Transportation Commission - Regular Meeting

May 8 Transportation Commission meeting. We are hybrid meeting, so we kinda are going back a little bit here. So we've got, commissioner Keilman joining us, which is great that she can join us, even though it's remote. I'll start with a call to order. Vice chair McGill? Here. Commissioner Keilman? Here. Commissioner Kurtz? Here. Commissioner Marciante? Here. Commissioner Rupun, I believe we know is an excused absence. And commissioner Ting?

Here.

K. Excellent. Good evening, everybody. When we get to leave, I think there's still gonna be, some light in the sky tonight. So that's you know, it's a good thing. Alright. Approval of agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda for tonight?

So moved.

Second. Do we have any amendments? Okay. Hearing none, the agenda in front of you is approved for the night. Okay.

We will move right on to agenda item number three, which is the oral and written communications. Mike has been good about forwarding to us, several of the written communications we've received over the last couple weeks, so we have those on our inbox. Oral communications. Remember that according to our bylaws, the public comments are limited to three minutes a person, and, we'll be keeping track of that. A reminder that because it is election season, it is Washington state law that people cannot use public facilities of which the room we're in right now, can be used for elections, whether it's supporting or opposing a ballot measure, whether it's supporting or opposing a candidate, including if it is yourself who you are promoting or supporting.

So anybody who does speak with respect to their own election or anybody else's will be asked to leave, the room this evening. Okay. Mike, please call on the people in the order in which they signed up, please.

Yes. We have three we have three individuals who've signed up to speak tonight. The first, individual is Jody Alberts. Next will be big Bishop.

Excellent. Welcome. Come on up. And then just remember to turn the mic on, please. Thank you.

Good evening. Evening. Good evening, church stash and commissioners. My name is Jody Alberts, and I am VP of government affairs for the Bellevue Chamber. And I'm speaking this evening on behalf of the Bellevue Mobility Coalition, a new group that's been formed by the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce.

So BMC brings together or BMC. BMC brings together a diverse set of members. These include major employers like Amazon and Symetra, property managers from the Spring District, KDC, Wallace Properties, nonprofits like Visit Bellevue, transportation engineers, among others. And while our perspectives certainly differ, we're united by a shared interest in Bellevue's mobility future and thoughtful growth. So we came together several months ago with a common concern that the choices Bellevue makes today will shape access, equity, and economic vitality for decades to come.

Following the approval of the comp plan, it's really imperative that we create a transportation plan that meets the needs of our evolving land use vision. In our letter that we submitted to the commission, we sought to do a few things. The first was to underscore the long term need for strategic planning alongside the growth outlined in the comprehensive plan. Second, reinforce the role of the TFP as a key tool to close infrastructure gaps now and in the future. And third, highlight high impact projects that improve efficiency, connectivity, and economic development, particularly in growth areas like Downtown, Wilburton, and BellRed.

Many of these projects that we outlined are currently included in the TFP and TIP or are new candidates. We urge the commission to continue prioritizing these important projects. Additionally, we ask the commission to elevate the new needs assessments identified as TFP candidates, which would provide critical data data in tandem with the comp plan implementation. So these are identified by staff as other two, three, and four. As you advance this work, we encourage a holistic lens, thinking beyond just individual projects and silos, and toward more of a comprehensive transportation vision.

Coordinating across land use and mobility planning will be essential to ensure that Bellevue's infrastructure can support its future. So I really appreciate your time this evening, and happy to answer any questions as well. Thank you much.

Mike's got two computers going here. So

Oh, sorry. Yeah. Next up is, Vic Bishop.

Okay. Welcome, Vic.

Great. After that, we'll be in Alex in the room. Okay.

Thank you.

So my name is Vic Bishop. I'm a resident in Bellevue in on Westlake Sammamish Parkway. I'm here to speak in for myself, really. And I'm here to kinda be your conscious a little bit. I'm here talking about the transportation facilities plan, and you're gonna be talking about individual projects on the facilities plan and deciding how to divvy up the city's money on the new facility.

In this draw this graph, you've seen a number of times. I've been here and showed it to you. This is the p k BKR model results from the South Downtown Bellevue Access Study that shows that in 2018, about 80% of all the trips that are operated in the city of Bellevue are on roads. And about less than 1% are on bikes and about 5% are are are are on transit. And so I wanna talk to you about proportionality of how you think about spending our very precious capital money on new transportation facilities in the city of Bellevue over the next six years, which is what the TFP is all about.

And it's to me, it's really important to to recognize that our city is growing and is going to grow dramatically with both population and employment, and we have good plans about how that's gonna happen. And that we have a long list of existing intersections that don't work, that don't meet the level of service standards, and that you got plenty of opportunity to make some dents into that list. This is the this is the the dot map from from the Wilburton, the final EIS that shows, you know, 30 odd intersections around the city that don't don't meet our city's standards. So another way of saying this proportional graphic is to say it's to say that for every new bicycle rider that you have in the city of Bellevue, there will be 400 new vehicle trips made. For every new transit rider that you generate in the city of Bellevue, there will be about 50 new vehicle rider vehicle op people in vehicles.

You need to think in terms of enhancing the ability for vehicles to get around the city of Bellevue. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up is Alex Sunderman

Yep.

Followed by Maria Frost. Welcome.

Yeah. I very appreciate you. A little bit confused about harassment so you don't show us faces. A little bit confused, and I talking about this for many years and nothing changed. This make me not Hey.

Your three minutes has started.

Yeah. It's okay. Don't worry. Yeah. Okay. So situation, what is this right now? I'm so sorry. Yeah. I live in Bellevue for forty year almost. First time I speak in council chamber in '96. Yeah. So I have a project for the last thirty years. Speak approximately 6,000 time, 5,000 time I speak from the government. You ever

yeah. And I

I have six thousand day of trespass. In Belle, you prosecute me five times. In Belle, you always give me trust trespass. Ninety day expired last week. Yeah. And they interrupt me in every meeting. The situation very strange because I don't understand how this seven consul, you know what this means, who look to me like a pure Nazi Gestapo pig, you know what this mean, scared when one man one man come and speak for two, three minute. It's called 6,000 trespasses and five times prosecutions. They don't have knowledge in American history. They prosecute Trump four times.

They prosecute me five times. And Bell will be very good with this. Five times Bellevue prosecute me. I'm totally confused what is going on. Yeah. I give you classic example right now because this make me sick. Transportation, what is you have in Bellevue is unique, but I show you right now we'll explain to you right now what's happened with bike. It's very unique. So Bellevue have approximately 140 miles of bike line. This cost us approximately 120,000, 120,000,000.

My question right now, what is BSZ? We need to spend for a couple 100 I assume couple 100 because I don't see this for for a year in value, couple 100 bicycle, 120,000,000. Can somebody explain to me? We have a ton of problem with everything. And another problem, what is fundamentally Belvieu right now look like a plantation.

120,000 people come from 135 country. Almost 70,000 Indian, 40,000 Chinese, and another ten, twenty thousand from 135 country. Bellevue right now is this a plantation. And people like us, council, you know what this mean, or Bellevue Downtown Association or Chamber of Commerce make money from this plantation. Guys, it's absurd by definition.

You know what this mean? It will become another 30,000 because Amazon pro pro promise bring another 30,000 people. And Us consul is a pure Nazi pigs. They are freaking the generativity ideology. They make Bellevue number one number one plantation in America equal to black slave what is we have right now before. Be with Trump. Be with new American revolution. Thank you very much for your time, boss. But it's a serious problem what is we have with Horson.

Alright. We're to the next. Welcome, Maria.

I come to the

time is up. Thank you.

The next speaker is Maria Frost followed by Kevin Wallace.

Welcome, Marie.

Thank you so much. Alright.

Chair Stash commissioners, my name is Maria Frost. I'm the vice president for government affairs at Kemper Development Company. Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment this evening on the TFP and the Micromobility Code Amendment. I submitted two letters on both of these topics, but want to touch on a couple of key points in my time tonight. With regard to the TFP, thank you so much for all the work that you and staff have done to date in navigating a very long list of projects alongside multiple criteria, principles, and community feedback.

We strongly support and echo the chamber's concerns and recommendations regarding priority projects that would address major roadway and intersection deficiencies. We also appreciate and strongly support the staff recommendation to remove TFP two twenty two and two twenty three, which would have a negative impact on both vehicular and pedestrian modes. These projects would add right turn lanes at Northeast 4th and Northeast State along Bellevue Way and increase crossing distances and times for pedestrians as well as extending pedestrian signal phases that would negatively impact vehicular throughput. As these projects are unlikely to provide meaningful benefit benefit to the public as shown in multiple modeling scenarios using the city's 2044 projections, we agree with staff that removal is appropriate and necessary. With regard to the micromobility code amendment, we ask that you please also consider updating BCC eleven dot sixty dot o seven o, which pertains to riding on sidewalks, but right now only refers to bicycles.

This particular code prioritizes pedestrian safety and volumes as well as sidewalk conditions and not just the safety of the operator. It also directs cyclists to stop and dismount if riding the bicycle would endanger or unreasonably inconvenience pedestrians. Scooter operators should be subject to the same code when riding on sidewalks, which the code update will effectively permit in cases where no safe alternative is available. So addressing this additional code, I think, really is just a matter of consistency adding the language of scooters to this additional code. That's all I've got. Thank you

so much for your consideration. Thank you.

Next speaker is Kevin Wallace. Thanks.

Nice to be here tonight. I'm here to talk about the transportation facilities plan and and try to I guess, first of all, I wanna request high prioritization for the four line items that have design dollars in them. There are these studies of different intersections. And I'd also like to go beyond that and encourage a request for enough design dollars to come up with a generational comprehensive plan that addresses the transportation needs of the city citywide. We're at a point right now where we've had a comprehensive plan that's been adopted that has massive increases in density throughout the city.

And the study in comp plan showed that many intersections are going to be failing unless we do something. Nothing yet has been done. And the message to me last year was, well, we're going to get to that in 2025. Then we went to Wilburton Land Use Code, and that also now has solidified this increase in density. Again, not really much in the way of transportation infrastructure to go along with that plan.

And so again, we need to get to it. Now we're currently looking at the middle housing and HOMA ordinances, which would result in four plexes and six plexes throughout the city. And again, no study on the transportation impacts that that might create. No plan for how to address those impacts when we have people exiting from four plexes into neighborhood arterials that were designed to support single family homes. And then now we're going into the BellRed study to do exactly the same thing more density, more opportunity for growth.

The growth is a good thing, right? But it's really responsibility of the city staff, the city council, and you commissioners to come up with a plan. Right? And getting to the status quo, like, let's look at the same rehash projects in the TFP, again, is not going to get that done. We need this generational plan, another mobility and infrastructure initiative, another transportation levy renewal, a funding of the TBD with great projects that eliminate traffic congestion, and really a generational plan that lays out the multimodal solutions we need in order to get to the accomplish all this density, right, and be able to still get around in the city.

Where that starts with is the design dollars that the staff need to really do a thorough study of that, get the consultants hired to figure out these solutions. And right now, I'm not seeing the resources to enable that to happen. So I encourage you to put high priority on those four line items that have the design dollars in them, but also to ask the staff to come back with how much money do they need in order to achieve this goal of getting a generational plan accomplished and then start executing on it.

Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Okay, Mike. Do we have anybody else that was signed in?

These are all the folks that have signed in. We

Okay. Is there, anybody in the room here who has not signed in but would like to speak? It looks like I see one. Yeah. Is there anybody else, just so I know, time wise? Okay. We've got one. Thank you so much. Good evening.

I would like to strongly concur with everything Kevin Wallace just said. I think we need to be very proactive in oh, I'm sorry. My name is Nicole Myers. I think we need to be very proactive in thinking about how we solve these challenges for the future. And I know there are certain things in particular that kind of, you know, haven't been addressed in terms of the planning process for middle housing that I think are gonna come to Transportation Commission in the not so distant future.

That would be driveway requirements That would be changing as a result of having more cars, more households living on a single parcel. You also have questions about curb cuts. Private roads was one thing that was raised by people up in bridal trails during the recent question and answer session on middle housing specifically, know, especially when you consider the amount of additional traffic that might be associated with a construction project. Some of these construction projects on large lots could potentially be a very large number of households. We've talked about four units, six units, plus two ADUs if they're attached.

But there's also the opportunity for unlimited cottage housing. And that is really just, you know, up to the FAR of your lot at a far of 0.9. Some of these lots are very large and will actually have a significant number of households that could end up on them. And then I know this transportation commission is already looking at sidewalks and how we can make sure that we have sidewalks close to the major transit stops that they're trying to, you know, give at least a little incentive to have the density near. But I I think there's also the potential on many streets, especially in some of the older neighborhoods where you don't have enough width and the configurations are kind of challenging to use pedestrian shared streets as a strategy.

That's something that didn't make it through the legislature this time around, but we should think about how we can, you know, ensure that the pedestrian environment is very, you know, safe and welcoming even if sidewalks, are going to be ecologically challenging to install or difficult given our budget. I think we can put the sheriffs on the road, put some speed humps, ensure that you have enforcement of traffic speeds, and we're looking forward to the change in local street speeds. There are things that we can do to make sure that pedestrians can share the roadway comfortably, and, we should look into that where appropriate and especially in places that are near these major transit stops. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Okay. And is there anybody online who would like to speak? If so, please raise your hand.

There there is not.

There's not. Okay. And there's nobody else in the room. Correct? Okay. Thank you, everyone. Let's move on to agenda item number four, communications from city council boards and commissions. There's no update tonight from city council as, council member Newnhurst is not here today. Does anybody have any reports from commissioners? K. I actually have two tonight. The first is last week, I attended the appreciation dinner that the city hosted for commissioners. And I just wanted to share it. It was a really nice event. My understanding, it was the first one that they had.

And if nothing else, it was a good chance for me to just meet other commissioners and, you know, sit around and just ask, you know, what are your challenges and this and that? And hence, our discussion about, you know, planning commission and and what they do, etcetera. And so it was a really nice event. So if they have it next year again, I would encourage others to go as well. The second item is that I have some very sad news tonight, and that is that we're losing some pretty serious brainpower here tonight and some really, really good insight.

So we have two commissioners that are leaving the commission tonight. First one I'll go and talk about is, commissioner Kurtz. He is your, yeah, your basic slacker. You know? He got his bachelor's in physics from Princeton. He got his master's and his PhD in physics from Stanford. You know? The guy just, you know, clearly coasting in life. He's been working at various different tech companies and traffic data services, internal data registry. I don't even know what that is. I was reading out on his LinkedIn. I had to admit I didn't understand it all. And he's been with us for four years. And I think we got the extra added bonus that not only did he have all this great insight, is that he was really fun to work with. So we appreciated your time, your presence, your everything.

So thank you. We wish you well and everything from your kids baseball to work to everything else that you got going on in life here. The other one leaving tonight is commissioner Marciante. So she has been with us for eight years for chair, a part of that. How many years, chair? Just two. Two? Okay. That's that's a lot. So she was chair for two years. COVID years. Yeah. COVID years, which were tough. She, just three months ago, received a promotion to associate vice president at her company. Correct? Yes. Got it right. At HNTB. She also comes just like Commissioner Kurtz and other slackers, she comes with an engineering degree. And then from Brown, she got environmental studies.

So we have some really serious power on this commission that we'll be missing very much. And similar to Commissioner Kurtz, super fun to work. We will miss your presence, very much miss your presence. We hope you both come back. You can heckle us from the audience. And there is a small thank you in front of you from the city for your time, your effort, and we do hope to see you again. Any other commissioners want to add to that?

On there. Yeah. I just want to thank you guys. It's a lot of work, these commissions. I can't imagine eight years is is a lot in four years. Tremendous amount. I wanna thank you, Jonathan, for reaching out to me when I was new and, and kinda helping me figure out how this all works and, just our great conversation. So just really appreciate, you know, as as someone who knows how much work goes into this and staying on top of it and staying engaged. Really appreciate your contributions.

Yes. Go ahead.

Yeah. I'd I'd like to echo those sentiments. I'd like to thank both of you. It's been great having these discussions with with with you. And I know sometimes they've been spirited, and they've been very interesting. But I believe that good things come from productive debate and that by airing out all sides of an argument, you're able to come up with the best decision. So I would like to say thanks, and I hope you guys have fun on your future endeavors.

On your future Thursday nights, think of us. Thanks. As you're sitting with a glass of wine, I am. Alright. Wonderful.

Commissioner Keilman has her hand raised. I think she can just unmute herself.

Yes. Commissioner Keilman, feel free to jump on here.

Thank you so much. I just wanted to thank both them. I know I was the newest member with a lot of questions kind of coming into an environment that was very unfamiliar and just really appreciate the constructive conversation and and respectful disagreements from the commission and just really wish you both the very best.

Sounds good. Perfect. So thanks all around. So yeah. So enjoy your last meeting, I guess. Thank you. Alright. Did the staff wanna add anything onto that? Or sorry. I just kinda caught you caught you off the cuff there.

Very much enjoyed working with both of the commissioners that are departing, and and we'll miss them. They brought great insight, I believe, to, to the discussions. And, yeah, we'll we'll miss it. But I know you'll contribute to the rest of the community in some other broader way. So thank you.

And I know Kevin sends his best. It's a shame that his missed meeting here is the night that you're leaving, but he did send me an email saying, please pass on.

So Yeah.

I'll come back and bug Beth or something.

There you go. There you go. Perfect. Perfect. Alright. Then let's move on to staff reports. So tonight, we have a staff report on the curb pricing study update.

Right. That is a printed report that was included in your packet. So that I believe the topic will come back before the commission in July is the current thinking. K. But this is just a, you know, kind of status report of what what the current pricing is about. And and partly too, as as noted in the in the memo, it has to do with the revenue side of things. So it's it's a it's a little different than most of the issues we deal with here. So as more conversations, you know, and and investigation happened internally at the city, this whole angle came up. And so there's there's more things to work. So

And and my understanding is that because this is a a revenue generating opportunity or revenue activity, it's a lot different than, for example, the list of our items on the TFP that is a spending of of city funds.

Right. And it's not really the amount of money. I don't Right. Question whether this is gonna raise a lot of money, but it's really just more than the fact that there's a little revenue side associated, and there's a whole, you know, mechanism around that that we have to deal with. Yeah.

So more to come, I think, is kind of the short answer. Okay. Quick question. Yes. So

when it does come around, can you provide clarity on what is the direction that council has given the commission in terms of, what discussion the council wants us to have with regards to the study. And I guess, like, what are the boundaries and what are the areas that we should and should not discuss? I think that'd be really useful in figuring out how we can frame the discussion in the most productive way.

K. I can communicate that to the staff in charge, and then they can incorporate that into the into the memo, I would I would imagine Perfect.

Thank you.

So you can better guide the discussion.

Okay. Any other comments on that topic? And commissioner Kyland, just feel to feel to raise your hand. We'll try to keep watching for it. Okay. Agenda item number seven, there are study sessions. So we've got three of them tonight. All three, do not require action tonight, so we will be listening and learning. The first one will be for Christy and Mike to review the preliminary project prioritization that was prepared by staff. So we will turn it over, I guess, right now to Christie.

I'll miss the, commissioners that are leaving as well, and, also, the little ribbon you give me every once in a while.

We'll have our slides up here in a moment. We're here tonight to continue the discussion of the update of the city's facilities plan. So you heard some comments about that earlier tonight in the public comment section. So we're at the point now where we have our list of candidate projects. We have, you know, scored and evaluated those projects according to the scoring scheme, and now we're at the prior point of prioritizing projects.

And it gets a little tricky when you have, you know, projects of different types. And and so that's where, you know, the scoring only takes you sort of so far. And so we're into the prioritization part, and that's what we'll speak to tonight. We are still waiting on the revenue forecast. And so that's really where, know, we have have an understanding of of, know, what we can afford.

And and all indications are that it'll be pretty tight. So in in context terms, I will point out that the current CIP has actually quite a lot of projects in it, probably more than we can afford in the next remaining timeline of that CIP. So, you know, I think it it it just ended up that there was a bigger bite than I think we can really digest. So there's gonna be a little bit of hangover in terms of, you know, looking at what money is really left, you know, in in the out years. So because typically, you know, we got six years in the CIP and then another six years and, you know, quite a bit of money.

Right? But this time, we have the six years, and then we're probably, you know, need another couple years another few years to catch up revenue wise and then just what's left. And then there's some broader challenges in the city too in terms of, you know, where the money goes. And so, traditionally, we've been able to count on a certain proportion of, you know, revenue streams coming to transportation, and apparently, that is no longer taken as a given. So so we'll we'll hear more about that next month.

But but in in just kind of setting the stage, it it's it's realistically, we're gonna have a shortlist for for anything we add or or suggest to fund in the TFP. So it looks like we've got our our slides going. So we will really look at the project prioritization process. We'll look at how we've categorized those, which was included in your packet. We did, you color coding.

And then we'll look in more detail at the shortlist of projects that we are suggesting are strongest candidates for some kind of a funding allocation. We'll look at a potential East West Bicycle corridor, how we can string together several projects that would create that connectivity that we've heard a lot of interest in in accomplishing. And then we'll look at the the overall process where we are. Next slide.

So Oh, sorry. Quick question. Yeah. When would you like for us to ask questions? Do want us to hold off at some point?

Well, okay. Once we get through the kind of the briefing on on how we did the prioritization, we can stop. And that would be probably the best time to really have a conversation about, you know, especially about which projects and why we yeah. We we've got a whole kind of placeholder slide to carry that conversation. Thanks for bringing that up. So in terms of project prioritization, you know, we start with quantitative analysis, and that's where we use the MIP scoring scheme. And we we share the results of that that scoring work with you in February. And, of course, that's done by mode. So some projects, you know, address multiple modes, and so we scored them according to each of the modes. Others are really just directed toward one particular mode.

So that's that's useful as as a kind of starting to to sort projects, but it doesn't really get you the overall combined list. So what we're doing now, what we've done is adding in qualitative factors. And so we'll get to the detail of what those look like and and how we did it. And then the third part, and this is really a kind of big picture, is is your input. Right?

