[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6374794,"mediaKeyId","2143504-624bfc5a75ebbbff3bfc2b7e997838aa","parentId",2143504,"title","Planning Commission directs staff to recommend 15% inclusionary zoning in Marymore, declines broad step-down","audioSeconds",3655,"startMs",696000,"endMs",4351000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2143504-624bfc5a75ebbbff3bfc2b7e997838aa&start=696&end=4351","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2143504-624bfc5a75ebbbff3bfc2b7e997838aa/thumbnail_696000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6374794/Redmond/King-County/Washington/Planning-Commission-directs-staff-to-recommend-15-inclusionary-zoning-in-Marymore-declines-broad-step-down","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6374794-ed3af8968d7bd9e15547132702460ff9/orig.mp4?Expires=1775312799&Signature=WmNwk1zo0K~kz7tT9NUJDY1sHWZT2TbSmBJtHiab4c9qHsAfQUgVlbRc8uliOjdEU~u4v-54IArijKkUb1ZPaL3oSYPtnm7ETVHprREluBvTG1~DhvrvM37~UorZpkeevz2ij7~ipzxE7OCh7bgjhhvswXY9wexueO6zJye09VgA856VdO6Evbx3NYw9T1AXr-6ScPpkMoHN4Ed9WS2VpONCys4-iZ7IozQGruDSNdJ5UVN1LXcJh5q1--IycYrzrJa6sg0olWNEj7tDwA99Do3uiPgBluqVlFOdMjFeiP8e4BLv3u~njYOywgTxU1v~N2KWd0YTjwnNaEkDBgtbCg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Redmond City, WA","date","2025-01-23T20:14:39.857Z","article","REDMOND, Wash. — The Redmond Planning Commission on Jan. 22 voted to ask staff to prepare a recommendation that would set a 15% inclusionary housing requirement at 50% area median income (AMI) for the Marymore planning area as part of the 2025 zoning-code package implementing Redmond 2050.

Staff presentation and framing
Planning staff member Ian Leftcourt told the commission the inclusionary zoning standard is part of the city’s zoning code and that the current staff recommendation for Marymore is 15% of units at 50% AMI. He summarized the principal question before the commission: whether to include a temporary step-down (lower percentage for the first projects) or go directly to the full 15% requirement.

Why it matters: Marymore is a planned transit-influenced growth area. Commissioners and staff said the inclusionary requirement will determine how much deeply affordable housing is produced in new transit-oriented development and how those public investments (for example, light rail and related infrastructure) distribute value between private owners and the community.

Debate and rationale
Commissioner Van Nyman urged the commission to view the requirement as a recapture of public value, noting that infrastructure investments drive land appreciation. He described the inclusionary requirement as a way for the community to recover some of that publicly created value to fund deeper affordability. Several commissioners echoed that reasoning and argued that the policy aligns with Redmond 2050 adopted values.

Not all commissioners favored an immediate full requirement. Commissioner Copley proposed a modest step-up alternative — a graduated approach such as 12% for the first project, 13% for the second and 14% for the third, ramping to 15% thereafter — as a compromise to help ensure development proceeds. That approach was discussed but not adopted.

Final action
After discussion the commission voted to ask staff to prepare a recommendation for approval of the staff proposal (15% at 50% AMI) and to return a draft planning-commission report at the next meeting. A formal motion to prepare the recommendation was moved and seconded; the chair called the question and announced the motion carried by the body.

Clarifying details and modeling
Staff noted that the financial-feasibility model used conservative assumptions and does not reflect all market or partnership variables. Staff also showed modeling results indicating a limited practical impact from a small step-down; the staff memo estimated the total difference under a full step-down scenario would amount to about 171 affordable units (a figure staff used to illustrate scale during the discussion). Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that if members disagree with the majority outcome they may append a minority letter to the planning commission report for council to review.

