. That's myself. Any evidence to be considered must be submitted to the hearing body for public access.

All written testimony received both for and against shall be summarized by staff and presented briefly to the hearing body during the staff report. The public hearing will be conducted as follows. Staff will present. There will be an opportunity for questions, if any, by the hearing body or staff at that point. The chair will open the public hearing for testimony.

The applicant will have twenty minutes to present, and any proponents will have three minutes. Opponents will also have three minutes, and any rebuttal will take place at, ten minutes. Chair will close the public hearing, then questions if any by the hearing body, discussion if any by the hearing body, and then a decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing on each matter or it will be continued to a date certain in the future. This will be the only notice of that date you will receive. Does anybody have any questions about the procedure of the public hearings?

No questions. Alright. So with that, we will turn it over to planning director Don Hardy and DKS and Associates to discuss the CAMBI Transportation System Plan, TA twenty six zero one, CPA 2601.

Good evening, Chair Olson. I just wanted to make a few remarks and then I'll turn it over to Kevin Chewick and Ria Flakowski from DKS Associates. They're gonna be doing the presentation tonight. So before you tonight, we're asking for a recommendation to move forward the document, the Transportation System Plan to the City Council. That would occur on April 29.

Just a few comments on the Transportation System Plan. This has been a compilation over the last three years. It's involved extensive public outreach, community visioning process, project advisory committee and technical advisory committee. Lots of work that DKS associates assisted us with through this process. Tonight, they're going to try to sum up this all with this PowerPoint. You won't be here all night. It's a shortened version. And so that they're gonna go through that tonight. And I think if there's questions, this can be interactive as we go through this. Just like the comprehensive plan, if there are commentary pieces of this that you want brought forward to the council, we are absolutely happy to do so.

We're not sure how how forward of a deep dive you went into the actual documents volume one and volume two, but if 's edits on those, we could take those as well in terms of comments to move those forward. But you had great comments for the comp plan, I thought that was very valuable. We'll be moving that forward to the council. Similarly, for tonight, for the transportation system plan, we want that as well. And lots of technical information tonight, so please ask us to pause if you would all like to discuss some of this in more detail. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Kevin. He's going to kick it off and we'll start that presentation.

Nice to see you again commissioners. You too. So we have a few things on our agenda tonight on the next slide. So we're gonna go over some key updates since we last met in December, go over the can you hear me?

Yeah. We're getting a little little closer to you. Sorry.

Okay. We'll go over the the draft TSP. We'll we'll just kind of review, do a high level review of of what's included in each chapter. We're not gonna go into a deep dive of it unless you want to. It's information that we have already presented in front of you all throughout this process. The third agenda item is just an ongoing monitoring plan of the TSP projects. It's based upon some feedback we got from our last work sessions with you all and and city council. And then finally, we'll just go over some next steps and after this meeting. So key updates since we last met. So, the big one is the draft TSP that we're talking about here today.

So, that's the major update. The other thing that's changed is the TSP action that we've created to monitor and track the TSP investments. Again, as I mentioned on the last slide, it's it's in response to some feedback that we got at the work sessions to ensure that some of the TSP projects are are moving forward continuously throughout the process and not and not being forgotten and, you know, identify actions that need to occur over the over the next year, two years, three year process. So we'll highlight that later in the presentation. So you've seen this slide before, this is the key development stages of the TSP.

We broke it down into three key steps. So, again, the system needs and constraints in that first box there, developing and evaluating solutions to address those needs and constraints and then finally, the box that we are in now, which is the compiling all of those findings into the draft transportation plan and going through the adoption hearings. Each of those were supported by deliverables as we've outlined through the process, so they're all italicized now because they're all done. Those have been compiled into the draft TSP, both volume one and volume two. Each of those documents you see there are included in volume two.

So if you're interested in lots of reading, you could read the 389 pages that's in volume two and that will be each of those memos. So and then the the volume one of the TSP is a condensed version of all that information. So the next slides, as I mentioned, we're just gonna go over each of the chapters that we've included into the volume one and also the volume two. There's the chapter headings broken down right there. The context for the plan is chapter one, chapter two is the the transportation system today and tomorrow.

The facility standards and performance standards are chapter three, and then chapter four is the projects and priorities, and then finally the implementation and ongoing strategies is in chapter five. And as I mentioned, volume two is the all the background material and technical data that that formulated the the process over the past three years. That's, you know, 389 pages as I mentioned, so lots of good data there if you're interested in a deep dive. So here's chapter one, context for the plan. This is mainly this this chapter is an introduction to the city and describes what the TSB is and how it was developed.

As we've as we've presented before, the the perform it was based upon a performance based planning process that that took into account a community vision, which is based upon what was included in the comprehensive plan, it's the same vision and then there's a set of supporting transportation goals and objectives that are consistent with what's in the comprehensive plan as well, the updated comprehensive plan I should say. And those help the and then they're supported by a set of performance measures that were used to assess the quality and availability of the infrastructure in the city. And with those, we included an assessment of congested safety and comfort for all modes at intersections and streets in the city and this provided some information we needed to develop the transportation improvements that are included in this TSP. So, plan was involved a lot of public engagement and also we it was developed with the project advisory committee, which was comprised of community representatives and then a technical advisory committee, which was includes technical agency staff from the county and ODOT and other various technical components. It also involved a heavy influx of community input.

So throughout this process, we got about three fifty people that attended community summits key points of this process and over two fifty people participated in through a variety of public outreach opportunities online. And then, I've included a summary of some key feedback that we received throughout the process. We got a lot of feedback. These were some of the things that came up more than, you know, several times. So, obviously, potential impacts to the neighborhoods with, you know, congestion on the highway and people rerouting out, you know, into the local streets, that was a concern for some residents.

