The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023 11 November 15 Planning Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Hall – Council Chambers November 15, 2023 – 5:00 p.m. 1.CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2.ROLL CALL 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting of October 4, 2023 4.PUBLIC COMMENT None scheduled 5.COMMISSION BUSINESS a.Multi-Family Tax Exemption- Remote presentation by Anne Fritzel, Housing Programs Manager for Growth Management Services with the Washington State Department of Commerce b.Housing Chapter Update 6.STAFF BUSINESS Manager’s Report 7.NEXT MEETING December 6, 5:00pm – Regular Meeting 8.ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission meetings are held in-person. To request accommodation to attend or to provide public comment virtually, please contact Samantha Homan at 253-835-2601 or samantha.homan@cityoffederalway.com, no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 2023. *Remote attendance options available via Zoom meeting code: 836 3261 1710 passcode 828772. Commissioners City Staff Lawson Bronson, Chair Keith Niven, Community Development Director Vickie Chynoweth, Vice Chair Samantha Homan, Office Manager Diana Noble-Gulliford www.cityoffederalway.com Tom Medhurst Tim O’Neil Anna Patrick Jae So Sanyu Tushabe, Alternate 1 of 75 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Hall – Council Chambers October 4, 2023 – 5:00 p.m. 1.CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 5:00pm 2.ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Lawson Bronson, Diana Noble-Gulliford, Anna Patrick, Tim O’Neil, Vickie Chynoweth, Sanyu Tushabe (alternate) Excused: Jae So, Tom Medhurst City Staff Present: Community Development Director Keith Niven, Planning Manager Jonathan Thole, Senior Planner Chaney Skadsen, City Attorney Kent Van Alstyne, Office Manager Samantha Homan 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Patrick motioned to approve the September 20 minutes as written Second by Commissioner Chynoweth Motion Passes 5-0 4.PUBLIC COMMENT None Scheduled 5.COMMISSION BUSINESS Chair Bronson called the public hearing to order at 5:03pm a.Public Hearing- Amendments to the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Senior Planner Chaney Skadsen presented on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Focus was on City Center Goals and Policies, future uses of TC-3, Establishing a Downtown Overlay, amending the Comprehensive Plan Map to expand City Center Core, and amending the Zoning Map to expand to City Center Core. Potential changes include removing the current language that is used now mainly the changing the word “encourage” to “require” and other passive words to make the language regarding goals less passive and move active; rezoning TC3 from CC-F to CC-C to catalyst change in this area to create a more dynamic downtown; and creating a downtown overlay. Clarifications include what area would be considered the Downtown Overlay, where the proposed TIF boundary are in regards to the overlay, the status on Merlone Geier’s walkway improvements, architectural standards for properties in the City Center but not in the overlay Public Comment provided by Sam Pace with Seattle King County Realtors commented 2 of 75 that these amendment would improve the quality of life, increase the number of attainable housing, improvements with transit oriented development in the City Center Core, and increasing revenue due to the “revenue clock” by having more housing near a transit center. b.Public Hearing- Proposed change in Comprehensive Plan designation and rezone for properties on S 320th ST Community Development Director Keith Niven presented on a property on S 320th ST and potential rezoning from RM 2400 to CE. Currently LUP 38 does not allow heavy industrial use on properties that adjoin low or moderate density residential zone. Current change is requested by South King Fire and Rescue, the current property owner. This property would better suit employment uses, rather than residential. Clarifications include the ability to build on current lots directly north of the properties, as they are zoned by King County; uses allowed in CE; easements along the property; if a traffic impact analysis will be done, and if there is a current plan/development envisions for this property. Public Comment provided by Dave Van Valkenburg from South King Fire and Rescue and explained why SKFR is interested in selling this property. The intent is to upgrade Station 62 using funds from sale and rezoning to CE the best use of the property and more appealing to sell. Public Comment provided by Evan Schneider with Heartland commented that this property would increase employment numbers with a CE rezone and listed examples for Heartlands reasoning. Commissioner O’Neil motioned the Commission recommend approval of the 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Second by Commission Chynoweth Motion Passes 5-0 Chair Bronson closed the Public hearings at 7:17pm c.Public Hearing- Proposed 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendments City Center code revisions Chair Bronson called the public hearing to order at 7:19pm Community Development Director Keith Niven presented on proposed amendments to clarify and better implement updated goals and policies, create a downtown overlay, new architectural standards, changes to note regarding spas in City Center Core and City Center Frame. Proposed amendments include new definitions of “Developable site area,” and “Floor area ratio (FAR);” creating a downtown overlay with architectural design standards and what standards would be considered appropriate for the overlay, the way structured parking is calculated, removing the possibility of an emergency shelter in the 3 of 75 downtown area, and changing the note regarding spas in the City Center Core and Frame. Current note reads “Spas and water parks are not permitted as a principal use in this zone. Hotels, health clubs, and similar uses may include assessor spas not exceeding 2,000 sq ft in size.” Clarifications include the minimum requirement for structured parking and if that would discourage visits, where the 2000 sq ft measurement came in regards to Spas, if splash parks are included in water park definition, emergency shelters and the downtown overlay vs City Center. Deliberations included why the spa code language exists and the intention of that code. Commissioner O’Neil motioned to extend tonight’s meeting past 8pm Second by Commissioner Chynoweth Motion Passes 5-0 Commissioner O’Neil motioned to recommend approval of the proposed code amendments but removing the part with the square footage of the spas, the word water park and stopping after the first sentence. Second by Commissioner Noble-Gulliford Motion Passes 5-0 Chair Bronson closed the Public Hearing at 8:09pm 6. STAFF BUSINESS Manager’s Report Community Development Director Keith Niven provided an update on one of the last Planning Commission items that went to LUTC. LUTC did not approve the language where Mayor could initiate Development Agreements regarding the Development Agreement Code Amendments Ordinance. It was also announced that Trent and TC3 are planned to go to LUTC in November. There will also be a TIF briefing on October 24, at 3pm in Council Chambers. 7. NEXT MEETING October 18, 5:00pm – Regular Meeting 8. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner O’Neil motioned to adjourn the meeting Second by Commissioner Chynoweth Motion Passes 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 8:14pm ATTEST: APPROVED BY COMMISSION: _______________________________________ _____________ SAMANTHA HOMAN, OFFICE MANAGER DATE 4 of 75 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Jim Ferrell, Mayor MEMORANDUM DATE: November 8, 2023 TO: Federal Way Planning Commission FROM: Chaney Skadsen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Housing Chapter Update _____________________________________________________________________________________ MEETING OBJECTIVES: 1. Review legislative changes to the Housing Chapter requirements. 2. Review current status of Federal Way Housing Chapter Update. 3. Provide an opportunity for Planning Commission to ask questions, make requests, and provide input on the development of the Housing chapter. BACKGROUND The City of Federal Way is required to conduct a Periodic Update of its Comprehensive Plan to be eligible for grants and loans from certain state infrastructure programs. The City of Federal Way’s Comprehensive Plan is required to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA), Multicounty Planning Policies known as PSRC’s VISION 2050, and the King County Countywide Planning Policies. Growth Management Act The Growth Management Act (GMA) was first adopted in 1990 to address ways to accommodate growth. It requires that the fastest-growing cities and counties complete comprehensive plans and development regulations to guide future growth and primarily codified under Chapter 36.70A RCW. In 2021, the Washington Legislature changed the way communities are required to plan for housing. House Bill 1220 (2021) amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) goal for housing instructing local governments to “plan for and accommodate” housing affordable to all income levels. This significantly strengthened the previous goal, which was to encourage affordable housing. The amended law also directed the Department of Commerce to project future housing needs for jurisdictions by income bracket and made significant updates to how jurisdictions are to plan for housing in the housing element of their comprehensive plans. These new changes to local housing elements include: • Planning for sufficient land capacity for housing needs, including all economic segments of the population (moderate, low, very low and extremely low income, as well as emergency housing and permanent supportive housing). • Providing for moderate density housing options within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), including but not limited to duplexes, triplexes and townhomes. • Making adequate provisions for housing for existing and projected needs for all economic segments of the community, including documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability. 5 of 75 • Identifying racially disparate impacts, displacement and exclusion in housing policies and regulations, and beginning to undo those impacts; and identifying areas at higher risk of displacement and establishing anti-displacement policies. Consistent with the changes enacted by HB 1220 to Chapter 36.70A RCW, the Department of Commerce is required to provide counties with the number of permanent housing units and emergency housing beds necessary to manage the projected growth and meet both current unmet and future housing needs over the planning period. Permanent housing projections are expressed as a total countywide housing need figure that is then divided into units for moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households. Permanent supportive housing is included as a subset of the 0 to less than or equal to 30 percent area median income projection. Countywide needs for emergency housing beds, which include both emergency shelters and emergency housing, are supplied separately by the state. See Attachment A for the GMA regulatory requirements. Countywide Planning Policy Update The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) were comprehensively reviewed and updated in 2021 to center social equity and health outcomes, integrate regional policy and legislative changes, implement the VISION 2050, and provide clear, actionable direction for comprehensive plan updates. On August 15, 2023 another set of amendments to the CPPs related to countywide and jurisdictional housing needs were approved by the King County Council (Ordinance #2023-0224). See Attachment B for the Countywide Planning Policies. Amendments to the policies in the Housing chapter can be summarized in the following: • Update language for consistency with housing needs definition consistent with the GMA clarify that meeting housing needs requires