Planning Commission - workshop

okay we'll call the city council and planning commission joint work session to order at 5 30 p.m and ask the city recorder to call the roll city council members council president briggs or councillor barrientos councillor blasser here councillor fitzgerald is excused councillor holes apple here councillor jance here cancer shilling

Councilor Shane? Here. And Councilor Spivey is excused. Planning Commission President John Swanson?

Here.

Vice President Andy Groh?

Here.

Commissioner Banford? Commissioner Kowalsch? Here. Commissioner Newell? Commissioner Schulte? Commissioner White?

Here. Glad everyone can make it tonight.

Brian? Thank you, Mayor Slack. So our one agenda topic tonight is the Transportation System Plan Project Status Update. I'm grateful to have both the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commissioners here tonight. We also have our consultant here. He's in the middle of the room. All eyes on him. And we also have representation from ODOT and City staff who've been working with the the advisory committee on this work. So we're going to get an update. There's a presentation, which was in your packet, as well as the Tech Memo 6B and Tech Memo 9. So hopefully you had a good opportunity to review those. And I won't give away too much of the presentation, so I'll turn the time over to our consultant.

thank you very much and thanks again for joining us this is kind of a part two of um this is the second half of our first work session and i'll get into the kind of details on why that is you may have noticed in that introduction that we're going to be covering tech memo 6b which is the second half of 6a and um and essentially takes the the the world of alternatives that we had come up with several months ago and distills it down to what we are now referring to as our preferred alternatives. So 6 provides just the alternatives in general. 6 is identifying what's preferred along with the costs and the priorities and essentially really formed the foundation which transitions into the transportation system plan and so um it's a really important time i'm glad to see so many faces here certainly for our advisory committee meeting that we had a couple weeks ago now was also very engaged and so anybody from the group that was as in that meeting you'll see that this is a slightly consolidated version of that presentation really focused on 6b but also touches on nine which is about um And I'm going to try to get through it in about 30 minutes or so. It was a two-hour presentation for our advisory committee, but again, I'm going to try to go through it pretty quick.

Before you start, as a member of the technical advisor committee, I just want to compliment you guys on the work you've done because you drilled way down as far as you could, got right down in the weeds with all the details, and both in your engagement with the public and your engagement with the committee, you guys were very responsive, listened to what we had to say, adjusted things accordingly, and where I sit, you guys did a really good job. So I just wanted to shout out to you about that.

