Everett Street Corridor Analysis

Share Everett Street Corridor Analysis on Facebook Share Everett Street Corridor Analysis on Twitter Share Everett Street Corridor Analysis on Linkedin Email Everett Street Corridor Analysis link
Everett Street Corridor Analysis - graphic of project limits

Updated December 12, 2023

Special Council Workshop to Be Held Wednesday, December 20, 2023, 4:30 p.m.
Council will be convening for a special workshop to review the alternatives analysis and preferred concept. There will be no public comment. However, you may:

  • Use the Q & A section to submit a question by scrolling to the Ask a Question below.
  • Connect with a member of the project team by viewing the Who's Listening section to the right.
  • Send comments to council members by visiting the City website: About City Council | Camas WA (cityofcamas.us).

Thank You for Attending Open House #3 September 20, 2023

On Wed., Sept. 20, 2023, 6 pm, at Lacamas Lake Lodge, we held our third community open house, where we shared our progress on a design concept. One of the night's key messages was that we are in the early stages of this long-range, multi-phase project. We look forward to your continued input and participation.

***Please note: Additional off-street parking is being recommended with this project to support local businesses, residents, and recreational users.***

View the Open House #3 presentation here.

Want to learn more?

  • For presentations and materials, please see the Documents section of this webpage.
  • To connect with a member of the project team, view the Who's Listening section.
  • To submit a question, scroll to Ask a Question.

About the Project

Purpose – The City of Camas is evaluating the Everett Street Corridor from NE Lake Road to city limits near NE 3rd Street (not to be confused with NE 3rd Avenue running through downtown Camas) to determine how the roadway and intersections can be best configured to allow for safe, efficient passage through and access to the area by motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists who work, live, and play in Camas and the neighboring vicinities, while providing for planned growth.

Community Focus – Having kicked off this project in August 2022, no decisions have been made. An essential part of our efforts will be sharing information and gathering the feedback of residents, business owners, recreationalists, organizations, Camas School District, Clark County, and the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to ensure their priorities and values are reflected in the corridor design. There will be many opportunities for public involvement, and we invite you to be part of the discussion from start to finish.

Regional Significance – This critical project furthers the multimodal improvements (that is, improvements that benefit users of multiple modes of transportation such as walking, biking, and driving) achieved by the NE Lake Road–NE Everett Street roundabout while relieving traffic congestion for the corridor’s 15,000+ daily users. It will also set the stage for significant improvements throughout the region by connecting nearby recreational areas such as the Lacamas Lake North Shore, Lacamas Lake, Round Lake, and Crown Park, as well as school district facilities, neighborhoods, and local businesses.

Funding – This project is made possible by local funds and takes the project through approximately 20% of the design phase. Funding for additional design and construction will be pursued at a later date. Ultimately, improvements to the corridor are anticipated to take many years and will likely be completed in multiple phases.

Project Team – The project is led by City of Camas Public Works with support from PBS Engineering and Environmental, WSP, and Archaeological Investigations Northwest (AINW).

Updated December 12, 2023

Special Council Workshop to Be Held Wednesday, December 20, 2023, 4:30 p.m.
Council will be convening for a special workshop to review the alternatives analysis and preferred concept. There will be no public comment. However, you may:

  • Use the Q & A section to submit a question by scrolling to the Ask a Question below.
  • Connect with a member of the project team by viewing the Who's Listening section to the right.
  • Send comments to council members by visiting the City website: About City Council | Camas WA (cityofcamas.us).

Thank You for Attending Open House #3 September 20, 2023

On Wed., Sept. 20, 2023, 6 pm, at Lacamas Lake Lodge, we held our third community open house, where we shared our progress on a design concept. One of the night's key messages was that we are in the early stages of this long-range, multi-phase project. We look forward to your continued input and participation.

***Please note: Additional off-street parking is being recommended with this project to support local businesses, residents, and recreational users.***

View the Open House #3 presentation here.

Want to learn more?

  • For presentations and materials, please see the Documents section of this webpage.
  • To connect with a member of the project team, view the Who's Listening section.
  • To submit a question, scroll to Ask a Question.

About the Project

Purpose – The City of Camas is evaluating the Everett Street Corridor from NE Lake Road to city limits near NE 3rd Street (not to be confused with NE 3rd Avenue running through downtown Camas) to determine how the roadway and intersections can be best configured to allow for safe, efficient passage through and access to the area by motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists who work, live, and play in Camas and the neighboring vicinities, while providing for planned growth.

Community Focus – Having kicked off this project in August 2022, no decisions have been made. An essential part of our efforts will be sharing information and gathering the feedback of residents, business owners, recreationalists, organizations, Camas School District, Clark County, and the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to ensure their priorities and values are reflected in the corridor design. There will be many opportunities for public involvement, and we invite you to be part of the discussion from start to finish.

Regional Significance – This critical project furthers the multimodal improvements (that is, improvements that benefit users of multiple modes of transportation such as walking, biking, and driving) achieved by the NE Lake Road–NE Everett Street roundabout while relieving traffic congestion for the corridor’s 15,000+ daily users. It will also set the stage for significant improvements throughout the region by connecting nearby recreational areas such as the Lacamas Lake North Shore, Lacamas Lake, Round Lake, and Crown Park, as well as school district facilities, neighborhoods, and local businesses.

Funding – This project is made possible by local funds and takes the project through approximately 20% of the design phase. Funding for additional design and construction will be pursued at a later date. Ultimately, improvements to the corridor are anticipated to take many years and will likely be completed in multiple phases.

Project Team – The project is led by City of Camas Public Works with support from PBS Engineering and Environmental, WSP, and Archaeological Investigations Northwest (AINW).