So we we will, on the staff side, you know, make proposals, and then you have the opportunity to to adjust that. You know, starting tonight or or, you know, probably more meaningfully next month when we have some money, we're not understanding how much money there is or or is not. So so the way we did the prioritization, this is really the model that we've used for, you know, multiple cycles now of the TFP, is we bring together a fairly large group of staff, two dozen, involving different representatives and subject matter experts from multiple functional groups within transportation department. So we got our signals group. We have our maintenance group.

We have our traffic operations group. We have our neighborhood services group. We have the planning group, of course. And then we also have representatives from other city departments, from the community development department, from parks department, and from utilities department. And so that we can then, you know, get that broad look at the other factors that that include what we know in terms of public in public sentiment, terms of council priorities, coordination with other projects, and so this is where, you know, what parks is doing and and what utilities is doing comes into the picture.

We look at consider what you know, how much have we invested in a project to date, either in terms of money or public process. And then what's the overall budget, which is we, you know, constrained. And so that was a kind of an overarching consideration as as we went through this process this time. So we did a series of three meetings in person. First, the project kickoff where we, you know, familiarize staff with what the TFP is and and why we want their input and what their role is and what we expect from them.

And And quite a few of the staff have been through it before, but there were also quite a few new folks this time around. So that was a shorter meeting. And then we had two longer working sessions, one in March and one in April. But coming out of that first meeting, the kickoff meeting, we gave the staff the project list. We'd walk through it at the meeting, and we asked them to identify their higher priority projects, projects they believe are higher priority, should be higher priority, and projects they think should be lower priority.

And and frankly, it's easier to identify the high priority ones than the low priority ones. It's pretty easy to come up with six to 10 high priority. Harder to come up with a lower priority because there's a lot of good projects on the list. But that said, that's that's the assignment. We also asked them to identify their reasoning. So then at the first work session, we did a dot exercise. So, you know, put a green dot on your high priority projects, put a red dot on your low priority projects, and we looked at where the clusters were. And then we walked through it, and we talked. We asked people, well, why did why was this red? Why did you show this as red?

Because we asked them to initialize their dots so we knew who who put which dots where. And and so we we went through a conversation and and and to get a general understanding of, you know, why which ones were deemed the higher priorities and which ones were were less priority. And, of course, the staff did have were working from the initial list that that we shared with you back in in February. They had the score ranking as well. So that that was part partly informed it too.

So, you know, if if they're saying a project up at the near the top is you know, and and score ranking is is low priority, well, we wanna know why and, you know, vice versa. And then we had a second work session in April. And and that one lead leading into that project that session, the TFP project team staff had preassigned color codes to the project. So we did a kind of what we call straw man where we had assigned projects, shortlist of projects that we thought you should receive some level of funding. Another set of projects, that was the green ones.

The peach ones where we thought they really we wanna try to get them in the TFP, but just give them placeholder funding. There can be different reasons for why that's the appropriate level. And then the the third category being the the red projects, which we, you know, they may be good projects sometime some cases, but we either can't afford them or that's not the right right time for it right now. And so so that's what we sent out to staff, and we asked them to look at it and and see if they to the extent that they agree or disagree. And then we walked through every project at the meeting.

And and we did change a few colors. Not very many, but a few. And so so that's what we ended up with that we shared with you for tonight's meeting. So yeah. Actually, this is just a photo of that first work session and really just some text that explains what I just talked about. And then similarly, the second work session, had the green, the peach, and the red projects. And so for the green projects, again, we don't have an actual funding allocation yet because we don't know how much money we have to work with. That's the next, you know, go around, the next step. And, yeah, the placeholder funny. So just to explain that a little bit more.

So earlier tonight, you heard reference to some projects that some intersections that the speaker, Kevin Wallace, in this case, indicated he thought were high priority, you know, which and and, frankly, they're on our list. They're as as placeholders. They're the one one twelfth at Northeast 10th Street. They're one Northeast 12th Street at 1 16th, Northeast 4th Street at 1 16th, and Southeast 2nd Street at 1 16th. And those are all locations where the analysis that we did for the comprehensive plan showed that there, you know, maybe problem down the line.

And we they're in the TFP proposed to be in TFP's placeholders because we don't know, a, how big a problem there is, and we need to look at it more carefully, basically. We need to say, well, is there a problem? What are the ways we could address that problem? What does what does the actual project look like there? So so we we we just we need to do work initial work, homework to, you know, or do the analysis and do the public even some public process to kind of look at what what can we do at this location.

And maybe there's nothing we can do, or maybe it's just an operational change, or maybe it means it's widening the intersection and that has trade offs. Or maybe there's big buildings there already, and we really can't realistically do that. So so that's that's the kind of work that needs to happen. So but that's why it'll be appropriate to just, you know, allocate that $300,000 because that that gives you some resources to to do that kind of work. So our shortlist of green projects where we you know, to the extent that we have funding, we would recommend that this it'd be allocated to these the shortlist of projects.

And so the first two are in downtown, and they would be secured in conjunction with adjacent development. So the actual cost of those payment projects will be largely paid for by development. And we would include them and show them as funded projects in the TFP in order that they could then also be counted as impact fee projects, and that's advantageous to supporting our impact fee program. So, you know, yes, we do need to allocate we would need to allocate funding to it, but it isn't actual, you know, revenue that we could take and use on a different project in most cases. So so there's so that's that's the situation with the first two and why we recommend that they be included on that shortlist.

The third one, the Moussaun Greenway, that's been a priority building that out. There's a piece of it that's in the pipeline now for construction. And the the next step would be to really take a look at how can we realistically and in some, you know, a real feasible kind of budget and timeline, fill the get from 1 50th Avenue out to Lakemont because that's a pretty long stretch. So that's where some additional revenue, just a modest amount, frankly, probably is what we would end up with to figure out that next piece or, you know, how where to go forward from here. The Eastrail, that is primarily a county project, so they're carrying the heavy lift on that.

The city resources are needed in order to create connections to neighborhoods and to the city system. So we have some city connections to the city trails in the pipeline right now. We have some others that we're working on, And we have several neighborhoods where we would like to develop connections, including into Woodridge and up into Greenwich Crest. So that would be that's on the city to do that. And the next one is the Bellevue College connection.

I think we've talked about this one in the past, but it it would really has benefits for multiple modes by rerouting buses, rebuilding roads on in a road in Bellevue College so that the transit can run through the college and provide faster service, lower operating costs for the transit agencies, and better connections for for riders at Bellevue College as well as moving through through college through the college. And also getting buses out of the congested intersection down Eastgate. So it's a win win win. And it's a partnership project. So it's we've done pretty well in getting grant money on that so far for the design.

And I I'm optimistic or we're optimistic that we would get grant money for for construction, but that wasn't it wouldn't cover a 100%. So there's need for some money from the city allocation from the city in order to, you know, make it all happen. The next 1, 1 20th Avenue, that's the last piece from Northeast 16th Street up the Northup Way. The current TFP shows that as fully funded. You know, costs have escalated, so, you know, today's dollars aren't what they, you know, cost more now than we thought it would at the time.

But that said, we have already have funds allocated or, in some cases, expended for right of way and for design. We have received a grant to cover part of the construction, and so we would need to allocate some city resources in order to construct a piece of it. So the grant would cut will allow us to just construct a piece of it. So we're not committed to having to, you know, stump up the money to do the whole rest of it because that would be a lot. So we can build a build it out in phases.

Spring Boulevard Zone 3, we've heard a lot of interest in that one. Of course, that's the gap. Has benefits for all modes. Well, maybe not transit because it's transit already runs through there, but the other modes don't. And so so, yeah, in terms of bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway, it's a win win win for all. And then the the final one is the Belvieu Grand connection. And, of course, that's a huge priority for the city council. And and so it is an exciting project as well. So that's our short that's our shortlist. Yeah.

Yeah. And then one the one last slide that I wanted to share is how some of the projects in our in the TFP list can piece together in order to create an East West bicycle connection, connecting some existing facilities as well as some potential future ones. And so that's what I've highlighted in green here. So it's Northeast 12th Street across the north end of downtown. So we have a piece of that already from 108 Avenue East over to 405 and across 405 and over to the Spring District to 1 24th Avenue.

And and then then there's that TFP two seventy, that missing piece of Spring Boulevard would connect us over to Spring Boulevard in the, you know, the East Side Of Bell Red. And then we've already got a facility there over to 1 36th. From 1 36th over to 1 40th, we have a project b b 12. We'd build a multiuse path on the North Side. There's no no sidewalk even along there.

So it would build out facilities where none exist now in an area where we, you know, really want and expect a lot of growth. And that gets people over to 1 fortieth, which has value in and of itself because 1 40th is our North South bicycle corridor through the middle of the city. Most of it's pretty good. And and so this would connect, you know, folks East West going over to 1 fortieth. Going, you know, East of one fortieth gets a little tougher, but Bell Red Road is is generally flat.

And there's the opportunity well, of course, there was a discussion of doing on street facility repurposing lanes. That's that's obviously a challenging thing to do. But there's, you know, also the potential to construct facility adjacent, you know, on the probably on the south side, but outside of the street or outside of the, you know, outside of the curbs. So that's again, that'd be our initial study to look at what are the options and and what do they involve and what would it cost and whatnot. And then that would be for the segment from one fortieth to one forty eighth.

And then from one forty eighth up to one fifty sixth, there's a little yeah. There's there's another that's another situation where probably more likely to be on street there, it would seem to be. But, again, you'd to look at how to how to do that. But there's a number of a number of things going on, and Redmond has a lot of development also planned on their side. So just wanted to show how those things piece together.

So in terms of those projects, those four projects, one of them is on our short list of proposed green projects, the TFP two seventy, the Spring Boulevard gap, and then the other three, b b 12, b b four b, and b b five, are in our peach category. So this is where we pause for questions and discussion. And if you wanna look at the project list, we we can do that too.

K. Can you turn on the mic, please?

We have costs for some of the projects. I will probably we'll bring that information next month. Next month. Oh, there's nothing. That's all really expensive, sadly. That's that's kind of the the short story. You know?

What the budget is for the green projects with the bottom line was?

Well, that would be the matter of how much oh, how much those would cost?

Like, the total. Where where did you draw the line? What was your budget for green projects? Do you remember?

We do not yet have a project a budget, so we cannot afford those green projects. I I will We

can't.

I thought the green projects were afford are were within the

They will not be able to afford the green projects.

Oh, not even the green projects.

Not even

the green projects.

Oh, okay.

No. No. Not not even close. Not even close. No.

Surprised.

It's a matter of just a little bit of money to which ones get a little bit of money and how do we distribute it in order to keep them going.

So you're just keeping them going. That's just active.

So then what are the chances of the peach projects? I mean, what kind of timeline for those to be implemented?

Well, again, it depends on the project. So, you know, if we decide that, you know, we really do wanna look at congestion and the challenges, you know, that we might be facing and and, again, we might. It's you never know because, you know, forecasting the future is very imperfect. So but if we wanted to look at those intersections, then, you know, that could be prioritized. Right? Or and and we do that, by the way, on a regular basis. I mean, through the through the levy funded work and the congestion reduction. So there's ongoing work to look at where we have intersections that we either know we have challenges or we anticipate there may be challenges, and what can we do about it. So there's there's ongoing work in that realm around the city. So but again, so the peach ones, again, it's gonna vary. Some could

Do all the green need to be done before you do the peach? No. Not necessarily. They can be readjusted. Yes.