Connections across the Malala River that came up a lot including Routes 2 I 5, that was a concern of a lot of people in the community. Vehicles traveling at unsafe speeds, so speeding through through neighborhoods and around the city on some of the the major streets. Delay at the rail crossings when trains block it came up, that was a concern of residents, and then also safety of of pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the city. So chapter two is the transportation system today and tomorrow. So this is this is a it describes the existing and future transportation conditions in the city based upon a comprehensive multimodal existing conditions analysis and projecting future conditions through the planning horizon, which is twenty years or 2043 for this process.

And it's based upon growth in households and employment that's depicted in the graph there on the image there on the right shows the households that are projected to increase over twenty years and the jobs that are also projected to increase through the TSP horizon. This system review documented the existing pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle conditions and the infrastructure that support those modes. It also identified shortfalls and limitations regarding how people travel within the city such as lack of bike lanes or sidewalks. And then, this assessment was used to determine where the transportation infrastructure does not maintain acceptable service level for residents such as intersection volume to capacity and level of service, pedestrian and bicycle level traffic stress and we used those locations to identify improvements that could accommodate those identified needs. So the next slide includes some graphics that highlight some of the outcome of these performance assessments.

We've we've shown these before. So the one on the left is the street never congestion that I that I alluded to. The red shows links and intersections that are experience high delay over the next twenty years, you know, you could see the highway there and several intersections along it. The one on the right is a it's the safety analysis, it shows locations of collisions including pedestrians involved collisions, bicycle involved collisions, and then the fatalities that occurred over the review period that we looked at. And then the next slide shows the pedestrian level of traffic stress and the bicycle level of traffic stress assessment that we looked at.

Again, the red and orange link show locations where these users experience a high level of stress, so we use them to target improvements along those facilities to improve the or to decrease the level of traffic stress that they will experience along those facilities. So, chapter three includes the transportation standards and regulations that are applied to the construction and to the operation of facilities to ensure that they are designed appropriately and the system functions as intended. These these standards allow for consistent future actions and include street functional classification and truck route designations to help support the movement of people, intersection performance standards that are applied to the operation and design of transportation filled facilities including intersection level service and volume capacity ratios for streets and intersections that provide a metric for assessing the impacts of new development on the existing transportation system and for identifying where capacity improvements may be needed, pedestrian and bicycle multimodal level of traffic stress to better understand the multimodal users experience on the system, their perception of safety and comfort along the street. So that's the analysis that we looked at on the previous slide and then transportation facility and access spacing standards to enhance overall system connectivity.

This is again images from the TSP, it shows the functional classifications for streets and also the truck route designations there on the right. So chapter four describes the transportation improvement projects identified to that address all of the system needs that we highlighted in chapter two of the TSP based upon the performance assessment that we looked at. Projects were developed using guidance by the project goals, previous plans, stakeholders and independent project team assessment of the transportation system needs, again, using the performance measures and transportation standards and regulations that we just looked at. The projects were evaluated and break using a set of measurable evaluation criteria. This information was used to divide the projects into two improvement packages, the referred to as the finance constrained projects and also unconstrained projects.

The finance constrained project list is establishes reasonable expectations for the level of improvements that will occur over the based upon the expected funding over the next twenty years and provides direction on where funds should be allocated. All the projects that are not on the finance constraint list are included in the unconstrained package. The graphic there on the the right side of the screen just shows a summary of all of the investments in the plan. You can see the 195,000,000 there at the bottom and then it's broken out by these these different project types. You can see the amount of projects and programs that are included in TSP for each of those types.

This is just the graphic that we've looked at before. This is the locations of all those projects. These numbers correlate to the project list that is included in the TSP in chapter four. The red indicates the the projects that are on the funding constrained list and then the the ones that are not red are are the projects that are in the unconstrained package. So finally, the the last chapter of the of the of the TSB chapter five is a summary of the performance outcomes and and it provides transportation strategies and policy considerations for planning and implementation and monitoring.

Some of these are emerging issues that need to be monitored and others are ongoing but need greater emphasis or attention. Addressing these will take time to evaluate and they may require future decisions from you all and also city council. It is recognized that there are ongoing community issues related to general transportation needs that will continue to evolve at the TSC process and outcomes. That's what chapter five is just documenting. This is a summary of the performance assessment that we alluded to in some of the earlier slides.

It provides that uses six performance measures showing the availability and quality of travel in the city. This includes system completeness, miles traveled, mode share, multimodal level of traffic stress, congestion, and safety. Each of those performance measures are supported by a general target to make progress towards during plan implementation and this this process will be used this evaluation process will be used to track progress of the TSP investments during subsequent TSP updates. The current performance assessment here highlights changes between current conditions in 2023 and the forecasted conditions in 2043 planning horizon, and it includes the transportation projects identified in this TSP. So finally, ongoing that was the the quick summary of the of the TSP chapters.

Are there any questions on that process there? Okay. So, this is ongoing plan monitoring that we've alluded to during several times during the presentation here.

Can I interrupt just for I a think commissioner Luelling, were you trying to, ask a question there?

Yeah. I do have a question. So I'm I'm looking out, and this is a lot of information to decipher in a week. I I really didn't have the week to decipher this, so I just looked over it at high level. But all I see here is a transportation within Camby. What what's our transportation plan to get people in and out of Camby? Have we have we addressed any of that here? I just don't I'm not seeing it. Am I missing something?

I can't hear you.

He he was he was talking about transportation inside of Camby, but he didn't see anything in the document. He talked about transportation out of Camby, in and out of Camby.

Yeah. In and out of Camby. Yeah.

So so the the the the city's TSP is focused on the urban growth boundary and projects within it. There are a few projects that are identified in the plan that are supportive of getting people in and out of the city and two I five and coordinating with the county to make sure that some of those projects, you know, continue to advance. That was part of the long term feasibility projects that are identified there in that first strategy that we'll touch on here coming up, But but those are intended to support that process of continuing to allow the the city's TSP and their projects to corn coincide with improvements that need to occur outside of their boundary with the county and and O'Doc.

