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.