If you’ve been looking at the newsletter, you may have seen my recent comments questioning the need for a roadway for vehicles that bisects the new BelRed park designs.
The road also appears on the BelRed Look Forward LUCA map that is being considered by the Planning Commission, but I’ve received clarification that the decisions being made for the LUCA map only affect the local streets shown on that map, not the alignment of Spring Blvd. Instead, this section of Spring Blvd (Zone 3, from 124th to 130th) is an item being directed and funded through the CIP process (there’s a hearing at City Council tomorrow for this). See page 9 here, which identifies a potential $74.8M allocation for Zone 3 completion.
Also this week, Parks Board is receiving an update on the three BelRed park design options. You can attend their meeting on Wednesday to voice your opinion or complete the survey which is open through September 30th, but all of the designs assume that there will be a road cutting through the park.
I do think the local street grid being discussed by the Planning Commission will affect the design of Spring Blvd. For instance, a connection to 128th north of the rail is shown as having a signalized intersection on the roll map, but all of that could be deleted with the current version of the LUCA map, where the road just curves, and does not contact the street grid to the north.
That connection to the north had previously been anticipated to handle about half as much traffic as would have been traveling E-W (page 10), so removing it will also take away the need for the northbound lane in the section of 128th that passes under the rail.
The point where Spring Blvd/128th passes under the rail seems to be different on the two maps.
Where EB Spring Blvd contacts 129th (on the south side of the rail), there’s an intersection shown, which I think may still be desirable for local access, but it would be nice to confirm that there is a reason to build it, since this does not connect to the new proposed street grid.
Using the part of the roadway alignment from the west edge of the park to the mid-block crossing as the parking lot for the park would add a ton of space to expand the playground (or add space for dogs) by eliminating 8 parking spots near it (if that version is selected of the three options – it is definitely my favorite because of the play area and the potential for long, looping walks that include boardwalks), and you might avoid the need for the “retaining wall to minimize wetland impacts” if that section was ped/bike only. You also wouldn’t need the mid-block crossings that are in the park and immediately to the east of the park.
The in-park ped/bike multiuse path could be more of a tree tunnel than is possible with a 66-68’ wide configuration that includes two lanes for vehicles, two pedestrian paths, two bike paths, and landscaping. You could have enough space to use landscaping instead of vertical separation between the bike and pedestrian paths.
This is a very late-breaking question I just found more information about this weekend, so I also have many other questions I’m still trying to get answers on:
On the City Council agenda for tomorrow night, this is shown as having Transit relevance in the spreadsheet check boxes. Is transit planning to duplicate Link service along this route? Would school buses want to use it?
There is Driveable Landscape along the EB and WB portions between 128th and 130th and on 128th. How necessary would this section (or the part in the park) be for the fire department, keeping in mind that these are steep grades and narrowing 128th to two lanes as mentioned above may affect turning radius allowances.
What is the vehicle clearance under the rail?
For Planning Commission: What flexibility are we offering to the Heidelberg site for their site access to avoid the steep slope areas? What parcels are depending on sections of Spring Blvd that are east of the park? What do we believe is likely to happen to the leftover Sound Transit land (could it be housing)?
While I agree with the intent to avoid driveways onto 130th as much as possible because of all the Complete Streets upgrades that have been added recently, it seems much better to have a driveway onto 130th than a road cutting across a large new park, where kids may want to run freely (though there will also be wetland taking some of the park space).
The minutes from 7/8 do not include all the details of Jessie Clauson’s concerns about access for the Heidelberg site, but it sounds like the N/S local street shown in blue is also complicated to implement and PC will need to ensure enough flexibility for their future redevelopment, even though it may not be realized for some time. If the proposed park designs are used, it is possible that there will be a road across the park that still doesn’t allow people to reach 130th for years, or that alternate site access along 130th for the Heidelberg property will allow that eventual development to sidestep work on these geotechnically challenging areas.
Planning Commission’s 9/9/26 Written Communications, page 97 highlights that ADA accessibility is negatively impacted by a steep grade. I believe the WB part of Spring Blvd between 128th and 130th would be fairly steep, and am also hoping for answers about the actual grade we can expect.
The 7/8/26 Planning Commission minutes have some important background contained in the public comments:
Ben Mickle noted that the community engagement outreach had consistently identified safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure as a top priority. Although the proposed plan includes active transportation corridors, local and green streets lack dedicated bicycle accommodations. Rather than expanding roadway widths to add bicycle lanes, it would be better to install modal filters that will prevent motor vehicles from using local streets as through routes, while still permitting bicycle access and local vehicle circulation. The approach will improve bicycle safety, reduce construction costs, preserve emergency access, foster stronger neighborhood connections, and create quieter residential streets without compromising the transportation network’s intended function. The Commissioners were encouraged to incorporate a modal filter strategy into the Land Use Code Amendment.
Jessie Clawson used a series of maps and diagrams to illustrate concerns regarding the proposed street grid as applied to the Heidelberg concrete plant site near a light rail station. The presentation highlighted significant physical constraints, including wetlands, steep slopes, and surrounding undeveloped properties, all of which will make construction of certain required north-south streets impractical without direct city intervention. Earlier city planning documents identified the roadway segments as particularly challenging because of environmental constraints, yet the current draft code continues to require their construction. Referring to the proposed modification language, the speaker emphasized that it permits only limited design modifications or private street substitutions rather than allowing required streets to be waived entirely. Those are the concerns expressed by affected property owners. The intent is to illustrate why additional flexibility will be necessary as the Commission continues its deliberations on the street grid provisions.
Ben has also made additional points separately:
- Historically, Bellevue has rejected roads through parks. Examples: removing 102nd Ave through Downtown Park, blocking the extension of 124th Ave through Wilburton Hill Park. Imagine what a mistake it would have been let 102nd Ave go through Downtown Park! It’s a very similar situation, in my opinion.
- The new road would be counterproductive to salmon restoration efforts, as studies shows that tire chemicals that flow into streams via stormwater are fatal to coho salmon.
- Cars can already get between the two endpoints of the new segment in just 2 minutes by using BelRed Rd.
- Without the road, we could spend some of the money acquiring property to enlarge the park.
I will keep adding updates as they become available. Please consider speaking at the City Council public hearing on CIP funding for the Spring Blvd roadway project on 9/15/26 if you can!
Leave a Reply