I guess I'm just I mean, getting in and out of Camby is the biggest issue we got, and this is only gonna get worse. Maybe you're gonna show some more, but I wanna see some bigger 30,000 feet what we're gonna do here in the next few years, five, ten, fifteen years. I think we have a big problem here in the next two years. I'm a little disappointed in this at this point.

Commissioner Lewellen, maybe I could add a few comments. Obviously very important to the community getting in and getting out And we're recognizing that. I think that in terms of the transportation system plan, there are elements that are regional in their nature. There are elements that the county is involved with and the state is involved with ODOT and Clackamas County. Those are really in their purview more than our purview.

We don't have authority over Clackamas County or ODOT. But that being that said, there is totally a recognition by our City Council. They are several members of council on the C4 group, which is the Clackamas County Consortium. And they do talk about these regional issues and part of that is recognizing that in addition to these projects that are listed in our plan that do go into the county outside of our urban growth boundary, which is under a different jurisdictional authority. But there is the intention to track and monitor those items.

Those are very large lifts and they're going to be a regional solution to those. But our transportation system plan, by its nature, really is focused on our urban growth boundary for better or for worse. But we are recognizing the fact that there is a need to look at those broader elements both in the TSP in terms of those projects that are listed in the TSP and Kevin can go through those in more detail and in coordination with the county and ODOT. So by its nature, I mean, county is also going through a TSP process and Ryan and I are both on the technical advisory committee for the county TSP update. And that's another voice there in that process.

But that really is more the county part of this. And there is regional coordination on that. But what we're adopting or what we're recommending to be as an adoption to the council is what we're charged with, which is within our urban boundary. So hopefully that helps in some context here. We can't look at things that we are outside of our jurisdictional authority, but we can collaborate and coordinate and look at those as long term solution items as part of our process.

I guess when I look at the first time we did the comprehensive land use plan, we absolutely looked at this long at 30,000 feet with the 13th Avenue being the, really gateway to I-five. And frankly, when you look at the county plan back then, it was the gateway between I-five and and and, through Milano with 13th Avenue. I just don't see any of that here. Is this something we're going to get into before we pass the comprehensive land use

plan later on? Well, the comprehensive plan is similar in its nature in the sense that the comp plan is only for the urban growth boundary. It's in terms of our transportation system plan on how things are measured, level of service, etcetera, it's really about the urban it's about our urban growth boundary, our current one, and same with the transportation system plan. It's limited to what the urban growth boundary is, although there will be an expansion to the urban growth boundary as well, and we would end up readopting in the future a new urban growth boundary that's coming later after the boundary's expanded. But it really is limited to the urban growth boundary issues in specific.

But Kevin, if you would like, we can highlight the projects that are more connectional, we absolutely can go into that tonight to discuss those. I'm not trying to dismiss at all the comment. It's just it's fairly layered in the sense that the city has really jurisdictionally, have control over our urban growth boundary, and we don't have control outside of that. But that, again, is regional context. Our council members are keenly aware of those items you're bringing up.

And like I said, they're on the C4 meet consortium group county. In There's also, like I said, we're involved with the county's TSP update. They're just starting their process now. So I don't know if you'd like us Commissioner Llewellyn to go through those projects, I'm willing to do that.

No. I I I just feel like this is a bit of a you know, you guys are being charged to do something here and I I just I think we're getting around the problem from the first one. I I just feel like it's kind of a cop out a little bit, not on your part, but on the direction this is taken. We don't need to go into the details here. Yeah. This is concerning.

And just to add on what Don said, so projects b four, b five, and b six are projects that are mostly improvements that would need to occur outside the city's urban growth boundary and those would need to be done with the county and with ODOT to support those projects. So, the city has put those in the plan to identify those as needs, but they're projects that have to be included in some other agencies plan, but these are here included so that the city could have actions and and support the progress of advancing those ideas and those projects. So that would be b four, b five, and b six, which is in in the the project list for CAMBI.

Yeah. I I I just I tell you, kicking this can down the road, I mean, the next couple years when that when the liquor commission stuff starts moving around those roads, I mean, you know, you're gonna hear an earful. So anyway, that's just my concern.

Thank you, Commissioner Willing.

And we forward that. I mean, these are comments. We're writing notes now. I mean, this is the counsel will be also informed of the conversation tonight.

Thank you. Please continue.

Thank you. So so so ongoing plan monitoring. So this is largely a strategy to track and and ensures that the the TSP investments are are showing progress and develop action items to further support their implementation. So, as part of this, there's a new strategy that's going to be added to the transportation chapter of the comprehensive plan. The suggested language is included there in the first bullet, monitor and track progress of transportation system plan investments, including the long term feasibility projects that connect outside of CAMBI to provide progress updates and needed actions.

So, the long term feasibility projects are the ones that I just alluded to, b four, b five, and b six, and that's intended to have a conference or just a strategy in the comprehensive plan. And this strategy is gonna be supported by a new TSP action that will monitor and track those TSP investments to implement that action from the comprehensive plan. This includes an annual review of the TSP investments, again, the long term feasibility projects that connect outside of the city. It will provide status updates of the TSP projects such as the project phase and overall schedule, total budget, amount spent, and overall project completion percentages. It will also identify needed actions for the year such as coordination with the county or ODOT, advancing to a different phase of the project, or funding needs, or reallocation of funding that need to be identified to support that project.

There will also be progress updates of the TSP investments. We've identified approximately every three years, but whatever the city chooses to do there possible. We'll use the TSP system performance evaluation process that we've highlighted during this presentation for the ongoing monitoring of the city's transportation goals and the impact of the TSP investments on the city's transportation system. This will include the six TSP performance measures, and each measure will be providing progress updates for each of those during the touch points. So, we're going go over some examples of what has been done to support this process.

These are examples of what could be done for CAMBI to monitor and track these TSP investments. So this first graphic that will be coming up, this is an example that shows a dashboard tool that was developed to track progress of the TSP investments. This is done at the project level, So, there on the left, can see every project from their plan. It shows the budget there at the top, how much has been spent, and the percentage of completion of that project. And on the right side of the screen, there's information about the projects including what phase it's in and where funding is gonna come from.