Project Questions

Let us know what questions you have about the project!

loader image
Forgot password?
Didn't receive confirmation?
Register Now
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.
  • Share will improvements to the 35th St parking lot include paving? the gravel attracts high-speed drifting, even when the lot is full & there are excited children focused on getting to the lakes. on Facebook Share will improvements to the 35th St parking lot include paving? the gravel attracts high-speed drifting, even when the lot is full & there are excited children focused on getting to the lakes. on Twitter Share will improvements to the 35th St parking lot include paving? the gravel attracts high-speed drifting, even when the lot is full & there are excited children focused on getting to the lakes. on Linkedin Email will improvements to the 35th St parking lot include paving? the gravel attracts high-speed drifting, even when the lot is full & there are excited children focused on getting to the lakes. link

    will improvements to the 35th St parking lot include paving? the gravel attracts high-speed drifting, even when the lot is full & there are excited children focused on getting to the lakes.

    cindi asked 7 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas, and thank you for your question. The gravel lot is currently County-owned, so any improvements would have to be in conjunction with Clark County. With that mind, we're looking to partner with the County moving forward. However, it’s also only one potential option that we’ll look at to try and add parking for the area. 

  • Share I would like to comment in support of efforts to expedite the timeline for section 1 of the Everett Street Corridor (roundabout to NE 43rd Ave) and pursue additional funding sources via increased state and federal infrastructure funds that are becoming available. I'm glad to hear this may be in motion with the initiation of the CFM contract. I understand that this project needs to be considered with the North Shore development in mind but this section is significantly more urgent than section 2. Remediation of this dangerous bottleneck (and primary N/S road in the town) is long overdue and the active construction will create more demand earlier than the expected construction date. I encourage Council to prioritize development of a passable corridor for school traffic, bike, pedestrians, and people who want to visit the lake and local business. I see conflict daily between users of this section. Often resulting in accidents and close calls. This is truly a special area and will be greatly enhanced with appropriate infrastructure. on Facebook Share I would like to comment in support of efforts to expedite the timeline for section 1 of the Everett Street Corridor (roundabout to NE 43rd Ave) and pursue additional funding sources via increased state and federal infrastructure funds that are becoming available. I'm glad to hear this may be in motion with the initiation of the CFM contract. I understand that this project needs to be considered with the North Shore development in mind but this section is significantly more urgent than section 2. Remediation of this dangerous bottleneck (and primary N/S road in the town) is long overdue and the active construction will create more demand earlier than the expected construction date. I encourage Council to prioritize development of a passable corridor for school traffic, bike, pedestrians, and people who want to visit the lake and local business. I see conflict daily between users of this section. Often resulting in accidents and close calls. This is truly a special area and will be greatly enhanced with appropriate infrastructure. on Twitter Share I would like to comment in support of efforts to expedite the timeline for section 1 of the Everett Street Corridor (roundabout to NE 43rd Ave) and pursue additional funding sources via increased state and federal infrastructure funds that are becoming available. I'm glad to hear this may be in motion with the initiation of the CFM contract. I understand that this project needs to be considered with the North Shore development in mind but this section is significantly more urgent than section 2. Remediation of this dangerous bottleneck (and primary N/S road in the town) is long overdue and the active construction will create more demand earlier than the expected construction date. I encourage Council to prioritize development of a passable corridor for school traffic, bike, pedestrians, and people who want to visit the lake and local business. I see conflict daily between users of this section. Often resulting in accidents and close calls. This is truly a special area and will be greatly enhanced with appropriate infrastructure. on Linkedin Email I would like to comment in support of efforts to expedite the timeline for section 1 of the Everett Street Corridor (roundabout to NE 43rd Ave) and pursue additional funding sources via increased state and federal infrastructure funds that are becoming available. I'm glad to hear this may be in motion with the initiation of the CFM contract. I understand that this project needs to be considered with the North Shore development in mind but this section is significantly more urgent than section 2. Remediation of this dangerous bottleneck (and primary N/S road in the town) is long overdue and the active construction will create more demand earlier than the expected construction date. I encourage Council to prioritize development of a passable corridor for school traffic, bike, pedestrians, and people who want to visit the lake and local business. I see conflict daily between users of this section. Often resulting in accidents and close calls. This is truly a special area and will be greatly enhanced with appropriate infrastructure. link

    I would like to comment in support of efforts to expedite the timeline for section 1 of the Everett Street Corridor (roundabout to NE 43rd Ave) and pursue additional funding sources via increased state and federal infrastructure funds that are becoming available. I'm glad to hear this may be in motion with the initiation of the CFM contract. I understand that this project needs to be considered with the North Shore development in mind but this section is significantly more urgent than section 2. Remediation of this dangerous bottleneck (and primary N/S road in the town) is long overdue and the active construction will create more demand earlier than the expected construction date. I encourage Council to prioritize development of a passable corridor for school traffic, bike, pedestrians, and people who want to visit the lake and local business. I see conflict daily between users of this section. Often resulting in accidents and close calls. This is truly a special area and will be greatly enhanced with appropriate infrastructure.

    RNorth asked 8 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and thank you for your comment. This has been shared with the project team. 

  • Share Hello - I was wondering if there is an update on this project that I can reference to give an update for a neighborhood meeting. Is December 20th the latest and greatest? Thank you! on Facebook Share Hello - I was wondering if there is an update on this project that I can reference to give an update for a neighborhood meeting. Is December 20th the latest and greatest? Thank you! on Twitter Share Hello - I was wondering if there is an update on this project that I can reference to give an update for a neighborhood meeting. Is December 20th the latest and greatest? Thank you! on Linkedin Email Hello - I was wondering if there is an update on this project that I can reference to give an update for a neighborhood meeting. Is December 20th the latest and greatest? Thank you! link

    Hello - I was wondering if there is an update on this project that I can reference to give an update for a neighborhood meeting. Is December 20th the latest and greatest? Thank you!

    RNorth asked 9 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas, and thank you for your question. Yes, that is the most up-to-date information at this time. However, staff will provide an update to Council at the April 1, Workshop and Meeting. 