resources and involvement from other levels of government, nonprofits, and the private sector. • Establish jurisdictional housing need for moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low- income households. • Update requirements for the Housing Inventory Analysis (CPP H-3) to reflect CPP H-1 and 2021 GMA updates. • Add new policies to improve the effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies and address gaps to meet the jurisdiction’s housing needs (H-12); and eliminate racial and other disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice (H-20). • Restructure the Review, Monitor, Report, and Adjust section clarifying annual data reporting, establishing a review process and midpoint planning cycle progress assessments. See Accountability Framework section below for more information. The process for determining how the Countywide housing need would be allocated to local jurisdiction was led the Affordable Housing Committee (AHC) of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), which serves as a regional advisory body. Using the minimum standards from the Department of Commerce for allocating need, the AHC evaluated and considered three potential options and methodologies over a series of months, below is a summary of the options considered: • Option 1: Focus on New Growth: Same shares of new housing growth are affordable in every jurisdiction • Option 2: Focus on 2044: Same shares of total housing stock in 2044 are affordable in every jurisdiction 6 of 75 • Option 3: Focus on New Growth Adjusted for Local Factors: Same shares of new housing growth are affordable in every jurisdiction and adjusts outputs within each income band by certain factors Following extensive evaluation Option 3: Focus on New Growth Adjusted for Local Factors was the selected methodology for allocating jurisdictional housing need. This methodology includes taking in to consideration the following factors, percentage share of housing that is affordable, percentage share of housing that is income restricted, and the ratio of low-wage jobs to low wage workers. Table 2 below displays the Metropolitan and Core Cities in King County. The South King County Core Cities listed in Table 2 are visually displayed in Chart 1 below. Table 2: Metropolitan and Core City Housing Needs 2019-2044 Jurisdictional Net New Permanent Housing Units Needed, 2019-2044 Jurisdictiona l Net New Emergency Housing Needs 0 to ≤30% Total Non- PSH PSH >30 to ≤50% >50 to ≤80% >80 to ≤100 % >100 to ≤120% >120 % Metropolitan Cities Bellevue 35,000 11,925 6,270 8,780 2,671 703 798 3,853 6,688 Seattle 112,000 28,572 15,024 19,144 7,986 5,422 6,150 29,70 2 21,401 Core Cities Auburn 12,000 1,543 812 309 616 1,146 1,299 6,275 2,293 Bothell 5,800 2,100 1,105 819 654 147 167 808 1,108 Burien 7,500 1,444 759 524 407 574 650 3,142 1,433 Federal Way 11,260 1,799 946 842 208 981 1,112 5,372 2,152 Issaquah 3,500 1,093 575 868 460 66 75 363 669 Kent 10,200 1,872 984 788 318 820 929 4,489 1,949 Kirkland 13,200 4,842 2,546 3,052 1,022 228 259 1,251 2,522 Redmond 20,000 7,025 3,694 3,870 2,765 348 394 1,904 3,822 Renton 17,000 4,110 2,161 1,624 1,019 1,062 1,205 5,819 3,248 SeaTac 5,900 646 340 183 143 603 683 3,302 1,127 Tukwila 6,500 896 471 274 214 610 692 3,343 1,242 The purpose of Chart 1 is to visually display a comparison of the distribution of net new permanent housing units needs in the South King County Subregion and is limited to only the Core Cities including Auburn, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila. 7 of 75 Chart 1: South King County Core Cities Net New Permanent Housing Units Needed, 2019-2044 Federal Way Housing Needs The allocated share of countywide future housing needs for Federal Way is displayed in Chart 2. Federal Way Net New Permanent Housing Units Needed, 2019-2044 below. While the data in Table 1 includes a column for the following moderate-, low-, very low- and extremely low-income households as well as emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing, it is worth noting that the housing need allocation of 11,260 does not include emergency housing and shelter need. Chart 2: Federal Way Net New Permanent Housing Units Needed, 2019-2044 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #REF!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Federal Way Net New Permanent Housing Units Needed, 2019-2044 #REF! 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Auburn Burien Federal Way Kent Renton SeaTac Tukwila South King County Core Cities Housing Need, 2019-2044 Non-PSH PSH >30 to ≤50%>50 to ≤80%>80 to ≤100%>100 to ≤120%>120% 8 of 75 AHC Accountability Framework Amendments to the CPP for the Housing Chapter and Housing Technical Appendix established a three- part accountability framework for equitably meeting housing needs across King County. The framework is provided in summary below to provide insight of the new expectations of the City’s Housing Chapter in the short and medium term. • Review Plans. Before the adoption of a periodic update to a comprehensive plan, the AHC would review draft plans for alignment with the CPP Housing Chapter and comments. This would occur with every 10-year update process, starting in 2023 with the 2024 cycle. • Monitor and Report. After comprehensive plan adoption, AHC would measure jurisdictional progress to plan for and accommodate affordable housing needs in the dashboard using standardized benchmarks, a comparative standard, and housing data trends. This would occur annually, starting in 2024. • Mid-Cycle Check-in and Adjustment. Five years after comprehensive plan adoption, the GMPC would review the information collected through annual monitoring and reporting. Based on this analysis, the GMPC would identify jurisdictions with significant shortfalls in planning for and accommodating housing needs, provides findings that describe the nature of shortfalls and may make recommendations that jurisdictions act to address them. Jurisdictions with significant shortfalls in planning for and accommodating would need to then identify and implement actions to address the shortfalls. This would occur every 10 years, starting in 2029. NEXT STEPS • Continue gathering data for housing inventory analysis, finalize local history of racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and housing practices, evaluate land capacity analysis for all housing types, continues community outreach, amendments to goals/policies, and draft implementation. • Complete draft by early 2024, routing for AHC review in February ATTACHMENTS A. GMA regulatory requirements B. Countywide Planning Policies Amended 8.15.2023 C. Federal Way Housing Chapter Consistency Analysis D. Policy Evaluation 9 of 75 RCW 36.70A.070(2) Comprehensive plans—Mandatory elements. (2) A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods that: (a) Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth, as provided by the department of commerce, including: (i) Units for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households; and (ii) Emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing; (b) Includes a statement of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including single-family residences, and within an urban growth area boundary, moderate density housing options including, but not limited to, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes; (c) Identifies sufficient capacity of land for housing including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes, foster care facilities, emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, and within an urban growth area boundary, consideration of duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes; (d) Makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community, including: (i) Incorporating consideration for low, very low, extremely low, and moderate- income households; (ii) Documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability including gaps in local funding, barriers such as development regulations, and other limitations; (iii) Consideration of housing locations in relation to employment location; and (iv) Consideration of the role of accessory dwelling units in meeting housing needs; (e) Identifies local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing, including: (i) Zoning that may have a discriminatory effect; (ii) Disinvestment; and (iii) Infrastructure availability; (f) Identifies and implements policies and regulations to address and begin to undo racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing caused by local policies, plans, and actions; 10 of 75 (g) Identifies areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market forces that occur with changes to zoning development regulations and capital investments; and (h) Establishes antidisplacement policies, with consideration given to the preservation of historical and cultural communities as well as investments in low, very low, extremely low, and moderate-income housing; equitable development initiatives; inclusionary zoning; community planning requirements; tenant protections; land disposition policies; and consideration of land that may be used for affordable housing. In counties and cities subject to the review and evaluation requirements of RCW 36.70A.215, any revision to the housing element shall include consideration of prior review and evaluation reports and any reasonable measures identified. The housing element should link jurisdictional goals with overall county goals to ensure that the housing element goals are met. The adoption of ordinances, development regulations and amendments to such regulations, and other nonproject actions taken by a city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 that increase housing capacity, increase housing affordability, and mitigate displacement as required under this subsection (2) and that apply outside of critical areas are not subject to administrative or judicial appeal under chapter 43.21C RCW unless the adoption of such ordinances, development regulations and amendments to such regulations, or other nonproject actions has a probable significant adverse impact on fish habitat. 11 of 75 Amendments to 2021 Countywide Planning Policies All King County Countywide Planning Policy amendments are shown in ((strikethrough)) and underlined text. Amendments: In the Countywide Planning Policies Introduction, on page 6, amend as follows: The King County Countywide Planning Policies The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) create a shared and consistent framework for growth management planning for all jurisdictions in King County in accordance with RCW 36.70A.210, which requires the legislative authority of a county to adopt a countywide planning policy in cooperation with cities located in the county. The comprehensive plan for King County and the comprehensive plans for cities and towns in King County are developed from the framework that the CPPs establish. The 2021 Countywide Planning Policies, as amended, were designed to provide guidance in advance of the 2024 statutory update of comprehensive plans to incorporate changes to the regional policy framework and to reflect new priorities addressing equity and social justice within our communities. In the Development Patterns Chapter, starting on page 21, amend as follows: DP-12 GMPC shall allocate ((residential)) housing and employment growth to each city and urban unincorporated area in the county. This allocation is predicated on: a) Accommodating the most recent 20-year population projection from the state Office of Financial Management and the most recent 20-year regional employment forecast from the Puget Sound Regional Council, informed by the 20-year projection of housing units from the state Department of Commerce; b) Planning for a pattern of growth that is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy including focused growth within cities and Potential Annexation Areas with designated centers and within high-capacity transit station areas, limited development in the Rural Area, and protection of designated Natural Resource Lands; c) Efficiently using existing zoned and future planned development capacity