So green is just priority.

Yes.

And peach is second priority. Yes. Okay.

But there was a 300 k dollar put to the

That's what we've used in the past.

Okay.

And that's just again, it's a placeholder. It's yeah.

At this.

Yeah. 300 k doesn't even get you that much anymore. Yeah. It doesn't. Mhmm.

Okay. Alright. Sorry. Commissioner Tang, you've been

So given that we don't know what the budget is even for the green, do we have an understanding of how we would prioritize at the fringes of the green? In other words, what's what's at the, you know, kinda, like, close to the bottom of the list of the greens in terms of priority? Because we don't know what the numbers are, so we are gonna have to make a decision about where we're gonna cut. And therefore, we should have a general idea of what staff's recommendation is in terms of the most important projects or the least important projects within each category.

We we would come back with that.

Okay. Sorry.

Come back with that. And along those lines, it would also be really good to hear some of the feedback from those meetings that tell us, you know, why you arrived at those decisions. Like, why did some people think this project was more important than that project? Otherwise, you might be giving we may be giving you feedback that doesn't take into account the discussions that you guys have had earlier. So that that would just be really useful.

We we we can do that. And and you did notice, that for the red ones, we we did indicate some reasons why we felt that it was appropriate to be red. Maybe not desirable in every case, but certainly it would be appropriate. Yeah.

I have some more comments, but I'll let others on the connection speak. Go ahead.

Yeah. So, yeah, just to tag onto that, it it would be really good. Is there any kind of color you can give us to how these meetings went, what the patterns were, so we can kind of understand where the staff was coming from in this prioritization. Right? Because we we have all the data. We have all the quantification. There's so many projects. And by the way, my understanding is you did not look at the cost of projects in this. Right? It was sort of still unconstrained, and so what you're doing is prioritizing. And then when you get the budget, then you'll do a cutoff. So could you talk about those two? So Thanks.

Yeah. Okay. So in terms of the I mean, cost was definitely a a consideration with the staff. I mean, even even though we didn't have, you know, numbers for every project, people knew which ones were the expensive ones. Right?

So that was that was absolutely part of the consideration during the staff prioritization process. So in terms of, you know, kind of examples of thinking, I mean, one that comes to mind is, you know, the current TFP shows full funding for HOV lane on a segment of Bellevue Way. So that's a project that's been in the TFE for quite a few years for several cycles now. We did a fairly intensive analysis of that a few years back, neighborhood outreach. There was, you know, some ambivalence in the community about that, but it was something that the city, you know, decided it did wanna pursue.

But, you know, in terms of the the staff, we we did not propose to include that because when we talked about it, people were like, well, in the current budget constraints, you know, it's it's only addressing a peak hour problem. You know, it's not there's already pedestrian and bicycle facilities out there. It's only doing, like, one thing for one short period of the day. And there's so so it was maybe in, you know, in a more resource rich environment like we used to have, we could do that. But given that, you know, it's it's so expensive and it only deals with a condition that is exists for a limited period of the day.

We couldn't find couldn't prioritize that anymore.

Well, maybe it'd be good to go through the ones that you've greenlisted and just you could give us color, and that'd be one way to do it. Just give us color on the ones that you green list on the green list.

You can do that.

And then the ones that are on the red list. I mean, there's, like, 92 projects on here. So we're not gonna go through 92, at least in your tenure. So

There since before I

Yeah. You're probably familiar with all of them. But I see. So that might be a way for us to look at it and look at this and try to understand where you're coming from and then try to give our input on top of that.

Right. Okay. Yeah. We we we can flush out some kind of detail of the thinking for for for each project. Yeah.

Remind me. I have

oh, I'm sorry. I wanted to get yeah. Commissioner Kaileman. Go ahead. Yes.

Sure. Not a problem. I wanted to ask, and I my apologies for not knowing this already. But is there I know that we are the transportation commission, but I also know that what the planning commission does greatly impacts what happens and how we grow with what the decisions that we make within our commission to what is planned with the plan commission for in terms of different types of housing, the growth of the city, things like that. Is is it possible to consider, maybe in the future or even even now, maybe running this list by some of the other commissions to say, hey.

From where you sit, you know, which would you prefer to have these, or which do you see would be a good priority so that we're not being reactive in terms of wasteful spending if we do something and then it turns out that that's not a good decision for growth or that it has to be redone and hence, there's more spending involved. I guess I'm just trying to look at this more holistically and proactively with the other commissions, and I hope that makes sense.

Yeah. I I think I understand your suggestion. We are, you know, absolutely informed by the, you know, the plans for growth in the city. So but but this is the this is the role of the transportation commission of, you know, staff in in in the transportation department is to plan for for the transportation needs as we understand they will exist given, current land use patterns and anticipated future land use patterns. So, yeah, we wouldn't we never have, I can't imagine a scenario where we would be soliciting input from the Planning Commission know, transportation, how to address transportation needs.

Similarly, they don't come to us, you know, with, you know, land use questions either. So it's if they really are you know, they're they're in we're informed by what each you know, what the broader city is doing and and and and the purview of each of those commissions. But but, yeah, we wouldn't directly engage with them on the question of, you know, what are the priorities.

Go ahead, Commissioner Ting.

One comment on that. Well, completely understand the desire to bring in the Planning Commission. I think there is a question of level of granularity. And so I find it very intriguing that perhaps we could share information and inform or answer questions from the planning commission with regards to transportation issues and the other way around. But I I definitely understand how getting the feedback on the TFP from the planning commission might be a little bit too granular.

It would be a little difficult to do. I don't know how they'd make heads or tails of it given that even us on the transportation commission are trying to make heads or tails of it. But I I definitely take commissioner Kimon's point that being able to understand transportation issues as a if someone's a planning commissioner, I think that could greatly help inform the way that they do their work. I'm not suggesting that we we, as the Transportation Commission, make planning decisions or the Planning Commission makes transportation decisions. But I definitely think there is a synergy.

There is a benefit. For example, you know, like a Planning Commissioner understanding the benefits of TOD. I think they probably do, and I'm sure that's a discussion they've had quite a bit. Understanding, for example, active transportation. What is the appropriate width for a corridor?

And should we be able to put garbage cans or use it for parking? Well, that's a really interesting question that the Planning Commission is probably discussing. But if we could provide the feedback from a transportation perspective, I think they can make more informed decisions. So I guess my suggestion would be is if we can find a way for the commissions to help inform other commissions or answer the questions that they might have in a way that's productive without I mean, I don't want to step on people's toes, but I think that information can be really helpful.

And I'll add on to that that this will be something that, I think for the retreat would be good for us. And, again, from a informational and maybe that's just the place to start of just what are their biggest challenges, what are our biggest challenges, where do we overlap. And some of it, I agree, might just be just so that we're smarter in our own decisions, they're smarter in their own decisions, I think would be a good place to start. So I think this topic is not over yet. Go ahead, Commissioner Ting.

All right. Coming back to the TFP questions. When you talked about the $300,000 for the failing intersection study, can you elaborate on that? Like, what what does that include, and is that is that sufficient for us to understand how large of a problem is and what are some potential solutions?

Right. The 300,000 may or may not be the actual I mean, the TFE does not not it's it's not a not a funded plan. Right? It's constrained plan. So that isn't determined how much money goes to a project. It's more just determining what are the priorities in terms of projects. That make sense? Mhmm. So, you know, the actual cost to do analysis may be more or maybe less than 300,000. So the the the the Process.

The the the process to, you know, formulate a budget and do do the work would be done through in this case, I I most likely, it's an ongoing program. So we have an ongoing program to look at for congestion reduction around the city. And so that program is managed by, you know, the folks here in our department, and they would commission that work and set the appropriate budget.

Okay. So are we going to have are we going to be able to do the analysis of the failing elements of the 2044 FEIS? Like, is that stated as plan of record, or are we still debating whether we need to investigate that?

Well, I mean, we're we're looking that that's a part of our purview. That's what we do is we look systematically at, where are the the needs either existing or emerging around the city, and we examine those locations and determine what opportunities there are

Okay.

To Maybe a

better way of asking the question is what is the level of investment both in terms of time and money are we going to allocate in order to look at failing elements in the the 2044 FEIS? Like, it's one thing to say, yes. They're failing, and we kind of will just sort of keep an eye on them. But it sounds like we should have a deeper level of understanding to know, Okay, these intersections, these corridors or whatnot are planning to fail in this time frame. What are our mitigation plans?

Like, do we expect to have a plan? Is it something that we can proactively put together? Or it just something we keep an eye on but we don't actually have a good understanding of of what's going to happen and how we would mitigate it?

So there's a kind of a lot of things in that.

I know.

I know. Okay. So, you know, we have a limited number. Is not 30 or whatever you heard. Mean, there there's a number a limited number of locations where the 2044 analysis suggests that we may be falling short of target in, you know, in the future.

Now, you know, I've been around long enough to know that, you know, predicting the future is is is a difficult thing, and and it doesn't always come out, you know, come into reality in a way that, you know, the forecast suggests it might. So it's sometimes, you know, just monitoring is the right answer. Now there there are locations where, you know, there's a we understand there's a problem. We'd like to fix it. Then it's a matter of, well, how does it compete for funding? Because there's a lot of needs around the city. Right? So it's it's it's like a lot of projects. You have to identify the need. You have to evaluate the options.

You have to scope the way you would identify your preferred option, scope it out, what would it cost, and then it has to be in the mix of all the things you look at in Yes. Terms of

That absolutely makes sense. And really what I'm asking for is the first part of it. So there's the first part of understanding what is the problem, and what are the potential solutions, implementation costs, etcetera. I know you don't want to get too far into design, but you sort of have to have an understanding. And then you can talk about whether we prioritize and implement it.

So it's really that first part, which I think is the question in the TFE. We have the other those other line items to basically say, let's analyze the problem. And my feedback would be, if we see an issue that's been raised in the FEIS, that we should prioritize trying to understand how bad is the problem. And then later, we have a discussion of what is the priority of actually fixing it. But until we understand what the problem is, I'm worried that we're just going to sort of march along, and then we'll be many years down the road before we have an understanding of whether it's really a problem or not. Does that make sense? Like, I I'm talking about the funny

Doesn't the doesn't the mobility implementation plan, like, cover all those? Like, there there's an it's not like there's some surprise, like, oh, this intersection we didn't know about is suddenly a huge problem. Like, I think we're actually calculating every cycle what or the performance of all those intersections. Right?

And and that data could

tell you whether this is and then and then I think we actually went through a bunch of those where, like, you know, some of them have special cases like, oh, this is a this is close to five twenty, and we're not allowed to do any construction in that area and stuff like

that. Past joining

So the MIP does and in fact, the FEIS, right, they do indicate where the problems are projected to be. I think the question, though, is are we analyzing what the solutions are? And I think that's what some of the feedback is that we've received, and that's what some of the line ins and the TF

And do have some insight on this to summarize it? Last time.

So, yes, in in brief, for the MIP, for all the performance target gaps, we have identified again, it's set of it's at as early level as we can do at this point because we don't know everything in the future at this time. But for all modes, pedestrian, bike, vehicle, we went through an an exercise to say, if we were to get this to meet the performance target, this is what could be done. So I forget when it was. Two, three meetings ago. Mhmm.