  • Share What parameters are in place to avoid making the same mistakes City of Camas made on the previous two projects? We have had two lights & roundabout projects on this same stree since roughly 2014 and to be quite frank, the street has not improved nor made any noticeable improvements even with two projects. I would consider them borderline failure projects that did not make a significant impact or difference. It actually has made the roundabout more dangerous. Way too many drivers not yielding and driving recklessly in and around the lacamas are. How can the public/your stakeholders trust the city with this 10+year project? A project of this capacity should be done right, and not rushed. Listen to your stakeholders rather than make a decision. Thanks and looking forward to seeing how this project develops. on Facebook Share What parameters are in place to avoid making the same mistakes City of Camas made on the previous two projects? We have had two lights & roundabout projects on this same stree since roughly 2014 and to be quite frank, the street has not improved nor made any noticeable improvements even with two projects. I would consider them borderline failure projects that did not make a significant impact or difference. It actually has made the roundabout more dangerous. Way too many drivers not yielding and driving recklessly in and around the lacamas are. How can the public/your stakeholders trust the city with this 10+year project? A project of this capacity should be done right, and not rushed. Listen to your stakeholders rather than make a decision. Thanks and looking forward to seeing how this project develops. on Twitter Share What parameters are in place to avoid making the same mistakes City of Camas made on the previous two projects? We have had two lights & roundabout projects on this same stree since roughly 2014 and to be quite frank, the street has not improved nor made any noticeable improvements even with two projects. I would consider them borderline failure projects that did not make a significant impact or difference. It actually has made the roundabout more dangerous. Way too many drivers not yielding and driving recklessly in and around the lacamas are. How can the public/your stakeholders trust the city with this 10+year project? A project of this capacity should be done right, and not rushed. Listen to your stakeholders rather than make a decision. Thanks and looking forward to seeing how this project develops. on Linkedin Email What parameters are in place to avoid making the same mistakes City of Camas made on the previous two projects? We have had two lights & roundabout projects on this same stree since roughly 2014 and to be quite frank, the street has not improved nor made any noticeable improvements even with two projects. I would consider them borderline failure projects that did not make a significant impact or difference. It actually has made the roundabout more dangerous. Way too many drivers not yielding and driving recklessly in and around the lacamas are. How can the public/your stakeholders trust the city with this 10+year project? A project of this capacity should be done right, and not rushed. Listen to your stakeholders rather than make a decision. Thanks and looking forward to seeing how this project develops. link

    What parameters are in place to avoid making the same mistakes City of Camas made on the previous two projects? We have had two lights & roundabout projects on this same stree since roughly 2014 and to be quite frank, the street has not improved nor made any noticeable improvements even with two projects. I would consider them borderline failure projects that did not make a significant impact or difference. It actually has made the roundabout more dangerous. Way too many drivers not yielding and driving recklessly in and around the lacamas are. How can the public/your stakeholders trust the city with this 10+year project? A project of this capacity should be done right, and not rushed. Listen to your stakeholders rather than make a decision. Thanks and looking forward to seeing how this project develops.

    Kkirsch asked 10 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas, and thank you for your comments. This information has been shared with staff, if you're interested in discussing the project in more detail, please feel free to contact our Public Works Director, Steve Wall @ swall@cityofcamas.us

  • Share I just watched the Dec 20th meeting. Big thank you to Steve Wall and team for all their work and to the Council Members who made informed comments. We are more than two years into this detailed analysis (10 years since inception) on a project that is the #1 priority and is overdue. It was disheartening to see that in the best case, Segment 1 construction will BEGIN in 2030. Portions of Segment 1 should be improved earlier. We have 60ft in the current ROW to work with, despite some homeowners who have erroneously extended their properties. I urge Council to explore ways to expedite funding and allow the team to move forward with design and parking for this section so people who live adjacent to the lake/park can access it; kids can safely walk from their schools and bus stops; and the primary N/S road in Camas can be multi-modal, cohesive, and accommodate the significant traffic safely. on Facebook Share I just watched the Dec 20th meeting. Big thank you to Steve Wall and team for all their work and to the Council Members who made informed comments. We are more than two years into this detailed analysis (10 years since inception) on a project that is the #1 priority and is overdue. It was disheartening to see that in the best case, Segment 1 construction will BEGIN in 2030. Portions of Segment 1 should be improved earlier. We have 60ft in the current ROW to work with, despite some homeowners who have erroneously extended their properties. I urge Council to explore ways to expedite funding and allow the team to move forward with design and parking for this section so people who live adjacent to the lake/park can access it; kids can safely walk from their schools and bus stops; and the primary N/S road in Camas can be multi-modal, cohesive, and accommodate the significant traffic safely. on Twitter Share I just watched the Dec 20th meeting. Big thank you to Steve Wall and team for all their work and to the Council Members who made informed comments. We are more than two years into this detailed analysis (10 years since inception) on a project that is the #1 priority and is overdue. It was disheartening to see that in the best case, Segment 1 construction will BEGIN in 2030. Portions of Segment 1 should be improved earlier. We have 60ft in the current ROW to work with, despite some homeowners who have erroneously extended their properties. I urge Council to explore ways to expedite funding and allow the team to move forward with design and parking for this section so people who live adjacent to the lake/park can access it; kids can safely walk from their schools and bus stops; and the primary N/S road in Camas can be multi-modal, cohesive, and accommodate the significant traffic safely. on Linkedin Email I just watched the Dec 20th meeting. Big thank you to Steve Wall and team for all their work and to the Council Members who made informed comments. We are more than two years into this detailed analysis (10 years since inception) on a project that is the #1 priority and is overdue. It was disheartening to see that in the best case, Segment 1 construction will BEGIN in 2030. Portions of Segment 1 should be improved earlier. We have 60ft in the current ROW to work with, despite some homeowners who have erroneously extended their properties. I urge Council to explore ways to expedite funding and allow the team to move forward with design and parking for this section so people who live adjacent to the lake/park can access it; kids can safely walk from their schools and bus stops; and the primary N/S road in Camas can be multi-modal, cohesive, and accommodate the significant traffic safely. link

    I just watched the Dec 20th meeting. Big thank you to Steve Wall and team for all their work and to the Council Members who made informed comments. We are more than two years into this detailed analysis (10 years since inception) on a project that is the #1 priority and is overdue. It was disheartening to see that in the best case, Segment 1 construction will BEGIN in 2030. Portions of Segment 1 should be improved earlier. We have 60ft in the current ROW to work with, despite some homeowners who have erroneously extended their properties. I urge Council to explore ways to expedite funding and allow the team to move forward with design and parking for this section so people who live adjacent to the lake/park can access it; kids can safely walk from their schools and bus stops; and the primary N/S road in Camas can be multi-modal, cohesive, and accommodate the significant traffic safely.

