Sustainable Bellevue Plan Update

The biggest surprise for me is how far below target Bellevue is for reducing emissions of residential buildings. The goal is 69% by 2030 but only 3% has been achieved! If the city is serious about this target, it needs to dedicate a lot of funding to it, right now.

Meanwhile, the goal for reducing passenger vehicle emissions is only 22% by 2030. According to the city's data, transportation is actually a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than residential energy (though it doesn't say how much is passenger vs freight). The city should be putting just as many resources into reducing transportation emissions as it does residential emissions.

For transportation, there is a large emphasis on electric vehicles. In recent years, EV sales have slowed dramatically, so I think it's unreasonable to expect the pace of EV adoption to continue. Perhaps it could be lifted by tax incentives and subsidies, but I think there will still be a large gap. I believe the city should instead focus more on ensuring that people traveling in Bellevue have viable alternatives to driving. That means better bus service, better connections to light rail, better sidewalks, better bike lanes, and less cars on the road. Bellevue has already identified many ways to improve these alternatives, but it has failed to implement many of them, scaling back projects or cancelling them entirely. Reducing car traffic has many benefits beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This would also reduce road fatalities and serious injuries, reduce noise pollution, and allow for re-using public right-of-way for other purposes, making our streets nicer places to be.

Happy to see the city taking sustainability seriously. Currently I bike to work everyday and know that I am an outlier. Most people still see biking and taking public transit as lesser. So it's going to be hard to change this attitude. A big part of that is making alternatives to driving more appealing though. Proper bike lanes go a long way to making more people comfortable riding. Biking next to cars is terrifying. I avoid it whenever possible. If you don't see women, children, and elderly people biking you know you don't have a safe location for biking. Only people I see biking are young men like myself. Proper bike infrastructure takes far less money than car infrastructure and has long term health benefits for people. Please budget is properly and seriously just like car infrastructure.

The plan does a good job of informing readers about a lot of climate related subjects, and explaining the city's stance and strategy. It also provides a lot of good resources to help individuals implement certain strategies in their businesses and homes. However, there are some things I feel the city could also add to their strategy in a couple of respects that would accelerate the city's climate goals more.