We went through that for all the intersections where we went through, worked with the ITS modeling department here in the city of Bellevue and said, for example, at 1 16th And Northeast 12th Street, we would need to add dual left turn lanes on all approaches, widen the bridge across I 405. That is the level of exercise that we went through. It's far short of design, but just to get a sense of, like, how big of a problem would this be, that gives an indication that, wow, that'd be a really expensive project to fix. Doesn't mean that the city shouldn't do anything about it. But just to give it a little bit of perspective to help inform TFP decisions of, like Mike was saying, hey.

We know where the really expensive projects are. We know we're just adding a turn lane, which is more affordable to do where we have right of way. So that was the purpose, and city council directed us to do that. So at this time, we have that knowledge for those intersections. It then slates into the TFP process of how does that stack up against all the other projects that are on the list? So there's effectively kind of new new fodder to be red, peach, or green, if I got

the colors right.

Or or maybe it'll make it to the gray section, one of these areas.

Right.

Yes. That address enough, at least for tonight,

your question?

I mean, I that's good for now. I I think Jen. Right. Yeah. I don't wanna belabor the point, but I think it is important for us to understand, like, what are we actually going to do. And I know that the options are expensive and they're limited. But nonetheless, if we see if we're planning for failure, right, and that's essentially with the estimate. I know it's a forecast, but we should understand what is our plan to address it. K.

Okay. Commissioner Borsante.

I was so this isn't a budget. Right? So this is the TFP is a plan from six years to twelve years from the moment that year. It's financially constrained to the degree that we are projecting the city's revenue within that period, but it is not a budget. And if I recall correctly, the council has the ability to pull in into the CIP any project from they when they do the CIP, doesn't it mostly follows TFP because that's the process done, but it also might be some other type of opportunity, let let's call it, that they might bring something in somewhere else.

And that's the budget. Right?

Yep. Yeah. The Green Connection is not in the TFP, by way.

I know.

Yeah. Yeah.

At that point exactly. And you're already designing, right? So you're already doing design work, and Council has allotted budget in the CIP with it never being in the TFP. That's a good example of that. So in the sense of the work that happens in between the six and the twelve years, that's like or even within outside of the CIP is what I'm talking about.

Right? Because in the CIP, you have very programmed amounts. But outside of the CIP, you have your general budget, which is you keep planning, you keep doing the work to the limits of that, right, which is less than $300,000 probably for each project, but some work, some consistent efforts. To what degree, as the years go by you know, and I've been I've seen this, like, over eight years at this point. And how does that TFP list of priorities, as you've mentioned them, and that line and that, you know, you're trying to how does that end up influencing the work that you do on a daily basis in terms of the the planning, the programming, the the the limited with your general budget work.

Right? How how does that influence the decisions that you're making? I assume you're looking at these more closely, more often, but maybe that just help me understand how that usually if

how

that TFP how TFP projects advance outside of the CIP budget? Because they're never in the CIP. So how what happens to them?

Well, they eventually many of them do eventually get to the CIP. Eventually. So yeah. And when I go back and look at you know, because I've been doing this for a while. I would go back and look at the LTFPs and, oh, a lot of those projects got done. You know? So, I mean You mean it. It it does it I mean but some of them don't. You know? Or some of them are just big. Like, Westlake's that, you know, you get a piece and then another piece, and then there's still three more. You know? So it it it's but but, no, the progress happens. But, you know, it's it's largely a reference for the CIP, and it is, of course, you know, a foundation for the the impact fee program as well. But so is is t f and it, you know, it it feeds in it's incorporated as an element into the TIP every year as well.

So but it isn't I don't think the CIP or excuse me, the TFP, you know, necessarily in and of itself forms a lot of the work within the department.

Okay.

Although that said because, you know, again, we do we go on an ongoing basis. We go around, look at where are the problems are. And, yeah, we flag it in the TFP. You know, other folks in the department have their own ways of, you know, looking at where the problems are. And and so, you know, I don't know if ours is better or theirs is better, but, you know, we all have our own, you know, their own needs and purposes and and and methods. And so, you know, I think they all contribute to the, you know, work that we get done. So I I mean

But some work gets done. I guess that's the the kind of thing that I wanted to enlighten a little bit more. Like, what's the work that happens on TFP projects before they get to the TIP, typically?

Just

just in and of being in the TFP doesn't really necessarily trigger work. That doesn't. So but but there may be you know, a lot of times, the reason they got into the TFP is because there's other, you know, kind of momentum or interest in getting the project done. So there may be other reasons why, you know, work advances.

I mean, some work is done even just in the context of your TFP budget. I'd like, I don't know what the work that the work that we've been doing here, not everything has been in the CIP, for example, the work that you've been funding. So that work comes from just general analysis of studies, general planning, not a specifically funding study.

Well, we do some cost estimating. We don't do

it at

EIS anymore, but but still, yeah, we we do some work and looking at projects.

Some

some evaluation. Yeah.

I think where we're leading with this is that for the next meeting, we'd like to get a much better idea once the budget numbers are known of what has ended up where, what are the chances of things happening. Yeah. Because I think right now, we still kind of feel like we see the colors that you guys have been identified, but we have no feeling for what has even a chance of of being covered. And and maybe and and hopefully by June, we'll have a little better idea once numbers come out. But if that's the answer, then maybe maybe we just all have to realize that at the moment. I think we just feel up in the air.

Yeah. I mean, all indications are there's gonna be so little money that it's gonna be, you know, which three things get anything that moves the needle at all. K. So, I mean, we've got a short list of eight, and that's too long already.

When do we finish paying the tip yellow?

Well It's it's it's not just that.

Oh, yes. Go ahead. I'm just trying

to think about how we can be productive tonight. So Yeah. What is your goal tonight? Is it to understand the priority list that you have and what got on the green and what got on the red. Is it to understand the process that you got? I think we have questions about the process as well. But yeah.

So the main goal tonight is to get a sense of whether you're comfortable with what's green and what's red. And so if you have any questions or concerns about why something is red or, you know, questioning of why should this be green, this is a good time to that's a good thing to talk about now.

Okay. I suppose we'd have to go through each project.

I mean, we can talk about it, you know, next week, month too, but I think tonight would be

I guess what I would suggest because there are so many Yeah. That we all take another look at home and just review Review those. And if anything jumps up specifically as a, hey. This should be green. It should be red.

So I tried to you know, I bonded with the spreadsheet like probably a lot of you did, but there was more detail I wanted in terms of it just made me wanna have, okay. Why is this one here? And I know there's some rationale.

Mhmm.

But if there was a way that we could come away with that information Yeah. Why were the greens promoted? There's a good rationale for it. Why were the reds demoted? Yeah. What is the overall starting with the overall and then how it affected those particular projects.

Yeah. We can

So between now and June, we can

We we we can flush out more information on on this project. Yeah.

Okay.

I mean, just one comment. Like, I actually thought we got some good color from just going through it. I mean, I almost come away with the opposite perspective. Like, I'm struck by how many of these projects on the green list are influenced by some external factor that's not really under the prioritization sort of outside of you know, the like, all these projects have needs, but the ones that make it to the top of the list, they have some external factor. Like like, there's development going on, and then there's there's another county project going on. And that seemed to account for, like, more than half of

them. Right. Yeah.

So it's almost doesn't seem like, you know, if if there's already funding coming in from another source, then doesn't really matter.

You know? The first part.

Yeah. Yeah.

That's right. And so or if there's some you know, if, like if, like, Eastrail's being built and we gotta finish our part, it's sort of like Yeah. It's like, yeah. I I can see why that would, you know, be the green. So so I don't I don't I don't know. I don't think you need to understand all the, you know, the the exact prioritization of all those. I think it's maybe the ones at the margin that Mhmm. You know?

Yeah. Just like what you said. I mean, why are why are those ones at the top just so we've got because they're partially funded already or because they've already moved forward on them. I mean, that would that's that'd be great.

Okay. One additional?

Oh, yeah. Sure. So in looking at the list, I mean, I kind of concur with both commissioners here. You sort of detected patterns as to why things became green or not. Making those explicit, I think, would be helpful. But also the comment about what's on the margins. I made this comment earlier, but I'm sorry I'm going to reemphasize it. It's like, what is close to meeting the cut list or what is slightly above the cut line? That for me is one of the most important things. Because ultimately, once we figure out what the budget is, we will have to start giving feedback on what gets cut. And so knowing what is at the lower end of the priority, or at the higher end, if magically there's a lot of money, that would be really useful.

What's your top five red? Put them in a list.

Well and I I honestly think that we didn't get to that piece in what we were doing because we were talking about just the context of the project being a project, not the project as far as where is a line at because we didn't have a line. And we actually did this same exact exercise the same way the last time we did the TFP because it took a long time to get the funding picture, though last time's was much rosier than what we're being told right now. But it was more of the project for the merit of the project is how we went through, you know, the staffs. Because the other thing that you'll notice in the peach section, as you're looking at it, you'll see that one of the one of the columns says CIP number. That means that there is some money in the capital plan right now for some of those.

Peach color would mean we don't really intend on our thought is don't put any more than what they've already put into the capital plan for it because it's either a state led project or it's something that is still in that development stage, so that's why it didn't make it too green. It doesn't mean that we wouldn't, you know, have it in the plan. It's because it is in the capital plan if it's in if it's in that one column, but I don't think that we have gotten to that whole, you know, funding line thing quite yet because of not knowing.

Helpful. Like, if

you just put the criteria that you use to categorize green, you probably have five criteria. You've mentioned already, like, it had projects. It's already funded. It's Yeah. If you just put those things in the plan, that'd probably be the main. Because it it it let I think we all felt like it was aligned, but I I just heard you say it wasn't aligned and that is

No. And I and I think probably

Sort of, like, playing with the numbers, but you just did it in terms of, like, oh, this meets five of the three criteria we're looking for. This or some you know, something Right.

And I I think for transparency's sake, that would probably help because we would be able to say this project you know, this particular project is because we have a grant on it already. This particular project is because there is an agreement with the state. This is one because we already are at, you know, 90% design or something and feel that we can go the rest of the way. This is one because we have a coordination. That's one of the reasons why we met with parks with utilities. If they have something else in the pipeline, it's much cheaper for all of us to go in as as a project instead of, you know, piecemealing things. So how to represent that in the spreadsheet other than putting it in that status column? I don't know how without that being, like, at a point four font, you know, so that's probably where that information would go if that's okay with you guys.

Yeah. Good

notes. I have one more thing separate. Okay.

So so before but not on this topic? Yes.

On this topic.

Oh, on this topic. Good.

Just just real quick. Just I I do think it is it's it's not getting better, apparently, the money situation. Somehow, we are richer and richer as a city, but have less and less money for government infrastructure. So I think I there were some worthy comments in the audience about really thinking about, you know, future funding sources and really paying our own way and levies and what would that entail. And in terms to for you to do a levy, you need to really think about what is it that you're offering.

Yeah. Right? And so so another thing that was mentioned was that oh, Kevin mentioned the intergenerational plan. I think it would be worthwhile. One of the things that we and I brought that up before, we keep planning by modes even though we are all on top of each other.