as well as the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure, including sewer, water, and stormwater systems; d) Promoting a land use pattern that can be served by a connected network of public transportation services and facilities and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and amenities; e) Improving jobs/housing balance consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy, both between counties in the region and within subareas in the county; f) Promoting opportunities for housing and employment throughout the Urban Growth Area and within all jurisdictions in a manner that ensures racial and social equity; 12 of 75 g) Allocating growth to Potential Annexation Areas within the urban unincorporated area proportionate to their share of unincorporated capacity for housing and employment growth; and h) Allocating growth based on the amount of net new housing needed to plan for and accommodate an equitable distribution of housing choices across all jurisdictions that is affordable to all economic segments of the population of the county, as provided by the Department of Commerce. DP-13 The Growth Management Planning Council shall: a) Update housing and employment growth targets and housing needs periodically to provide jurisdictions with up-to-date growth allocations to be used as the land use assumption in state-mandated comprehensive plan updates; b) Adopt housing and employment growth targets and housing needs in the Countywide Planning Policies pursuant to the procedure described in policy FW-1; c) Create a coordinated countywide process to reconcile and set growth targets that implements the Regional Growth Strategy through countywide shares of regional housing and ((jobs)) job growth, countywide shares of statewide housing needs, allocations to Regional Geographies, and individual jurisdictional growth targets; d) Ensure that each jurisdiction’s growth targets and housing need are commensurate with their role in the Regional Growth Strategy by establishing a set of objective criteria and principles to guide how jurisdictional targets and housing needs are determined; e) Ensure that each jurisdiction’s growth targets allow it to meet the need for housing affordable ((housing for)) to households with (( low-, very low-, and extremely low- incomes)) moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-incomes; and f) Adjust targets and housing needs administratively upon annexation of unincorporated Potential Annexation Areas by cities. Growth targets for the planning period are shown in Table DP-1. Net new housing needs for the planning period are shown in Table H-1 and total projected housing needs are shown in Table H-2. DP- 14 All jurisdictions shall accommodate housing and employment by: a) Using the adopted growth targets as the land use assumption for their comprehensive plan; b) Establishing local growth targets for regional growth centers and regional manufacturing/industrial centers, where applicable; c) Ensuring adopted comprehensive plans and zoning regulations provide sufficient capacity at appropriate densities for residential, commercial, and industrial uses that is sufficient to meet 20-year growth targets, allocated housing needs, and is consistent with the desired growth pattern described in VISION 2050; d) Ensuring adopted local water, sewer, transportation, utility, and other infrastructure plans and investments, including special purpose district plans, are consistent in location and timing with adopted targets as well as regional and countywide plans; and 13 of 75 e) Transferring ((an)) and accommodating unincorporated area housing and employment targets and housing need as annexations occur. In the Development Patterns Chapter, on page 33, amend as follows: DP-47 Limit growth in the Rural Area to prevent sprawl and the overburdening of rural services, minimize the need for new rural infrastructure, maintain rural character, and protect open spaces and the natural environment. To limit growth pressure in the Rural Area, locate services in Cities in the Rural Area and cities that border the rural area. In the Housing Chapter, starting on page 36, amend as follows: Housing The Countywide Planning Policies in the Housing Chapter support a range of affordable, accessible, and healthy housing choices for current and future residents across King County. Further, they respond to the legacy of discriminatory housing and land use policies and practices (e.g., redlining, racially restrictive covenants, exclusionary zoning, etc.) that have led to significant racial and economic disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. These disparities affect equitable access to well-funded schools, healthy environments, open space, and employment. The policies reflect the region’s commitment to addressing the 2018 findings of the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force (Task Force). Key findings include: • Dramatic housing price increases between 2012 and 2017 resulted in an estimated 156,000 extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing (housing cost burdened); and • Black, Hispanic, Indigenous, and extremely low-income households are among those most disproportionately impacted by housing cost burden. ((While significant housing market activity is needed to reach overall King County housing growth targets, the ability of the region’s housing market to address the housing needs of low- income households is limited. A large majority of the need will need to be addressed with units restricted to income-eligible households – both rent-restricted units and resale restricted homes (“income-restricted units”).)) Building on the Task Force’s work, this chapter establishes ((a countywide need for affordable housing defined as the additional housing units needed in King County by 2044 so that no household at or below 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) is housing cost burdened. While the need is expressed in countywide terms, housing affordability varies significantly across jurisdictions. In addressing housing needs, less affordable jurisdictions will need to take significant action to increase affordability across all income levels while more affordable 14 of 75 jurisdictions will need to take significant action to preserve affordability. To succeed, all communities must address housing need where it is greatest - housing affordable to extremely low-income households.)) goals and policies to ensure all jurisdictions in King County plan for and accommodate their allocated share of ((When taken together, all the comprehensive plans of King County jurisdictions must “plan for and accommodate” the)) existing and projected housing needs of the county and comply with the Growth Management Act requirements for housing elements in (((RCW)) Revised Code of Washington 36.70A.020 and 36.70A.070(())) and the Countywide Planning Policies in this chapter. While significant new housing growth is necessary to reach overall King County housing growth targets, new housing growth will not sufficiently address the housing needs for lower-income households without additional government support for the creation of units restricted to income-eligible households—both rent-restricted units and resale restricted homes (“income- restricted units”); and the preservation of homes currently affordable at or below 80 percent of area median income. Local jurisdictions can create enabling environments and generate local revenue to support new housing development and housing preservation, but successful implementation requires resources and involvement from other levels of government, nonprofits, and the private sector. Housing unit production is one, but not the only means to measure whether a jurisdiction has planned for and accommodated housing needs. Success will primarily be defined by whether a jurisdiction has adopted and implemented policies and plans that, taken together and in light of available resources, can be reasonably expected to support and enable the production or preservation of units needed at each affordability level. Policies in this chapter do not require that jurisdictions act outside of current powers or assume full responsibility for the construction of units required to meet housing needs articulated in policy H-1. These Countywide Planning Policies also recognize that housing affordability varies significantly across jurisdictions. In addressing housing needs, less affordable jurisdictions will need to focus actions on increasing affordability for low-income households while more affordable jurisdictions will need to focus actions on preserving affordable homes at risk of price increases. All communities must address housing need where it is greatest—housing affordable to extremely low-income households. The policies below set a framework for individual and collective action and accountability to meet ((the)) countywide needs and eliminate disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. They first establish the amount of countywide housing needs a jurisdiction must plan for and accommodate in a manner that seeks to increase housing choice and begin to address disparities in housing choice throughout King County. ((These)) The policies then guide jurisdictions through a ((four))-five step process: 1. ((Conduct)) conduct a housing inventory and analysis; 15 of 75 2. ((Implement)) implement policies and strategies to meet housing needs equitably; 3. review comprehensive plans; 4. ((Measure results and provide accountability)) monitor and report; and ((4)) 5. ((Adjust)) adjust strategies to meet housing needs. Overarching Goal: Provide a full range of affordable, accessible, healthy, and safe housing choices to every resident in King County. All jurisdictions work to: • preserve, improve, and expand their housing stock; • promote fair and equitable access to housing for all people; and • take actions that eliminate race-, place-, ability-, and income-based housing disparities. H-1 ((All comprehensive plans in King County combine to address the countywide need for housing affordable to households with low-, very low-, and extremely low-incomes, including those with special needs, at a level that calibrates with the jurisdiction’s identified affordability gap for those households and results in the combined comprehensive plans in King County meeting countywide need. The countywide need for housing in 2044 by percentage of AMI is: 30 percent and below AMI (extremely low) 15 percent of total housing supply 31-50 percent of AMI (very low) 15 percent of total housing supply 51-80 percent of AMI (low) 19 percent of total housing supply Table H-1 provides additional context on the countywide need for housing.1 Table H-1: King County Affordable Housing Need 30% AMI 31% - 50% AMI 51% - 80% AMI 80% AMI Housing Units by Affordability (2019) Number of Units 44,000 122,000 180,000 346,000 As Share of Total Units 5% 13% 19% 36% Additional Affordable Housing Units Needed (2019-2044) Additional Housing Units Needed to Address Existing Conditions2 105,000 31,000 23,000 159,000 Housing Units Needed to Address Growth Through 20443 39,000 32,000 33,000 104,000 Total Additional Affordable Housing Units Needed 144,000 63,000 56,000 263,000 Total Affordable Housing Units Needed by 2044 (Includes Current Housing Units) Number of Units 188,000 185,000 236,000 609,000 As Share of Total Units 15% 15% 19% 49% Refer to Appendix 4 for the methodology used to calculate countywide need and 2019 jurisdictional affordability levels as compared to countywide need.)) Plan for and accommodate the jurisdiction’s allocated share of countywide future housing needs for moderate-, low-, very low- and extremely low-income households as well as 16 of 75 emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing. Sufficient planning and accommodations are those that comply with the Growth Management Act requirements for housing elements in Revised Code of Washington 36.70A.020 and 36.70A.070, that outline regulatory and nonregulatory measures to implement the comprehensive plan (Washington Administrative Code 365-196-650), and that comply with policies articulated in this