1. Prioritize denser zoning. The city's decision to roll back a lot of their more ambitious plans for increased density surrounding transit hubs was extremely disappointing, and makes me question the city's true commitment to this climate action plan. The city recognizes the need for more transit oriented development, and denser living in order to reduce carbon emissions. And yet, the city seems to drag it's feet at every opportunity when it comes to actually implementing these in policy. If the city truly wants to become a leading example in the fight against climate change, it should be prepared to fully commit to ambitious transit oriented and walkable infrastructure. Instead, we see the city doing the opposite, actively stopping themselves from committing to these principles.
2. One of the most efficient building standards is the Passive House Standard. It can reduce a residential building's energy usage to 10% of what it used previously, and makes a building so efficient it can be heated by the power equivalent of a hair dryer. The cost of building a new Passive House is only slightly more than building a non-Passive House, but already built buildings can be converted to the Passive House standard. I think the City of Bellevue should invest significantly in requiring new single family units to be built to this standard, incentivizing buildings to be built to this standard, and retrofitting already built houses to this standard. There are multiple Passive House standards, so I would recommend using the international standard.
3. The city needs to do a better job of communicating to residents which items can be recycled and which cannot. Almost everyone I know struggles with this. The specific type of plastics that can be recycled in the city, as well as the vital information that people need to wash items before placing them in the recycling, must be communicated on a mass scale to residents, via advertisements online and on TV, school education, etc.
4. The city could potentially help accelerate EV adoption by passing legislation requiring all gas stations within the city to provide EV charging in some form. In addition, the city could also accelerate renewable energy adoption by requiring gas stations within the city to cover their roofs with solar panels.
5. The city could accelerate it's adoption of renewable energy by passing laws similar to what were passed in France regarding parking lots of a certain size being required to cover themselves with solar panels (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/09/france-to-require-all-large-car-parks-to-be-covered-by-solar-panels)
6. There are some pieces of legislation the city could pass to accelerate decarbonizing car transportation. I think the city requiring new cars sold within the city to be HEV, PHEV, or EV vehicles is feasible and would have significant results on carbon emissions immediately, while we wait for mass EV adoption to be rolled out across the city on the long term.
7. The city's supposed commitment to expanding cycling infrastructure is very promising. What I would like to add as suggestions is that a. this expanded bike network is comprehensive and completely interconnected, i.e. a biker should not have to share the road with a car unless it is in a residential neighborhood street, and b. this bike infrastructure is made up of protected lanes with physical barriers rather than just white paint on the road. I would suggest looking at what Seattle has been doing to expand protected bike lanes as an example. Also, the city should significantly expand the usage of two-step bike box turning systems.
8. The city needs to make do on it's promises to commit to increasing transit options for commuters. In the past, the city has stood to delay, impede, and overall resist the Eastlink Light rail Extension, most notably due to the efforts of current councilmember, former mayor, and avid Trump supporter Conrad Lee, as well as the efforts of notable Eastside billionaire Kemper Freeman and the Freeman family as a whole. If the city is serious about increasing transit opportunities within the city rather than simply talking about doing so, it needs to significantly change it's approach. It must remove the barriers that prevented transit in the past and fundamentally change certain city systems so that transit can be built easier. We must prevent single businessmen and controversial councilmembers from impeding the city in it's efforts to maintain these commitments, in a way that ensures everyone's voice is still heard, though not giving significant power over these decisions to individual actors at the expense of others.
9. New Rochelle is a suburb of New York city, and is notable for finding a way to overcome many of the challenges cities face in implementing transit oriented and walkable development, denser living, etc. I think Bellevue should adopt the New Rochelle model to address it's housing affordability crisis, though this same method can serve the city in addressing it's climate commitments as well. More information here: (https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/nyc-new-rochelle-lower-rent-e7695ded?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAgg8yMojIhUYymbrsLTaQzY4AFfOdMkbtu9GBL6KM7VEdpWOOPKnhIf&gaa_ts=68aa3a96&gaa_sig=l6kao1ObZmdL0jSXulgrt4svMnP4pyDYvs0G2O5oTBYAwb6it95ZFOjtJB4eoelQ2-nNvT9MSe2zQRIcTMRc0A%3D%3D)
10. The biggest barrier for many to decarbonize their personal cars is cost. I think the city should invest in ways to help individuals upgrade their cars for HEV's, PHEV's, and EV's, potentially by subsidizing the cost for them via programs, providing increased incentives (ex. cheaper parking within the city, lower taxes, etc.), and other methods of helping owners obtain reduced carbon cars.

Overall, I think the current plan is very ambitious and I think the only changes the city should make would be to potentially make it more ambitious. I would've liked to see more specific plans for how the city would try to implement it's goals, though I understand that this is probably not the intended purpose of this general guideline.

So proud of Bellevue for trying to do our part to preserve our little piece of the planet

Ms. Ewing and team,

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the City on the draft 2026-2030 Sustainable Bellevue Plan. UMC is a design-build mechanical contractor for commercial-scale buildings, a union shop based in Western Washington State since 1920. Like you, we see sustainable cities as an engine of jobs and opportunity.

Given our construction mindset, we’ll weigh in on some particular bright points in the draft outline so far.

First, it's excellent to see mention of thermal energy systems in the draft strategies, especially with the City's "success metric" listed as “permits issued.” That said, the timeline of "5+ years" doesn't need to be so long – thermal systems do take time, but a permitted project is possible within 30 months if the City engages deeply.

Another success metric on thermal energy systems could be the planning necessary for the Grand Connection to serve as a thermal connection as well – a Wilburton-area network would be ripe for connecting downtown. This has certainly already been discussed; I imagine the line-item may appear in next drafts soon.

Thank you for your hard work so far; we look forward to continuing to partner for a thriving Bellevue. Onward! Together.

Bonnie & UMC

Hi Team
First, congratulations on the draft. I know you are very short-staffed, and this must be a ton of work on top of your project work. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis and strategies. Thank you for your dedication to this work and for your relentless persistence in the face of so many constituencies and demands.

Strong Points
More specific list of outcomes that need to be achieved
More ambitious action plan
Mention of funding requirements

I have a list of suggested improvements to make this plan more actionable. I will send to you directly.