Right? Like, we there is very it's very hard at this point in time to divide and plan for a bike here and a car over here. We that's not anymore what what we need to do. And it would be really worthwhile to investigate how you would create a plan that is a comprehensive multimodal plan on one frame, not a transit plan, not a bike plan, not a pet plan, but one integrated plan. We've talked about that in the past, way in the past.

And the reason that that didn't came to be was we have too many projects in the like, too many things we need to achieve. Like, we it it was time to go to construction. Right? It was time to do the things that we said we'd done before. So that made sense. And we went to an implementation plan, and we created the way that we were gonna implement this, and it's working. Right? We're getting much more. But as we move forward, I swear to god, this is this list of the TFP is now a third of what it used to be two or three years ago or four years ago. Could be because some of these are pretty big. Right? Like, that's probably but it also feels like our money

is just

shrinking. So I think it's important to start to think differently in terms you know, when you develop concepts, we talked about that in the last time. You're developing concepts for cars for a while, and you're pricing them, and you're putting them. And you're not thinking about how the bike is gonna operate until you have to, like, get to design or mitigate it. I think it's important to start to investigate a more comprehensive layered network overall for the city or at least for this very dense area that we keep. Because that's another thing I always worry about. All of our projects are always in the same area. Right? We hardly ever invest in the which is fine. This area has more needs.

Right? That's the thing that is hard to assess. But the the question is, I think it would be worthwhile to think about how would we do it. Could we even do it? What does that plan look like to take all the modes and lay them on top of each other at a planning level and assess what does a multimodal network plan really look like that that has projects that are multimodal projects, not just a highway project on top underneath a bike project over crossing a rail to the. That's project.

You actually bring up a really good point. I'd about an integrated plan. Our ongoing programs that we have, like the neighborhood sidewalk program, those kind of things, we do exactly that. We bring all of those different elements in so that I'm not just doing a sidewalk to find out that I should have had a bike lane also and things like that. So I'm sure that that is something but so that's what our ongoing programs do, but you don't see those reflected in this plan because there are smaller, infrastructure projects. But I think that we can definitely have this concept written down to be able to have further conversation. I happen to know fabulous assistant director that's sitting in the audience right now who Yeah. Might be mentally thinking about something as well at this time. So but it it does make sense. Thank you.

Circle back to the point, and I know you guys do it at this at the level of when you're doing it all. It's back to the point of the levy. Right? It's how are you gonna sell this idea and these concepts? I know you'll figure it out when you get there, but come on. Look at that TFP map. That's not what are we doing in this? Like, what are we building and how and why and those little pieces and bumps? And that is not conducive to telling people, this is what we need in this city and this. It's just it's just the concept of it. Right?

So I feel like we've kinda gone all over here tonight in this conversation. Do you guys have enough feedback from us so that in June, we can have we're, you know, asking for the themes, the projects, and the margins, how we got there. Once we have money assigned or or allocated, what are our chances of getting what done? What what are other those three themes bubble up to me. Did I miss any from other commissioners?

Well and and kinda how how could we be helpful as a commission in terms of helping prioritize beyond what's budgeted so we can have that priority sort of vetted already. So if and when funds are available, we can move more quickly.

K. So I think just, yeah, just general little more transparency of what's happening below the surface. On a slightly on a broader brush level, we can't go into every we're not gonna go line item on on the spreadsheet.

Yeah.

Does that make does that Yeah.

So as the person who creates the spreadsheet, just

Yes. I wanna make sure. Does know every line on it.

So no. So what typically we have done when we get our financial picture is we start you know, we share with you what that is, and then we take what we know the cost to be of the projects. And it's kinda like so let's say we have $5 and one's gonna cost 2. Okay. We have three left.

So we do the line like that, and then we keep going into the negative. And then we ask you to have it. And if it's like you're like, well, I really think that this one that's down here at whatever the dollar amount is, I'm not going to tell you one because we don't really know them right now. But if you believe that this is one that you have heard enough about that you think it needs to raise up, then we will move it up and that will that will change the numbers. So what you get in your packet might not be what we end up with at that meeting, but you will see what where that line is and what lies below it and how much it would cost in the negative if those dollars were available.

That's kind of the best way that that in that spreadsheet that it can do that for you visually before having the conversation.

Okay.

So hopefully, that will help. And then in the status column, we will put we can put in exactly, you know, you know, our factors in why they're red peach or green. Right.

Okay. Is that go ahead.

So actually, this is a question for Christian or Maciante. What was the time frame, the time scope, I should say, of the planning that you were talking about? Like, what's how long does how far in the future?

Plan, I think what does the, for example, the transit bike plan well, okay. It depends. So here's a good question because some don't have scopes. Right? Some just sold for a certain future.

So I

guess But are you talking about construction?

No. Okay. So what you were just talking about, one thing that I found interesting listening to you is that we're looking possibly for a longer term plan and something that we've discussed in the past, like a transportation master plan that talks about the long term vision of the city. Is that what you're referring to, or are thinking of something else?

I think there's a there is a vision, and there is a policy, and the transportation mode plans kinda set that. And that was the the idea of doing an implementation plan. Right? I think what's starting to happen, at least what I sense is happening, is these projects are starting to pile up on top of each other. We're not moving fast enough through them. And so can you put the TFP map again? Is it is it there? No. So if like, when he was talking about the bike path and the pieces and you talk about and you see all you see all of these and you see the pieces. Right?

I think there's a better way than to plan projects. Like, if you had more larger fund they get broken down because of funds Right. Or funds issues, right, and availability, and just these little pieces. And so is that the best way to plan and phase and to create the future that we need to create cohesively, holistically. Right? Instead of and I understand that some of them are just you know, there's gonna be development. So you do this piece because there's development and that sort of thing. Opportunistic. Exactly. But then if we had enough funds, can we go beyond the opportunistic and connect the gap of the two in the moment that that's happening?

Right? If it's I mean, I don't know if that's true, if there's anything else. All I'm asking is to say, can you do this part in a in a way that is more comprehensible and and conducive to visualizing what we are building?

Right.

So think about the entire network. Right. It might exactly. It might be the same things. It might be the same projects. I don't know. It might be the same things. But laid out and integrated in a way that can be digested by the public as a college student.

I understand. And I do like the idea of having, like, if you're a cyclist, what does my long term cycling network look like? And give me that view so we can understand it. Or if it's a combination of e scooters and cycling, what does that network look like? Specifically on this page, real quick

I say, yeah. You do want to move on.

Sorry. I'm I'm trying to quick here. What are we supposed to take away from this slide? Is is this just informational?

Or I I can actually answer that. So I specifically asked for this to be proposed because I had was struggling going through this line items on the spreadsheet of whatever happened to the East West Corridor bicycle path. Did it did it all go to red? Did some go to red? Did some of it go away? And so these guys specifically said, oh, no. It's connected. And so the idea is to look at BB 3. There's the section, and now it connects with BB 4 A and then the BB 4 B, and that you do see the pieces and that you To to her point, it is a continuous path. Yeah.

Got it. Got it. Okay.

So

to ask the question, and they have to do a ton of work. Sorry.

But it but it was but it was there. It was in the spreadsheet, and it was just visualizing connecting them. That. Right?

Because this Yeah. This has different elements. I see that, like, it's the b b. I think it's it's bike Bellevue. And so I was actually trying to remember, like, okay. The Spring Route, I think this commission talked a lot about the Spring Route Spring Boulevard route as being a really interesting and exciting way of

And that's BB 2.

And exactly. So that's BB two. So I I guess it did make me think, though, we discussed a lot of principles and projects out of Bike Belvieu. How did those actually get captured and reflected back? For example, we talked about the ninety eighth project.

Okay. So I'm going to table that for the week and finish, unless it's something that Well,

all I'm asking is just how do I I would like to know where do I go to look at those decisions? Because I actually don't remember whether the commission reached a consensus that we liked Spring Boulevard or if it was just a discussion point. So where is where are the decisions and the the history behind the Bike Belvieu discussions? Where are they captured?

Well, so they're all listed as BB. That's how you know that they're like Belvieu.

And they appear in the Bike Belvieu.

Places in the list. So, I mean, that's partly why it's so cluttered because, you know, the bike project came to us from multiple ways, and a lot of the Bike Belvieu stuff kind of, you

been Why don't I

take this off offline? But I'm just looking for a concise, like, what what was the outcome of our discussion? Like, so why don't we take it offline? But I think that would be useful because it would answer some of my questions around, say, Spring Boulevard.

K. And I have to look into the meeting minutes when Bike Belvieu was here. I mean, to be really honest, I mean, if to figure out what you guys' because that's what you're asking. What what was you guys' decisions about Bike Belvieu things?

Isn't there a summary of the outcomes from the discussions that we have around Bike Belvieu somewhere? Yeah. I think it up line.

I think it was in in a memo that Kevin wrote. Kevin wrote a series of memos about what to do with each of the Bike Belvieu corridors. So that's where it is. And then some of those were included referrals to the TFP, which is why the map is as cluttered as it is. You know, it's because we got all that. So Thank

you. Okay. So, hopefully whoo. That was a bit painful. Hopefully, we've got some some actions for the next time. Thank you, guys. Alright. Let's move on to micro mobility code amendment. So, Frans oh, there he is. We'll review the preliminary staff recommendations for the amendments to the Bellevue City code, regarding specifically micromobility devices. And there was a table that they sent around to us before. Thank you, Christy. I know you're loving that spreadsheet. Yeah.

Can become unbelievable and understandable.

You.

Welcome, Franz.

Down. Alright.

Well, we're waiting. Good evening. Okay. Share. Send request.

I sent request.

Sure.

Okay. And I'm figuring out which one, and it's gonna have a delay. Sure. And it'll have a delay when you put it into that mode.

Alright. I think this works. Alright. Excellent. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, chair Stash, commissioners. On a personal note, I'm gonna really miss you, commissioner, Kurtz. Real pleasure working with you over these many years. Thank you so much for the opportunity to come back to you with a discussion on microability.

Tonight's discussion, we are seeking commission input on staff's recommended amendments to Bellevue City code eleven forty eight twenty ten. In terms of the the flow this evening, I'm gonna quickly move through these slides. If you wouldn't mind holding your comments till the end, then we'll cycle back through the tables and address each of those. So that's that. In terms of a goal, what we're hoping to have come out of tonight is, I won't say consensus, but a read of the room in terms of being able to take, this group's feedback and synthesize it into specific code language that we would then take to counsel.

And we tentatively have June 24 as a counsel date. So that's that's what we're hoping to accomplish. So in terms of direction, parameters for this discussion, as a reminder, council provided specific request to focus solely on Bellevue City code 11482010. And I know when we spoke with you last, there was a desire to talk about ebikes and all sorts of other devices. And I just wanna, again, help guide the discussion.

Tonight is solely focused on 11:48 twenty ten. Alrighty. So, when we came to March 27, we introduced the background, the overview, got a lot of great feedback, hopefully, a lot of which you'll see ref reflected in the tables we'll cover tonight. Then we publish the project website FAQ. You've received letters from the community expressing support for what we're bringing to you tonight.