chapter. Projected countywide and jurisdictional net new housing needed to reach projected future need for the planning period is shown in Table H-1.1 Table H-1: King County Countywide and Jurisdictional Housing Needs 2019-2044 Countywide Net New Permanent Housing Units Needed, 2019-20442 Countywide Net New Emergency Housing Needs3 Total 0 to ≤30% Non- PSH PSH >30 to ≤50% >50 to ≤80% >80 to ≤100 % >100 to ≤120% >120% Countywide Total Future Housing Needed: 2044 1,269,62 8 113,79 0 49,064 139,71 8 177,59 0 195,93 4 136,06 1 457,47 1 65,054 Countywide Baseline Housing Supply: 20194 960,951 32,213 6,168 91,505 155,21 4 181,00 9 119,13 3 375,70 9 6,071 Countywide Net New Housing Needed: 2019- 2044 308,677 81,577 42,896 48,213 22,376 14,925 16,928 81,762 58,983 Jurisdictional Net New Permanent Housing Units Needed, 2019-2044 Jurisdictional Net New Emergency Housing Needs 0 to ≤30% Total Non- PSH PSH >30 to ≤50% >50 to ≤80% >80 to ≤100 % >100 to ≤120% >120% Metropolitan Cities Bellevue 35,000 11,925 6,270 8,780 2,671 703 798 3,853 6,688 Seattle 112,000 28,572 15,024 19,14 4 7,986 5,422 6,150 29,702 21,401 Core Cities Auburn 12,000 1,543 812 309 616 1,146 1,299 6,275 2,293 Bothell 5,800 2,100 1,105 819 654 147 167 808 1,108 Burien 7,500 1,444 759 524 407 574 650 3,142 1,433 Federal Way 11,260 1,799 946 842 208 981 1,112 5,372 2,152 Issaquah 3,500 1,093 575 868 460 66 75 363 669 Kent 10,200 1,872 984 788 318 820 929 4,489 1,949 Kirkland 13,200 4,842 2,546 3,052 1,022 228 259 1,251 2,522 Redmond 20,000 7,025 3,694 3,870 2,765 348 394 1,904 3,822 Renton 17,000 4,110 2,161 1,624 1,019 1,062 1,205 5,819 3,248 SeaTac 5,900 646 340 183 143 603 683 3,302 1,127 Tukwila 6,500 896 471 274 214 610 692 3,343 1,242 17 of 75 High Capacity Transit Communities Des Moines 3,800 790 415 231 227 281 318 1,538 726 Kenmore 3,070 1,063 559 483 393 75 85 412 587 Lake Forest Park 870 313 164 143 140 14 16 80 166 Mercer Island 1,239 339 178 202 488 4 5 23 237 Newcastle 1,480 627 329 433 22 9 10 50 283 Shoreline 13,330 3,617 1,902 2,710 740 573 650 3,138 2,547 Woodinville 2,033 854 449 354 156 29 33 158 388 Jurisdictional Net New Permanent Housing Units Needed, 2019-2044 Jurisdictional Net New Emergency Housing Needs 0 to ≤30% Total Non- PSH PSH >30 to ≤50% >50 to ≤80% >80 to ≤100% >100 to ≤120% >120% Cities and Towns Algona 170 32 17 8 7 14 16 76 32 Beaux Arts5 1 1 - - - - - - - Black Diamond 2,900 745 392 203 410 151 171 828 554 Carnation 799 239 126 23 85 43 48 235 153 Clyde Hill 10 3 2 2 3 - - - 2 Covington 4,310 1,016 535 603 - 283 321 1,552 824 Duvall 890 268 141 - 266 28 32 155 170 Enumclaw 1,057 162 85 39 61 93 106 511 202 Hunts Point5 1 1 - - - - - - - Maple Valley 1,720 542 285 320 26 72 81 394 329 Medina 19 5 3 3 8 - - - 4 Milton 50 13 7 - 8 3 3 16 10 Normandy Park 153 41 21 32 17 6 6 30 29 North Bend 1,748 433 228 121 221 98 111 536 334 Pacific 135 23 12 4 6 12 13 65 26 Sammamish 2,100 950 499 419 232 - - - 401 Skykomish 10 2 1 - 1 1 1 4 2 Snoqualmie 1,500 472 248 233 82 61 69 335 287 Yarrow Point 10 4 2 3 1 - - - 2 18 of 75 Unincorporated Urban Urban Unincorporated6 5,412 1,157 608 571 292 366 415 2,003 1,034 ((1 Table H-1 includes both homeownership and rental units. 2 Estimates of additional affordable units needed to address existing cost burden and provide housing for persons experiencing homelessness. The estimates are based on a model in which adding units for households within a given low-income category (e.g., < 30% AMI) allows those households to vacate units affordable within the next income category (e.g., greater than 30% AMI and less than or equal to 50% of AMI), in turn addressing needs of cost-burdened households in that income level. (Estimates shown assume that housing units equal to 1/25th of cost burdened households in each category are added annually in each income category until cost burden is eliminated; a range of estimates is possible depending on inputs to this model.) 3 Estimates of housing units needed to address growth assume income distribution of households added through growth is the same as existing income distribution.)) 1 Refer to Table H-2 in Appendix 4 for countywide and jurisdictional future housing needed in 2044 and baseline housing supply in 2019. 2The countywide need projections are derived from the Washington State Department of Commerce and were adjusted to align with the adopted housing growth targets for the planning period to ensure jurisdictions are planning for growth that is consistent with the goals of the Development Patterns Chapter. 3 “Emergency Housing” includes emergency housing and emergency shelter and is in addition to permanent housing needs. 4 Data on baseline housing supply is estimated using 2020 Office of Financial Management data on total housing units, and 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy and 2020 Public Use Microdata Sample data on the distribution of units at different income levels. These data sources are used to align with Department of Commerce countywide need baseline data, even though the King County growth target setting process began in 2019. 5 Beaux Arts Village and Hunts Point both have growth targets of one unit, meaning their total need allocated is also one unit. The allocation process divides that unit up into multiple area median income bands, but to get need allocations that are whole numbers, we round all allocations in each area median income band and the emergency housing/shelter category. 6 This includes all Potential Annexation Areas within the High Capacity Transit Communities and Urban Unincorporated King County regional geographies. In the Housing Chapter, on page 38, amend as follows: H-2 Prioritize the need for housing affordable to households ((at or below)) less than or equal to 30 percent ((AMI)) area median income (extremely low-income) by implementing tools such as: a) Increasing capital, operations, and maintenance funding; b) Adopting complementary land use regulations; c) Fostering welcoming communities, including people with behavioral health needs; d) Adopting supportive policies; and e) Supporting collaborative actions by all jurisdictions. 19 of 75 ((H-3 Update existing and projected countywide and jurisdictional housing needs using data and methodology provided by the Washington State Department of Commerce, in compliance with state law.)) In the Housing Chapter, starting on page 39, amend as follows. Renumber policies H-6-H-9 as H- 5-H-8, respectively: H-((4))3 Conduct an inventory and analysis in each jurisdiction of existing and projected housing needs of all segments of the population and summarize the findings in the housing element. The inventory and analysis shall include: a) ((Affordability gap of the jurisdiction’s housing supply as compared to countywide need percentages from Policy H-1 (see table H-3 in Appendix 4) and needs for housing affordable to moderate income households)) The number of existing and projected housing units necessary to plan for and accommodate projected growth and meet the projected housing needs articulated in Tables H-1 and H-2, including: 1) permanent housing needs, which includes units for moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households and permanent supportive housing, 2) emergency housing needs, which includes emergency housing and emergency shelters; b) Number of existing housing units by housing type, age, number of bedrooms, condition, tenure, and ((AMI)) area median income limit (for income-restricted units); c) Number of existing emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing facilities and units or beds, as applicable; d) Percentage and geographic distribution of residential land zoned for ((and geographic distribution of)) moderate- and high-density housing and accessory dwelling units in the jurisdiction; e) Number of income-restricted units and, where feasible, total number of units, within a half-mile walkshed of high-capacity or frequent transit service where applicable and regional and countywide centers; f) Household characteristics, by race/ethnicity: 1) ((Income)) income (median and by ((AMI)) area median income bracket), 2) ((Tenure)) tenure (renter or homeowner), 3) (( Size 4) Housing)) housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden; g) Current population characteristics: 1) ((Age)) age by race/ethnicity, 2) ((Disability)) disability; h) Projected population growth; i) Housing development capacity within a half-mile walkshed of high-capacity or frequent transit service, if applicable; j) Ratio of housing to jobs in the jurisdiction; 20 of 75 k) Summary of existing and proposed partnerships and strategies, including dedicated resources, for meeting ((countywide)) housing needs, particularly for populations disparately impacted; l) The housing needs of people who need supportive services or accessible units, including but not limited to people experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, people with medical conditions, and older adults; m) The housing needs of communities experiencing disproportionate harm of housing inequities including Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (((BIPOC))); and n) Areas in the jurisdiction that may be at higher risk of displacement from market forces that occur with changes to zoning development regulations and public capital investments. H-((5))4 Evaluate the effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies to meet ((a significant share of countywide need)) the jurisdiction’s housing needs. Identify gaps in existing partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources for meeting ((the countywide)) housing needs and eliminating racial and other disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. In the Housing Chapter, on page 42, amend as follows: H-((10))9 Adopt intentional, targeted actions that repair harms to Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color households from past and current racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and housing practices (generally identified through Policy H-((6))5). Promote equitable outcomes in partnership with communities most impacted. In the Housing Chapter, on page 42, amend as follows. Renumber policies H-11 and H-12 as H- 10 and H-11, respectively: Increased Housing Supply, Particularly for Households with the Greatest Needs VISION 2050 encourages local cities to adopt best practices and innovative techniques to meet housing needs. Meeting ((the countywide affordable)) housing needs will require actions, including commitment of substantial financial resources, by a wide range of private for profit, non-profit, and government entities. Multiple tools will be needed to meet the full range of needs in any given jurisdiction. H-12 Adopt and implement policies that improve the effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies and address gaps in partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources to meet the jurisdiction’s housing needs. In the Housing Chapter, on page 42, amend as follows: H-14 Prioritize the use of local and regional resources (e.g., funding, surplus property) for income-restricted housing, particularly for extremely low-income households, populations with special needs, and others with disproportionately greater housing needs. Consider projects that 21 of 75 promote access to opportunity, anti-displacement, and wealth building for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities to support implementation of policy H-((10))9. In the Housing Chapter, on page 44, amend as follows. Renumber policies H-20 and H-21 as H- 21 and H-22, respectively: H-19 Lower barriers to and promote access to affordable homeownership for extremely low-, very low-, and low--income, households. Emphasize: a) Supporting long-term affordable homeownership opportunities for households ((at or below)) less than or equal to 80 percent ((AMI)) area median income (which may require up-front initial public subsidy and policies that support diverse housing types); and b) Remedying historical inequities in and expanding access to homeownership opportunities for Black, Indigenous and People of Color communities. H-20 Adopt and implement policies that address gaps in partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources to eliminate racial and other disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. In the Housing Chapter, starting on page 45, amend as follows. Renumber policies H-23 and H- 24 as H-24 and H-25, respectively: H-((22))23 Adopt and implement policies that protect housing stability for renter households; expand protections and supports for moderate-, low-, very low- and extremely low-income renters and renters with disabilities. ((Measure Results and Provide Accountability)) Review, Monitor, Report, and Adjust The following policies guide a housing comprehensive planning review, monitoring, reporting and adjustment process conducted by the Affordable Housing Committee, Growth Management Planning Council, and King County. This process ensures plans are coordinated and consistent with countywide housing goals and policies, increases the likelihood of housing- related plan implementation to ensure needs are met, and provides jurisdictions with a periodic opportunity for adjustments and continual improvement in between comprehensive plan periodic updates. Review Comprehensive Plans H-26 The Growth Management Planning Council or its designee will conduct a housing-focused review of all King County jurisdiction’s draft periodic comprehensive plan updates for alignment with the Housing Chapter goals and policies prior to plan adoption and provide comments. The purpose of plan review is to: 22 of 75 a) offer early guidance and assistance to jurisdictions on comprehensive plan alignment with the CPP Housing Chapter; b) ensure plans address all Housing Chapter goals and policies and include required analyses; c) evaluate the meaningfulness of plan responses to policies in this chapter, where meaningful responses can be reasonably expected to achieve a material, positive change in the jurisdiction’s ability to meet housing needs; and d) collect data on jurisdictional implementation details to inform future monitoring and evaluation during the remainder of the planning period. Monitor and Report Each jurisdiction has a responsibility to ((address)) plan for and accommodate its share of the countywide housing need. The ((county)) County and cities will collect and report housing data at least annually to help evaluate progress in ((planning for meeting this shared responsibility)) achieving the goals and advancing the policies of this chapter. The ((county)) County will help coordinate a ((transparent)) necessary data collection and ((sharing)) reporting process with cities. Further detail on monitoring and reporting procedures is contained in Appendix 4. H-((25))27 Monitor progress toward meeting countywide and jurisdictional housing ((growth targets, countywide)) needs and eliminating disparities in access to housing and neighborhood choices. Where feasible, use existing regional and jurisdictional reports and monitoring tools and collaborate to reduce duplicative reporting. a) Jurisdictions, including the ((county)) County for unincorporated areas, will report annually to the ((county)) County ((using guidance developed by the County on housing AMI levels)): 1) In the first reporting year, total income-restricted units, total units, by tenure, ((AMI)) area median income limit, address, and term of rent and income restrictions, for which the ((city)) jurisdiction is a party to affordable housing covenants on the property title created during the reporting period. In future years, report new units created and units with affordability terms that expired during the reporting period((.)); 2) Description and magnitude of land use or regulatory changes to increase zoned residential capacity including, but not limited to, single-family, moderate- density, and high-density((.)); 3) New strategies (e.g., land use code changes, dedicated fund sources, conveyance of surplus property) implemented during the reporting period to advance the policies of this chapter. This includes strategies to increase housing diversity, ((or)) strategies to increase the supply of income-restricted units in the jurisdiction and implementation details identified in the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan; and 23 of 75 4) The value of jurisdictional contributions to subregional collaborations to support preservation or creation of income-restricted housing within the subregion made during the reporting period. Contributions may include, but are not limited to, cash loans and grants, land, and fee waivers. b) The ((county)) County will, where feasible, consolidate housing data across jurisdictions ((to provide clarity and assist jurisdictions with housing data inventory)) and ((will)) report annually on: 1) Countywide housing inventory of: i. Total housing units, by affordability to ((AMI)) area median income bands; ii. Total income-restricted units, by ((AMI)) area median income limit; iii. Number of units lost to demolition, redevelopment, or conversion to non-residential use during the reporting period; iv. Of total housing units, net new housing units created during the reporting period and what type of housing was constructed, broken down by at least single-family, moderate-density housing types, and high- density housing types;((and)) v. Total income-restricted units by tenure, ((AMI)) area median income limit, location, created during the reporting period, starting in 2021((.)); vi. Total net new income-restricted units and the term of rent and income restrictions created during the reporting period, starting in December 2022; vii. Share of households by housing tenure by jurisdiction; and viii. Zoned residential capacity percentages broken down by housing type/number of units allowed per lot; 2) The ((county’s)) County’s new strategies (e.g., dedicated fund sources, conveyance of surplus property) implemented during the reporting period to increase the supply of restricted units in the county, including geographic allocation of resources; 3) The ((county’s)) County’s new strategies implemented during the reporting period to reduce disparate housing outcomes and expand housing and neighborhood choice for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color households and other population groups identified through policy H-((6))5((.)); 4) Number of income-restricted units within a half mile walkshed of a high-capacity or frequent transit stations in the county; 5) Share of households with housing cost burden, by income band, race, and ethnicity; 6) Tenant protection policies adopted by jurisdictions in King County; and 7) Number of individuals and households experiencing homelessness, by race and ethnicity. c) Where feasible ((, jurisdictions will also collaborate to report)): 24 of 75 1) Jurisdictions will collaborate to report ((Net)) net new units accessible to persons with disabilities; and 2) King County will collaborate with the King County Regional Homelessness Authority and public funders to report total net new permanent supportive housing, emergency housing, and emergency shelters units/beds. H-((26))28 The ((county)) County will ((provide guidance to jurisdictions on goals for housing AMI levels annually)) provide necessary, ((transparent)) ongoing information ((measuring)) on jurisdictions’ progress toward ((meeting countywide affordable housing need, according to H- 25,)) planning for and accommodating their housing needs using public-facing tools such as the King County’s Affordable Housing Dashboard. The Affordable Housing Committee will establish standardized benchmarks, housing data trends, and comparative standards to aid in assessing local progress relative to countywide trends and other jurisdictions. Measurement will include at a minimum, the meaningful actions taken by a jurisdiction to implement their comprehensive plan housing element, housing unit production within jurisdictions, as well as credit jurisdictions for direct funding and other contributions to support the preservation or creation of income-restricted units through subregional collaborations. H-((27))29 ((Review and amend countywide and local housing strategies and actions when monitoring in Policy H-25 and H-26 indicates that adopted strategies are not resulting in adequate affordable housing to meet the countywide need. Consider amendments to land use policies and the land use map where they present a significant barrier to the equitable distribution of affordable housing.)) Five years after adoption of a periodic update to a comprehensive plan, the Growth Management Planning Council or its designee will review monitoring and reporting data collected through annual reporting and other local data and analysis. The Growth Management Planning Council will identify significant shortfalls in planning for and accommodating housing needs, provide findings that describe the nature of the shortfalls, and make recommendations that jurisdictions take action to address shortfalls. Jurisdictions with significant shortfalls shall identify and implement actions to address the shortfalls, such as amending the comprehensive plan, land use regulations, or other legislative or administrative actions. Implementation of this policy shall be coordinated with the requirement in Revised Code of Washington 36.70A.130(9)(c) to produce and take actions pursuant to a five-year implementation progress report. In the Economy Chapter, on page 50, amend as follows: The Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands are important for their contribution to the regional food network, mining, timber, and craft industries, while ((Cities in the Rural Area)) cities are important for providing access to services ((to)) and being the economic centers for the surrounding Rural Area. 25 of 75 In Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix, starting on page 69, amend as follows: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix Policy H-1: ((Countywide)) Housing Needs Each jurisdiction, as part of its ((Comprehensive)) comprehensive ((Plan)) plan housing analysis, will need to ((address affordability and the condition of existing housing supply as well as its responsibility to)) plan for and accommodate its share of countywide housing needs ((for affordable housing)) as defined in policy H-1 and articulated in Tables H-1 and H-2. In order for each jurisdiction to address its share of the countywide housing needs for ((extremely low-,very low-, and low-)) moderate-, low-, very- low-, and extremely- low-income housing, as well as permanent supportive housing and emergency housing, a ((four-step)) five-step approach should be followed: 1. ((Conduct)) conduct a housing inventory and analysis; 2. ((Implement)) implement policies and strategies to ((equitably)) meet housing needs equitably; 3. review comprehensive plans; 4. ((Measure results and provide accountability)) monitor and report; and ((4)) 5. ((Adjust)) adjust strategies to meet housing needs. ((Countywide need, also called the countywide affordable housing need, is the number of additional, affordable homes needed by 2044 so that no household at or below 80 percent AMI spends more than 30 percent of their income on housing. The countywide need for housing is estimated at 263,000 affordable homes affordable at or below 80 percent AMI that need to be built or preserved by 2044 as shown in Table H-1. The countywide need estimate includes both homeownership and rental units and accounts for people experiencing homelessness. The estimates are based on a model in which adding units for households within a given low-income category (e.g., < 30 percent AMI) allows those households to vacate units affordable within the next highest income category (e.g., greater than 30 percent AMI and less than or equal to 50 percent of AMI) each year, in turn addressing needs of cost-burdened households in that income level. The estimates in Table H-1 assume that housing units equal to 1/25th of the cost burdened households in each category in 2019 are added annually in each income category until cost burden is eliminated, which occurs in different years for different income categories due to the vacating unit process described earlier. The estimates of housing