Council hears PBRS briefing on Bridle Trails lot; public hearing set for Oct. 14

Bellevue planning staff on Sept. 23 briefed the City Council on a Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) application from a Bridle Trails property owner seeking open‑space tax classification under King County’s program. The presentation explained the state Open Space Taxation Act and King County Code 20.36, reviewed the site’s constraints and easements, and confirmed each jurisdiction (King County and the City of Bellevue) must identicaly approve any PBRS classification.

Planning Director Tara Johnson and Assistant City Attorney Katie White told council the application seeks classification for about 1.33 acres of a 1.38‑acre parcel; staff estimated roughly 1.1 acres could be potentially eligible once house, driveway, immediate landscaping and other ineligible areas are excluded. White summarized the county code process: PBRS categories are scored and assigned points; a total score translates to a tax reduction, with 35 points yielding as much as a 90% reduction under the county matrix. The applicant requested multiple resource categories; if all requested points were granted the owner’s application would have qualified for the maximum 90% reduction, White said.

City staff reminded council that an earlier, nearly identical application for the same property was denied by Bellevue in 2022 although King County approved it at that time. The county hearing examiner was scheduled to hold its hearing the following day. If both jurisdictions grant identical approvals, a recorded open‑space agreement would take effect in 2026; if approvals or conditions differ, the application would not take effect.

Councilmembers asked for details about the 2022 denial, public access to the parcel, the relevance of recorded easements and how a new approval might set precedent for neighboring properties. Councilmember John Hamilton asked the basis for the 2022 denial; staff said the council’s 2022 denial emphasized statutory factors and the city’s concerns about tax shifts and whether the property’s developed, easement‑burdened condition fit the act’s intent. Councilmember Michelle Bhargava noted King County had approved the earlier application and asked about differences between county and city analyses; staff said this review uses both the state act and King County code criteria and that the county and city analyses are aligned but can differ in application.

Pam Johnston, who spoke during oral communications before the study session, urged the council to examine PBRS’s purpose and cautioned that the program is intended to protect larger tracts of open space rather than small backyard conversions or HOA trails. The council scheduled a public hearing on Oct. 14 and asked staff to return with a full staff analysis and recommendation at that hearing.