I thought I’d try to find some numbers to put it in context. As of 2023 (you can find the graphic below on page 9<\/a>), 16% of Bellevue’s land was parks\/recreation\/open space and 5% civic\/community facilities, 53% was single family houses, 5% office and 5% commercial\/mixed use, and 7% multifamily. If you look at the current zoning map, it doesn’t seem likely that the areas that are commercial and mixed use now are likely to be much over 20%, but I’m just eyeballing it (if you come across the relevant stats, please let me know!). <\/p>\n\n\n\n It’s possible to imagine a future where there is more spatial sorting [3] of areas with housing and areas with destinations. For instance, I feel a strong duality in West Seattle between California Ave with all its storefronts and vibrancy, and the N-S section of Fauntleroy, which has lots of recently built housing but feels a bit canyon-like and uninteresting. Although these streets are parallel, they’re about 8 blocks apart, and it’s not a flat walk, so there’s probably not as much interconnection as there could be. It’s very reasonable to imagine streets that gain lots of new residential only one or two blocks from a bustling shopping street that clusters the errands and shopping into a smaller space for more efficient visits. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Areas which are zoned to not require any commercial space might pencil a little more easily and get built first, and then the areas that still have the requirement might have projects delayed until the economic climate improves, especially if we find it necessary to strike a balance by increasing the requirements for commercial space in those shopping areas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n By reducing the total amount of commercial space in the city, SB 6026 may make it harder for small businesses, both by raising their rents and reducing their options. I also question whether it may be the wrong decision for cities that are not Bellevue, and it would make me sad if they are hollowed out even if that doesn’t affect me personally. The biggest pushback to the bill seems to be coming from various cities<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Last night the city held an open house showcasing the vision for Bel-Red, where some of the shopping street focus will be retained on 130th Ave NE. If you visit it today, the fresh new bike and pedestrian upgrades pass in front of low density strip malls, but this is zoned BR-RC-1, which according to Table 20.25D.080<\/a> has a building height range of 45-150′ [4]. When the taller buildings in BelRed are built, 130th is designated as a place to minimize driveways, so vehicular access is likely to be from 131st and Northrup\/20th. I expect this special treatment to also extend to the requirements for commercial space in that stretch, and it’s one of the things I’ll be looking for in the draft code<\/a> that was just released. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Another likely factor is the possible presence of corner stores within neighborhoods, which could allow some of Bellevue’s food needs to be met in what are currently SF neighborhoods. There was recently progress on this front in Seattle<\/a>, and it is also being considered in this year’s legislative session as HB 1175<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I know this post is not particularly opinionated, but I hope it gives you some context as you consider whether to reach out to Janice Zahn, who I believe is on a legislative committee voting about SB 6026 tomorrow, and whether you would like to show up at City Council tonight! <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Note 1: It is considered erroneous if it doesn’t match the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) that depicts “land uses” rather than “zoning” and was created during the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Note 2: If we just have more buildings that meet current “active-use” requirements, a bunch of that ground floor space may be allocated to residential lobbies that provide the visual of having a few people around but don’t add any public space, and retail\/restaurant space that’s laid out as one or a few large spaces (hard for a small business to afford) rather than a bunch of smaller ones as seen in the older buildings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Note 3: While 20% should be enough commercial space to keep Bellevue from turning into a vertical suburb where people only go to work and go home, if there were 23-25% of land that we would prefer to require community amenities like this, the task of allocating that 20% spatially would be a very contentious political process, involving lots of lobbying by the affected landowners. Deliberations that dangle upzones and code flexibility as part of future policy updates seem to slow development in Bellevue, since it’s not clear that the city won’t offer a better deal in a few months. We should always strive to be predictable and keep our promises, both to the builder community and the public. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Note 4: While this is described as “limited in extent to provide the level of intensity appropriate for areas in close proximity to the highest levels of transit service within the BelRed area” according to a DEIS document<\/a>, it’s actually not as high as will likely be allowed for Crossroads and Factoria under HOMA, and it’s also possible that BR-RC-1 heights will be revised upward as part of the BelRed Look Forward LUCA<\/a> that is in the works right now (the working draft was recently shared on the project page, but I haven’t had time to look at it in detail). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Edit: PSRC has additional information<\/a> about what percentage of Bellevue (and specific locations) would be expected to be affected by SB 6026. Most Mixed Use and Commercial Land won’t lose ground floor commercial because of the TOD exemption (gray on map). The diagonal lines correspond to the developable Soft Sites (see definition below), where existing improvements are low in relation to the value of the land and it is also farther from transit stations\/stops. Bellevue has about 21k acres and the Downtown core is 410 acres<\/a>. The 26% that corresponds to the 108 parcels that are most desirable is much higher than the percentage present in the other cities and jurisdictions in WA that were also in the PSRC report. I believe that the categories listed as “Conditional” are where the ground floor would otherwise be reserved for non-residential use. <\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-24-11.13.01-AM.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-27-3.46.35-AM.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Screenshot-2026-02-27-3.47.11-AM.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n