units needed to address growth also assume income distribution of households added through growth is the same as existing income distribution. Estimating Local Housing Need While the CPPs do not prescribe a jurisdictional share of countywide affordable housing need, per RCW 36.70A.070 jurisdictions must include in the housing element of their comprehensive plan: 26 of 75 an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth, as provided by the department of commerce, including: (i) Units for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households; Countywide housing need, housing affordability, and income-restricted housing unit data provided in Tables H-1 and H-2 and through the King County Regional Affordable Housing Dashboard can assist jurisdictions in estimating their local affordable housing needs. Sample calculations using a simplified methodology and potential policy responses for three jurisdictions of varying size and affordability are provided below. As a reminder, Policy H-1 and Table H-1 provides that the countywide need for housing in 2044 by percentage of AMI is: 30 percent and below AMI (extremely low) 15 percent of total housing supply 31-50 percent of AMI (very low) 15 percent of total housing supply 51-80 percent of AMI (low) 19 percent of total housing supply The sample jurisdictional calculations use fictional data from Table H-3. Table H-2: Fictional Jurisdictional Data Jurisdiction Current Housing Units (HU) (2013-2017) 0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI Over 80% AMI All Incomes # of HU % of Total HU # of HU % of Total HU # of HU % of Total HU # of HU % of Total HU Total HU Jurisdiction A 2,000 3% 3,000 4% 7,000 10% 58,000 83% 70,000 Jurisdiction B 2,500 4% 20,000 33% 18,000 30% 20,000 33% 60,500 Jurisdiction C 300 3% 600 6% 1,600 17% 7,000 74% 9,500 Source: 2013 - 2017 CHAS Jurisdiction Income-Restricted Housing Units (HU) (2019) 0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI # of HU % of Total HU # of HU % of Total HU # of HU % of Total HU Jurisdiction A 300 0.4% 500 0.7% 2,100 3.0% Jurisdiction B 300 0.5% 1,200 2.0% 1,800 3.0% Jurisdiction C 0 0.0% 70 0.7% 80 0.8% Source: King County Income-restricted Housing Database Jurisdiction Future Affordable Housing Need (2044 total units * Countywide Housing Need) 0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI Current Housing Units 2044 Housing Growth Target Total Housing Units in 2044 # of HU % of Total HU # of HU % of Total HU # of HU % of Total HU Jurisdiction A 15,750 15% 15,750 15% 19,950 19% 70,000 35,000 105,000 Jurisdiction B 10,875 15% 10,875 15% 13,775 19% 60,500 12,000 72,500 27 of 75 Jurisdiction C 1,710 15% 1,710 15% 2,166 19% 9,500 1900 11,400 Note: This applies the countywide need for affordable housing to each jurisdiction’s projected total housing units in 2044 Jurisdiction Difference from Current Housing Units to 2044 Need 0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI # of HU # of HU # of HU Jurisdiction A 13,750 12,750 12,950 Jurisdiction B 8,375 -9,125 -4,225 Jurisdiction C 1,410 1,110 566 Note: This table shows the gap or overage between the 2044 Housing Unit Need and Current Housing Units Jurisdiction Difference from Current Income-Restricted Housing Units to 2044 Need 0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI # of HU # of HU # of HU Jurisdiction A 15,450 15,250 17,850 Jurisdiction B 10,575 9,675 11,975 Jurisdiction C 1,710 1,640 2,086 Note: This shows the gap or overage between the 2044 Housing Unit Need and Current Income- Restricted Housing Units Jurisdiction A: Large, generally unaffordable Analysis: Jurisdiction A is a larger jurisdiction with a relatively limited supply of housing affordable to households at or below 80 percent AMI (3 percent, 4 percent, and 10 percent of housing units for 0-30 percent, 31-50 percent, and 51-80 percent AMI respectively). Based on its housing growth target, to meet a proportional share of countywide housing need by 2044, the jurisdiction will need 15,750 units affordable to 0-30 percent AMI, 15,750 units affordable to 31-50 percent AMI and 19,950 units affordable to 51-80 percent AMI. This is a sizeable need compared to current levels of affordability. Potential Policy Response: Given the low levels of currently affordable and income-restricted housing in the community, the jurisdiction will need to employ a diversity of tools – from public subsidy to policy tools like increasing the amount of land zoned for multifamily housing to meet affordability needs. For example, currently, only 3 percent, or 2,000 units, in the jurisdiction are affordable to households at or below 30 percent AMI. Of these units, only 300 are income- restricted. This means the jurisdiction will need to focus significant attention on creating new deeply affordable units as well as preserving any currently affordable units that are not income- restricted. Given the scale of the affordability gap, however, the jurisdiction’s primary focus should be on income-restricted housing production strategies. This could also include 28 of 75 purchasing currently unaffordable housing units and holding rents relatively steady until they are affordable, a strategy recently employed by the King County Housing Authority. As the impact of overall housing supply increases on prices are uncertain, the jurisdiction should monitor affordability levels as overall supply of unrestricted housing units increases. Jurisdiction B: Medium, currently affordable to all but the lowest incomes Analysis: Jurisdiction B is a medium-sized jurisdiction with a large supply of housing affordable to households at 31-80 percent of AMI. If that housing was preserved at current affordability levels, it would more than provide a proportional share of housing to meet countywide affordable housing need. However, the jurisdiction lacks housing affordable to households at the lowest income level (0-30 percent AMI) and only a small portion of its housing is income- restricted, leaving prices vulnerable to market forces and residents vulnerable to displacement. Potential Policy Response: Given the current levels of affordability in the community, Jurisdiction B should focus on rehabilitation and preservation of both income-restricted housing at or below 80 percent AMI and unrestricted housing affordable at all income levels, and production of housing affordable to households at or below 30 percent AMI. Preservation may entail supporting affordable housing providers in the purchase of housing units that are currently affordable to households at or below 80 percent AMI, as well as investing in programs that improve the quality and safety of existing housing stock. Jurisdiction C: Small, moderately affordable, low growth target, limited transit, large lot sizes Analysis: Jurisdiction C is a smaller jurisdiction with some existing housing affordable to households at or below 80 percent AMI, but very little income-restricted housing. Compared to jurisdictions A and B, it has a low growth target, meaning that its future need for affordable housing is much larger than its projected growth. In addition, the jurisdiction lacks significant plans for transit investment and most of the current housing is on very large-sized lots, as prescribed by current zoning. Potential Policy Response: Jurisdiction C will need to explore preservation and production tools appropriate to its context to increase its supply of affordable housing, particularly income- restricted housing. Likely, it will need to use land use policies to increase the diversity of housing types in the jurisdiction, as well as use public resources to support affordable housing production. The jurisdiction may also wish to engage with neighboring jurisdictions with better transit and employment access to determine if it makes sense to contribute to affordable housing production elsewhere in its sub-region in order to support job and service access for residents of affordable housing. However, this approach should be balanced with attention to providing equitable access to high opportunity areas, such as areas with quality schools and open space, to low-income residents and residents of color.)) 29 of 75 Calculating Total Countywide Permanent and Emergency Housing Needs Consistent with the Revised Code of Washington 36.70A.100 and 36.70A.115, King County identifies a 20-year population growth target that is within the range of projections prepared by the Washington State Office of Financial Management. In the past, the County has taken this projection and used its own framework to calculate growth targets for housing units and jobs over the planning period. A decision-making process between King County and King County cities then distributed housing units and jobs between different jurisdictions, to be used in developing local comprehensive plans. Updates to the Growth Management Act in 2021 changed this process, such that the Washington State Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) now supplies counties with the number of permanent housing units and emergency housing beds necessary to manage the projected growth and meet both current unmet and future housing needs over the planning period. Permanent housing projections are expressed as a total countywide housing need figure that is then divided into units for moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households. Permanent supportive housing is included as a subset of the 0 to less than or equal to 30 percent area median income projection. Countywide needs for emergency housing beds, which include both emergency shelters and emergency housing, are supplied separately by the state. Refer to the Growth Management Act and Department of Commerce guidance for permanent supportive housing and emergency housing definitions. After receiving housing need numbers from the State, counties are responsible for selecting a growth projection within the Commerce-provided range to determine their net new countywide housing needs. Counties then select a method for allocating permanent net new countywide housing needs between jurisdictions. To arrive at countywide net new permanent housing needs for by income level and permanent supportive housing, King County selected the net new units needed from Commerce’s medium projections and scaled the net new units needed proportionately to equal King County’s housing growth target to build on and maintain consistency with the population projection and assumptions about regional growth. To arrive at a countywide net new emergency housing need, King County selected the net new emergency housing needs from the same medium population projection series provided by Commerce and scaled it at the same proportional rate as permanent housing needs. For more information about how Commerce calculated total countywide housing needs, including baseline housing supply, net new units needed, and future housing need expressed by income level, permanent supportive housing, and emergency housing needs, please refer to methodological documentation on the Department’s website. 30 of 75 County Method for Allocating Permanent Housing and Emergency Housing Needs This section describes how countywide housing need was allocated to jurisdictions. Permanent net new countywide housing needs were allocated to jurisdictions using a multistep method, which allocated larger percentages of housing need to the 0 to less than or equal to 80 percent area median income levels based on local factors. Each jurisdiction was initially allocated the same proportion of their housing growth to the 0 to less than or equal to 80 percent area median income bands. Then, local factor weights were applied, which accounted for current affordability of the jurisdiction’s housing stock, the amount of the jurisdiction’s housing stock at or below 80 percent area median income that is income-restricted, and the ratio of low-wage workers that work in the subregion compared to low wage workers that live there. These factors either increased or decreased the proportion of a jurisdiction’s housing need that was allocated at 0 to less than or equal to 80 percent area median income, with jurisdictions that scored poorly on these factors having more housing need allocated at 0 to less than or equal to 80 percent area median income. Units were then allocated within each area median income band based on current units already in each area median income band as compared to countywide averages. Net new permanent supportive housing need is part of the 0 to less than or equal to 30 percent area median income level and was allocated consistent with the income level method described. Net new countywide emergency housing need was allocated to jurisdictions based on their percent share of planned countywide housing growth. For additional information about the allocation methods, refer to the King County Affordable Housing Committee website. Both final countywide housing need and allocated jurisdictional housing needs can be found in Tables H-1 and H-2. Table H-1 focuses on net new permanent and emergency housing units/beds needed. Table H-2 provides a complete picture of housing needs by jurisdictions, with information on current baseline housing supply and future housing need at the end of this planning period. 