The draft states that “35%” (in one place) or “more than 40%” (a bit later) emissions are from cars. Reducing those emissions is a major task to solve, and I expect that the transportation department will be named as instrumental here, along with changes to building codes, zoning requirements, and parking minimums. To make alternatives to driving appealing, a lot of changes are necessary. As a bonus, the same changes can be expected to improve the situation with flooding, provide free space to extend the green canopy, and increase safety for everyone.

However, after reading the draft, I cannot shake the feeling that the master plan to “solve” the task is by eventual “100% transition to electric vehicles”. There are many details on the installation of more electric chargers, but when the authors get to real changes, it reads “M.4.3 Assess feasible pathways to further reduce parking requirements in transit-rich areas” - study (!!!), 5+ years (!!!). Or this one - “M.3.1 Explore new funding sources … [for] bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, transit speed and reliability projects, transit access projects.” Study again, for 5+ years.

This sounds like a bad joke. Just look north - Bothell recently just removed parking minimums and allowed corner stores/cafes. Guess how it will affect housing density and VMT? Or maybe look west - Seattle reduced speeds to 20 mph on residential and to 25 mph on many arterials 4 years ago. Bellevue is just starting a pilot (!!!) program on a couple of streets after killing “Bike Bellevue” and being silent about “Vision Zero”. Redmond has had Lime bikes and scooters for a while and is actively extending safe pedestrian/scooter/bike infrastructure. Bellevue’s plan is to spend the next 3-4 years to “maybe get Lime too”. 

Bellevue is doing everything to encourage people to drive more by widening roads and intersections, prioritizing vehicular traffic over all other forms of mobility, enforcing mandatory parking in all construction, setting high speed limits, and refusing to enforce them or implement any traffic calming measures. Putting in an unregulated pedestrian crossing (aka painting the road) takes years to plan and review… No wonder why people prefer to drive, and VMT isn’t going down. And looking at this draft doesn’t inspire any optimism for seeing any real changes in many years to come…

In my comment for N.1.2 below, read "single-family-house neighborhoods where very few people can benefit from the shade since the minority of residents live there and certainly nobody WORKS …" Damn autocomplete!

B.1.2: Usage of natural gas in new buildings should be prohibited completely, otherwise, how are you going to keep up with conversions? Even for Wilburton, the city didn't take this action, and this means that the city is expected to shoulder the cost of future conversions. This is irresponsible.

M.1.2: Great! But please consider that for this program to succeed, proper infrastructure is required. Where is the plan to build that infrastructure? The Transportation Department built only "0.57 miles of other shared use paths and 0.64 miles of new bike infra" last year, according to their own report, which is, presumably, what will be used for e-bikes and scooters, and even that is mostly paint rather than safe and protected facilities. In addition, infrastructure is often built not where it is most needed, for example, there is still a huge connectivity gap between East and West, Lake Hills/Crossroads and Downtown.

M.2 and M.3: I find it incredible and sad that you have four specific strategies for EV charging (that would benefit only those who can afford those in the first place) and just two very vague strategies for accessibility and connectivity of transit which would benefit literally everyone. Whoever wrote those two M.3 strategies should be ashamed of doing such shoddy work.

M.2.2: From the environmental point of view, bus electrification is less important than making buses attractive enough for more people to switch to using them (or making driving unattractive). I don't see any strategies that would make buses in Bellevue more reliable or frequent. To achieve the former, buses need to be separated from cars, and in Bellevue we have too many lanes on almost any road, so that should be part of your plan. Perhaps then it would make sense to increase frequency.

M.3.2: Another study for several more years? Any transportation project the city undertakes should already demonstrate that it will contribute to achieving environmental goals of Bellevue or at least not worsen them! None of them do that now, and in fact, the city has multiple projects in the works that explicitly strive to increase VMT by increasing throughput and, consequently, emissions since electric vehicles are still as expensive as ever (road widening in Downtown, intersection widening, and so on). Even though the concept of induced demand is by now more than 50 years old, we need another study to make sure it exists?