I appreciate that. And building on that, I would say that the materials, if you all had a chance to take a look at the tech memos, look at the presentation, I'll tell you that this is the materials that were provided to our advisory committee. And so the materials that you have seen doesn't necessarily reflect that feedback. So I've got... My memo in front of me here that has all of our changes. And so as we go through this, I'd like to highlight the changes from the input that we received from our advisory committee. Much of it was very significant or it's translated into significant changes. So we'll go through that as we get into it. So kind of talked on this a little bit, but just in terms of work completed to date, and this is really intended to highlight where we are in the overall process. Everything on the left is things that we've completed. And early in the project, we go through a series of goals and objectives. We develop evaluation criteria. That material really contributes to what we're talking about today. We look at existing and future conditions. Again, serves the foundation for the different alternatives and ultimately what are the preferred alternatives. Go through our solutions. We evaluate the solutions. We select the preferred ones and develop policies and programs. Something else we've done recently is we prepared an outline and a template for the TSP update. This just kind of gets our thought process rolling. on how we're actually going to be crafting the transportation system plans or TSPs. They are a little bit more streamlined today than they were many years ago. Years ago, you'd see anything from 90 to 120 plus pages. We try to get those down in the more 40 to 50 some odd pages. So when it comes time to review that in the next few months, hopefully it will be a little painless for you. Also, you'll be familiar with most of the content by then. So we're most of the way through the project and really the next step for us will be transitioning to developing and drafting the transportation system plan. And again, the purpose for us coming here tonight is to provide that update on the work completed and to provide an understanding of what's coming over the next few months. Project participants, I shared this slide the last few times we've met. We have a project management team that consists of city, Oregon Department of Transportation, and consultant staff. We have a project advisory committee. It's a pretty broad group of people, city, county ODOT staff, local business owners, operators, transportation emergency service providers, some residents, some advocates, planning commissioners, city counselors. It's a broad group of folks that we've been providing input along the way. We met with those guys four times throughout the project, provided incredible input throughout the process. In terms of consultants, we have transportation folks, we have land use and travel demand modeling folks, and then we have our public involvement folks that have been supporting this process from the beginning. And I think that's the background. So I'm going to jump kind of right into the solutions evaluation. This is, again, Tech Memo 6B. There's quite a bit to this memo. One more thing I'll mention before I get into it too far is that there are a couple of the questions that came up a couple of times. And I'm just kind of jumping out on this one is folks wanted to know about the trails because the trails are Excluded from this memo that's somewhat intentional. We really wanted to focus on the projects that we felt like we were. We were evaluating trade offs between different alternatives and the trails that are being much like the safe routes to school and a number of other plans that you guys have developed over the years are largely just being rolled into the. We are augmenting the trails plan by additional trail projects. We're augmenting the safe routes to school by additional projects in and around the schools. But for the most part, we assume those those the trails plan or the parks plan and the safe routes to school plan are just coming right into the transportation system plan. So but we will talk a lot about streets, about the ped and bike systems, public transportation systems and the rail systems. So I kind of mentioned this early, but the the technical number six B, it builds on the series of technical technical number two, which is our community transportation framework. This provided our goals and objectives as well as that evaluation criteria. The goals have been reviewed both by the advisory committee, by the public during open houses, and it really kind of helped guide this process. Tech moment number four was our existing conditions inventory and analysis. So that provides that identifies all the gaps in the system, all the deficiencies in the system, operational deficiencies, safety deficiencies, and kind of builds that foundation of all the things that we need to address as we go through this process. Future conditions, much like existing conditions, but projects out into the future, looks at operations again, looks at safety again, looks at multimodal connectivity, and tries to identify what things are needed in the future. And then 6A, as I mentioned, is that world of potential solutions. And that memo covered a lot of ground. So 6B, again, presents those preferred solutions. identifies all the alternatives that align with the goals and objectives that represent all the needs, the gaps, deficiencies and needs. And so I haven't tallied up all the total costs that will come as part of the TSP when we look at when we develop an implementation plan and we look at the total cost of the system. But we would expect there to be a significant amount of significant amount of things that we can do. So this memo also includes priorities and costs and hopefully things that we can do within a reasonable time frame. The scoring, the planning context and evaluation criteria, this is the scoring and selection process. Again, we have eight goals that guide this process, safety, mobility, economic development, coordination, and so on. Each of those goals has a related evaluation criteria. And so if you made your way into the technical appendix here, you'd see that that each of those criteria were scored on a plus one to a, pardon me, a plus two down to a negative two based on how well they were responding to those goals, the objectives, and the evaluation criteria. And the project that scored the highest was, or I should say the alternative that scored the highest was carried forward into the preferred alternatives. I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS A NUMBER OF TIMES AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE RARELY GET IT RIGHT ON THE FIRST TIME. USUALLY WE RELY PRETTY HEAVILY ON OUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THE Planning Commissioner city councilors like yourselves, as well as the public to help us navigate that process a bit more so we're incorporating all of the input we received into that and re evaluating as an outcome of this. So the ultimately the priorities that you see in the revised or the final version of this or in the draft version of the TSP will reflect that that process. I'm jumping into the projects themselves. So this is showing both the street extensions and the intersection improvements. There's a number of new street connections in different parts of the city. If you can kind of see in the map, this would be on Figure 1. Figure 1 in the memo itself. Otherwise this, this is showing new street connections. They're up in the locker. We all node over in the white node. The ones left to fill out the Barbary node as well as areas kind of in the Southeast and Southwest parts of the city. Some of these are legacy connections bringing forward from the previous TSP. Some of them are new relative to the existing TSP and really just again trying to emphasize additional connectivity. One of the things I think we learned early in the process is that we have a lot of intersections that have constraints. And rather than trying to build our way out of some of those constraints at those individual intersections, that we really wanted to focus on increasing the amount of connectivity in the system. So for example, like the Kings Valley intersection, Kings Valley and Ellendale intersection, pardon me, is obviously one of our most constrained intersections. And But it also has, you know, it's signalized today. It has turn lanes today. It has both left and right turn lanes at different approaches. And we could probably add another few through lanes and turn lanes and things like that and make the intersection about twice as big as it is today. It's still not going to operate very well. And so our goal is really to enhance connectivity in and around that area, provide the extension of like Loc-Real, of Henkel, of Barbary, Other extensions over there on the Wyatt node that will all collectively contribute to traffic sort of dispersing away from that intersection and focusing traffic rather than focusing traffic through Kings Valley and through the downtown, again, dispersing it a little bit more. So lots of emphasis on street connectivity to support that. Similarly, on the intersection fronts, we did find a number of intersections that, again, were operating over capacity or had safety issues. Actually, we get to safety in a little bit. And so you can see all the dots on the map that are highlighting those. Of the higher priority projects, and this, for the most part, is held true in the street connections, the ones up in the lock rail node, the lock rail extension from East Allendale up to Kings Valley, the Bovard Avenue connection, which is like an east-west connection through the area, and then the Hawthorne Avenue connection, which is just, I believe it's just a little, actually, sorry, the one that continues to the north, all identified as high priority projects. as well as, pardon me, the Barbary Avenue extension. So all of those, again, are kind of building out the LocRiole node, building out the Barbary node, making those additional connections, and drawing traffic away from Kings Valley. In terms of intersections, there were a couple of intersections there.

Let's just make sure.

Yeah, a couple of intersections. The Lockreel Drive East Ellendale intersection was one of our higher priority ones, as well as the Leavens and West Ellendale Avenue intersection. So when it comes to Leavens and West Ellendale, obviously you guys just built the traffic signal, got that installed there. We had a chance to drive through it last time we were in town. and it looks like it's operating really well today so when that project comes off the list that was one of the advisory committee members we discussed that during our advisory committee member it does it kind of shakes up the priorities of the other the other projects um conversely we also added a couple of intersection projects so this map is a little bit dated at this point There was some question and there was some concern about Lockreel Drive as it connects to Kings Valley and what that needs to look like, as well as when Barbary Avenue connects to East Allendale, what that intersection needs to look like. So we added a few more projects. The Lockreel in Kings Valley and the Barbary in East Allendale both showed up as high priority projects. And so that just is kind of rounding out our streets and intersection projects. So that was a lot. So I'm going to pause for a moment, recovering street connections, recovering intersections, two of the most critical components to this TSP. We'd love to hear your initial thoughts on, um, on those connections. I can also keep going and let you guys talk at the end, but whichever you'd prefer.

Right. Intersections. Is there anything that came up on, uh, Washington and Jefferson? Yes.

Did I miss that? Yep. Washington and Jefferson, it would be a legacy. The existing TSP identifies it as a traffic signal. We evaluated it under existing and future conditions, and you're not quite at the must have a traffic signal now or in the future, at least in the next 20 years. But there's also a number of safety concerns have been expressed at that intersection. I think it came up on almost every one of our conversations during our open houses. A lot of folks have expressed concerns over that one. And so the project remains in the TSP as a reconfiguration project. It is, I do have it in the medium priority, which would just mean that it's because it's not needed theoretically i'll put that in quotes within the 20 year timeframe, but it is something we still want to identify as as a priority, or you know concern area of concern for the city. yeah.