    RNorth asked 11 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas, and thank you for your comment. This has been shared with the Public Works Director. 

  • Share Thank you for yesterday's helpful and informative workshop meeting (December 20th). The meeting answered many of the questions we've had about this project and made it clear just where we are, right now, in the grand scheme of things (to wit: there's still ample time for regular folk like us to work with the city to help shape the final project). The presentation was more complete than any we've seen so far, and it was wonderful to watch members of the Council discussing the project in a way that clearly showed they've heard the voices of people living in this area. The more detailed timeline of how the project is likely to unfold in the coming years was especially helpful and relieved some of the pressure many of us have felt. I recommend that all my neighbors who were unable to attend the meeting watch the recording posted on the City of Camas website. on Facebook Share Thank you for yesterday's helpful and informative workshop meeting (December 20th). The meeting answered many of the questions we've had about this project and made it clear just where we are, right now, in the grand scheme of things (to wit: there's still ample time for regular folk like us to work with the city to help shape the final project). The presentation was more complete than any we've seen so far, and it was wonderful to watch members of the Council discussing the project in a way that clearly showed they've heard the voices of people living in this area. The more detailed timeline of how the project is likely to unfold in the coming years was especially helpful and relieved some of the pressure many of us have felt. I recommend that all my neighbors who were unable to attend the meeting watch the recording posted on the City of Camas website. on Twitter Share Thank you for yesterday's helpful and informative workshop meeting (December 20th). The meeting answered many of the questions we've had about this project and made it clear just where we are, right now, in the grand scheme of things (to wit: there's still ample time for regular folk like us to work with the city to help shape the final project). The presentation was more complete than any we've seen so far, and it was wonderful to watch members of the Council discussing the project in a way that clearly showed they've heard the voices of people living in this area. The more detailed timeline of how the project is likely to unfold in the coming years was especially helpful and relieved some of the pressure many of us have felt. I recommend that all my neighbors who were unable to attend the meeting watch the recording posted on the City of Camas website. on Linkedin Email Thank you for yesterday's helpful and informative workshop meeting (December 20th). The meeting answered many of the questions we've had about this project and made it clear just where we are, right now, in the grand scheme of things (to wit: there's still ample time for regular folk like us to work with the city to help shape the final project). The presentation was more complete than any we've seen so far, and it was wonderful to watch members of the Council discussing the project in a way that clearly showed they've heard the voices of people living in this area. The more detailed timeline of how the project is likely to unfold in the coming years was especially helpful and relieved some of the pressure many of us have felt. I recommend that all my neighbors who were unable to attend the meeting watch the recording posted on the City of Camas website. link

    Thank you for yesterday's helpful and informative workshop meeting (December 20th). The meeting answered many of the questions we've had about this project and made it clear just where we are, right now, in the grand scheme of things (to wit: there's still ample time for regular folk like us to work with the city to help shape the final project). The presentation was more complete than any we've seen so far, and it was wonderful to watch members of the Council discussing the project in a way that clearly showed they've heard the voices of people living in this area. The more detailed timeline of how the project is likely to unfold in the coming years was especially helpful and relieved some of the pressure many of us have felt. I recommend that all my neighbors who were unable to attend the meeting watch the recording posted on the City of Camas website.

    Ruth MacGregor asked 11 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and thank you for your comment. We have also provided the link to the referenced meeting here: https://www.cityofcamas.us/citycouncil/page/city-council-special-meeting-everett-street-corridor-project

  • Share Based off of last nights City Council meeting/workshop, it was made apparent that the Everett Street development could be accomplished within the right-of-way, or even completed without utilizing the entire right-of-way. Why wasn't this data made available as an option when selecting alternative plans and bringing forth options to the public for the survey? Having an understanding of the restrictions associated with geographic constraint, wouldn't it make sense to find an approach that is less intrusive on property owners? I would like to clarify that I am a proponent of growth, albeit, not at the expense of current residents. Are alternative approaches now being considered? Please advise. Thank you so much. on Facebook Share Based off of last nights City Council meeting/workshop, it was made apparent that the Everett Street development could be accomplished within the right-of-way, or even completed without utilizing the entire right-of-way. Why wasn't this data made available as an option when selecting alternative plans and bringing forth options to the public for the survey? Having an understanding of the restrictions associated with geographic constraint, wouldn't it make sense to find an approach that is less intrusive on property owners? I would like to clarify that I am a proponent of growth, albeit, not at the expense of current residents. Are alternative approaches now being considered? Please advise. Thank you so much. on Twitter Share Based off of last nights City Council meeting/workshop, it was made apparent that the Everett Street development could be accomplished within the right-of-way, or even completed without utilizing the entire right-of-way. Why wasn't this data made available as an option when selecting alternative plans and bringing forth options to the public for the survey? Having an understanding of the restrictions associated with geographic constraint, wouldn't it make sense to find an approach that is less intrusive on property owners? I would like to clarify that I am a proponent of growth, albeit, not at the expense of current residents. Are alternative approaches now being considered? Please advise. Thank you so much. on Linkedin Email Based off of last nights City Council meeting/workshop, it was made apparent that the Everett Street development could be accomplished within the right-of-way, or even completed without utilizing the entire right-of-way. Why wasn't this data made available as an option when selecting alternative plans and bringing forth options to the public for the survey? Having an understanding of the restrictions associated with geographic constraint, wouldn't it make sense to find an approach that is less intrusive on property owners? I would like to clarify that I am a proponent of growth, albeit, not at the expense of current residents. Are alternative approaches now being considered? Please advise. Thank you so much. link

    Based off of last nights City Council meeting/workshop, it was made apparent that the Everett Street development could be accomplished within the right-of-way, or even completed without utilizing the entire right-of-way. Why wasn't this data made available as an option when selecting alternative plans and bringing forth options to the public for the survey? Having an understanding of the restrictions associated with geographic constraint, wouldn't it make sense to find an approach that is less intrusive on property owners? I would like to clarify that I am a proponent of growth, albeit, not at the expense of current residents. Are alternative approaches now being considered? Please advise. Thank you so much.

