![\"\"](\"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/IMG_7115-1024x768.jpeg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nIn addition\u00a0to the removal of so many trees being a surprise*, there hasn’t been any public presentation of the future design of the landscape for the park, other than what is being shown in the promotional videos for the new building being built next door. The first floor of that new building will be somewhat elevated because of the parking garage underneath, so the place where the trees formerly stood will be replanted with smaller trees in a sloping planter that transitions the grade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The images show a plaza with large planters spilling onto park property; one large planter matching the building’s landscaping will be on the notch of park property that the park’s trash enclosure occupied previously (it was relocated to the NE 100th side of the park at the Park Row developer’s expense).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I made a public records request, and looking at the letters that went back and forth between the developer and the Parks Department, a few of these changes were due to requests that came from the city’s side:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. The Parks Department wanted a section of the path to be wide enough for one of the maintenance vehicles to be able to pull over without blocking the path, which meant an increase in the amount of hardscape to allow a 14′ width. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. The original proposal for the tree replanting had been starlight cornus and serviceberry, and Parks requested additional trees and a greater variety since serviceberry is vulnerable to a rust disease. As a result, some Japanese maple, fire vine maple, Serbian spruce, Kobus Magnolia, and others will be part of the mix. The Serbian spruces will be the largest of these at planting, in the 13′-20′ tall range, and the others will have a 2-4″ caliper measurement of the trunk. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. The Park Row designers frequently reference “Eyes on the street” as an objective they’re trying to achieve, and getting rid of the trees does eliminate the sense of seclusion in an area where hijinks might happen. Visibility from the building was requested by Parks in a 10\/18\/22 response letter. Bellevue’s policy UD-61: “Consider the edges of public places that abut residential property for special design treatment to create a buffer that does not interfere with security or visual access.” It appears building residents will have a good view into the park from the hot tub and yoga room, as well as the floors above.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are some public benefits associated with the project:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A. A through block connection is required on the north side of the project, and there will be a landscaping strip with stairs separating the pedestrian walkway from the vehicle access shared with the Mod Pizza parking lot (the access to the Park Row garage will be off NE 2nd, not on this side). This landscaping strip and “ADA compliant covered walkway” are considered plaza space (does not look like a plaza, really it’s a walkway), and they made the building eligible for an increased FAR (the building would be able to have about 10% less floor area if it didn’t take credit for providing this plaza). The good part is that this walkway will be a minimum of 10′ wide, but it received an exemption from the required 5′ landscaping buffer because it needed to be able to satisfy the through-block requirement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
B. There will be a new signalized midblock crossing to Safeway that I think will be well-used and appreciated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
C. There will be some fitness station workout equipment on the widened walkway near where the trees were removed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
D. The building will be responsible to irrigate the planter that straddles the property line, and presumably to provide electricity for the landscape lighting, which will be attractive. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Much has been said about the effect of shading on the park in the morning, but it seems to me that a more problematic change will be the reflected heat in the afternoon (especially since there are more people out and about in the park in the afternoon). In addition to providing privacy from the building occupants, the trees would have been very helpful for shading park users from this reflected heat, especially for the section adjacent to the park. The new trees won’t be large enough to help now, and given the limited space in their planter, they’d probably be removed if they manage to grow large enough to block views. The building does have a slight curvature, but this won’t disperse the heat over an area that’s that much bigger. There was mention at some point of overseeding the grass to adapt to changed conditions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It should be possible to mitigate the\u00a0tree losses if we\u00a0work with a landscape architect (but this time, one who works for the city!) to design mitigations that still allow people to cross through and ensure that park goers\u00a0are able to enjoy this space in the afternoons. I personally value the cool park greenery vs. the hotter plaza experience in summertime, so I hope we’re able to green\u00a0it up.\u00a0 It would also be nice to have a public discussion about the amount of privacy that’s right, since the “eyes on the street” effect may make people feel like they’re on display.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You can see on the landscaping maps that there was at least one tree, very close to the bench in the park, which is no longer present. Hopefully replanting near that spot will be a straightforward decision and it will feel cohesive as part of the broader replanting effort. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Arguably there should have been more public benefit to compensate for these trees, since it appears 4-5 floors** of the new building will have park and lake views as a result of their removal, you wouldn’t have the “park is your backyard” effect without the physical access that the tree removal provides, they are using park property to slope to the grade of the elevated first floor, and part of the park is likely to look like it has been incorporated into the Park Row parcel (if everything is landscaped as planned). At this point, though, this is what’s been negotiated, so we should focus on improving the design so there’s as much usable, restful space for park users as possible and ensure that we don’t end up with too much hardscape.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We should also look at this example for information on what we might adjust with the Downtown Livability 2.0 code update.\u00a0 Do we care about the 5′ landscaping buffer between the\u00a0building and the walkway? There were some comments from city staff reviewers about the heat being reflected from the building (could this be given a more defined standard so it’s crystal clear what developers would have to do to meet the requirement?) and the grade level change occurring on park property (the builder response to that comment was a bit weak, but still was accepted). We should reconsider policy S-DT-115’s wording about a graceful transition to Downtown Park before the parcel to the north is redeveloped too. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Across Bellevue, we should expect that notices about changes to public property be posted at the parcel where the modifications are planned, not just the building that’s benefiting from the changes.\u00a0Changes of this magnitude should also have been discussed by the Parks Board – I talked to one person who should have been aware if that had happened, and it does not appear that it did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I’m looking forward to doing a site visit about this in the near future. Please reach out to hello@newbellevue.com if you’d like to be included. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n