News and Analysis

Over the next 20 years, Bellevue is planning for an additional 35,000 housing units. We don’t have that capacity with our utilities and roadways now, but we hope to support these with utilities we’ll soon be developing plans for. That’s 0.58 units for each of the ~60,000 current homes. 

About half of Bellevue’s residences (~30,000) are in multifamily buildings, and the zoned capacity for additional multifamily was estimated in the Comprehensive Plan FEIS (if you look at pages 69 and 1253 of the Comp Plan FEIS pdf, it appears that the non-suburban areas of Bellevue have a theoretical capacity of 322,000 homes. This is then multiplied by 25% before it is counted toward the total of 152,000 new units that were studied in the FEIS.  

This capacity will be bumped up by HOMA, which is having a Planning Commission hearing on December 10th. HOMA will allow 25′ taller buildings and is likely to mean buildings will ask for reduced building setbacks. A recently approved project (Pinnacle North) taking advantage of the IOC that HOMA is modeled after increased their number of units by 30% using these incentives. HOMA may have even greater impacts in the neighborhood shopping centers, which are getting a more significant multiplier through an increased number of floors.  

In the lower density areas of Bellevue, which also have approximately 30,000 homes, every house will be able to be replaced by at least eight units, though some lots could have more. For lots within 1/4 mile walking distance of the growth centers, 24 individually rentable sleeping units will be allowed on each lot.  The “infinite cottages” provision will most affect the areas with larger lots, since the number allowed per lot is simply proportional to the lot area and the size of the cottages – on a 3/4 acre lot that was formerly R-1, you’d be allowed to have 19 cottages that are 1500 sqft + 300 sqft of garage/storage. 

In the discussions about our capacity, there had been two items limiting density: CC&Rs in HOA neighborhoods and the Intensity Factor reductions in density that were supposed to apply when there are streams and wetlands, etc. occupying part of the site.  It would be typical to allow half as many units on a parcel that is half wetland buffer or half steep slopes, but this element is being removed in the Critical Areas Ordinance that the city is finalizing on December 9th. There are some lots that were only allowed to have construction based on a Reasonable Use Exception, and now that exception will permit multiunit buildings. It’s effectively a selective upzone of areas that are more environmentally sensitive, since it doesn’t add density to the non-environmentally sensitive areas of Bellevue. 

The second item, CC&Rs, depends on active enforcement by the neighboring homeowners, and in the Affordable Housing Strategy survey, which closed on Dec 4th, there was mention of streamlining lot-splitting and “addressing” CC&Rs to enable middle housing there.

In order to enable this growth, we are also cutting back our environmental laws and taking the teeth out of the tree code – leaving us in a far worse place than if we’d just kept the original 30% tree retention requirement. Having lived in Hawaii, which I think of as our climate future, I can tell you that going for a run in a neighborhood with big houses and an arms race of AC use is noticeably oppressive compared to a run in a neighborhood with lots of old trees where people are able to use natural ventilation for cooling. Some say that density is intended to help the environment, but when the middle housing rules were created, they deliberately left out the EV-ready requirement, even though it would have likely saved the new homeowners money and helped them choose an EV car.

Circling back to what Bellevue is planning capacity for in the next 20 years, if we were to allow an increase of ten units for every existing unit, that would mean your upzone gives you a 1 in 17 chance (10/0.58 = ~17) you’ll actually get to build what you’re theoretically allowed to sometime in the next 20 years. At a steady rate of growth, we could reach full buildout in the year 2365. It doesn’t seem like much to base a higher land valuation on, if you ask me. I also think Bellevue should be in the business of keeping our promises when people invest in us, and we should not mislead people by telling them their properties are zoned for X if we can’t deliver on that.   

Thinking about it a different way, Seattle had 385,000 housing units in 2022, Tacoma has about 95,000, Bellingham has over 45,000, and these are likely to add up to less than the zoned capacity within Bellevue (we’ll see how the CAO vote goes this week and then the CC&Rs over time). We’ll probably only be capable of adding a bit more than a Redmond, however (32,000 housing units in 2020).

My takeaway is simple – we don’t need to build on or next to our wetlands to make room for people, and if we do build on wetlands, those people are much more at risk from rain events like the one we are expecting to hit us this week.

The Council meeting on Tuesday night will feature a study session on the Curb Pricing Study recommendations: 10am-8pm in Old Bellevue, Downtown, Wilburton, Spring District, and BelRed (see map on page 48 for actual boundaries; Old Bellevue includes all of Wildwood Dog Park and BelRed is smaller than you’d expect). This proposal does not cover payment for loading zone use, though that’s been talked about in the past. 