    K Supplee asked 11 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas. This is a good question and there may be some confusion as people may not fully understand where the actual right-of-way/property lines are located. Options within the existing right-of-way have been presented throughout the process; 4 out of the 5 options (“MM1” thru “MM4”) that were presented at the Open Houses and shown in Council Workshops, public outreach materials, etc. all showed proposed improvements inside the existing 60 foot right-of-way. As stated at multiple Council Workshops on this topic, it is the City’s desire in all projects to minimize impacts and keep things within the existing right-of-way where possible (ownership by the City, or State/City in the case of Everett/SR500) and that was how the first 4 options were derived. However, the 5th option that showed just a few feet of additional property needed on each side, best fit with the combined input from the public (those that followed the process and responded) and received by the City during the process – not just property impacts – which was why it was also presented as an option.

     Alternative options are not necessarily being considered at this time, but based on the 12/20/2023 Workshop, the team will be moving forward a concept that will include roundabouts for primary intersections (which will require additional property) and a typical section meeting the “Complete Streets” criteria (e.g. sidewalks, bike lanes, travel lanes) that fits within the existing 60 foot right-of-way. Again, this is not a detailed design where the City can provide exact measurements, driveway locations, potential impacts to parking/properties, etc.; that will be a separate process with it’s own outreach process once funding for design is secured. Timing of beginning design is unknown at this point.  

  • Share The City Council's decision to exclude public comment during the December 20th special meeting about the Everett Street Corridor project is both surprising and disappointing. Was the Council worried that property owners and residents along the corridor would take too much meeting time if allowed to speak? Or was the decision based on the notion that, having heard some of our voices in a previous meeting, the Council is satisfied that its obligation to hear public input has been fulfilled, and it now means to turn its attention to proceeding as it had always planned to do, despite what the people most affected might wish or say? on Facebook Share The City Council's decision to exclude public comment during the December 20th special meeting about the Everett Street Corridor project is both surprising and disappointing. Was the Council worried that property owners and residents along the corridor would take too much meeting time if allowed to speak? Or was the decision based on the notion that, having heard some of our voices in a previous meeting, the Council is satisfied that its obligation to hear public input has been fulfilled, and it now means to turn its attention to proceeding as it had always planned to do, despite what the people most affected might wish or say? on Twitter Share The City Council's decision to exclude public comment during the December 20th special meeting about the Everett Street Corridor project is both surprising and disappointing. Was the Council worried that property owners and residents along the corridor would take too much meeting time if allowed to speak? Or was the decision based on the notion that, having heard some of our voices in a previous meeting, the Council is satisfied that its obligation to hear public input has been fulfilled, and it now means to turn its attention to proceeding as it had always planned to do, despite what the people most affected might wish or say? on Linkedin Email The City Council's decision to exclude public comment during the December 20th special meeting about the Everett Street Corridor project is both surprising and disappointing. Was the Council worried that property owners and residents along the corridor would take too much meeting time if allowed to speak? Or was the decision based on the notion that, having heard some of our voices in a previous meeting, the Council is satisfied that its obligation to hear public input has been fulfilled, and it now means to turn its attention to proceeding as it had always planned to do, despite what the people most affected might wish or say? link

    The City Council's decision to exclude public comment during the December 20th special meeting about the Everett Street Corridor project is both surprising and disappointing. Was the Council worried that property owners and residents along the corridor would take too much meeting time if allowed to speak? Or was the decision based on the notion that, having heard some of our voices in a previous meeting, the Council is satisfied that its obligation to hear public input has been fulfilled, and it now means to turn its attention to proceeding as it had always planned to do, despite what the people most affected might wish or say?

    Ruth MacGregor asked 11 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas. We always appreciate public comment, and in fact we received so much at the last meeting, we didn't have enough time to complete the Everett presentation. With that in mind, we are currently removing the public comment portion, so that we may finish the presentation and determine where to go from there. Please note, that Council and the Mayor could allow for public comment at this meeting, should time permit. You can also send your public comments to Council at anytime at publiccomments@cityofcamas.us

  • Share I have a few questions. This states the funding comes from local funds and takes us 20 percent of the way through the design phase. Where are future funds expected to come from? I was under the impression this is a state highway and funding would be state funds. Can you detail more where you are expecting funds to come from. Secondly, sort of tied to that. This being a state highway why is the city doing the assessment and design? Does the city get to decide what to do ultimately? Will there be street parking along this street when the project is finished in the area just north of the lake. on Facebook Share I have a few questions. This states the funding comes from local funds and takes us 20 percent of the way through the design phase. Where are future funds expected to come from? I was under the impression this is a state highway and funding would be state funds. Can you detail more where you are expecting funds to come from. Secondly, sort of tied to that. This being a state highway why is the city doing the assessment and design? Does the city get to decide what to do ultimately? Will there be street parking along this street when the project is finished in the area just north of the lake. on Twitter Share I have a few questions. This states the funding comes from local funds and takes us 20 percent of the way through the design phase. Where are future funds expected to come from? I was under the impression this is a state highway and funding would be state funds. Can you detail more where you are expecting funds to come from. Secondly, sort of tied to that. This being a state highway why is the city doing the assessment and design? Does the city get to decide what to do ultimately? Will there be street parking along this street when the project is finished in the area just north of the lake. on Linkedin Email I have a few questions. This states the funding comes from local funds and takes us 20 percent of the way through the design phase. Where are future funds expected to come from? I was under the impression this is a state highway and funding would be state funds. Can you detail more where you are expecting funds to come from. Secondly, sort of tied to that. This being a state highway why is the city doing the assessment and design? Does the city get to decide what to do ultimately? Will there be street parking along this street when the project is finished in the area just north of the lake. link