M.4.3: please, just adopt the state-required parking mandates that the city will have to do anyway, or even better, do as Bothell, Shoreline, Bremerton, Spokane, and many other cities did recently and remove parking minimums everywhere. If anything, put in very low parking maximums.

M.4 in general: Why is there nothing among land use strategies that would reduce VMT? If I have a cafe in my neighborhood and my neighborhood is walkable, I don't have to drive. If I have a farm stand on my block, I can walk to buy fresh groceries daily instead of driving to buy tasteless tomatoes from a big-box store. Zoning is as important for achieving climate goals as anything else, and yet it is completely absent from your plan.

N.1.2: I am glad that you acknowledge that tree canopy is not distributed equally, and that most of it is in single-family-house neighborhoods where very few people can benefit from the shade since the minority of residents live there and certainly nobody walks or shops there by definition. But voluntary standards (even for the city itself?) are not going to cut it. There should be a dedicated effort that focuses on trees in common areas: along roads (it makes a huge difference if the road is not very wide, so consider also narrowing roads), on parking lots, especially given that parking lots, both belonging to the city and on private properties, are obscenely huge, and in parks. Plenty of our parks are just glorified lawns that do not provide shade, require plenty of watering and gas-powered mowing/blowing. The city should set an example and plant trees at least on its own property.

N.2.2: Just ban them already! At least don't use them yourselves! Even Mercer Island bought an electric leaf blower for their parks.

F.1.1 and F.1.3: This should have been done by now. I have already given an example of poor coordination with the Transportation Department, but the Parks Department doesn't seem to care much for sustainability either. Look at the Phase 2 plan for Meydenbauer Park which adds 50% more parking stalls (and generates VMT along with it) and spends tens and tens of pages, and presumably many dollars paid out to consultants, to analyze the level of service for cars to make sure VMT does not go down too much. No pages are dedicated to sustainable park access at all. They could make the park more accessible to everyone by providing a shuttle from the transit center and they could improve micromobility infrastructure to access the park, but they didn't and you didn't provide your input either.

In short, I am glad that Bellevue is not giving up on sustainability but according to your own survey, the residents want bold climate actions, and this is anything but bold.

Bellevue is still a city where most people default to using a car for every trip. That needs to change if we want to meet our safety, housing, and climate goals. The only solution to traffic is viable alternatives to driving, not yet more car lanes.

We need to invest in more infrastructure for biking, walking, and transit. Things like protected bike lanes, bus signal priority, intersection daylighting, wider sidewalks, mid block crossings, etc are essential.

Just as how currently we provide plentiful car infrastructure with wide arterials and freeways and free parking, and thus most people drive to get around, if we provide safe, plentiful bike lanes and transit options, people will then use those to get around. Most people aren’t hard core believers in using a particular transport mode just because they like that mode inherently. Most people just choose the option that meets their desired combination of safety, convenience, speed, and cost. We need to make non-car transport modes more attractive in these ways to get people to switch away from cars, which is the city’s stated goal.

We also need to stop subsidizing expensive and harmful personal automobiles via policy. We should stop widening roads and mandating businesses provide free car storage lots and garages. We should stop giving away massive areas of our streets for free car storage. We should replace some street parking with better land uses like protected bike lanes or mini parklets, or make street parking paid.

Paired with this, we must reform land use and permitting. We must legalize more home construction by permitting ADUs, townhouses, stacked flats, multiplexes, and apartments in more areas instead of zoning the majority of our city for single family houses only. We should promote mixed use developments so people can get their daily amenities without traveling far.

Land use reform and transport reform must go hand in hand. If we improve transit service and biking infrastructure in an area, but don’t legalize more homes in that area, not enough residents will want or need to go to and from that area, so the infrastructure will be underutilized. If we legalize more homes in an area, but do not improve transit and biking infrastructure to that area, everyone will have to drive, and the traffic will be interminable.

I appreciate the City’s efforts to advance sustainability through the 2026–2030 Sustainable Bellevue Plan. However, the plan underemphasizes one of the most important levers for reducing emissions and improving quality of life: land use reform.

Bellevue cannot achieve its climate and livability goals without reshaping how people move, live, and work. I encourage the City to strengthen this plan with the following priorities:

Colocate jobs and housing

Bellevue’s economy continues to attract employers, but many workers are priced out of nearby housing. This imbalance drives long commutes, traffic congestion, and higher emissions. The plan should include explicit policies to align job centers with new housing, through zoning reform, mixed-use density near transit, and reduced parking requirements.