The next slide is a similar tool except this graphic is just showing the progress of the TSP investments at the program level. So, overall, at the bottom is is a highlight of of the progress that each of their performance measures have been done and and then there's just totals of the categories and the active projects projects and different ways to look at it. But it's an easy way to visualize what has been done for the projects and the plan and how complete and what progress has been made. This is an example of the system the performance evaluation reporting. This graphic shows a summary of what can be done.

In this example, this is an update that's done every three years. This shows projects that have been completed in that timeline and since the previous update and then it highlights also current projects that are going to be built over the next three year period. The next slide shows the summary of the performance measures over that same period. It's highlighting trends that have occurred. You can see that they've done this for several years, so there's different, you know, you can see how it compares to all those plan updates of the previous years.

So, this allows them to track the progress of their system performance measures. So the next graphic is the same dashboard, but this instead provides recommended actions for the next years based upon the findings of the system performance evaluation. So in the presentation that I showed earlier, for CAMBI we've provided the performance assessment for the TSP as the baseline and if the city chooses to do this sort of update, we would just compare it to what we've presented as part of the TSP over the three year cycle will compare to that performance assessment to show progress for the investments in the TSP. So another way to look at we wanted to touch on what has been done since the city's current TSP, which is the '20 10 TSP. This just highlights progress that has been made since that plan.

40% of the projects that are included in that have been completed. That's a pretty high percentage from a TSP. There's some projects in there that were completed such as the pedestrian improvements along the highway, the Sequoia Parkway extension was an improvement since the prior plan was completed, Southeast 4th Avenue extension is mostly complete now, Walnut Street extension to 99 E, which was the Otto Road extension in the prior TSP, There's been a lot of work for that and Northeast 3rd And 4th Avenue improvements, South Ivy Street improvements. So, a lot of projects and those are those are the larger ones. There's also a lot of smaller ones that are included in that percentage.

So, you know, pedestrian improvements or bike lane improvements that have occurred since that prior plan have also been captured in that process. So, of these projects that were included in the prior plan, the ones that were not completed, most of them are included in the current TSP, so they're current, they're still needs that are relevant based upon our current performance analysis. Some of these projects are highlighted there that are still gonna be completed. The Oregon 9090 Pine Street Intersection, there's still improvements that are needed there. That intersection is still over capacity, so we've identified a new project that needs to be done there that's based upon an evaluation that we did at the intersection.

It's different from the prior TSP, but it's still an improvement that's done there, the Pine Street realignment is another one, completing the Walnut Street extension building it, including that new signal there and also some quarter improvements along Oregon 99 E. The rest of the projects were no longer needed based upon the updated performance analysis, so they were removed for various reasons. So next step. So any questions on that process?

Don't see any, so I think you're clear.

Okay, so next steps. So, our next step is if you all recommend for approval to counsel, we will have that hearing on the April 29, that will be the adoption hearing with them. There's a few updates that are gonna be that we are still gonna be made to the the draft TSP that you all were given, including any comments we get from you all tonight, and any counsel feedback that we get will be incorporating into the final adopted TSP. That TSP action that we highlighted in the presentation is going to be added to the current draft. There's also a small update to the table two that's going be made.

And then a future action will be updating the municipal code and development code to correlate with the updates that are occurring here. And that's all I have.

Doctor. Just to guide here, there are comments, I mean, any comments that you all have, Commissioner Nawalen weighed in, which is great, but good, bad, or indifferent, we would like to get your opinion on this and hopefully also a recommended motion as well to go to counsel.

Only comment I had was just the sheer volume of work that that took to put that together. It it was pretty significant. It was a lot of reading, but there was a lot of data and, yeah, you could go down the rabbit hole pretty far. I definitely second, commissioner Welling's comments in terms of ways in and out and seeing that as a part of the bigger picture, I think is also very important. I believe the stats shown in the reports show that it's going to, you know, potentially increase another 20,000 trips or so.

And those are, you know, single passenger vehicles in and out of the city. And so I think it's a worthy issue to highlight, albeit only so much of that is in our control, which I also understand. But, having that advocacy to the c four group that you talked about, I think there there we couldn't go wrong, making a very bold and highlighted section in the plan that that would be our intention. Christian Gross, did you have something?

Did you say me?

Yep. Did you

have something? I have a couple things. Just so thank you for all this great work. Thank you for boiling the ocean with the presentation, and I didn't reread every page of both those documents, but I did go through a good bit, and I always learn a lot. So thank you so much for this.

The other thing I did, most people know I'm a career IT person, so I spent a bit of time poking around AI to see what they recommend for best practices. And if I didn't happen to see them in the document, I did some keyword searching just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. But a couple things stood out for me, and I don't recall us discussing these, but one is that's recommended is for best practice of a transportation study is charging station infrastructure. And I'm just wondering, did we I didn't see that in the document. When I did keyword search, I didn't see it.

Could you repeat that, commissioner Girosh? I I didn't pick that up.

Charging station infrastructure.

Okay. Charging station infrastructure. Okay.

And according to AI, it's considered a best practice these days in transportation studies or for plans. I

did see them make mention of that in one of the stated goals in I believe it was in volume two. I think it specifically called out I think I made a note of it actually.

Does that mean it's it's recorded as one of the potential projects?

Oh, you know, you're right. I don't I don't know that. I just only saw it referenced as one of the objectives in, in volume one. I think they had about six different goals and it was listed as one of the goals in there, but I didn't see it as one of the intentional or constrained projects.

I mean, maybe it's the decision to purposely not include it, but I don't know. Given these days out in the industrial area or no idea where we would put something.

I'll let Kevin and Ria speak to this. There's kind of an evolution going on a bit in Washington State went through this process where a lot of these were funded by state dollars. I believe the one that is being planned right now, and Ryan can add into this, but there's one plan in the parking lot just past the theater that I believe is grant driven that we're doing right now. And I think there's more to come on that side of things. So I should probably have a better handle on this. But I believe that is a state initiative item. But I think it's a great point and I'll turn it over to Kevin and Ria for any other thoughts.