Next steps
Staff will republish the code-package attachments (including the clarifying edits referenced in draft Section 2104) and prepare the planning commission’s draft report for the next meeting. The commission expects to take final vote on a recommendation at the next scheduled meeting so the planning commission report can be transmitted to city council for consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Redmond Planning Commission | January 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","On Jan. 22 the Redmond Planning Commission voted to ask staff to prepare a recommendation endorsing a 15% inclusionary housing requirement at 50% AMI for the Marymore area and declined a broad step-down transition, directing staff to carry the recommendation to the next meeting.","taxTitle","Redmond, King County, Washington","taxId",2615,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6374797,"Redmond Planning Commission narrows final incentives in Redmond 2050 code package, keeps major green and accessibility priorities",1085,555000,1640000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2143504-624bfc5a75ebbbff3bfc2b7e997838aa&start=555&end=1640","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2143504-624bfc5a75ebbbff3bfc2b7e997838aa/thumbnail_555000.jpg","/articles/6374797/Redmond/King-County/Washington/Redmond-Planning-Commission-narrows-final-incentives-in-Redmond-2050-code-package-keeps-major-green-and-accessibility-priorities","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6374797-3e5b6ab982543060982024f674be9f0e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775312799&Signature=CkfXAGRnuCCkR82BjLp9R4hnOx55BL5qUCiwyRcxAXMkFcEY2e~YHtHXiapm45E9sYCJYR5EQtsJgO4E7dw7SW78Vh935CM3ZjRkYqyFDnE1Nnz~3jANDSz2J0Xv-a~NDq-o~s65RwLZnFS6CabbhCTqCC7G4hfjbjqSZiFDyEEZrpKHe5vVJ8tDULuvueNIJA~bd1G7HubZuA-dDHrcZ6tfXNbPBzN3HXvvpdzyKwCRhQjG8YhG6IdZ35kOqTmigcagU5CsV~Zi34nSFccXHb4ToCdoAyCrRZPjJSPBX7eLcLe~SJnQOmhKxSmNgsAT0yDyXXA1rSOgtXWK-8Gj~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","REDMOND, Wash. — The Redmond Planning Commission on Jan. 22 finished its review of most open items in the “incentives and requirements” portion of the 2025 code package for Redmond 2050 and directed staff to republish a revised draft with adjusted point values and a few clarifications.

Staff member Becky Fry told commissioners the purpose of the session was to record policy choices and move toward a recommendation: “Our goal tonight is to get to a point of recommendation where we're just faithfully recording all of those policy decisions in our zoning code,” she said. The commission then worked through an issues matrix and an “Attachment A” list of incentive adjustments and voted to carry the changes forward for a final packet at the next meeting.

Why it matters: The incentive point system in the draft code ties specific planning “gives” (extra height or floor-area ratio) to measurable community benefits such as deeper affordability, fully electric buildings, tree retention, universal-design features and other amenities. Commissioners said they wanted the point values to reflect policy priorities without producing unintended or outsized development windfalls.

What the commission decided and discussed
- Electrification: Commissioners agreed to raise the points for fully electric buildings from the earlier draft but kept the level moderate to avoid skewing the entire point system; staff said the commission settled on a medium-level incentive (30 points in the draft point matrix) and to include an “electric-ready” option. Becky Fry noted that in some parts of the city the electric grid will need upgrades; projects will still require a PSE (Puget Sound Energy) service confirmation before claiming electrification credits.

- Tree retention: The commission moved the tree-preservation incentives upward from the lowest band but rejected an earlier proposal that would have produced a disproportionate point jump. The commission settled on a medium-tier retention target and corresponding points (staff to reflect 40% retention in the republished matrix) rather than the larger increases some commissioners had proposed.

- Green-building priorities and salmon-safe standards: Commissioners discussed but ultimately scaled back an initial request to assign very high points to several salmon-safe / urban-forest items after reviewing how the point jumps compared to other incentives. Several commissioners said they support the objectives but asked staff to keep point values balanced across the whole scheme.

- Universal design, visitable units and ADA/IDD housing: The commission kept strong incentives for inclusive design. Commissioners retained high priority for visitable units (0-step entry, wider doors, provisions for future grab bars) and for projects that provide a share of fully accessible (ADA) or 100% IDD (intellectual and developmental disability–supportive) housing, while asking staff to ensure the point scheme reflects differences in cost between modest visitability measures and full ADA-design units.

- Materials management, public amenities and other small-site items: The commission agreed to reduce the priority for materials-management incentives and certain public-art/sensory provisions in places where staff showed the point changes would give disproportionate development gains.

Commissioners stressed transparency and comparability as they tweaked points. Commissioner Van Nyman recommended that staff note, in the republished packet, who requested each change (commissioner, community, or staff) and whether staff recommended the change; staff agreed to add that context.

Public comment and disclosures
Two members of the public spoke during the public-comment period. David Morton urged the commission to address sustainability, affordable housing, and digital equity in city planning. Hans Gunderson urged preservation of mature urban forest and expressed concern about tree loss in nearby redevelopments.

Commissioner Copley made an on-the-record disclosure that American Capital Group, a regional developer mentioned during the meeting, is an investor in his company; he told the chair he had disclosed that before the session.

Next steps
Staff will republish a revised draft of the incentives matrix showing the specific numerical edits discussed on Jan. 22 and will include a clearer “who requested this” note for each line item. The commission asked staff to bring a final recommendation and updated packet at the next scheduled meeting for adoption into the planning commission report to city council.

The republished packet will include adjusted point totals, the new “electric-ready” line, and clarifications in code section 2104 flagged by commissioners as needing small edits.","At its Jan. 22 meeting the Redmond Planning Commission closed its issues matrix and directed staff to update the 2025 code package with revised incentive point values for green building, electrification, tree retention, universal-design and other items while keeping Marymore affordability and several inclusive-design priorities high.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission directs staff to recommend 15% inclusionary zoning in Marymore, declines broad step-down

Redmond Planning Commission narrows final incentives in Redmond 2050 code package, keeps major green and accessibility priorities