The new curb pricing plans will completely reshape the city’s experience with parking. If you have your car out overnight, you’ll now be able to leave it until 1pm, though you’ll have to pay the meter starting at 10am. Free parking won’t start until 8pm, since the peak times are lunch and dinner.  

It is expected to break even on the $1.6M cost within a year, and $2.3M in annual net revenue thereafter (page 35) can pay for curb enhancements for pedestrians, wayfinding, and ADA on-street parking spots. It should also pay for enhanced enforcement, including occasional enforcement in adjacent RPZs. This is only the city’s portion of the cost, however; as people start trying to find free parking in library, park, mall, and small business lots, adjustments will be needed for enforcement there or to add parking gates. 

Page 27 says time limits would be enforced at parks in the downtown area (but there’s no mention of walk-offs). Page 36 does not include these in areas where there would be an hourly parking cost. I am not sure if current park parking utilization rates and park users vs. walk offs were evaluated in the study

When the data was collected to determine the need for curb pricing, around 25% of cars in 2 hr zones were observed to be staying over 3 hours (page 5 of 158). This means that the target occupancy might be reachable with enforcement only, but it is expensive and cannot break even when tickets are only $54. Tickets might need to triple to break even (page 28), and it’s unclear whether these are set by King County and/or will be the same after curb pricing is implemented. 

This curb pricing outreach effort was extremely thorough and might be a good example for other city policy changes to follow.

What do you think of this plan? You can email City Council now or come to the meeting this week and speak in the public comment.

Tuesday, December 2nd

City Council, 6pm (link)

There will be 30 minutes for public comment; speaker sign-up starts at noon (link)

If you’d like to find out about agenda items like this a little earlier, please consider signing up for the newsletter using the link in the upper right.

The two main topics that will be discussed at City Council on Tuesday are the Diversity Advantage Plan 2035 and the Sign Code. This is a very early conversation about the Sign Code, but we can already see quite a few survey responses that give a sense of what the community would like to see included. It is on the Council agenda as an informational study session presentation.

You can see that the proposed code is just a barebones outline right now, but there is expected to be a draft in Q1 2026. There are many possibilities for structuring the code to respond to the feedback in the survey; see below for some I’ve brainstormed, and please add your own.

I’m emailing my list to Council and the planner in charge of this project, who will be presenting on Tuesday night and whose contact info is listed at the project webpage. If you’d like to talk about this or any other subject that will be coming before City Council in the next 60 days, you’ll be prioritized during the 30 minutes for Oral Communications at the beginning of each Council meeting (sign up for Oral Communications at noon on the day of the meeting).

(more…)

Correction: This week’s Council meeting is on Wednesday because of the holiday. Apologies for the mixup on dates!

There will be two opportunities for the public to comment – First, on anything that’s not budget related during the 30 minutes for Oral Communications at the start of the meeting, and second, on budget-related items during the Public Hearing later in the meeting. I especially hope people are paying attention to the Critical Areas Ordinance changes and how they might harm Bellevue’s environment!

Here is a slightly modified excerpt from this week’s newsletter:

(more…)

Update: As of 11/18, the path is open along NE 12th and the sidewalk on 112th in front of the new fire station is still closed. Bike markings have been added to the street, and it is starting to look more finished.

Note: I spoke too soon – the pedestrian closure is in place again as of 11/11/25. I’ll add a clarification if I get any more info from the city.

Pedestrians and cyclists are celebrating the reopening of the NE 12th multipurpose path between 110th and 112th, which was fenced off in July due to work related to the new Fire Station #10. It is an important segment in the protected bike connection between Spring District and the north side of Downtown Bellevue.

(more…)

In the discussion about added height under HOMA, I’ve written a bit previously, but since the pedestrian core concept was recently misunderstood at a candidate forum, I’d like to clarify what I’m envisioning. 

When neighbors of one of the larger upzone spots (which currently has surface parking that separates the arterial from the covered pedestrian walkway at the front of the shops) questioned whether the changes would be “neighborhood-serving” with all the adjacent parking removed, it made me imagine the experience of walking from shop to shop. 

As a pedestrian, I do not think it is relaxing or desirable for the sidewalk to be sandwiched between the building and an arterial road with a fast stream of cars.  While “shopping streets” can have storefronts adjacent to the sidewalk, these are usually much smaller, with fewer cars that are traveling slower and conditions that permit jay-walking safely. Sidewalks around the outside of a block also make sense if they are part of a street grid, whereas HOMA seems to be proposing many isolated upzones. 

Here is a snippet of the map for Crossroads to show how scattered some of the additional height is; the bus stop locations were added by me. As a side note, the blue parcel at the top center appears to be wetland/stream, so I’m not sure if all the possible upzones are final.