So it is an objective, so that was identified in the plan, but there is not a specific project. But if the city would like that to be a project, that's something that could be added to the final set of projects, which is demand and system management. Some agency or some cities choose to include an initiative to, you know, allocate some funding towards providing infrastructure throughout the city, but it's also a policy decision that that can be implemented in your municipal code or development code that could require development certain of certain sizes to provide level of infrastructure to support that.

And I remember one more thing that is important is that and I don't know the exact threshold, but commercial and industrial developments are required to put the infrastructure in now, it's state law, but it's not that infrastructure is not actually the full equipment, but they're required to put in and we've had several actually in the city that have done this. So I think the bridge would be if you know, on this would be putting funding towards the actual implementation of that beyond what developers are contributing by the connectional pieces.

Yeah, it would be making that decision to have a public investment, right, in the city to to do a study to determine where the charging stations need to go. That in itself is its own evaluation based on travel patterns and land use. But, yeah, the TSP could show a public investment in doing that study so you could determine and you could even say, you know, up to how many stations or charging areas you want to invest in as part of what yeah, one of the TDM projects.

And I think that would be a great suggestion. Some of this has implications on electricity use as well. I mean, not that we like every spot in town would have one. And I think the theme is great, but there is an energy piece to this as well that would have to be factored into that, which I think would be another reason to have a study. So I think we should I think we should put that in. I mean, Commissioner Jeroche, was that would that get us towards what you're thinking about?

Yeah. And I think if there are already some things going on in the city to track that against the the projects, it would be great to say, hey. We are making some progress, and here's some steps to do some more or at least study. You know, that sounds great. Yeah.

Then the other one is often when we are looking at development applications, traffic studies. And over the last few years, regularly there's a big, disconnect between what the traffic studies show and what people perceive, you know, the reality versus the perception with regard to congestion. I mean, we hear it almost with every application that people just say, well, that traffic study isn't right. You know, Based on what we experience, it's not right. It would help to get some sort of a tool in our toolkit as planning commissioners to be able to say, Well, we have looked at that.

And I did notice in your report, you had a lot of recognizing there's a disconnect between reality and perception of safety issues, and you directly noted that. And a really good and I learned a lot from reading that, so thank you. But I didn't see much about the reality versus perception of congestion. And boy, do we need something in our toolkit for that.

I think part of that is actually introducing people to a realistic scale. This can be residents often don't have a concept of actually how bad the scale gets. I'm a little bit better working in Portland, but that might be part of the solution is to just, you know, describe the whole scope of the problems and then show that we're only inhabiting the bottom three sections of it.

And on that point, we've had some conversations about kind of coloration. And I'm not sure if it's as simple as that, but the green, yellow, red kind of process. I mean, again, I'm oversimplifying perhaps what you mentioned. But like how close is something to failure, you know, versus to Commissioner Hutchinson's remark on our traffic studies?

And what you just alluded to, Don, is what was presented on slide 11, the the street number of congestion. So, that that that essentially shows intersections that are over the city standard Okay. But also ones that are approaching it ones that are well under it. It it it it shows that level of comparison not only at the intersection but along street segments. So, this is something that we've been trying to provide more of just to illustrate, you know, locations that, hey, we know that there might be some delay on these streets, but it's still meeting standards.

So, there's not anything from a requirement that the city can do to require a development to do something at those locations, but there is recognized delay there. And that's what that map on the left is is hope hopefully, you know, suggesting.

I mean, this addresses what we see in the traffic studies and this is what, you know, this is what you're saying is reality and I agree, But then the the citizens say, well, this is not. You know, their perception of congestion is very different. And like I said in your reports, you did a great job of addressing the the difference between, you know, reality and perception of safety issues, but I didn't see that anywhere when it came to congestion, and that's what we need to somehow help people understand. We do recognize that there's a disconnect and there's a perception difference, here's we, you know, here's what we can say about that. This doesn't say anything about the misperception.

This is the reality piece, which is great, but it doesn't help us when we're listening to citizens who really don't agree with it.

Well, I was just gonna

They don't agree with this map is what I would say.

Outside of the TSP, you are lucky. We are also the transportation on call.

I can't hear you. Sorry.

Sorry. Outside of the TSP, I think we can also help that a bit since we're the on call transportation engineers for the city and work with Ryan and Don a lot too. We often give presentations to Planning Commission to walk through exactly what you're talking about. So a little bit of traffic engineering one zero one, but also a lot about perception and being able to talk to the public. Because, you know, we throw a lot a lot of jargon, you know, we say, oh, it's level service c, it's fine. And they're like, what? A c is not fine in school. Like, what do you mean? So there is a lot of education piece on that and a lot of unintended consequences. I mean, you don't want your level service to be a c because then you have nine lane roads everywhere that you only need, right, for a couple hours of the day.

So there is a lot of nuance in education in that that we would be happy to talk to Don and Ryan about outside of the TSP if that just helps with public and development review and right kind of what happens again outside of this.

And I think that would be extremely useful for the Planning Commission and maybe we can hopefully gather more people and interest in people attending the Planning Commission because of that topic. But we'd be happy to facilitate that and have you all here to do a work session on that. And maybe maybe it would be with counsel as well, and that might get a little more inertia. Was joint. Go ahead, Ryan.

And and I think to Judy's comment, I think we could also work together with DKS and on creating some, like, exhibits or something or, like, a little one or two page white sheet so it there's something that lives beyond, like, a work session. Yeah. Because because Judy's kind of asking about something we could refer back to, but I think that's I think that's something we could do together.

Yeah. We've often given this kind of a condensed version of our slides to the city and they put them online even. Yeah. Like, hey, if you're interested, you know, in development, you can put it on your development page and people can dig into that beyond beyond the work session.