    I have a few questions. This states the funding comes from local funds and takes us 20 percent of the way through the design phase. Where are future funds expected to come from? I was under the impression this is a state highway and funding would be state funds. Can you detail more where you are expecting funds to come from. Secondly, sort of tied to that. This being a state highway why is the city doing the assessment and design? Does the city get to decide what to do ultimately? Will there be street parking along this street when the project is finished in the area just north of the lake.

    Emma asked about 1 year ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas. Future funding for these improvements has yet to be secured. These types of projects have typically been funded through successful federal and state grant applications, development contribution and local funds. The State has many routes, some of which are interstate highways with interchanges and high volumes of traffic. The Everett Street Corridor improvements are not currently in the State’s long range plans. City stakeholders benefit the most by these improvements. The City recognizes the need for these improvements to accommodate the needs and desires of the local population. While the City has some leeway with the project design, ultimately WSDOT will be involved with the approval of final construction plans prior to construction. It is not anticipated that there will be on street parking; however, accommodations for off-street parking are to be addressed in the remaining design phase.

  • Share As a longtime resident of Camas and a property owner living at the intersection of Everett Street and 38th Avenue, I was shocked by the project plan presented at the September 20th Open House. My neighbors and I feel we were blindsided. Though the presenters (and this website) state that “no decisions have been made,” they made it clear that of the five options under consideration, one in particular *has* been selected: the most costly, the most invasive, the most complex, and the most ambitious. One wonders why. The chosen plan is expensive, damaging to properties along the corridor, out of step with the natural landscapes of the lake park, and completely unhelpful for motorists, residents and existing businesses. Adding three large roundabouts in a short section of roadway will not improve conditions for drivers on Everett Street. Instead of being annoyed by the current twice-a-day slowdowns, drivers on the 'improved' street will be forced to navigate a series of roundabouts that, for the most part, serve no purpose other than to permanently slow traffic flow. When planning for this 'improvement' project began (more than 10 years ago), one of the initial objectives was to help ease flow through this section of road. The current proposed plan adds no additional traffic lanes, but replaces a two-lane road with another two-lane road. In addition, it adds a large amount of pavement on both sides of the roadway, removes many beautiful mature trees (replacing them with small, non-native trees planted in a strip), and inserts not one but three (possibly five) large, invasive roundabouts. Though I can see how the busy intersection at 43rd Avenue could be improved by a roundabout, the reasoning behind the roundabouts proposed on 38th and 35th Avenues remains obscure. Those two streets are quiet residential streets. They are low-traffic streets. They are small streets that serve established neighborhoods. They do not lead to areas of future rampant growth, whose future residents would require higher-traffic roadways. Though I applaud the inclusion of bike lanes and sidewalks for non-motorists who use (or would like to use) this stretch of Everett, I question why this corridor needs such a massive breadth of pavement. The stated estimate that this project would require “only five feet of property” from residents and businesses on each side of the corridor is false. Parking for existing businesses near the lake would be obliterated. The “five feet” taken from property owners (predominantly on the east side of the road, according maps published at the Open House) would block access to Everett for most of the residents on that side of the street, and would frequently put pavement right at the doorstep of residents’ houses. To mention something close to my own heart, the roundabout proposed for Everett Street and 38th Avenue would require the city to seize half of my property (not just five feet, not even just ten) and install a sidewalk less than an arm’s length from my bedroom window. The roundabout would also claim such a large chunk of one neighbor’s elevated property that their house would be completely destabilized as a result, and another neighbor would lose his front yard and half his driveway. This does not strike me as something that serves the interests of motorists using this roadway, citizens who live alongside it, or businesses who depend on it. A more thoughtful approach would give greater consideration to the residents and taxpayers who currently live here, and less consideration to those who haven’t moved to the area yet, or the contractors and developers who live elsewhere but will make a substantial profit from these plans. Could the City please consider reverting to one of more modest proposals from the models they have already spent so much time and resources to create? For example, the addition of simple left-turn lanes for smaller intersections (rather than multiple roundabouts) would comfortably serve the people living here on side streets and using the Everett corridor, without involving such a great outlay of tax dollars or causing such major disruption during the construction period. For several of the smaller intersections along this segment of road, a simple turn lane would take care of any access or slowdown problems — no roundabouts or signals required. on Facebook Share As a longtime resident of Camas and a property owner living at the intersection of Everett Street and 38th Avenue, I was shocked by the project plan presented at the September 20th Open House. My neighbors and I feel we were blindsided. Though the presenters (and this website) state that “no decisions have been made,” they made it clear that of the five options under consideration, one in particular *has* been selected: the most costly, the most invasive, the most complex, and the most ambitious. One wonders why. The chosen plan is expensive, damaging to properties along the corridor, out of step with the natural landscapes of the lake park, and completely unhelpful for motorists, residents and existing businesses. Adding three large roundabouts in a short section of roadway will not improve conditions for drivers on Everett Street. Instead of being annoyed by the current twice-a-day slowdowns, drivers on the 'improved' street will be forced to navigate a series of roundabouts that, for the most part, serve no purpose other than to permanently slow traffic flow. When planning for this 'improvement' project began (more than 10 years ago), one of the initial objectives was to help ease flow through this section of road. The current proposed plan adds no additional traffic lanes, but replaces a two-lane road with another two-lane road. In addition, it adds a large amount of pavement on both sides of the roadway, removes many beautiful mature trees (replacing them with small, non-native trees planted in a strip), and inserts not one but three (possibly five) large, invasive roundabouts. Though I can see how the busy intersection at 43rd Avenue could be improved by a roundabout, the reasoning behind the roundabouts proposed on 38th and 35th Avenues remains obscure. Those two streets are quiet residential streets. They are low-traffic streets. They are small streets that serve established neighborhoods. They do not lead to areas of future rampant growth, whose future residents would require higher-traffic roadways. Though I applaud the inclusion of bike lanes and sidewalks for non-motorists who use (or would like to use) this stretch of Everett, I question why this corridor needs such a massive breadth of pavement. The stated estimate that this project would require “only five feet of property” from residents and businesses on each side of the corridor is false. Parking for existing businesses near the lake would be obliterated. The “five feet” taken from property owners (predominantly on the east side of the road, according maps published at the Open House) would block access to Everett for most of the residents on that side of the street, and would frequently put pavement right at the doorstep of residents’ houses. To mention something close to my own heart, the roundabout proposed for Everett Street and 38th Avenue would require the city to seize half of my property (not just five feet, not even just ten) and install a sidewalk less than an arm’s length from my bedroom window. The roundabout would also claim such a large chunk of one neighbor’s elevated property that their house would be completely destabilized as a result, and another neighbor would lose his front yard and half his driveway. This does not strike me as something that serves the interests of motorists using this roadway, citizens who live alongside it, or businesses who depend on it. A more thoughtful approach would give greater consideration to the residents and taxpayers who currently live here, and less consideration to those who