Planning commissioners debate step-down and inclusionary housing levels for Marymoor in Redmond 2050

The Redmond Planning Commission spent its Jan. 8 study session debating whether a temporary "step-down" to the proposed 15% inclusionary housing requirement in the Marymoor subarea would materially increase near-term development and how many affordable units might be lost or delayed.

Commissioners and staff discussed a staff analysis that proportioned a step-down by growth allocation and tested two scenarios: a one-step reduction affecting 171 units and a three-step phase-in that would ramp set-asides back to 15%. Becky Fry, a city staff member, explained the analysis and said the difference in yield on cost from the step-down was small — about 0.1 percentage points in the study areas — and “it seems unlikely” that the modest change would be enough to “kickstart development.” Ian Lefkort, a staff presenter, added the analysis used conservative baseline development capacity rather than assuming additional incentive-driven capacity.

Why it matters: Marymoor and the urban mixed-use zones are forecast to take a larger share of the city’s future housing growth, so staff proposed higher inclusionary set-asides in those places tied to the size of the zoning change. Commissioners and stakeholders said the proposal affects land value and the timing of projects near the forthcoming light rail stations.

What the analysis said: Staff reported Marymoor has about 3,170 housing units allocated under the growth plan; applying the same proportion used in Overlake produced a 171-unit step-down. Under both staff scenarios, the "opportunity cost" — affordable units not built because of the step-down — was in the single digits for the modeled parcels because the total step-down capped at 171 units. Staff emphasized that economic conditions, interest rates and overall development costs have a larger effect on feasibility than the small change modeled for the step-down provision.

Comments from landowners and developers: Wei Zee, a Miramar-area property owner who said their holdings include a large share of the subarea, said model runs by their team showed raising the inclusionary requirement from 10% to 15% could reduce land value on a representative site by roughly 41% (from $16.2 million to $9.5 million under the speaker’s stated assumptions). Katie Kaye, a land-use attorney representing Winston Development, asked the commission to consider a 10% set-aside at 50% AMI for urban mixed-use and Marymoor and noted developers she is consulting with expect projects to proceed only when the economics align; she also said the staff baseline models do not always reflect the incentives that make some projects feasible.

Commissioner perspectives: Several commissioners expressed concern about slowing development and reducing housing supply if inclusionary requirements are set too high. Commissioner Van Nyman said he remained “very skeptical of imposing goals that make it so that we end up with less housing, which drives supply down and keeps prices high.” Commissioner Aparna said she considered 10% too low but was open to a compromise between 15% and 10% such as 12–14% if supported by numbers; she asked for modeling that shows the unit-level impacts of any change. Commissioner Coleman noted the practical tension commissioners face between landowners, developers and the council’s policy goals and urged clearer thresholds for what developers consider acceptable.

Staff and process context: Ian Lefkort and Becky Fry reminded the commission that inclusionary zoning is one of the city’s main tools for producing deeply affordable units alongside subsidized projects and surplus Sound Transit parcels. Staff said the Growth Management Act and regional allocations require Redmond to plan for growth over 20 years and that monitoring reports are required; staff said the first comprehensive review of whether the new rules are meeting targets will come in a five-year report and that annual monitoring will also occur. Staff also noted special opportunities to produce affordable housing on surplus Sound Transit parcels, which the city and Sound Transit have previously discounted to nonprofit developers to support deeply affordable units.

Next steps and unresolved items: Commissioners did not vote to adopt any change to the inclusionary percentage at this meeting. Staff said they will compile the commission’s questions into the issues matrix and provide further analysis; commissioners asked staff to add modeling that ties percent set-aside changes to total units expected in each subarea and to document where and when monitoring reports and dockets would be published.

Ending: The commission left the issue open in the issues matrix for further analysis and signaled areas of possible compromise (for example, modest reductions from 15% to a mid-range share) but requested more granular, property- and project-level modeling before considering a formal recommendation to city council.