31 of 75 Table H-2: King County Countywide and Jurisdictional Housing Needs 2019-2044 Countywide Permanent Housing Needs7 Countywide Emergency Housing Needs8 0 to ≤30% >30 to ≤50% >50 to ≤80% >80 to ≤100% >100 to ≤120% Total Non- PSH PSH >120% Countywide Total Future Housing Needed: 2044 1,269,628 113,790 49,064 139,718 177,590 195,934 136,061 457,471 65,054 Countywide Baseline Housing Supply: 20199 960,951 32,213 6,168 91,505 155,214 181,009 119,133 375,709 6,071 Countywide Net New Housing Needed: 2019-2044 308,677 81,577 42,896 48,213 22,376 14,925 16,928 81,762 58,983 Jurisdictional Permanent Housing Needs Jurisdictional Emergency Housing Needs 0 to ≤30% >30 to ≤50% >50 to ≤80% >80 to ≤100% >100 to ≤120% Total Non- PSH PSH >120% Metropolitan Cities Bellevue Total Future Need: 2044 99,687 13,680 6,392 11,121 8,213 13,622 9,186 37,473 6,888 Baseline Supply: 2019 64,687 1,755 122 2,341 5,542 12,919 8,388 33,620 200 Net New Need: 2019-2044 35,000 11,925 6,270 8,780 2,671 703 798 3,853 6,688 Seattle Total Future Need: 2044 480,307 42,041 20,255 45,691 62,050 76,752 50,327 183,191 25,734 Baseline Supply: 2019 368,307 13,469 5231 26,547 54,064 71,330 44,177 153,489 4333 Net New Need: 2019-2044 112,000 28,572 15,024 19,144 7,986 5,422 6,150 29,702 21,401 Core Cities Auburn Total Future Need: 2044 40,049 2,619 1,049 8,338 8,691 5,573 4,601 9,178 2,351 Baseline Supply: 2019 28,049 1,076 237 8,029 8,075 4,427 3,302 2,903 58 Net New Need: 2019-2044 12,000 1,543 812 309 616 1,146 1,299 6,275 2,293 Bothell Total Future Need: 2044 18,482 2,487 1,105 2,077 2,401 2,679 2,026 5,707 1,119 Baseline Supply: 2019 12,682 387 - 1,258 1,747 2,532 1,859 4,899 11 Net New Need: 2019-2044 5,800 2,100 1,105 819 654 147 167 808 1,108 Burien Total Future Need: 2044 28,285 2,434 759 4,457 5,849 4,346 3,354 7,086 1,683 Baseline Supply: 2019 20,785 990 - 3,933 5,442 3,772 2,704 3,944 250 Net New Need: 2019-2044 7,500 1,444 759 524 407 574 650 3,142 1,433 Federal Way Total Future Need: 2044 48,937 3,424 1,024 7,754 13,283 8,190 4,528 10,734 2,259 Baseline Supply: 2019 37,677 1,625 78 6,912 13,075 7,209 3,416 5,362 107 Net New Need: 2019-2044 11,260 1,799 946 842 208 981 1,112 5,372 2,152 32 of 75 Jurisdictional Permanent Housing Needs Jurisdictional Emergency Housing Needs 0 to ≤30% Total Non- PSH PSH >30 to ≤50% >50 to ≤80% >80 to ≤100% >100 to ≤120% >120% Core Cities Issaquah Total Future Need: 2044 20,803 1,829 575 1,604 1,955 3,534 2,120 >120% 673 Baseline Supply: 2019 17,303 736 - 736 1,495 3,468 2,045 8,823 4 Net New Need: 2019-2044 3,500 1,093 575 868 460 66 75 363 669 Kent Total Future Need: 2044 59,357 3,953 984 9,770 15,367 11,275 8,142 9,866 2,118 Baseline Supply: 2019 49,157 2,081 - 8,982 15,049 10,455 7,213 5,377 169 Net New Need: 2019-2044 10,200 1,872 984 788 318 820 929 4,489 1,949 Kirkland Total Future Need: 2044 53,218 5,882 2,558 4,836 4,756 8,369 5,472 21,345 2,671 Baseline Supply: 2019 40,018 1,040 12 1,784 3,734 8,141 5,213 20,094 149 Net New Need: 2019-2044 13,200 4,842 2,546 3,052 1,022 228 259 1,251 2,522 Redmond Total Future Need: 2044 51,739 7,778 3,752 5,274 4,949 9,618 5,233 15,135 4,023 Baseline Supply: 2019 31,739 753 58 1,404 2,184 9,270 4,839 13,231 201 Net New Need: 2019-2044 20,000 7,025 3,694 3,870 2,765 348 394 1,904 3,822 Renton Total Future Need: 2044 60,362 5,520 2,393 7,830 10,278 11,925 8,193 14,223 3,362 Baseline Supply: 2019 43,362 1,410 232 6,206 9,259 10,863 6,988 8,404 114 Net New Need: 2019-2044 17,000 4,110 2,161 1,624 1,019 1,062 1,205 5,819 3,248 SeaTac Total Future Need: 2044 17,674 960 352 3,217 4,184 2,886 1,558 4,517 1,127 Baseline Supply: 2019 11,774 314 12 3,034 4,041 2,283 875 1,215 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 5,900 646 340 183 143 603 683 3,302 1,127 Tukwila Total Future Need: 2044 15,243 1,148 559 2,548 3,275 2,210 1,317 4,186 1,242 Baseline Supply: 2019 8,743 252 88 2,274 3,061 1,600 625 843 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 6,500 896 471 274 214 610 692 3,343 1,242 High Capacity Transit Des Moines Total Future Need: 2044 17,022 1,246 415 2,857 3,537 2,933 1,948 4,086 726 Baseline Supply: 2019 13,222 456 - 2,626 3,310 2,652 1,630 2,548 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 3,800 790 415 231 227 281 318 1,538 726 Kenmore Total Future Need: 2044 12,659 1,422 559 1,318 1,576 1,352 1,602 4,830 620 Baseline Supply: 2019 9,589 359 - 835 1,183 1,277 1,517 4,418 33 Net New Need: 2019-2044 3,070 1,063 559 483 393 75 85 412 587 33 of 75 Jurisdictional Permanent Housing Needs Jurisdictional Emergency Housing Needs 0 to ≤30% Total Non- PSH PSH >30 to ≤50% >50 to ≤80% >80 to ≤100% >100 to ≤120% >120% High Capacity Transit Lake Forest Park Total Future Need: 2044 6,434 441 173 428 515 712 1,056 3,109 166 Baseline Supply: 2019 5,564 128 9 285 375 698 1,040 3,029 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 870 313 164 143 140 14 16 80 166 Mercer Island Total Future Need: 2044 11,808 613 178 487 674 1,510 1,239 7,107 237 Baseline Supply: 2019 10,569 274 - 285 186 1,506 1,234 7,084 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 1,239 339 178 202 488 4 5 23 237 Newcastle Total Future Need: 2044 6,952 703 329 566 399 614 514 3,827 283 Baseline Supply: 2019 5,472 76 - 133 377 605 504 3,777 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 1,480 627 329 433 22 9 10 50 283 Shoreline Total Future Need: 2044 37,372 4,776 1,991 4,234 4,499 5,059 4,109 12,704 2,620 Baseline Supply: 2019 24,042 1,159 89 1,524 3,759 4,486 3,459 9,566 73 Net New Need: 2019-2044 13,330 3,617 1,902 2,710 740 573 650 3,138 2,547 Woodinville Total Future Need: 2044 7,928 921 449 640 625 1,360 902 3,031 388 Baseline Supply: 2019 5,895 67 - 286 469 1,331 869 2,873 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 2,033 854 449 354 156 29 33 158 388 Cities & Towns Algona Total Future Need: 2044 1,219 55 17 318 407 196 88 138 32 Baseline Supply: 2019 1,049 23 - 310 400 182 72 62 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 170 32 17 8 7 14 16 76 32 Beaux Arts10 Total Future Need: 2044 120 1 - 4 9 2 10 94 - Baseline Supply: 2019 119 - - 4 9 2 10 94 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 1 1 - - - - - - - Black Diamond Total Future Need: 2044 4,742 826 392 445 641 512 498 1,428 554 Baseline Supply: 2019 1,842 81 - 242 231 361 327 600 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 2,900 745 392 203 410 151 171 828 554 Carnation Total Future Need: 2044 1,614 244 126 164 215 130 111 624 153 Baseline Supply: 2019 815 5 - 141 130 87 63 389 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 799 239 126 23 85 43 48 235 153 34 of 75 Jurisdictional Permanent Housing Needs Jurisdictional Emergency Housing Needs 0 to ≤30% Total Non- PSH PSH >30 to ≤50% >50 to ≤80% >80 to ≤100% >100 to ≤120% >120% Cities & Towns Clyde Hill Total Future Need: 2044 1,106 27 2 30 26 52 104 865 2 Baseline Supply: 2019 1,096 24 - 28 23 52 104 865 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 10 3 2 2 3 - - - 2 Covington Total Future Need: 2044 11,460 1,087 535 1,165 1,821 1,875 1,457 3,520 824 Baseline Supply: 2019 7,150 71 - 562 1,821 1,592 1,136 1,968 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 4,310 1,016 535 603 - 283 321 1,552 824 Duvall Total Future Need: 2044 3,668 316 141 221 341 323 321 2,005 195 Baseline Supply: 2019 2,778 48 - 221 75 295 289 1,850 25 Net New Need: 2019-2044 890 268 141 - 266 28 32 155 170 Enumclaw Total Future Need: 2044 6,422 436 85 1,520 1,665 1,141 461 1,114 202 Baseline Supply: 2019 5,365 274 - 1,481 1,604 1,048 355 603 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 1,057 162 85 39 61 93 106 511 202 Hunts Point10 Total Future Need: 2044 186 1 - 15 5 3 15 147 - Baseline Supply: 2019 185 - - 15 5 3 15 147 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 1 1 - - - - - - - Maple Valley Total Future Need: 2044 11,155 706 285 752 1,070 2,372 2,065 3,905 329 Baseline Supply: 2019 9,435 164 - 432 1,044 2,300 1,984 3,511 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 1,720 542 285 320 26 72 81 394 329 Medina Total Future Need: 2044 1,151 34 3 32 26 45 107 904 4 Baseline Supply: 2019 1,132 29 - 29 18 45 107 904 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 19 5 3 3 8 - - - 4 Milton Total Future Need: 2044 737 20 7 211 119 224 74 82 10 Baseline Supply: 2019 687 7 - 211 111 221 71 66 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 50 13 7 - 8 3 3 16 10 Normandy Park Total Future Need: 2044 2,960 170 21 166 285 230 826 1,262 29 Baseline Supply: 2019 2,807 129 - 134 268 224 820 1,232 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 153 41 21 32 17 6 6 30 29 35 of 75 Jurisdictional Permanent Housing Needs Jurisdictional Emergency Housing Needs 0 to ≤30% Total Non- PSH PSH >30 to ≤50% >50 to ≤80% >80 to ≤100% >100 to ≤120% >120% Cities & Towns North Bend Total Future Need: 2044 4,699 562 228 526 626 462 383 1,912 334 Baseline Supply: 2019 2,951 129 - 405 405 364 272 1,376 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 1,748 433 228 121 221 98 111 536 334 Pacific Total Future Need: 2044 2,601 60 12 814 889 474 157 195 26 Baseline Supply: 2019 2,466 37 - 810 883 462 144 130 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 135 23 12 4 6 12 13 65 26 Sammamish Total Future Need: 2044 24,643 1,060 499 760 773 1,899 2,024 17,628 401 Baseline Supply: 2019 22,543 110 - 341 541 1,899 2,024 17,628 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 2,100 950 499 419 232 - - - 401 Skykomish Total Future Need: 2044 163 11 1 67 19 25 7 33 2 Baseline Supply: 2019 153 9 - 67 18 24 6 29 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 10 2 1 - 1 1 1 4 2 Snoqualmie Total Future Need: 2044 6,174 521 248 379 349 413 630 3,634 318 Baseline Supply: 2019 4,674 49 - 146 267 352 561 3,299 31 Net New Need: 2019-2044 1,500 472 248 233 82 61 69 335 287 Yarrow Point Total Future Need: 2044 423 8 2 7 9 20 39 338 2 Baseline Supply: 2019 413 4 - 4 8 20 39 338 - Net New Need: 2019-2044 10 4 2 3 1 - - - 2 Urban Unincorporated 11 Urban Unincorporate d Total Future Need: 2044 90,067 3,770 608 7,079 11,218 11,018 9,252 47,122 1,109 Baseline Supply: 2019 84,655 2,613 - 6,508 10,926 10,652 8,837 45,119 75 Net New Need: 2019-2044 5,412 1,157 608 571 292 366 415 2,003 1,034 36 of 75 7 The countywide need projections are derived from the Washington State Department of Commerce and were adjusted to align with the adopted housing growth targets for the planning period to ensure jurisdictions are planning for growth that is consistent with the goals of the Development Patterns Chapter. 8 “Emergency Housing” includes emergency housing and emergency shelter and is in addition to permanent housing needs. 9 Data on baseline housing supply is estimated using 2020 Office of Financial Management data on total housing units, and 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy and 2020 Public Use Microdata Sample data on the distribution of units at different income levels. These data sources are used to align with Department of Commerce countywide need baseline data, even though the King County growth target setting process began in 2019. 