I have a question. Yeah. Okay. If we have Hawthorne Avenue connecting into the city streets, the south and then the cross the cross section through Hawthorne Avenue, what about that intersection out there at Hawthorne and East Ellendale, that always gets a lot of attention when any type of development is proposed, or when we did the rezonings, etc.

That's a great question. And much like the connection of Barbary and East Allendale and Lough Reel and Kings Valley, it should likely be evaluated once that extension is made. It wasn't raised as a concern during our last meeting, so it wasn't necessarily something that we had brought up. But again, much like those other intersections, it's something that would need to be looked at. And I'd say the challenge with that is, is that part of this process when it wasn't one of our study intersections, it wasn't one of the intersections that was flagged for safety or operational issues. And so it's difficult to elevate a project through the TSP process, but we can identify like the need to do a planning study, which is much like what we have at Barbary and East Ellendale. where this is something that would need to be looked at with consideration to the broader corridor. So something that came up was that during our discussions is that between Fervilla, Barbary, Hawthorne, Loc-Rio, you kind of have very similar spacing along the corridor. None of that directly meets ODOT's traffic signal spacing requirements along the corridor. There are lots of caveats to that spacing. So it would just need to be evaluated within the context of the broader corridor with consideration to the other connections that are happening and the other intersection treatments that are happening. I think it just requires a bit more attention.

Those ODOT standards are basically one size fits all. So applying them to a particular local situation, you always have to tread carefully. But as we all know, anything that touches Ellendale, especially East Ellendale, is a potential concern.

Yeah, and to ODOT's credit in this case, their signal, I actually just did a deep dive into this in the last few days because it was brought up a number of times. Their signal spacing primarily applies to statewide and regional highways. OR 223 is a district highway, and so there are still other rules that kind of determine what the spacing is, but there is also a lot of consideration that goes into it. It's all about what is the adjacent land uses, what is the desired street connection, what is the desired function of the roadway, and so on and so forth.

You have to look at the raw numbers when you're

And then the volume. Yeah.

I think the dynamics of that intersection is going to change dramatically. If we connect, when we connect tangle and, or when we connect Hawthorne at academy.

Where are we annexing that portion?

And can it be in the TSP on Hawthorne?

Hmm.

I mean, so it's within the urban growth boundary, so it certainly can be within the TSP. Annexation of that will really... We're looking at annexing the right-of-way of Hawthorne East Allendale to Furr Villa and the section of city-owned land to connect from Hawthorne, Hinkle, West. We've done the survey work already to do the annexation of that. That could really happen anytime.

Historically, in 2009, when the county did their TSP, from my understanding, ODOT wasn't going to allow that intersection to exist at that point in time. It was supposed to, if it opened up to the south and Henkel opened up east and west, that intersection was supposed to be closed. Is that not correct? Because in 2009, that's what it was supposed to happen.

I don't know the answer to that.

And I do know that that is an extremely dangerous intersection. I mean, if you can go out there and look at all the car parts that are in the ditch on both sides of the road, I mean, it's multiple accidents that happen there. And if that opens up, it's going to be even a bigger mess. So we're going to have a signalization at Barbary. We're having a signalization at La Creole. I'm not so sure that having that opens a good idea.

I would anticipate in this document, you're looking at the intersection improvements at Ellendale and Hawthorne, correct? Want to make sure I'm speaking to the right thing? Yeah. So I would anticipate it's good to have that identified on your TSP as a project. Again, we don't know what that's going to look like. It could be, depending on the order of how other projects come online, if you were to open up Hankel East and West through there, that might be the time where we engage with ODOT to say, hey, there's potential for more traffic to come up Hawthorne and hit this intersection. what do we want to see with that? And we would study that out. You could see a number of things happening. ODOT might come back with a recommendation saying, hey, we need to close that intersection. They might come back and say, hey, this would be a good time to restrict movement at that intersection to a right in, right out only at Hawthorne and Allendale. So I think it's fine to identify it on the plan as, hey, this is something we need to look at. What it's going to be I don't know. I don't think that long-term that's going to be an open intersection.

I do know that without some sort of traffic control, the people living on it, the majority of them, when Golden Chain was open during the construction, thoroughly appreciated having it open and not having to go out on Ellendale because Ellendale is so dangerous.

I believe that people that live on Hawthorne, that segment of Hawthorne, once they have an alternative to get out, not going on Allendale, they'll take it. Once you open up that intersection to people who don't live on that street and aren't familiar with that intersection at Allendale and Hawthorne, we need to consider their movements if that becomes available to them as a way in and out.

Seems to me like it makes sense that we would reach out to ODOT now and say, here's what we're looking at. What would you be inclined to, to have done here rather than just guess at it?

Yeah. And I think we can, I think we can do that. Um, but again, it's, uh, I think that would be done, um, you know, prior to or concurrent with, uh, the city's plan to open up one of the the roads out of the connections that would introduce new traffic to that area but i mean certainly we want to include it on our tsp because we know something has to happen they're different in the future i don't think we need to decide what that is tonight that could even be closing so yeah it could include closing it yes

Thank you. I only brought it up from a planning standpoint. Anything in that vicinity, that intersection is on the folks' mind.

Gotcha. No, I appreciate that.

Some of the labels I'm noticing are inside the urban growth boundary maybe for the next presentation. Some of those labels just can be moved. I can see, yeah, now it's sort of hidden there that Hawthorne's extended from Ellendale. I would imagine it is, but...

was just not shown no good eye on that all right and one last question this is the only map that shows the extension of sorry hater the is that the is that the direction we're going with hater the extension of hater and then where is it changing is it changing at the 90 there after it crosses to bridlewood Well, Hater is now just like Barbary, which is going to create problems with addressing as far as it's coming down. When's the name going to change? Yeah, it's going north and south, and then it turns to the west. And Barbary does the same thing, and that's a mess.

