Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bellevue staff preview critical areas code changes; commissioners, public press for flexibility to support housing and stream restoration
Summary
City staff presented a gap analysis and policy options for a required decadal update to Bellevue's Critical Areas Ordinance, prompting public calls and commissioner questions for more performance-based flexibility, incentives for daylighting piped streams, and clearer rules for steep slopes and reasonable-use exceptions.
City staff told the Planning Commission on June 25 that a draft of proposed land‑use code changes to Bellevue's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) will be released for public review in late July, continuing a process required by state law to ensure local protections use the best available science.
The commission heard from residents and property stakeholders who urged the city to combine environmental repair with development flexibility in urban areas such as BelRed. "Static buffers are outdated... the outcomes buffers are meant to achieve can now be reached through flexible performance-based design," said Charles Bowman, representing the BelRed Property Owners Group. He told commissioners that large prescriptive buffers on already‑degraded urban stream segments can block redevelopment that would otherwise fund habitat restoration.
Staff framed the gap analysis as a technical review of the code's clarity, consistency with best available science, and ease of use. Christina Gallant, planning manager in Development Services, and senior planner Kirsten Mant walked commissioners through a short list of policy choices that staff consider most likely to affect redevelopment and habitat outcomes: whether to adopt riparian management zones linked to site potential tree height; whether to replace Bellevue's current top‑of‑bank measurement method with the more widely used ordinary high‑water mark (OHWM); updates to wetland buffers and mitigation ratios to match Department of Ecology guidance; revisions to steep‑slope rules (including separate treatment of human‑made slopes); and whether to retain or remove the city's development density/intensity factor that reduces allowable density on sites with critical areas.
Commissioners and public commenters pressed staff on tradeoffs between protection and housing. Multiple commissioners endorsed simplifying or removing the density/intensity factor that reduces allowable FAR/density on constrained sites, arguing it can block redevelopment even when mitigation sequencing and buffer protections are applied. Several commissioners and speakers supported incentives for daylighting piped streams and a hybrid performance‑based/prescriptive approach that preserves predictability while allowing technical solutions tailored to degraded urban sites. "We don't need to trade housing for habitat... the only way we will restore habitat is if we build more housing," Bowman said.
Staff cautioned that some draft technical approaches could substantially increase measured buffer widths in places such as BelRed if implemented without accompanying flexibility. For example, Mant noted that adopting site potential tree‑height riparian zones based on Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife guidance could double some buffer widths where soils and topography support taller tree growth; those wider buffers, she said, may be difficult to apply in already‑developed urban centers without additional incentives or mitigation options. Staff also recommended switching to OHWM for consistency with industry practice and other agencies because top‑of‑bank "is not commonly used, and it tends to produce wider buffers in many cases."
Speakers urged the commission to couple stronger protections with clear, practical incentives: daylighting (opening piped segments) tied to FAR or other development incentives; allowing additional units within an unchanged building footprint as a reasonable‑use remedy; and performance‑based restoration paths that reward demonstrable ecological improvements rather than only imposing wider static buffers. Martin Selig recommended "strong incentives to open pipe stream segments, in conjunction with policy CL87," to help bring piped streams back to daylighted condition.
Staff said the draft CAO will be posted for public review in mid‑July, with an informational public meeting and additional study sessions planned; staff are targeting an October public hearing and council adoption later in the year. Commissioners asked staff to provide comparative examples of codes that already use performance‑based stream standards and to model how proposed changes would affect redevelopment capacity in priority growth areas such as BelRed, Eastgate and Factoria.
The Planning Commission took no formal regulatory action during the session; staff are preparing a draft code for public review that will return to the commission for study sessions and a public hearing later this year.