Improve pedestrian safety and connectivity

Sustainability depends on safe and convenient walking routes. Current superblock patterns and wide arterials undermine walkability. The plan should commit to specific targets for reducing pedestrian injuries and deaths, and invest in continuous, accessible walking networks that connect neighborhoods to schools, transit, and services.

Reform parking expectations

Today, the default assumption is that drivers must park directly at their destination. This creates sprawl, congestion, and inefficient land use. Bellevue should move toward centralized/shared parking facilities where people can park once and walk or use transit to complete short trips. Removing policies that mandate on-site parking at each destination will make land use more efficient, reduce traffic, and encourage healthier travel patterns.

Strengthen the street grid system

Bellevue’s superblock layout limits connectivity and forces most trips onto a few congested arterials. To create a more resilient and efficient transportation network, the City should invest in adding more local connections—new streets, mid-block passages, and pedestrian/bike links—while selectively removing or repurposing road segments that no longer serve community needs. Expanding the grid will reduce pressure on major roads, improve traffic flow, and make walking, biking, and transit more practical options.

Without bold land use reform—including changes to how we zone, park, and connect our city—Bellevue risks falling short of its climate and livability goals. Land use is the foundation that determines transportation choices, community health, and ultimately the success of Bellevue’s climate targets.

I urge the City to include stronger commitments to land use reform in the final plan. Doing so will make Bellevue not only more sustainable, but also safer, healthier, and more livable for all residents.

I'd like to comment on action M.3.2, "Complete study assessing VMT reductions from different transportation investments to better incorporate climate goals into transportation planning"

It seems like the real intent here is to "incorporate climate goals into transportation planning." That should be the action. Every transportation proposal should come with an evaluation of its climate impact. Learning how to do that accurately is implied. The draft says it will take 3-4 years to do this VMT study. Does that mean we won't be incorporating our climate goals into our process for evaluating transportation projects for another 3-4 years?! That's ridiculous!

Many of our transportation projects involve adding turn lanes and widening roads. These projects are *designed* and *intended* to increase vehicle travel. The MIP talks explicitly about increasing "vehicular capacity" at intersections. If we spent millions of dollars to widen a road, and we didn't see more vehicles using that road, then why did we even widen it? We don't need a 3-4 year study to determine whether or not these projects will have their *intended* effect.

These projects to widen roads involve literally spending millions of dollars to ensure we fail to meet our VMT reduction goals. We need an action to look at these projects through a climate lens *today*, not 3-4 years from now, after we complete some study to confirm the obvious.

I would like to see more guidelines and possible restrictions on single use plastics in Bellevue-- for example, take out containers from restaurants or plastic wrapping. I understand this can place a burden on local restaurants and stores, so it would be important to offer financial resources to business owners if they are required to make changes.
Additionally, it would be great to work with King County's textile recycling program and promote other donation locations within Bellevue. A page on the City's website could work well.

Supporting community resilience hubs will be increasingly important as wildfire and intense heat becomes worse. Education on risks of smoke and heat is a great step.

To address climate issues in terms of transportation and land use, we need to encourage and incentivize residents to utilize sustainable transportation systems, such as light rail, bussing, or walking and cycling.

This means building and maintaining our current transportation infrastructure and building new ped/bike/transit infrastructure such as removing general travel lines for bicycle and transit infrastructure, protected bike lanes, protected intersections, mid-block crossings, curb extensions and pedestrian refuge islands, BAT lanes, bus queue jumping, etc.

Nobody will take transit/bike/walk if it isn’t comfortable.

Bellevue has good N-W biking corridors (but we need more overlap/provide direct connections to places people want to go). 108th Ave is great, but it’s one N-S connection, when we have other great streets like 112th, 110th, etc. that can be connections.

We need better E-W connectors. Bike Bellevue wanted to implement a E-W connection on Bel-Red but that was killed. NE 20th was a great option too, but was also killed with Bike Bellevue.