And as far as the blind document goes, we we can add some some detail to to get touch on the perception piece that that kind of, you know, is the other side of this map which is which as you pointed out is reality. So we can we can add that try and add something in there to to hopefully touch on that a bit.

Okay. So we addressed in the study the reality versus perception about safety, and I thought it was well done. But why would we not also in this in this traffics in this the plan put in the same thing, but for congestion. It's like we're leaving part of it out.

Kevin, I'm He's deferring to do that. Go ahead and say you said say what you said again.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. I I was I was I was suggesting that that we can add some context to the plan that that touches on the other side of the reality, which is what's shown here. We could we could, add some contact that shows the touches on the perception side as you mentioned, as we did with the safety part of it, so we can add that to the TSP.

It will be added. Yeah.

Thank you. Yeah. Like I said, I thought you did a great job with the perception versus reality of the safety things. That was a big learning for me, so thank you. And then the other thing, this is just gonna be funny for the Planning Commission, but we used to talk about the flyover. Remember on, think, what is that, the West side of town, there was gonna be a flyover road. Have we totally given up on that idea? Anybody remember that?

This is Berg Parkway and that Yes. Commissioner Girosh, that's in the plan as one of those regional connecting projects. It's one of several that are the connectional pieces. The complexity of that is that the county did a study, kind of high level study about four years ago at Barlow And 99 and also they looked at Barlow and Arndt. And they found that that flyover was multiple times more expensive for the same benefit that they could do with just basically a redo of the Barlow And 99 intersection.

We would love to have a flyover to alleviate things. It's an enormously expensive thing and it wouldn't seem like it would be. I have a bit of experience with this on some other projects where how big of a deal is it to put a flyover onto a freeway and it's a really big lift on cost. And so it would be way beyond what we could ever afford here in Canby. It would have to be a federally subsidized item as well.

And that's part of this regional discussion piece of this. But there's also this coordination piece with the county that also plays into that, which is if they are going to do something and they obviously know the hotspots there, they might not choose to do anything but what is lesser expensive that provides the same relief. Because it largely would have provided the same relief as another traffic consulting group that did it. But they addressed that. It's still important, it's a tracking item that I think we need to, we have it in our plan as a flyover, but I'm just giving you some of the realities of that.

It needs to be fixed. I'm not sure if it'll end up in a flyover situation, not because of the expense.

Yeah. No, I totally agree with you. I think it's we should put it to bed. And then my only other question is I I'm sorry if I missed this, but I was looking for a high level correlation of goals versus projects. So to what extent do the projects we have listed cover the goals that we have listed? Is there something that would help me kind of performance. And I'll get a 100,000 foot view of that?

Yeah. And so that that what that that process is largely summarized in the the performance assessment when the the slide that we show

It's far more.

On let's see.

Okay. But it Doctor.

18, it's slide 18, Ryan. So this right here highlights that. So at the top are each of the TSP goals, so each of those show how successful those performance measures are at accomplishing those goals, so that identifies how each of those score for those and so the goals are there at the top and then the progress is shown there on the right.

Okay. No, that's perfect. Thank you. And so your recommendation is that can be implemented something like this to keep track of the goals and the progress?

Correct. Yeah. Yeah. To track the progress and show that there's, you know, your implementation is successful in implementing your goals and if there's actions that need to be done to ensure that that is occurring differently, that could be identified through that process.

Perfect. And who in a city is typically responsible for that?

It would be a combination of public works and planning. I think this is I think a lot of jurisdictions that do these tracking examples that Kevin provided are led by public works departments. I'm not trying to put them under the bus at all here, but it's a combination of us and them.

Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions. I really appreciate it, everybody. Thank you.

Commissioner Luelling.

I guess I look back at the history and all this, the Burke Parkway and everything. You had federal money. You had state money. It was the number one priority in the state ten years ago to put that Burke Parkway through. They wanted to know how Camden was gonna do their part. You need to come up with $10,000,000, but we couldn't be bothered because we wanna build a new library. And now we're saying we're gonna do this, and we're not sure what the county's gonna do. You gotta do this in conjunction with the county and the state. I'm missing something here.

The only thing I can mention, I'm not sure what happened in the last round of this. I mean, expenses, know, things get more expensive as they as time goes by. My experience, you know, not so much in Canby, but elsewhere when you're dealing with a project like this, you're probably looking at 70 to 80% needing to be funded federally. I mean, it's like a $140,000,000 project. I mean, it's scale, at which is enormous and would be really difficult to, again, not to say that's not necessary, but we would be very difficult to get that kind of funding, one, because the funding's not there, and two, because of the competitiveness of that process as well.

Need is part of that piece as well. Like every other city in Canby would be looking for that same funding source. So I'm not saying it's not important. That's not the message here at all. It's more the reality of what that cost would be and how much of that would have to be federally matched to make that a reality. And I think the county is coming in with, if we're going to be in our jurisdiction in addressing this, spending 30 to 40,000,000 versus 140,000,000 is kind of the comparative. These are not exact numbers, but that was really for almost the same benefit that would make more financial sense that did to them at the in that analysis.

I guess I just you know, the way the more we kick this can down the road, more expensive it's gonna be. It would cost the city 10,000,000. You add that money in a renewal. That's what that does. It was nothing.

And I

I know the And now here we are again doing this. I know the pay. I guess I go back to the monitoring part of this. So so did I hear you guys right saying there's there's gonna be yearly monitoring, but in your stuff, it says three year monitoring. So what does that mean monitoring? I mean, is this gonna this transportation plan that you looked at with the city and the and the or the city and the and the county and the state on a yearly basis, a three year basis? Mean, how are we gonna get to this? I mean, in two years, you're gonna have 20 you're gonna have thousands of people, I mean, coming at you that you're not gonna like. I'm gonna be one of them.

And if you would like to suggest commissioner Llewellyn, a shorter time frame, you know, one or two year monitoring plan versus three, we're totally open for that suggestion.