haven’t moved to the area yet, or the contractors and developers who live elsewhere but will make a substantial profit from these plans. Could the City please consider reverting to one of more modest proposals from the models they have already spent so much time and resources to create? For example, the addition of simple left-turn lanes for smaller intersections (rather than multiple roundabouts) would comfortably serve the people living here on side streets and using the Everett corridor, without involving such a great outlay of tax dollars or causing such major disruption during the construction period. For several of the smaller intersections along this segment of road, a simple turn lane would take care of any access or slowdown problems — no roundabouts or signals required. on Twitter Share As a longtime resident of Camas and a property owner living at the intersection of Everett Street and 38th Avenue, I was shocked by the project plan presented at the September 20th Open House. My neighbors and I feel we were blindsided. Though the presenters (and this website) state that “no decisions have been made,” they made it clear that of the five options under consideration, one in particular *has* been selected: the most costly, the most invasive, the most complex, and the most ambitious. One wonders why. The chosen plan is expensive, damaging to properties along the corridor, out of step with the natural landscapes of the lake park, and completely unhelpful for motorists, residents and existing businesses. Adding three large roundabouts in a short section of roadway will not improve conditions for drivers on Everett Street. Instead of being annoyed by the current twice-a-day slowdowns, drivers on the 'improved' street will be forced to navigate a series of roundabouts that, for the most part, serve no purpose other than to permanently slow traffic flow. When planning for this 'improvement' project began (more than 10 years ago), one of the initial objectives was to help ease flow through this section of road. The current proposed plan adds no additional traffic lanes, but replaces a two-lane road with another two-lane road. In addition, it adds a large amount of pavement on both sides of the roadway, removes many beautiful mature trees (replacing them with small, non-native trees planted in a strip), and inserts not one but three (possibly five) large, invasive roundabouts. Though I can see how the busy intersection at 43rd Avenue could be improved by a roundabout, the reasoning behind the roundabouts proposed on 38th and 35th Avenues remains obscure. Those two streets are quiet residential streets. They are low-traffic streets. They are small streets that serve established neighborhoods. They do not lead to areas of future rampant growth, whose future residents would require higher-traffic roadways. Though I applaud the inclusion of bike lanes and sidewalks for non-motorists who use (or would like to use) this stretch of Everett, I question why this corridor needs such a massive breadth of pavement. The stated estimate that this project would require “only five feet of property” from residents and businesses on each side of the corridor is false. Parking for existing businesses near the lake would be obliterated. The “five feet” taken from property owners (predominantly on the east side of the road, according maps published at the Open House) would block access to Everett for most of the residents on that side of the street, and would frequently put pavement right at the doorstep of residents’ houses. To mention something close to my own heart, the roundabout proposed for Everett Street and 38th Avenue would require the city to seize half of my property (not just five feet, not even just ten) and install a sidewalk less than an arm’s length from my bedroom window. The roundabout would also claim such a large chunk of one neighbor’s elevated property that their house would be completely destabilized as a result, and another neighbor would lose his front yard and half his driveway. This does not strike me as something that serves the interests of motorists using this roadway, citizens who live alongside it, or businesses who depend on it. A more thoughtful approach would give greater consideration to the residents and taxpayers who currently live here, and less consideration to those who haven’t moved to the area yet, or the contractors and developers who live elsewhere but will make a substantial profit from these plans. Could the City please consider reverting to one of more modest proposals from the models they have already spent so much time and resources to create? For example, the addition of simple left-turn lanes for smaller intersections (rather than multiple roundabouts) would comfortably serve the people living here on side streets and using the Everett corridor, without involving such a great outlay of tax dollars or causing such major disruption during the construction period. For several of the smaller intersections along this segment of road, a simple turn lane would take care of any access or slowdown problems — no roundabouts or signals required. on Linkedin Email As a longtime resident of Camas and a property owner living at the intersection of Everett Street and 38th Avenue, I was shocked by the project plan presented at the September 20th Open House. My neighbors and I feel we were blindsided. Though the presenters (and this website) state that “no decisions have been made,” they made it clear that of the five options under consideration, one in particular *has* been selected: the most costly, the most invasive, the most complex, and the most ambitious. One wonders why. The chosen plan is expensive, damaging to properties along the corridor, out of step with the natural landscapes of the lake park, and completely unhelpful for motorists, residents and existing businesses. Adding three large roundabouts in a short section of roadway will not improve conditions for drivers on Everett Street. Instead of being annoyed by the current twice-a-day slowdowns, drivers on the 'improved' street will be forced to navigate a series of roundabouts that, for the most part, serve no purpose other than to permanently slow traffic flow. When planning for this 'improvement' project began (more than 10 years ago), one of the initial objectives was to help ease flow through this section of road. The current proposed plan adds no additional traffic lanes, but replaces a two-lane road with another two-lane road. In addition, it adds a large amount of pavement on both sides of the roadway, removes many beautiful mature trees (replacing them with small, non-native trees planted in a strip), and inserts not one but three (possibly five) large, invasive roundabouts. Though I can see how the busy intersection at 43rd Avenue could be improved by a roundabout, the reasoning behind the roundabouts proposed on 38th and 35th Avenues remains obscure. Those two streets are quiet residential streets. They are low-traffic streets. They are small streets that serve established neighborhoods. They do not lead to areas of future rampant growth, whose future residents would require higher-traffic roadways. Though I applaud the inclusion of bike lanes and sidewalks for non-motorists who use (or would like to use) this stretch of Everett, I question why this corridor needs such a massive breadth of pavement. The stated estimate that this project would require “only five feet of property” from residents and businesses on each side of the corridor is false. Parking for existing businesses near the lake would be obliterated. The “five feet” taken from property owners (predominantly on the east side of the road, according maps published at the Open House) would block access to Everett for most of the residents on that side of the street, and would frequently put pavement right at the doorstep of residents’ houses. To mention something close to my own heart, the roundabout proposed for Everett Street and 38th Avenue would require the city to seize half of my property (not just five feet, not even just ten) and install a sidewalk less than an arm’s length from my bedroom window. The roundabout would also claim such a large chunk of one neighbor’s elevated property that their house would be completely destabilized as a result, and another neighbor would lose his front yard and half his driveway. This does not strike me as something that serves the interests of motorists using this roadway, citizens who live alongside it, or businesses who depend on it. A more thoughtful approach would give greater consideration to the residents and taxpayers who currently live here, and less consideration to those who haven’t moved to the area yet, or the contractors and developers who live elsewhere but will make a substantial profit from these plans. Could the City please consider reverting to one of more modest proposals from the models they have already spent so much time and resources to create? For example, the addition of simple left-turn lanes for smaller intersections (rather than multiple roundabouts) would comfortably serve the people living here on side streets and using the Everett corridor, without involving such a great outlay of tax dollars or causing such major disruption during the construction period. For several of the smaller intersections along this segment of road, a simple turn lane would take care of any access or slowdown problems — no roundabouts or signals required. link