Painted bike lanes is not bicycle infrastructure. Sharrows alone is not bicycle infrastructure. Invest in real bicycle infrastructure like protected intersections, protected bike lanes, dedicated bike signals, etc.

There is a project on NE 8th Street from 156th to about 164th to add bike lanes along the corridor. But going west on 156th at NE 8th, the bike lanes will drop you end and cyclists will have to brave through NE 8th going west. This is not comfortable, we need a real bike network.

Look to Redmond for bike infrastructure. They have a great protected intersection near the Overlake Village station, and the two way cycle track near the Microsoft campus is great.

Pedestrian infrastructure needs to be improved. Many curb ramps are not per ADA standards. Curb radii is wide to allow cars to make faster turns, which is dangerous for pedestrians. Many intersections do not have high-visibility crosswalk markings for pedestrian safety. Pedestrian level street lighting would also be appreciated for safety.

Sidewalks needs to be improved. Greater widths to prevent conflict would be great, especially along Bellevue Way. Maintaining existing sidewalks should be a priority. Mid-block crossings are needed in a lot of areas. More complete streets projects around Bellevue would make walking a viable way of commuting for many residents.

Queue Jumping and BAT lanes will improve reliability for bus schedules and encourage more riders to take transit.

BRT with level boarding, off bus payment, comfortable shelters and ample lighting will also be great for ridership. Working with KCM and ST on the K Line and Stride is a great first step.

We spend millions repaving roads for cars, but spend nothing in comparison for pedestrian/bike/bus infrastructure.

We also need more housing density. The more density we have, the less people will drive to job centers and third places. This means updating the comprehensive plan and land use code to reflect higher density in growth areas such as downtown, wilburton, crossroads, Factoria, etc. We need to encourage additional ideas such as neighborhood shops to add character to the city and add third places to the city.

Allowing multiple units on one lot and ADUs/DADUs like Seattle would address density. This would work towards a more sustainable future.

Having a combination of t better transportation infrastructure and denser housing will greatly reduce carbon emissions and work towards a more sustainable and equitable Bellevue.

Hi, as both a resident and employee for the City of Bellevue, I am passionate about the community's urban forest and resilience to extreme heat. I recommend we strive to achieve what neighboring cities are pursuing--increasing tree canopy cover by 2050 instead of maintaining the status quo of 40%. For example, Issaquah strives to increase their canopy 7% by 2035. Increased tree canopy will help mitigate heat, provide stormwater benefits, and much more in the wake of extreme climate-induced events.

What partnerships and collaboration’s are being involved in developing a stakeholder analysis with local , national and global academia including @CENDEP @UNITAR to achieve best practice models within urban settings that are at risk of geological impact due to climate change.
Current modeling from Asian-Pacific Rim cities have been documented and FEMA’s coastal hazard awareness modules include modeling for climate change and rising sea levels in urban areas with specific planning requirements for communities at identified risk to mitigate impact to life and property.
COB has an obligation under human rights law to provide safe risk analysis for future generations.
We have many current technological advances which could be implemented at city level to achieve a Carbon Neutral city by 2050 and we quietly wonder if it acceptable not to lead by example on a global stage, to achieve sustainable development and climate change action goals.
Youth council members have articulated an interest in being included in this stakeholder analysis as their is a risk of food dessert’s and already a lack of affordable safe housing within the City of Bellevue.Creative ideas and documents exist from children and young people.How will the department include these documents as the project develops?

It is technically impossible to reach a carbon neutral position by 2050 for a couple of reasons. The status quo workes just fine. It is economically unjustifiable to change the status quo. Wind and solar cannot compete.

I see that one of the goals is to have 100% electric vehicles. What happens when the electric grid is down? What do we do when there's a third house fire, and the electric firetrucks can handle only two without taking time out for charging?

I love that m city is doing this.!on board. Have solar panels, support green energy, recycle, compost, 1 car family…

In order for Bellevue to meet their goals, Puget Sound Energy needs to actually continue to make steady "glidepath" progress on their clean renewable solar and wind energy -- which I do not believe they are doing. Instead they "make a plan to make a plan" rather than actually building new wind and solar. Please get busy making sure Puget actually makes real linear progress towards their 2045 State Clean Energy Requirements.