Yeah, so the event will continue with the connection between Barbary or not Barbary, but Bridalwood and Hader. I don't know where the change point is going to occur, but there will be a name change somewhere in that new segment of roadway. But the plan of the TSP is to connect those two roads, as well as the new east-west road that goes between Bridalwood and Oakdale all the way over to Monmouth Cut-Off. I don't know if Monmouth Cut-Off will continue to be the name as it continues over and heads south and then continues to the west. It may. That's something we'll evaluate at the time that those are built.

Keep going here, and we certainly want to save some time for general discussion at the end. So the next topic is on side blocks and crosswalks. And again, we covered a lot of ground on the sidewalks. We did make sort of a kind of a unique attempt at differentiating between actual sidewalk gaps and sidewalks that were thoroughly deficient or needing to be reconstructed, and then all the sidewalks that we identified in the community that What didn't necessarily align with the cities, the city standards for for these facilities. So, when you look at the broad range of different sidewalk projects that are shown in the tables, you'll see that there's significantly more sidewalk projects than are shown on the maps. And there's, there's some reasons for that. We're still working out some of that and how we're going to display that in the TSP, whether or not we're going to display all the projects or just the projects that we find that we feel are really critical. Because otherwise, you know, when you go through and you look at a number of the streets, like, for example, Lock Reel has a curb-tight sidewalks for the majority of it. they're in good shape, they're consistent along most of the corridor, but being curb-tight doesn't necessarily align with the city's cross-section standards, doesn't necessarily align with the different land uses and things that are in the area. And so does it make sense to tear them all out and reconstruct them when they're consistent and they're in good shape? Probably not in the near term, but definitely in the longer term if and when redevelopment occurs in some of those areas. So again, as you go through the tables, you might see some differences between the tables and then the maps. And the intention is to really highlight the critical projects there. I would just highlight a few more things in the sidewalks, again, because the sidewalks, for the most part, there's really good connectivity in the community. And most of them are in good shape. There are just a few that we had highlighted as needing to be replaced or needing to be Modified in some way so there were no high priority sidewalk projects might sound a little bit weird Doesn't mean that they wouldn't necessarily get done within that time frame But the ones that were the ones that we had identified there and the fall kind of at the higher end of the medium priority Are that James how? segments of fur villa Hawthorne as we just talked about Hawthorne and then the Fairview Street actually those a couple of those are shared use paths and also displayed on this map are the crosswalks. This was a there was I think in one of our open houses we had we kind of had a focus on crosswalks and we got a ton of feedback from folks on crosswalks and so there's a lot of them both shown in the plan itself as well as on the maps here. A number of high one of the high priority projects for crosswalks is is right there at Washington Street, pardon me, at Main Street and Rick Riel Creek Trail crossing right up there by Walnut. Identified in a few different plans as a pretty critical connection there. Another one which I believe comes out of a Safe Routes to School plan is the one in Washington and Southwest Ellis Street. So both of those came into question during our advisory committee meeting, not necessarily questioning the validity of them, but just maybe questioning the priority, questioning the cost. So we had quite a bit of dialogue about that. We went back and looked at it and still felt like in terms of how these things are, where these things are located, what kind of uses they're serving, they still felt like the priorities were correct, but still open to any kind of discussion on that. And if you're looking at the map, maybe one thing I'll highlight is that we have shared use paths shown on East Ellendale, east of ,, on Monmouth Cut-Off, east of UGLO, and on Fairview south of, I forget the name of the east-west street right there. And then on James Howe. So the vision for that is to get the shared use, like take advantage of the shared use paths on some of these higher volume, higher speed facilities as they're leaving town and really focus the sidewalks on the inner parts. I'll just mention that on East Allendale in particular, I know that there's some concern about right-of-way and the impacts that the shared use path could potentially have on right-of-way. So we're still looking at that one a little bit closer. I'd say there are similar concerns elsewhere, but certainly that East Allendale one was brought up as a concern. So I'll pause there. Thoughts on sidewalks, shared use paths, and crosswalks?

Did we get it all right? Just not enough information to make decisions right now.

I'll keep going. So bike lanes, actually this one is where we're trying to highlight the shared use paths. Apologize for that. So bike lanes is, this was an area where there was a lot of opportunity in the city for bike lanes. And I'm happy to talk about this as much as you'd like. In short, there are a lot of streets that are at a place where the city should be considering the trade-off between providing on-street parking and providing a bike lane. And I'm saying that with as much of a straight face as I can here, recognizing that that trade-off is significant and the impact that it has on adjacent properties can be significant. And the feedback that you'll get will be significant. But you take a street like La Creole again, for example, it's just right in the middle of the screen and right where I'm looking at here. That is a street that has both a relatively high ADT today and is projected to get average daily traffic volumes on lock rail are relatively high today they're even higher in the future and so mixing vehicular traffic and bicycle traffic on that street in its current configuration is it's just it's not recommended for most adults and you can say the same thing about segments of of um of There's like a savings of 11 for Villa, Godsey, Miller. I'm just going across the network here. A lot of these major facilities don't have marked bike lanes. They're kind of prioritizing on street parking. And as they get to the higher volumes and higher speeds, you want to see that separation.

question yeah for brian um the improvements we're getting ready to do on this on the bottom half of godsey is that going to include bike lanes yes it does okay one quick i have a question yeah go ahead all right i specifically have an issue with what's i outlined is b10 um there was discussions in b11 but b10 specifically