In a letter to Planning Commission (Written Communications, page 6), I said we should start by designing this from the perspective of a transit user, with the goal that transit riders have an experience that’s just as nice as people who drive.  There should be enough room along the arterial side of the parcel for a bus stop to be provided, and the project should deed land for the pull-out to the city if necessary so that traffic along the street isn’t impeded.  We should combine bus location monitoring technology with signage that uses green/yellow/red lights to let rideshares, Metro Flex, and other drop-off drivers know when they can also use this curb space. 

This bus stop node should then lead to the pedestrian core of the facility. The pedestrian core could be oriented about 90 degrees from the arterial road it fronts, and the idea is that this would have shops on both sides (or shops on one side and the residential building on the other) and no cars whizzing by. The HOMA process is considering minimum amounts of ground-level space for stores, residential lobbies, etc., which are referred to as active uses. It is important that these active uses don’t have to have “street frontage” to be counted, and ideally they’d actually get extra credit if not pushed up against the arterial. 

(more…)

References to past policies .

(more…)

There was a recent Urbanist article which included this cold thought: “Bainbridge Island and Clyde Hill will be far from the last cities to reckon with the new state framework forcing cities to act more aggressively when it comes to planning for affordable housing. But, like crash-test dummies, they will take the first impacts and provide lessons for everyone else.”

It is an interesting contrast between that scenario and a Seattle Times article from a few months ago saying the implementation of the middle housing rules were a huge change you might not even notice, but of course, that was in regard to Seattle, where instead of one house and two ADUs you’ll now be allowed four homes on each lot (a gentle increase of 33%).

In Bellevue, we’re going from a house (and as of 2023’s Ordinance 6746, an XL ADU) to eight units on a lot, or unlimited cottages. Housing affordability gains have been achieved in places like Minneapolis by allowing triplexes – as Strong Towns puts it, a gradual evolution to the next increment of development. I’m not aware of any other places that have previously opted for a multiplier like this.

In addition, Seattle has intensity factors that reduce unit count in proportion to the area that is unbuildable due to wetlands, etc. Bellevue currently has an Intensity Factor too, in LUC 20.25H.045, but it is likely that this will be removed “for development yield” in the Critical Areas Ordinance update that is progressing through Planning Commission and City Council review. A Planning Commission hearing on the CAO is scheduled for this week (October 22), and it will probably advance to Council soon.

(more…)

Here are two things I’ve worked on this weekend – first, an excerpt from the weekly newsletter that summarizes the HOMA item on the Planning Commission agenda on Wednesday night. This is only part of the newsletter, which this week also covered the Human Services Commission agenda, Council’s consent calendar, the Hazard Mitigation Plan, FIFA World Cup plans, mandatory minimum, NAP for Eastgate and Factoria, Affordable Housing Strategy, Curb Pricing, and the Transportation Facility Plan Update. Please sign up for the newsletter using the link in the upper right if this sort of thing interests you.

Second, a letter to the Planning Commission. I probably should have titled it Medium to Large scale HOMA opportunities, since there are also a lot of even smaller parcels that will likely be affected and will need a different approach. I will try to add references here, such as the link to childcare recommendations, in advance of the meeting on Wednesday. I should also caveat that I haven’t talked to anyone about most of these ideas, such as curb-sharing, microvotes, or commercial space occupancy requirements. I also see value in copying other jurisdictions and past projects, so that we can have more confidence that an experiment will work, and I have more legwork here before I expect anyone to be convinced, this is just my vision.

Newsletter Excerpt

Housing Opportunities in Mixed Use Areas: Bellevue has adopted a target to create 5,700 affordable housing units between 2026-2036. The agenda memo has a rundown of the past Council and Planning Commission discussions that have led to this point, and also points to the economic analysis which was done. Lowrise development was the only housing type that would have favorable market conditions that allow feasibility. Positive conditions for lowrise development can almost entirely be attributed to its utilization of surface parking rather than structured parking. One change in the proposed rules is an alteration in lot coverage that would disincentivize surface parking but still allow density. It is interesting to see in the analysis how parking spot construction costs increase with depth. In a prototypical 250 unit building, the Middle Housing changes reduced the parking requirement from 338 to 250 spaces, and a further decrease will come soon with ESSB 5184 implementation. 

(more…)

Bellevue is offering an opportunity for community members to weigh in on how they feel about Bellevue and how they access information from city government. The survey will be open through October 5th for people who were not able to attend the meeting. What do you think of Bellevue and our city government? How do you seek information about Bellevue? What types of information are you likely to look for? How do you communicate to the city staff and leadership? 

Some of the ideas I had for improving outreach:

(more…)