Well, I think the way you're going about this, it better be yearly. I you you better you know? This is craziness to me. Craziness. The whole thing's been crazy. I I just we do these transportation plans, and then a few snowbrothers come out of the woodwork and boo hoo, and then nothing gets done. And but yet, I mean, at some point, the city's gotta figure that, you know,

get moved. Yeah. We I mean, obviously, that's something I can't speak to the yester the yesteryear situation on where that was set up. I totally understand how things can come and go. Interstate Bridge is kind of another example of that right now that should have probably been done ten, fifteen years ago as well.

And again, it's just one of those things of like, I think it's going to take a collaborative effort beyond the city to make all this work together. And the financial lift of that and the regional coordination of that are really important. There's just not a lot of federal money that's, I mean, those federal programs just aren't there that were back in the day. Like, that was probably one of those that was like ICE T or one of those other programs that existed back in the day where there was, I'm sure there was a match that came from feds as well. So we're going to keep tracking those and obviously we're interested in that process, but I think that is a key element here is the funding those matching grants.

I guess I would like to see writing on this. This is a yearly monitoring and more closely relate working with the county and the state. I I would love to see some writing in that.

That's just me. No. All good points.

Okay. Other commissioners, any comments?

I just have a question. You said that the ongoing ongoing strategies assisted performance evaluation, you're going to address that or add something to the plan?

Yes. Correct. Yeah. The this that this will be added to the current draft. It's not included in the the current draft, so that'll be some the in action in the final chapter that we'll

be adding in Okay. The current draft. It's more of the other slides that you went over? Or is it this particular this isn't this because this slide 18 is in that's in the plan.

Yes. Correct. So so this is the the analysis that was done just for the current plan. We're recommending that that action is gonna continue this forward. So, there'll be a separate process. It's not updating the TSP, but it's just rerunning the performance assessment that was done. So, you'll report on progress from this as this as the baseline and then you'll report progress over if it's annual or two years or three years

or whatever it's

That was right. So that will be part of that annual Correct. However many years. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. And I was just so the TSP will say that you're going to do that. Yeah. And then the other slides that Kevin showed were examples from other cities and there's a lot of different ways to do that. So I think that'll be up to planning that department to determine, do you want a dashboard, does it look like this, does it look like that?

These are

To be determined.

Great representative examples and I I we have a bit of work to do here on our part and I it's back to commissioner the Welling's comment as well. I think it's helpful to have a way to display this programmatically. We are playing a bit of catch up here and because we really don't have that system set up that some other cities do, we need to get there. And it's a collaborative between public works and planning to do this. Because it's ultimately these are city roads that are being monitored by the public works and funded through those mechanisms. Planning is setting up the framework for this, but the implementation is really public works.

Okay. Any other comments before we close out the public hearing?

Are we looking on roughly a ten year cycle on this process?

And that would be another item if you all have a recommendation for that. You all made a recommendation for five years for the comp plan. We had seven in there originally. We're open to suggestions. If it

takes three, that might be a bit short. That would be

really short. Now waiting like as long as we did, which was 2010, so that was like fifteen, sixteen years, that is too long to wait on this. And that's a bit of the challenges that we have as we're playing catch up a bit. So I would agree

Maybe we can come up with an update process that isn't quite so, I don't know, it seems like a lot of this data collecting process takes the time that it takes and you just gotta do the shoveling every so often.

You do. I think ten years is probably a good milestone. I mean, I think five might be a really super aggressive, but I think ten is probably, know, within reason.

I was just curious.

I wasn't thinking about codifying or anything, but I just was trying to figure our scope so that if we miss something, you know, the next time that we're gonna be able to come around and address it, you know, in ten years isn't unreasonable when you're talking about transportation projects. It takes some shovel time. Yeah.

I was just gonna add, John, that you are doing an update after the UGB expansion. Right? So that'll be in a couple of years. And then after that, it really does just depend on how quickly things I mean, some cities, ten years is not a long time because a lot hasn't changed, but you're growing really fast. So I think that's something that you guys need to watch. This was paid for by the state as well as the UGB expansion, but that's not typical. So that's also something to weigh into is going forward. Right? What does that look like? The city would have to self fund. Right? You don't wanna do it too often. So it's kind of a balance, I think, with those. Data's getting cheaper though as technology and things are happening. There's not as quite a lift at the beginning and updates.

This was a complete redo because it's been sixteen years. Updates are usually easier, maybe twice as fast for half as much money.

And I would love to be able to like have the dashboard and everything else like completely dialed in and the timeframe that Rhea mentioned. I mean, we will have to, I mean, the sequence is going to be, we're dealing with urban growth boundary here, when we're doing the expansion, there'll be the urban growth boundary expansion, then concept planning, and then the comp plan and the TSP will be readopted because that'll be the new areas for those new areas. At that point, it would be awesome if we could also have these other mechanisms that are completely dialed in on tracking. I mean, would like it to be shorter than that, but that would be helpful for us to be able to then have that as a presentation tool that's live and present and active to all the points that were made tonight.

Okay. So barring any other comments or questions, I think we can close out the public hearing at this And I wanna open it up for, any discussion amongst the, Planning Commission or Planning Director or Planning Manager. Does anybody have any final comments before we entertain a motion? I see none online and there's none in here. So do we have a motion, for recommending RTSP?

I think it has to be with the additions that we talked about.

We should probably enumerate those a little bit. So

so before the motion, we had commissioner Luellings input on what was the first thing he had, which was I think he mentioned the West Side flyover project or no, it was highlighting the ins and outs of Camby. And then again, stressing that we wanna see an emphasis on outreach with the, regional partners for, keeping the in and outs of the town kind of at the focus or top of the priority list.

Yes. The getting in and out of town versus just within town. That's that's the number one thing.

So we have in and out of town, and then we had, the review of the of the TSP as well, the tracking portion, seeing that go into place and then having a one to two year?

Yeah. I I don't think this the shorter time period's a big deal. I mean, you have a meeting and nothing's really changed, then move on. But you were And I'm seeing this as a big

Craig, you were talking specifically about the tracking of the projects that were, highlighted. Right? You wanna see the progress of the projects?