That's, uh, west of the intersection, uh, um, Levins and Ellendale, which is where Lyle school is located. Lyle school has one parking lot, which is woefully small for that school. All of the front facing parking on Levins is used by school buses for pickup and drop off. There's a parent pickup line that was created that aligns The parents along Ellendale, if we put a bike lane in there, what's the plan for the parent pickup line? Additionally, if you look a little bit more west, you'll see that four of the seven softball fields in the town are located there. And during the summer weekends, there are tournaments there that draw huge crowds from all over the state and some out of state and they're They're trying to park in any place that they can. And if you put bike lanes and eliminate parking on both sides of that street, we're going to have all kinds of residents in here up in arms. So I have an issue specifically with B10. And then we also looked at B11. You talked about input from the community in that. We had input here at our council meeting from the disabled people that live along that area and the hardship that this was going to create for them. So I get that there's... general overall view and plan of busy streets but i think there's been a insufficient input of the current community layout and the effects that some of these things will have on that whether whether it has been properly addressed or or there's if there is anything in it because my concern is when the city comes when staff comes and says, this is the project we want to do because this is what the plan says. Well, that's great. The plan says that. What's the outcome? What's the effect on the community? And I don't see in this where that effect is taken into account.

Yeah, it's a great point. And something that I think gets lost in this process quite a bit is the notion that The plan, I mean, certainly you could take a plan or project out of the plan and implement it. But hopefully that process does involve a further evaluation of the impact of that project. That'll certainly be the case for any roadway projects, intersection projects, safety-related projects, and I would assume the same for any restriping of bike lane projects. and that process when we see that process happen in other communities where they're where they don't engage the neighbors they don't engage the community that's where we see the most pushback on things like bike lanes is a perfect example of that where again i keep picking unlock real but west ellendale and the example you're providing is perfect in that way that like it is a the the plan that The plan is essentially trying to implement a standard to a large degree that minor arterial streets such as West Ellendale Avenue have a form and function of a certain way. And it does build in the kind of flexibility that I think you're talking about, where we wanna respect adjacent land uses and the needs to support those land uses. But again, it's sitting at that like 20,000 feet and really needs that close look and consideration to the impacts that it has before it gets implemented.

Michael's point really highlights something that has even broader application, which is, and you sort of hinted at it just there, which is you're looking at a street and you look at the traffic volume on the street, what the numbers are. And most of the decisions you make are based on those numbers and the related connectivity issues around them. But when you have circumstances like he's describing where certain events cause a sudden huge surge, that's not going to show up in those metrics that you normally use. And that's where you get those kinds of surprises that bring out people with torches and pitchforks.

If I can add just a little bit to this conversation and commissioner, we'll get to you in a second. Um, I think one of the, so just reflecting on the process we just went through with the section between, um, Jasper and Levins on Allendale. um it's it's followed the pattern that our consultant just talked about right which is we had a plan um and a project that was identified on a plan we then came to the council um informed the public of what we were proposing to do they came in provided the input and we came up with a solution that was modified from what was proposed in the plan um which is great that's how public process should work and you make informed decisions I do think when you're looking at a broad community plan like this, you want to not only take into consideration those that are immediately impacted in front of their house, but also if you look on West Allendale, for example, we're building a lot of new neighborhoods in the Wyatt Note. And if anyone in the Wyatt node wants to either commute or leisurely bike ride into the downtown on West Allendale, and you have a lot of high volume traffic and a lot of parked cars along there and no bike lanes, they're going to be inclined not to do that. Right. And so you also have to take into consideration the impact of, you know, that person that lives in that neighborhood, you know, further away. So these are things that you as decision makers, planning commission and council have to balance in reviewing development permits and reviewing, you know, requests for public improvements. And there's not an answer you're going to get to tonight. But I think identifying on a master plan level, hey, this is the standard. for what should be considered as your community continues to grow and develop and neighborhoods get built out. So you want to make sure that you're at least having that conversation, right? This is where bike lanes would normally go. Does it make sense for the unique characteristics of this particular stretch of roadway? And maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. But you take into consideration all of that public engagement and feedback and process in making those decisions.

I agree. I agree. I just... I want to make sure that in the plan, if there's already established uses for that node area that are going to be affected, heavily affected, that it's addressed within the plan. I think it should be laid out. It should be in there if we know that it exists.

To his concern, I noticed in the extensions, Denton extended westbound is shown as a medium priority in the extensions, but it's not shown either on the sidewalks and crosswalks or the bike lanes. And it seems like that could be at least a feasible option to explore if you're trying to get people off of Ellendale moving eastbound, westbound. And I don't know how you'd put it on this since it's not there now, but it seems like it ought to be in some fashion.

You're right, it's not shown on this map. The assumption is that when Denton connects between James Howe and Douglas, that it would be developed to the city standard for, I think in this case, a minor art, maybe a collector that includes bike lanes. And you're right, that would provide that kind of off-system connectivity. One of the other things that we've been talking about, and I don't know if this is the... point that we want to try to make here but is that you can't necessarily accommodate all modes on all facilities and so east allendale is an example of this where it's gonna be really difficult to make that a very comfortable facility for people to walk and bike on. But there are a lot of really comfortable facilities to the north that are envisioned in the plan and connections to the south that could provide that sort of off-system connection that is very, very accommodating. And some of the connections that we're providing on the east accomplish that. So I understand, Councilor, paul seppel i don't want to get your name wrong um and i um i also want to acknowledge what you just said which is since we know there's a concern here since we know that there's an issue there then we should be reflecting that in the plan and i think we can do that in this case so appreciate that

One quick note, since you brought it up, when it comes to us, we will be needing to look really closely at the classifications of each road. I mean, they've gone through it a little bit, but there are a lot of classifications that we might not agree with. We also need to look at the road cross sections. We've already disagreed with several of those and have hopefully got them changed. And then the other thing that we have to take into account is it's great that we include mobility. but at the same time, yes, the developer puts it in, but the city maintains it. So the wider the streets are, the more expensive it is to maintain, the more bicycle lanes that are out there, the more we have to maintain, and we're already facing budget constraints. This is part of your model for budgetary reasons. Mobility has to be considered. Right now we're looking at ODOT is having issues with the, or went out to the, mass transit, and how do you fund mass transit? I mean, it's an issue. I mean, it's nice to do all these nice things, but where's the money coming from?