And, and what we were doing while, others were kind of contemplating what we were recommending, we were spending a lot of time internally with staff across many departments, city attorney office, police, fire, community development, etcetera, to garner their input in a one city cross departmental manner. So tonight, we seek your input, and, hopefully, we'll get to consensus that we can bring for you. We do have a tentative date for July 10 if y'all are interested in that, but it's our hope we can take this to counsel June 24. So there's these are the goals we shared with you in the past. Won't read through them, but the gist of it is the ordinance that was adopted that led to 11/4830 occurred eighteen years ago, and a lot has changed since 2007 in terms of the mobility landscape.

And notably, these specific devices that we're speaking about back in the day, they were gas powered, noisy, kind of a la lawn or leaf blower level, and the community really didn't want that moving through the community. So the the landscape's very different. It it if you walk around downtown Bellevue, you will see plenty of these, electric scooters operating to and from the many, employers. So we wanna update it. We also wanna take into account what has happened at the state.

There's a lot of confusion when you have different rules. Makes it really difficult to regulate and harmonize with the surrounding community. So to a large extent, what we're talking about is spring cleaning. So, we'll now move quickly through a series of tables that are captured, as an attachment to your agenda memo, and then we'll cycle back through them. First, just kind of lay of the land.

At the leftmost part of the column is the regulation, what we're talking about. The next column over is what the state RCW is. The orange, what our current 2007 code states. And then, far right, what we're proposing in the way of recommended changes with, highlighting, denoting how this differs from what the current code is. So, right out of the gate, the first item, definition.

What you see here is a desire for us to ensure that the devices, these, that we're bringing forward, are reflective of the marketplace. And and so there's been a lot of evolution. We are getting rid of the gas powered. We're clarifying what we're what we're talking about. And and also because wheel sizes will vary, and we don't want that to be a stumbling block if they're 11 inches. That really shouldn't be a barrier to entry. Yeah. We'll we'll we'll be measuring. That that makes a lot of sense. So, and then wheels.

You know? There there are a variety of footprints for these, so we just don't want that to be, again, housecleaning. Well, can I

A silly question about that? K. It's just a silly question. You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but, you can answer later, but before I forget, that two or three wheels, like, I mean, could I just, like, add another one? And I have four or, like, you know, two in the front. I just wanted us to think about, like, is there a simpler way to, like, not one wheel scoot right. Well, it's

less different. Those those don't fit into the scooter template. Those are one wheel

Anyway, I'm just putting it out there be to see if that's also, like

We could say two two plus to infinity. You know? It just this felt like in terms of coverage, this got you pretty much what's out there. So so who can operate? Here, what you see is Belvia is the the youngest age, identified for people operating these devices, 14.

The state law is 16. We we think it makes sense, you know, out of an abundance of of caution to have it harmonized with the state. So 16 is proposed. No other changes. When the scooters can be ridden?

Right now, you can see current city code does not allow them to operate in the twilight hours, the nighttime, whereas the state, does with reflectors. Again, it is an instance where we believe it makes sense to harmonize with the state. In terms of, this one, you can see our current on speed limits, our current city code does not specify. When we spoke with you last, we heard concerns about speed, And and so what we're wanting to do is make sure that we're not we're we're consistent with the state. 15 is is well within the limits of of what the region as a whole has has adopted.

So makes sense. One thing I wanted to highlight is some here is something that is we're not proposing to change, and that is the helmet. So, currently, our code is required. We are, intentionally retaining that. I do wanna emphasize this does differ from the state not required.

It also is, different from the county. The county also does not require. We had a read the room the last time we spoke with you. It was clear that there was, support for retaining it, so that's what we're proposing again out of an abundance of caution. And then this is the the meaty one.

So where scooters can be ridden. On on roadways right now, effectively, scooters are illegal due to all of the constraints placed upon it, allowed only on roadways with speed limits less less than or equal to 25 miles per hour. So we wanna pivot towards what the current state law is of allowed across the board on roadways. Similarly, we want to allow them in bicycle lanes. You can see the current city code doesn't specify.

And when it comes to sidewalks, we want to, we're we're recommending not allowed except where there is no safe alternative. This is consistent with the say the state. We are also recommending and this is new. This this is different from what you saw in your agenda memo and in the attachment. It really stems from, some of the feedback we've been receiving from the community is to incorporate a provision that would allow a traffic engineer to create a dismount zone if, you know, from a safety standpoint, it was determined that that was the prudent course of action where you have a a high density of pedestrians.

So that would be a a new provision that we're proposing to that we're recommending for inclusion. When it comes to on paved trail shared use path, right now, it's not specified. We're proposing a nuanced approach here, whereas the state says allowed. We're we're saying allowed except we're signed as prohibited. Gives us some flexibility.

We're across the when it comes to unpaved and non motorized trails, we're staying true to what it was what it is in our current code, not allowed. And then you you'll recall in the agenda memo, we didn't have we hadn't yet identified our stance as it relates to in city parks, and that's because we hadn't had an adequate vetting with our parks and community services staff. Coming out of those discussions, the consensus from that department is that we should, as we did with on paved trails and shared use path, have it recommended that it be allowed except where signed is prohibited. So consistency. So I'm gonna end I'm ending on this next step slide kind of bringing you back to where we started.

We're seeking your input on our recommendation with the hope that we can then take it to counsel June 24. And now I'm gonna go back through the tables, and we can take table by table and see what your thoughts are.

Okay. Questions on this table? Go ahead, mister Ting.

Oh, real quick question. The slides have mentioned scooters, but I assume in this context, we're only talking about motorized scooters. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. So I I just noticed every time I was reading through, nothing in here applies to nonmotorized scooters. At least we're not intending to have changes for nonmotorized scooters. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Yep.

Commissioner McGill?

No. I just, so the seated scooters would be included in

this Yes. They would be.

And so we're I guess they're just not excluded.

Right? They are part of the definition of, motorized scooters. So either standing or sitting are are, identified in the agenda memo as what we're and and, again, we're what we're leaning into is what you see in the current state law. So it says stood upon while riding. So, yes, it it we we are envisioning making provision for be it standing or sitting upon.

Good.

Yes. And now that makes me think. Are the four wheel sort of mobility devices, motorized mobility devices, like a what are they called? Like a motorized Wheelchair? Wheelchair. But That's

not a scooter. That's not different device.

So how do you I was trying to, like, think about the difference. Right? And right now, it's the wheel that is makes it different because it is it has handlebars, and it you sit upon it, and it is powered by an electric motor. So how

Those are those are different device. There are there are many other devices with our city code having references to those other devices. So this is purely, you know, this, kind of smaller footprint, mobility device independent of a device that would provide mobility for people with disabilities. Those fit those are within a different category.

You're gonna explain. You're gonna

We're not touching anything that's ADA related. This is purely

With a person, I'm just curious. I've never looked up anything in a code myself before writing it. But how would a person know that that this doesn't apply to them and the other one does? Or

Well, so, I mean, education will be part of wherever we land. We did we created a flyer that helped clarify

K.

For the public. We would then coming out of this discussion after we bring forward an ordinance and the code is modified, we would create a flyer to help clarify this.

Got it. Got it. Yeah.

Bronze, what are you thinking for that first bullet, add clarification, etcetera?

So there's language in the RCW that specifically says this is not related to all of these other devices that have, like, Segway devices and other devices as well. Those have two wheels as well, but they're a different footprint. And there's different categories for those. So we're what we're proposing is to r and d rip off and duplicate the language that's in the state law that speaks to

Got it.

This is this device and those other things are those devices.

And they're And separate. Okay.

And they're separate. Which is good.

Okay. Okay. Good. Somebody else had a question? Commissioner Kyleman, do you have any questions?

I have a question on the next slide.

Okay.

No questions. Thank you.

Alright. So I guess we'll move to the next. No plan? Okay. Go to the next. Any questions on this one?

Yeah. I'll just Yes.

Go ahead. I'll just

jump in. I'm I'm kinda wondering why we would I mean, I yeah. I guess I guess I I think the fourteen years is a, you know, is a good cutoff because it allows kids to ride to high school, and I do see a lot of kids riding these things to high schools. And so, yeah, I'm wondering if there's some is there, like, some, like, safety data that says 16 is better than 14 for or, you know, what's driving it it seems like the 16 maybe came from this prohibitive mode, whereas, like, I think we're trying to be more encouraging to to this to these modes. So

the the proposal stems from kind of harmonizing not just with the state, but also the other adjacent cities. So, you know, so that's part of it is for consistency to avoid confusion, to be the odd odd one out. The other is that, you know, class admittedly, class one and two ebikes do not have a a rider age, minimum age, but class three ebikes has a 16 year old requirement. So we're it it starts to get rather nuanced and even more confusing for for, police and others to kind of monitor this situation so as to not make it overly complicated. It and and also out of an abundance of caution, to ensure that, you know, you're, allowing people who are somewhat more mature a couple years to make that those decisions.

Go

ahead. Do the do these e scooters actually have a recommended age from the manufacturer?

Not to my knowledge.

K. And then on the max number of riders, are I'm just thinking, like, down the road, would you actually have e scooters that are designed for more than one rider, like a bicycle built for two but an e scooter for two? I mean, it sounds kind of odd. But when I think about the max number of riders, it seems like the rule should probably be the max number of riders that that the device was designed for. I

But I think you see people double up. You see kids double up a little time.

It's not designed And designed for that.

What if you had a

what if you had a design that had a a child carrier or or, you know, you have something like that? So it is it was designed for that purpose. And

I'm unaware of I'm unaware of any devices. But you're you're right. I mean, it is a a rapidly evolving marketplace, and it's conceivable that that there could be devices. I mean, generally, on a footprint like that, you know, you it it would create an imbalance of movement. Two people kind of balanced on a narrow floorboard. So, again, what we're doing here is kinda leaning into the safety Yep. Story.

This is So It's a low priority comment. Like, it's I'm fine with one. I'm just from a future proofing standpoint, I was wondering whether there was a to say the number of people that the device was designed to safely have. But

If you want, we can pivot to the current state law and do not specify.

But it would be nice to know that you don't have, like, five people on an e scooter today just because they wanna try it out. But, I mean, if there's no appetite for that, I'm fine leaving with one. It was just a future proofing thought.

I think one hits the the far majority of the cases. You know? We can't solve for every edge case, so it's kind of a yeah.

Fair enough.

Okay.

Should we move on to the next slide?

Was there was there any opposition to the 16? Are we announced other than that feedback? Is there we Yeah. No. I mean,

I understand the consistency argument is is good, but I just I just don't think there's, like I don't really see the rationale for behind the 16 in the first place because it seems like it's not it's not that different from a from a bicycle. So

So what we'll see in many of these where we're harmonizing, our city attorney strongly encouraged us to align with the state RCW unless there was a compelling reason to do otherwise. So that's that that was a driver. It makes sense.

It makes sense. But but I could see, like, you know, high schools using this just to say, okay. Well, we're not gonna give any parking for these things because they're not even allowed by the by the law, so we don't need to you know? But I I get it. Okay.

Alright. So this fits into this framing of align with the state RCW. Any any feedback on this one?

Not for me.

Alright. Here we are, 15 miles max speed.

Mhmm. Yep.

Alignment helmet requirement alignment.

Yeah. That's that's the one I wanted to talk about. I remember that discussion we had about the helmet, so I understand why you didn't wanna try it. But I think this is a different commission than the one we we were back then. And things have changed in the world. And I just wanted to say I ride scooters all the time when I travel different cities, and I never have a helmet. I ride them with heels. I ride them in suits. Right? And just like it's sometimes really easy way for me to get from a conference to a hotel, etcetera.