The process of the projects, but I wanna see more close I wanna see more closely, working with the with the county and the state of how do we get out of in and out of town. It's gotta be mentioned in here.

So we got the in and out of town, the one or two year which interval did you want one or two year review of the progress?

You know, everything we've got. The shorter, the better for me. I mean, it it's no big I mean, if if every year you look at it and there's nothing to do, then moving on to the next, it's a one meeting. It's one agenda item, which I don't see the problem here.

I think just due to the speed at the the pace at which those projects move, I think anything shy of two years would probably be not much to talk about. Do you

Well, I think you're I think you're gonna maybe. I mean, I'd go two years, but I, you know, I I think the traffic here is is gonna get just horrendous. Like, you're gonna have so much pressure from citizens here pretty soon. You you know, you guys don't even know yet.

Okay. I've got I've got notes, so I'm I'm covering the I'm just putting down review progress one to one to two years. We'll leave that to counsel. I mean yeah.

So in and out of Canby, the review of progress

And closer relationship with the city of the state and the and the county.

The in and out of Canby that it's imply that's implied is that they're be working with regional and state partners

Okay.

To keep that prioritized. Okay.

We have the electric electric charging stations, is the next I think the next one which is Commissioner Geroche. Public investment study for electric charging stations.

Charging station infrastructure study.

And that that was the one item I had there and addressing congestion levels in the TSP versus congestion levels versus perception

Yep.

In the TSP.

Perception versus reality.

And then the council, we are we'll with that in mind, we would intend to do council slash planning commission work session with the white sheets that Ryan mentioned. I don't have a timeline on that, but we can clearly do that.

So if we just keep for the purpose of the motion, if we keep it short and sweet with all the Address

congestion levels first. Yep. Congestion, perception

standard or yeah. Perception versus reality of congestion.

Does that sound good? Yep.

Okay. So for the motion then we have in and out of CAMBI, we have the review of project progress, we have charging station infrastructure study, and perception versus reality of congestion. Yep. Take it away Commissioner Hutchinson for the motion. Do we have a motion? All right.

I move we advance CPA 2,601 slash TA 2,601 Transportation System Plan for review by city council with the addenda of increased study of of the routes in and out of Camby, in and out of the city limits. We would like to have there be a review of programs with a some sort of dashboard involved, that the public can monitor by, the charging station infrastructure study, and perception versus reality of congestion, some sort of informational tool.

Do we have a second?

I'll second that.

Okay. Judging by the enthusiasm of the second, I think we'll just do a, all in favor. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. We are now approved to recommend the CAMBI Transportation System Plan TA twenty six zero one, CPA twenty six zero one with addendum including in and outs of CAMBI, review of progress of projects, charging station infrastructure studies, and perception versus reality of congestion being added to the t p TPS document and headed up to counsel for approval.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

That

was a big, that was a lot of, yeah. Yeah. That was intense.

Get that off your toes.

Okay. Next item up on the agenda is items of interest and reporting from planning staff. We'll start turning it back over to planning director Hardy for the director's update.

Thank you. Just a few items.

Thank you.

We are going to be starting our code audit probably in May as our anticipation that's going to counsel on April 1 for our combination code audit and there's some other urban growth boundary expansion work combined with that. We've combined a Department of Land Conservation and Development grant with this work that we're doing for the Code Audit and the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion. We've combined the monies for that which means that we have a full Code Audit budgeted for which is great using those sources of funding starting in May and you all will be hearing more about that. Ryan is leading that up and we'll be coming back and getting more information and doing project like a project advisory committee kind of thing is my understanding with that as well. So that's going to start up.

We're continuing also on April 1 with system development charge update. We're doing an update to that. That's been gone back and forth several times. And we had a recommendation from Parks and Recreation Advisory Group on the twenty year parks list. And now we're I think we're all in agreement.

Hopefully, counsel will move that forward so the consultant can then do his methodology report. And then we will go to hearing likely at July 1 for the system development charge update for citywide. The comprehensive plan, you all saw that previously. That's going to council on April 15. And then the transportation system plan is going on April 29.

We're also advancing the urban growth boundary expansion process and these meetings have not been scheduled yet, but there'll be a project advisory committee, technical advisory committee, listening session and a public meeting. We have those tentatively scheduled for April, which is a lot. We don't have dates yet, but these are probably April, May, so that's starting to come back up again and you're going to hear more about that in terms of the urban growth boundary and where that is physically located and those kinds of things along with the listening session, which will be to solicit in particular those property owners that are outside of the boundary where we're studying the boundary expansion. And there'll be a public meeting which will be a community meeting as well to discuss that and then followed by those items. There'll be a planning commission, city council work session, several city council work sessions, and then we're going to be going to hearing the hearing process, which will be probably late summer by the time this is all completed.

So that's just a bit of an update there. We do have a hearing item on April 27. We have a hearing development application. We don't have any hearing items on April 13, which would be our next Planning Commission meeting. And we really don't have any other updates to give you all. So we're gonna cancel that meeting on April 13. But we will be back on April 27. And then I think you're gonna start seeing a lot more on the urban growth boundary as that comes up and there'll be updates as well on that as we get further into that. So if you have questions, happy to answer those.

Nothing from Commissioner Duroche, anything from Commissioner Luelling? No. Okay, copy that.

So that our plates relatively full, but moving that forward, it's good. Really appreciate your attention and your review of the transportation system plan tonight. That's very helpful to move that forward. And so that was it.

Alright. Thank you very much. Items of interest, we're reporting from plan, the Planning Commission. Does anybody have any anything they'd like to bring forward at this point before we close? No?

It's 100 degrees here today. My husband and I are headed home Friday. I'm out of here. I need some rain, baby.

Sunny and cold.

Bring the sun with you.

But not the heat. No. Okay. Then I guess at this point then we can entertain a motion for I move we close. Do we have a second?

I second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Nay. We are closed. Thank you everyone.