As a saying in the military, no plan survives contact with the enemy, which is an exaggerated way of making the point. The point is that a plan is a prediction of what you think is going to happen, what you think you're going to do, and you're always going to be modifying it as time goes by, as circumstances and constraints like budgetary and other are going to affect. What we end up with here in this TSP, in the finished product, is going to be modified as time goes by, because that's just the way plans work.

I agree. But I also know that when we've been brought projects, one of the key points on the projects are, this is what is in the TSP. And if there is going to be an adjustment, it needs to be adjusted in the TSP, not when the project is presented.

Oh, yeah, if you know ahead of time.

If you know ahead of time, yeah, absolutely.

If you know you're facing that, yeah.

Question is to the difference between the buffered bike lane versus the conventional bike lane. I'm under the assumption without a cross section here that the conventional is just a striped off the street and then the buffer has some sort of planting strip between the curb and what would be the

Yeah, in this case, it's painted. So there would just be some to be.

A painted buffer? Yeah.

Oh, OK. I think that's the vision here. And you might notice in the tables, we frequently refer to some of these as potentially interim projects, because there is a cross-section that we have developed for Dallas that is a little different than the cross-section that's out there today, quite a bit different in some ways. um tries to narrow up the travel way tries to kind of move a lot of folks behind the curb and so when that when that happens um It would be the ultimate build-out of the street. But there's a lot of time between now and when a lot of these streets will fully redevelop. And so we're considering some of these buffered bike lanes as interim. We mentioned similar things for the shared use paths where they could be interim, they could be final. But it really is trying to both respect the fact that funding is limited. So we're trying to do as much as possible we can with what we have available and then but still planning for that future scenario where we can fully redevelop streets all right uh we're pretty close to the end actually so um public transportation is um you know largely largely provided by chariots and what we did as part of public transportation was really just to look at the existing routes and stops and look for ways to kind of um look for ways to improve the existing service, mostly through additional stops, some stop enhancements. We have some desired additional connectivity, some desired additional routes that could potentially be provided. We also have expressed a desire for increased frequencies and service spans, broader connections to Salem, but a lot of that just, a lot of that differs to what Chariots has available, what funding is available. and how they vision this. So what the city can do, and this is just exactly what they're doing today, which is just is to plan for the types of land uses that will ultimately support transit, plan for things like the Barbary node, things like the lock rail node, the types of land uses that are envisioned in those areas tend to support more frequent transit service. And so those types of land use patterns would hopefully, over time, start supporting more additional service from chariots. For the most part, when we look at what types of service When it comes to a TSP and public transportation largely we're looking at. Pretty minor updates and lots of suggestions for coordination between city and and chariots. Keep on going there. Safety, I mentioned earlier that we both look at when we're doing our existing and future conditions, we look at safety. This is mostly focused in intersections, but also includes a segment as well. A lot of the intersections that popped up, probably not a big surprise, are intersections that also have operational concerns. We talked about Jasper just a moment ago. We have a very similar project at Jasper that we were, I think, not wanting to bring up a potential source subject, but I think it's the Jasper and West Ellendale intersection where we heard a lot about the need to potentially continue the center two-way left turn lane through the intersection, potential safety concern there. Kings Valley, Levens, obviously Levens is now signalized for Villa. Those are all intersections. And again, I think the Washington and Jefferson intersection, sorry, I'm having a hard time seeing the map from where I'm sitting. But again, the safety projects are really reflect those intersection projects and just try to kind of build on those to an extent.

Traffic calming treatments and access. What is that?

So traffic calming is generally intended to slow traffic. And I think, again, I didn't bring my glasses with me today. So I'm guessing we've got traffic calming identified on East Ellendale. There it is, yeah. And then on Lock Reel. And I think the intention there is just to slow traffic. And so a lot of the traffic A lot of the treatments that we've identified in the pedestrian and the bicycle enhancements will contribute to that. There are other things that the city can consider, whether through striping, whether through other types of things. You guys built out the crossing kind of at the north end of the middle school there that has curb extensions. Those types of physical treatments can slow folks down as they're coming down the corridor. So those types of treatments, treatments that just generally slow down traffic east ellendale is going to be a little bit trickier just because it has because there's not a lot of not a lot of options to like beyond restriping or reconfiguring the roadway question um is speed cushion just a rarefied name for speed bumps or does it mean something different It's a type of a speed bump that has kind of a flat top to it. So it's like you kind of bump up, you stay flat, and then you go back down again. There are an infinite number of types of speed bumps these days, like staggered or offsets, the ones that have the little cutouts for emergency service vehicles. Yeah, variety of things. It's a type of speed bump. Yep, type of speed bump.

And a more fun to live by.

Were you raising your hand? Oh, okay. Sorry, I thought I saw the other corner of my eye.

The Fervilla intersection, I just see it's back to Roundabout again. Is that... Where did that come from?

Yeah, I think that actually was certainly from a safety perspective, roundabouts tend to do a little bit better than a signalized intersection. That is also something that got flagged for us as part of our advisory committee, making sure that we want to align the intersection improvements and the safety improvements. So I think this project has subsequently been updated to be look at it, coordinate it with the intersection improvement, which is signal or roundabout.