And I'm kinda thinking, what if we had have visitors who are used to doing that and not riding with a helmet, and all of a sudden they get stopped? And, like, what's that experience like for someone who, again, in the same of continuity, etcetera? And so I don't know how to if it's something that should be weighed again by the commission. And, I mean, not that there should be any strong, but there are reasons. It's for the ease of use to make sure that if you have a no helmet and you have someone in line when you arrive and you say you can't ride without a helm like, what are you gonna what is the rental gonna be liable for?

There's complications when we don't harmonize. Right? There are reasons this got harmonized to not required. There is no question that helmet would be absolutely safer, right, and that you are taking a risk. But I I do know that I do that all the time and what god. I'm going from the conference center to my hotel in in my suit, and I get stopped by a police and get ticketed on a city on that I don't know. I don't know. I was just thinking about that myself. And so I wanted to put it on the table. I won't have chance to debate it, but I think it is something that we should reconsider as well.

But it also adds costs for the rental companies.

That's what I was gonna say. Is it is it gonna be prohibitive to the rental come? Because, I mean, how do you provide a helmet? Make sure the helmet gets returned. It seems like a practical issue. I mean, I would always wear helmet personally.

But Yeah.

If it makes it so we can't have these scooters available because it's adding a layer of a barrier to the provider, then it kinda kills the whole idea. Right? So. Commissioner Shane?

Yeah. I for rentals, I don't think they actually provide helmets. I think you have to provide your own, so there there wouldn't be any issue with the turn. You would just have to find one to begin with. Nonetheless, I still believe that helmets are the the right way to go from a safety perspective. You know, if you think about riding a bike, you would also wanna wear a helmet, and I think that's an important safety thing. So right now, I would say I understand it's an inconvenience, but I would still support making the helmet required from a safety perspective.

And I would I put myself in the same boat. It is an inconvenience. I get it. But so is it putting it on bicycle. So is putting a seat belt on. You know? I I that's where I end up

on. Yeah. I guess it just comes down to whether it kills off the idea of making it commercially viable to have these things. So if the if the provider would be forced to provide the helmet, well, then wow. But if the if it's up to the user to provide the helmet, then sure. Right? Then it's not gonna limit.

And and do we know for commercial for companies, it

would

it be a a killer for them to offer them, or is it, hey. The rider, you it's your responsibility. You you to follow the rule, whatever it is.

So I I'll answer that, and I did wanna acknowledge that our commissioner also has a hand up. But in terms of the the you know, we're now we're straying into the shared mobility mobility realm, and we're really wanting to stay on point here. But since you bring that up, you know, the the terms of what a what it would be involved in a a right of way use permit if we go that path again as we did with the pilot. The you know, we could certainly build in flexibility, you know, and and put that requirement on the rider to have a helmet when they when they decide to operate the device K. Versus making it a prerequisite in the the permit conditions.

That's the kind of thing that will take some time to develop and figure out. Having said that, you know, obviously, we will be consulting this code when we craft the permit requirements. So, you know, it remains to be seen how, you know, how our city attorney office and others interpret this Mhmm. Whether or not this should really dictate that requirement for a shared mobility. So it's it's nuanced. It's hard to put a finger, like, right now in this moment to be able to specify. But, obviously, any action has a ripple effect beyond this.

Commissioner Kaumann?

Yeah. And and you bring up a very good point that I wanted to touch base on. If the scooter user is going to be using a sidewalk where there are pedestrians, then are we going to also require pedestrians to use helmets? Because, technically, that that preventative safety measure is even if you're not riding at 15 miles per per hour, if you're a pedestrian in that same realm, I would think that we would put just a little bit more trust in the rider. And, again, like, this is I'm thinking about this from a convenience perspective of of someone who uses Lime in Downtown Seattle.

Often, I don't carry my helmet around with me. And and quite frankly, I just I don't know how enforceable this is. So I I would kinda leave this up to maybe more free will. And if it's someone's own personal opinion that they want to use personal a personal helmet, that that's, of course, great and required. And if I have one with me, of course, I would I would use it, but I just think that we'd have to kind of draw that line since the space will be shared with pedestrians.

So with the the process right now, knowing that you have a split commission, what do you do you wanna just take the split information with you, or do you want us to vote tonight? I know you just wanted feedback. It wasn't it's not a vote. No. Anything formal tonight.

Well, I do wonder if I I I I'm wondering, does this require us to come back to you in July? Or I I I think it would be great to get maybe maybe a first round vote, show of hands on this just so that

I mean, it gives you a clear direction, at least.

Yeah. I think that would be helpful.

Just a question before we go there. Is there any in between? Like I said, strongly encouraged and educational, but it's not legally required. Like, is there any place where we say highly advisable through educational enforcement and, like, ensure that it's like, the app tells you, say, it's it's safe to have an an a helmet kind of thing rather than, like, just required.

Is that Rest assured, we will be doing education on this. So I it I don't think that would be in the code. We would definitely be encouraging all writers to to wear a helmet in this flyer that we produce.

And to say you, but, like, this is forever. Right?

Right.

So is there somewhere that you could say, you know

I like the strongly. Strongly encouraged. Strongly advisable. Strongly encouraged. That's not code language.

I'm looking at Molly here because Molly has more, code writing experience than I do. So, Molly, do you have input on that one?

So my suggestion would be that we go ahead and talk to our city attorney and ask if we can put something like that in there. I do think that's something that we can probably find a way to craft something.

Okay.

And then I just also wanted to share that I looked up does Lyme provide helmets? And according to AI, Lyme encourages people to wear helmets, but they do not provide them. So I don't think it would be a barrier.

So it sounds like then for clarity for the for the team here, the question is either required, strongly advised, or similar, or not required are the three options.

Or or you could go with un un not specified.

Well, I guess I guess okay. Non specified, I guess, is is technically the third category.

Not we could just simply not have any reference, period.

Which means it's which means it's not required. If you're not stating it, it's not required. So unspecified is fine. So I think those are our three options. Right? Anybody see anything different? Alright. So then let's just get a straw poll kind of vote. Who wants required?

Okay.

I do not hear anybody. Who would like

show of hands?

Or Speak because Okay.

I would vote required.

Okay. Who would want strongly advised or something like that, which would be me?

I'd do that.

I'd go with that.

I'd go with Same.

Either Yeah. Either. Or strongly advised.

Yeah. Me too.

Not required is you know?

Alright. Commissioner, Kaileman? Agree. Okay. So it looks like there's, three strongly advisable Mhmm. One strongly advised or, unspecified. And then commissioner Keilman, I think, was also in that camp. So two that were strongly advisable or not required or unspecified, and then one for helmet.

So

guidance for you and then come back.

We'll figure it out. Yeah. Rest assured, we will see encouraging helmet usage.

Glad we could give you some very direct advice here tonight. Yeah. Okay. Well, it's for the sake of time. We'll keep moving.

Alright. The the the meatiest slide. So on road so, basically, the the first two ones are departures from where we have been and in full alignment with the state RCW, on roadways and in bicycle lanes, keeping it simple. When

Quick clarification. So the the on roadways, you could argue it could be it could would belong on I 90?

Well, we would specify

You'd put a time you'd put a limit.

We we would specify it wasn't on high on state highways. Okay. Right. K.

One one two.

I don't recall. I guess it wasn't captured on the Aegina. My apologies.

But that's just from the code. That's not yours. That's from the code. Okay.

Okay.

So any any feedback on the first two?

I think for me as long as that roadway is somehow specified that

Right. We'll specify that it you can't go on four or five.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah. Should

should there be allowed unless specified also then? Like, what if you wanna put a road that you say no scooters allowed because it's too too congested or not enough? I don't know. Is there any situation where you would say in this particular road, no scooters allowed?

So the city traffic engineer has certain state mandated powers, and they can already sign roadways. But let's check and see if that's something that we need to put in the code.

K. Okay.

Because we have in here sidewalks not allowed except for there's no safe alternative, which implies that the road is not a safe alternative. So it might be something that where a sign is helpful. So we'll look into that.

I'm just thinking other places like, you know, like, you know, some some other it doesn't have to be a busy, busy road, but it could be other roads that you wanna close off for other reasons. Right. It's not a trail, but that you a healthy street or something that you wanna say, this is pedestrian only. And I'm I'm making things up.

But Right.

So, like, you you would retain your ability to specify specific roads where you don't want scooters to go on for whatever reason, temporary or

Right.

Or permanently?

It it's challenging with code. I mean, we're talking a lot of edge cases and potentials. You know? Again, in in both of these instances, we were leaning into the way the state is. So if we feel that there's enough of a a edge case in Bellevue that we should depart from the state law, then I would say that makes a lot of sense. However, you know, that's why we've we've kind of tried to differentiate ourselves only where there was a sense that in Bellevue, we needed to do so. And so I guess I'm wondering, is is there a feeling that on our roadways, there's something unique about them that we would want to put in that nuanced response?

For me, it's just the fact that I don't know how this differs from other cities, but just sitting here in the commission for so long, it's so hard to even just get the roads and the bikes in the same spot. And now we're adding scooters. And if you don't have the flexibility at some point for a decision to make, in this particular case, it's just gonna be this and this and not this, it's it's like you say, no. It's all or nothing. That's all I'm thinking about. All the the situations, not the existing roads, but the future potential decisions we make with the network and what are we creating.

So you're recommending allowed except where signed is prohibited.

Yeah. Would just give yourself the flexibility on all of them.

I don't see a problem with allowed with except where signed, but I do see potentially a problem with just allowed.

Alright. There can be a problem with putting up signs that prohibit scooters on a vehicle street because there's a whole lot of rules about what you can do with a vehicle street and following the MUTCD for signage and that kind of thing. So I I think we wanna research that with our traffic engineer. Okay.

Alright. That's that's something I didn't realize.

Don't understand that. So, like, that would be good information to

to fair.

High level understand.

Okay. Next one.

I'm glad you got the dismount zones in there.

Yeah.

That makes a

lot of sense.

But what's the difference between that and assign? I mean, it's I I guess the engineer could sit in Dismount zone? Well, I mean you know?

So you can do it in a number of ways. You the other communities have medallions placed in the, sidewalk where it says dismount zone. So it doesn't necessarily represent a a sign. Mhmm.

There's a large difference between a sidewalk and a street.

Mhmm. Yeah. Right. Right. More flexibility in

This terms of this is for a sidewalk.

Yeah. Theoretically, though, I I think the provider could program that in or geofence it in. Right? If we so we have a pedestrian area. Let's say it becomes a you know, we would love to have certain areas become pedestrian areas. But the sidewalks we've developed and the multi multiuse lines, we want them to be used. Then they get very congested because they're being used because they're helpful. That's where you might wanna say, you know, it's it's a dis you gotta be dismounted. Right?

We we have a lot more flexibility with with, let's say, a Lime or Yeah. Or one of those entities. Geofencing is is an option with those partners. That's not the case with people who own their own scooters. So that's why, you know, you incorporate this flexibility so that you have a sign.

Mhmm. Yeah.

Also, if we start having a lot of safety issues and scooter on pedestrian crashes