    As a longtime resident of Camas and a property owner living at the intersection of Everett Street and 38th Avenue, I was shocked by the project plan presented at the September 20th Open House. My neighbors and I feel we were blindsided. Though the presenters (and this website) state that “no decisions have been made,” they made it clear that of the five options under consideration, one in particular *has* been selected: the most costly, the most invasive, the most complex, and the most ambitious. One wonders why. The chosen plan is expensive, damaging to properties along the corridor, out of step with the natural landscapes of the lake park, and completely unhelpful for motorists, residents and existing businesses. Adding three large roundabouts in a short section of roadway will not improve conditions for drivers on Everett Street. Instead of being annoyed by the current twice-a-day slowdowns, drivers on the 'improved' street will be forced to navigate a series of roundabouts that, for the most part, serve no purpose other than to permanently slow traffic flow. When planning for this 'improvement' project began (more than 10 years ago), one of the initial objectives was to help ease flow through this section of road. The current proposed plan adds no additional traffic lanes, but replaces a two-lane road with another two-lane road. In addition, it adds a large amount of pavement on both sides of the roadway, removes many beautiful mature trees (replacing them with small, non-native trees planted in a strip), and inserts not one but three (possibly five) large, invasive roundabouts. Though I can see how the busy intersection at 43rd Avenue could be improved by a roundabout, the reasoning behind the roundabouts proposed on 38th and 35th Avenues remains obscure. Those two streets are quiet residential streets. They are low-traffic streets. They are small streets that serve established neighborhoods. They do not lead to areas of future rampant growth, whose future residents would require higher-traffic roadways. Though I applaud the inclusion of bike lanes and sidewalks for non-motorists who use (or would like to use) this stretch of Everett, I question why this corridor needs such a massive breadth of pavement. The stated estimate that this project would require “only five feet of property” from residents and businesses on each side of the corridor is false. Parking for existing businesses near the lake would be obliterated. The “five feet” taken from property owners (predominantly on the east side of the road, according maps published at the Open House) would block access to Everett for most of the residents on that side of the street, and would frequently put pavement right at the doorstep of residents’ houses. To mention something close to my own heart, the roundabout proposed for Everett Street and 38th Avenue would require the city to seize half of my property (not just five feet, not even just ten) and install a sidewalk less than an arm’s length from my bedroom window. The roundabout would also claim such a large chunk of one neighbor’s elevated property that their house would be completely destabilized as a result, and another neighbor would lose his front yard and half his driveway. This does not strike me as something that serves the interests of motorists using this roadway, citizens who live alongside it, or businesses who depend on it. A more thoughtful approach would give greater consideration to the residents and taxpayers who currently live here, and less consideration to those who haven’t moved to the area yet, or the contractors and developers who live elsewhere but will make a substantial profit from these plans. Could the City please consider reverting to one of more modest proposals from the models they have already spent so much time and resources to create? For example, the addition of simple left-turn lanes for smaller intersections (rather than multiple roundabouts) would comfortably serve the people living here on side streets and using the Everett corridor, without involving such a great outlay of tax dollars or causing such major disruption during the construction period. For several of the smaller intersections along this segment of road, a simple turn lane would take care of any access or slowdown problems — no roundabouts or signals required.

    Ruth MacGregor asked about 1 year ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas. Your comments have been provided to staff and City Council. In response to your question, all options are still available. City staff have determined a preferred option that would accomplish project goals, however, ultimate approval/direction is up to the City Council.

Page last updated: 12 Dec 2023, 11:45 AM