Can a roundabout be built completely offline in that area to take advantage of the farm field instead of the business and the two residences that are on the corner and the fiber and the signalization and the telecom communications that's on that corner?

So most of the projects, most of the intersection projects that involve signalization or roundabouts, they all include a footnote that says you would need to do what we call an intersection control evaluation. So part of that process would look at not only the right-of-way impacts, but also the utility impacts. any any other potential impacts and that whether it's the cost part of that or the um or the actual physical impacts would be part of the trade-off between a roundabout and traffic signal this one you know it's it's funny because this project has been It hasn't been entirely clear from the get-go. I think that this project was identified on ODOT's safety priority index system maybe five years ago and was investigated and determined to need an intersection control evaluation. And it seems like the status of that has been kind of back and forth. I thought it was done at one point, and I thought it was pointing us towards a roundabout at one point. But now I feel like it's, I don't think it's been complete.

As a complete is not. Oh, not a traffic unit is waiting for the materials to review.

So it would need to be evaluated further. And not to jump on a soapbox here about roundabouts, but there are definitely safety benefits to them. And when we, again, think about this corridor in terms of long-term improvements to serve this corridor, the combination of I'm not going to say you can't have a signal followed by a roundabout followed by a signal. But I'm going to suggest that as these intersection control evaluations are done along the corridor, they might start influencing one another. And the type of treatment and the ultimate improvement, you might start seeing a trend as you go down that corridor.

It's a good one too. Building a roundabout out in the middle of nowhere like on 99 West and the Cut-Off is different than building one in a place where you've got all kinds of infrastructure running through it. It's a different set of problems.

I think that's it for 6B. And when we get to tech memo number nine, I just would, I don't think we got to spend a lot of time with our advisory committee on tech memo number nine. This memo largely, it takes the So when we did tech memo number two way back when, and we did our goals and objectives, we made, I would say, meaningful but minor changes to your existing goals. There were some overarching goals that were largely dispersed across a number of different goals. There were some goals that I would say were more, more temporal um things that once they were done they were kind of done and um and then there were you know a mix of other things and so what we tried to do with this memo and what we tried to do like way back in the early parts of the project was to devise a series of goals kind of modernize the goals make them more kind of longer term, more implementation oriented and like for the TSP purposes and then try to make them more multimodal. And so part of this process, we took a look at the existing goals and policies. We went through and we did an evaluation and we identified updates. So the memo actually shows underline and strike through text of the existing policies and how they've evolved to today are what we're recommending essentially. And that's intended. That's intentional because the goals and policies in the existing TSP, whenever folks are looking for guidance on implementing this stuff, they go right sometimes, I mean, aside from the projects, they go right to the policies. And so we want to be really intentional about some of that language. So we have the first goal. And I'll just go through these.

I think I have a slide.

Oh, OK. So in terms of our approach, again, looking for consistency with the updated TSP goals and objectives, looking for consistency with state, regional, and planning requirements, wanting to be relevant to the current transportation needs, including for multimodal stuff. took out anything that was outdated, duplicative, time sensitive, overly operationally oriented, and then opportunities for consolidation. So that was our general approach to refining to refining the policies from a big picture. We retained some, modernized some, consolidated some, reorganized others. And generally speaking, this is probably a bit much for a slide to kind of review here, but yeah maybe i won't go through them that way there's just there's on the left hand side of this slide you can see that there's the safety these are the new goals and kind of the direction that came from the new goals so from a safety we were trying to be a little bit more proactive um look at the using more of a data driven process for identifying and addressing safety issues from mobility we really like to expand multimodal options um from economic development standpoint looking at um Again, expanding to support downtown viability and so on and so forth. The other thing I mentioned before, maybe before we move off of that, oh, we have an example of the mobility one, is that we did get some feedback from Polk County. Polk County asked us to take a look at, oh shoot, I don't have it up. But Polk County asked us to take a look at the city's jurisdictional transfer process that's involved with annexations. So when you annex a property, we want to make sure that we're also transferring the roadway. I think the county initially set up to the center line. I think the guidance that we received was to go for the full roadway adjacent to the property that's being annexed in. So that's an example of a pretty important policy that comes out of this process. I believe that's under one of our coordination goals. Yeah, coordination goal includes that. Oh, there it is. So yeah, so I would encourage you guys to take a look at these updated policies and make sure that we're capturing everything that really needs to be captured and carried forward. I will tell you that when the TSP comes out, just in the next few weeks, the TSP will include these policies as a standalone chapter. So there will be goals and policies in the TSP directly coming out of this memorandum. I was fumbling through that one a little bit. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer any questions on that.

Let's bring it back up one more time. You got bold highlighted there. And I see a huge... change mobility and are supposedly updating it to the modernization and i'm a little concerned about the cost no i'm not a little concerned a lot concerned about the cost that our citizens are going to see i mean it's just like the whole counselor whole sample brought up on west ellendale i can think of i mean if we connected denton street through and then increase the mobility through the park so you don't have to get rid of that parking so i think we need to be very careful on that's very i see it as very very strong language because like you said again i'd put my hat on and i would camp on those goals

Again, I would appreciate any feedback that you have, any way that you want to tailor these goals. I'm saying goals, but I really mean policies or all the above, both the goals and the policies. The initial goals and objectives that were developed way back in the beginning part of the project were really intended to guide our thinking. And so when it came to something like mobility, it was we know we wanted to... we wanted to both address our operational issues or safety issues or multimodal connectivity issues we wanted to emphasize street connectivity and intersection safety and enhancements so that's kind of what i think about when i think about mobility i'm trying to be as as like as all ages and abilities and users as possible. But that also can lend itself to a fairly built out system with sidewalks and bike lanes and roadways and things that cost a lot of money.

Does not look like a small community.

I think we still tried to stay in the small community realm with a lot of our projects, both identifying things that could serve in the interim as well as in the long term, and trying to preserve the certain certain projects like i think early on in this process and i'll keep this short but early on in the process we spent a lot of time talking about east ellendale as a potential five-lane facility and the impact that that would have on that corridor on the businesses on the community on the ability to kind of get back and forth across that and made a pretty firm decision i think as part of this group to preserve that as a three-lane facility And part of that decision is living with that decision-making is sort of committing to enhancing the rest of the connectivity in and around the area. So getting back to the and the Barbary and all the additional street, the street and the additional street connectivity that'll help support that off-system network and connectivity. And so I do feel good about that. And I, I feel like that there is with, um, it, it also lends itself to a lot of, um, what I would say like neighborhood connectivity, where we've got the ability to establish greenways. Um, we've got a couple of those in our, in our bike map and, um, neighborhood walkways. It does mean trade offs between things like on street parking, but, um, but that's again, something that happens at the implementation stage.

I have a multimodal transportation goal. Excuse me. Is there a list of those goals?

Yes. Um, it'll take me to take me a minute to pull them up, but, um, the goals, let's see. I actually don't have it handy, but it would just, I could bring it up on, I don't think there's a way for me to project my own screen here. Give me one second. Got it coming up here. Nope.

of the packet do you have us well just you've got um if i'm i think counselor briggs So maybe making an observation here, you've got proposed goals here. Goal one is safety and existing goal is multimodal transportation system. Looks like most of the new goals, I don't know, they've been renumbered or something, but I don't see multimodal in there.

I see what you mean, yeah. 68? Yeah, I don't know which page. Oh, 68 of the...

So maybe that's to be added, I guess. page 68 is the multimodal gold if you keep going yeah 68 is the existing ones though and then he's got on page is new goals.

I see what you're asking. Okay. So the original TSP included a goal for multimodal. And as part of this, we moved away from the goal was sort of like a catch-all of a variety of different goals that we ultimately broke into things like safety and mobility and connectivity. And so essentially looking at it from its individual pieces. It doesn't preclude multimodal as a priority. And when I say multimodal, I mean vehicles, peds, bike, transit riders. It's more interspersed through all the different goals. So for example, the current goal five is provide an equitable multimodal transportation system for all users. So that's sort of like it's taking, but then when you get into the objectives and you get into the policies, they're more oriented around making sure that we have neighborhood connections, like connections to key destinations and things like that.

So it didn't go away. It was just distributed among other. Correct.

Yep.

So I have a question about, we've been talking about how we're, working with ODOT and different people for this plan. My question is, when we're talking about the highway system and we're involving ODOT, are we also including on the other roads Polk County as we connect to their roads to make sure that they're also improving the same roads we are?

Yeah, so very early again in the process, we do look at Polk County broadly. We look at their mostly through their functional classification system. What are their major facilities that are coming into the city? We try to align the classifications as best we can. We try to align the design standards as best we can. And so we also, in some cases, identify projects both within the city and occasionally transitioning outside of the city that are on county facilities. So the county would either bring those into their TSP or they would make comments about what we put into our TSP. And they have. The county provided feedback on Techno 6B and 9 just about a week ago. So yeah, they're providing input too. So I just have two more slides here, this one is actually it looks like it's out of order here a little bit supposed to be towards the beginning and really just trying to show the schedule. As we go forward, we are currently in the process of drafting the tsp we are envisioning being wrapped up by September and then moving towards adoption come fall probably around the October November timeframe. And again, this is, I feel like this is a little bit out of order here, but, um, quite a few tech memos are now complete. I think there's only one more to go. Um, and, and then we'll be tech moment. Number 10 is essentially are implementing ordinances, which will take some of the, um, code and policy issues that we had identified really early on and help carry those into the development code and then the DSP itself. So in terms of next steps for this group, we will be having another open house. It'll largely be an online open house. It'll largely be focused towards the TSP itself. And we'll come back to you guys in the early part of the fall. I don't unfortunately have the schedule in front of me, but I'm looking to have a work session. It'll be our final work session together before we get into the hearing process. And that work session will cover the draft TSP. And so that one will kind of bring everything together. So today we've really focused on the projects, I guess. But the TSP will incorporate a lot of the standards we've been talking about, so functional classifications, street design standards, like things for local streets or, you know, the lowest classification street, along with all the projects, the trail projects, the Safe Routes to School projects, and everything that's essentially shown in Tech Memo 6B. So it kind of rolls everything together in one document. And the intention really is for us to be able to revisit a lot of these same things and hopefully be able to incorporate some of the direct feedback we're getting and And at that meeting, hopefully, I will be able to respond directly to that feedback as well. I only saved about three minutes for general stuff. But if anybody has any kind of general stuff, things you can guide me towards next time, that'd be helpful.

And your comments?

Cosmetic. I'll show it to you offline.

And I guess maybe then closing, I would reiterate a point made earlier, and I'll try to remember to bring this up during our next work session, is that this is largely trying to lay the foundation for future work. It helps align the city with funding. We didn't spend a lot of time talking about funding today, but we will when we get back together next time. We're trying to identify funding sources for most of the projects that are in here, both the state and the federal, the local level, and we're trying to identify a plan that is theoretically fundable within the horizon. So we'll talk a lot more about funding. We'll talk about the cost of things, and we'll talk about projects again. So look forward to that discussion. Thanks, everybody.

well very good uh just thank you for all the hard work this is a very big project and lots of pieces and lots of moving parts and i'm just grateful for all the work that you are doing and working with oda and city staff and the advisory committee and some of the people around this room so just grateful for all the work you're doing and we look forward to the next steps i see mark sitting in back i want to thank him too for his participation yep all right that's it mayor thank you all right if there's no other business we'll adjourn until seven