10 Beaux Arts Village and Hunts Point both have growth targets of one unit, meaning their total need allocated is also one unit. The allocation process divides that unit up into multiple area median income bands, but to get need allocations that are whole numbers, we round all allocations in each area median income band and the Emergency Housing/Shelter category. 11 This includes all Potential Annexation Areas within the High Capacity Transit Communities and Urban Unincorporated King County regional geographies. NOTE: Renumber all subsequent footnotes in Appendix 4 accordingly, and in subsequent Appendices in the CPPs. In Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix, starting on page 74, amend as follows: Policy H-3: Housing Supply and Needs Analysis As set forth in policy H-((4))3, each jurisdiction must include in its comprehensive plan an inventory of the existing housing stock and an analysis of both existing housing needs and housing needed to accommodate projected population growth over the planning period. This policy reinforces requirements of the Growth Management Act for local ((Housing)) housing ((Elements)) elements. The housing supply and needs analysis is referred to in this appendix as the housing analysis.((As is noted in policy H-1, H-2, and H-4, the)) The housing analysis must ((consider local as well as countywide housing needs)) include the jurisdiction’s established housing needs expressed in Table H-1 and Table H-2 because each jurisdiction has a responsibility to ((address)) plan for and accommodate its allocated share of the countywide ((affordable)) housing needs. The purpose of this section is to provide further guidance to local jurisdictions on the subjects to be addressed in their housing analysis. Additional guidance on carrying out the housing analysis is found in the Puget Sound Regional Council’s report, “Housing Element Guide ((: A PSRC Guidance Paper (July 2014))) (February 2023),” Washington State Department of Commerce’s report, “Guidance for Developing a Housing Needs Assessment” (March 2020); and the Washington Administrative Code, particularly 365-196-410 (2)(b) and (c).((The Washington State Department of)) Commerce also provides useful information about housing requirements under the Growth Management Act in the “Growth Management Planning for Housing - Washington State Department of Commerce” portion of their website. 37 of 75 ((Housing Supply Understanding the mix and affordability of existing housing is the first step toward identifying gaps in meeting future housing needs. Table H-3 shows the current housing supply by jurisdiction and affordability levels, using data from 2013-2017 CHAS broken out by different income segments and 2019 housing unit data estimated by the Washington State Office Financial Management (OFM) which OFM does not break out by income segments. The 2019 OFM data serves as the base year for each jurisdiction’s 2044 housing growth targets and appears in Table H-1. The OFM housing units were allocated to different AMI bands by applying the percent share of total housing supply in each income segment as reported in the 2013-2017 CHAS data to the total housing units reported by OFM for 2019. These 2019 current housing units in each income segment are added to the countywide need (the total additional affordable housing units needed between 2019-2044) by AMI reported in Table H-1 to determine the Total Affordable Housing Units Needed by 2044. Figures in Table H-3 include both rental and ownership units. Note that while some jurisdictions have an adequate supply of housing affordable to low-income households (51 to 80 percent of AMI) and very low-income households (31-50 percent of AMI), no jurisdiction in the county has sufficient housing affordable to extremely low-income households (0 to 30 percent of AMI) to meet a proportional share of existing needs as shown in Table H-1. This is where the greatest need exists and should be a focus for all jurisdictions. Table H-3 will be updated annually and will be made publicly available on the Regional Affordable Housing Dashboard. While Table H-3 provides a starting point for understanding current housing supply by jurisdiction, other metrics are required to fully measure housing need. Jurisdictions may choose to supplement the data in Table H-3 with other data sources, such as PUMS, ACS, or their own housing inventories that may be more current or use different underlying assumptions. Because data sources vary in the time period they measure, the assumptions required to analyze the data, and the sampling techniques they use, they may produce results that do not perfectly align with Table H-3. Jurisdictions should use the methodology documented here to explain the causes and implications of differences between alternative methodologies and the information presented in Table H-3. The methodology used to calculate current housing units in Table H-3 is summarized as follows: 1. CHAS data is downloaded from the HUD website. Select the most recent vintage of data (in this instance it was 2013-2017 ACS 5-year average data”) for the data year, select the “Counties split by Place” Geographic Summary Level, which provides data at a jurisdictional level, select “csv” for the file type, and then download the data. This will download all the CHAS tables, as well as a data dictionary. 38 of 75 2. Tables 17A, 17B, 18A, 18B, and 18C have data on housing units and what AMI brackets they are affordable at. Tables 17A and 17B include data on vacant units for ownership and rental units respectively. These vacant units are included in the totals, because while vacant units are not currently being rented, they are still a part of a jurisdiction’s housing supply, and many vacant units are available to rent or buy. Tables 18A, 18B, and 18C include data on occupied ownership units with a mortgage, occupied ownership units without a mortgage, and occupied rental units respectively. All these units are also included in the totals in Table H-3. 3. To calculate how many units are in each jurisdiction at each AMI band, calculate those totals for tables 17A, 17B, 18A, 18B, and 18C and then sum them all together. To calculate total numbers of units by AMI, use the subtotal columns of the CHAS data. The data dictionary that comes with the CHAS tables shows which columns are subtotal columns. Multiple subtotal columns must be added together to get the total number of units affordable at a certain AMI. For example, in Table 18A, to get the total number of units affordable at 0-50 percent AMI, the columns T18B_est3, T18B_est28, T18B_est53, T18B_est78 must be summed, as each column represents a different number of units in the structure. The columns that must be summed together differ slightly based on the table. Refer to the data dictionary to ensure that the correct columns are chosen, as these may change slightly year to year. 4. CHAS uses RHUD for rental units and VHUD for ownership units as measures of affordability that correspond to AMI. For example, units that have a value of “less than or equal to RHUD30” are marked as being affordable at 0-30 percent AMI. Unlike with rental units, for the home ownership units found in tables 17A, 18A, and 18B, CHAS does not differentiate between VHUD0 to VHUD30 units and VHUD 30 to VHUD50 units. It instead combines them all into a “Value less than or equal to VHUD50” category. Since affordability is measured at 0-30 percent AMI and 30-50 percent AMI separately in Table H-3, assume that all units in the "Value less than or equal to VHUD50” are actually only affordable at 30-50 percent AMI, and are included in that column. Thus, all 0-30 percent AMI units in Table H-3 are rental units. This assumption is made because of the distribution of home prices in King County, where almost no homes are affordable to households making 0-30 percent AMI. 5. Once each of Tables 17A, 17B, 18A, 18B, and 18C have been totaled to get the number of units available at each AMI band, and the home ownership units in the “Value less than or equal to VHUD50” category have been recoded to be equal to 30-50 percent AMI, combine the totals of each table to get countywide totals. RHUD and VHUD categories should now line up for all categories up to 80 percent AMI and can thus be combined and re-labeled with the AMI categories seen in Table H-3. While categories above 80 percent don’t align between renter and ownership tables, they can all be combined into one over 80 percent AMI category. 6. Then take the sum of each AMI band to get the value in the “All Incomes” column. These values may differ slightly from the total units calculated using the CHAS “Total” 39 of 75 columns, as individual “Subtotal” columns round units in the “Subtotal” columns (see here for more information on CHAS’s rounding methodology). This has only a minimal impact on overall totals. Then, calculate what percentage of each jurisdiction’s housing supply is in each AMI band by dividing the number of units in each AMI band by the total number of units. Note that the totals included in the “% of Total HU” columns in table H-3 are rounded. The actual, unrounded percentages are used in the following steps. To calculate the unrounded percentages, in the “Housing Units (HU) 2017” section of the table divide the “# of HU” column amounts by the “Total HU” column amount for each jurisdiction. 7. To find the “All Housing” units data in the “2019 HU” column refer to the King County rows in the "2019 Postcensal Estimate of Total Housing Units” column in the Washington State Office of Financial Management’s (OFM) April 1 postcensal estimates of housing: 1980, 1990-present. Sum these values to get the total estimated housing units for 2019 countywide. 8. To break out OFM’s reported total countywide housing unit number, apply the percent share of housing units by AMI found in the “% of Total HU” columns to the total housing units reported by OFM for each jurisdiction in the “Total HU” column in the “HU 2019” section of the table for each jurisdiction and each AMI band. Then sum all jurisdictions totals together for each AMI band, then round the total to the nearest thousandth. This will give you the total units reported in “Countywide Total HU, 2019” row. 9. Add the current “Countywide Total HU, 2019” totals by AMI with the “Total Additional Affordable Housing Units Needed” (2019-2044) by AMI reported in Table H-1 to determine the Total Affordable Housing Units Needed by 2044 in Table H-1, which includes current housing units. Table H-3: Housing Affordability for King County Jurisdictions by Regional Geographies Regional Geography and Jurisdiction Housing Units (HU) 20174 HU 20195 0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI Over 80% AMI 0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI # of HU % of Total HU # of HU % of Total HU # of HU % of Total HU # of HU % of Total HU Total HU Total HU Metropolitan Cities Bellevue 1,750 3% 2,814 5% 6,363 11% 46,400 81% 57,327 62,372 Seattle 19,330 6% 32,655 10% 55,910 17% 212,875 66% 320,770 367,806 Core Cities Auburn 1,335 5% 9,400 38% 6,590 26% 7,660 31% 24,985 27,391 Bothell 390 4% 1,200 11% 2,075 19% 7,215 66% 10,880 12,208 Burien 985 5% 4,879 26% 5,155 27% 8,003 42% 19,022 20,793 Federal Way 1,430 4% 9,170 26% 12,450 35% 12,695 36% 35,745 37,257 Issaquah 715 5% 845 6% 1,770 12% 11,750 78% 15,080 16,801 Kent 1,970 4% 11,195 25% 14,769 33% 16,720 37% 44,654 48,228 Kirkland 1,125 3% 2,325 6% 4,775 13% 28,405 78% 36,630 39,312 Redmond 640 3% 1,325 5% 2,705 11% 20,365 81% 25,035 28,619 Renton 1,720 4% 7,285 19% 10,160 26% 20,133 51% 39,298 42,855 SeaTac 350 3% 3,400 34% 3,460 35% 2,799 28% 10,009 10,855 Tukwila 385 5% 2,150 30% 2,680 38% 1,909 27% 7,124 8,445 High Capacity Transit Communities Des Moines 585 5% 3,015 25% 2,999 25% 5,244 44% 11,843 12,898 Kenmore 255 3% 1,070 12% 1,190 14% 6,135 71% 8,650 9,485 Lake Forest Park 105 2% 344 7% 419 8% 4,325 83% 5,193 5,494 Mercer Island 270 3% 380 4% 400 4% 9,015 90% 10,065 10,506 Newcastle 60 1% 115 3% 480 11% 3,699 85% 4,354 5,214 Shoreline 1,180 5% 2,090 9% 4,440 20% 14,425 65% 22,135 24,127 Woodinville 150 3% 280 6% 495 10% 3,825 81% 4,750 5,450 40 of 75 Cities & Towns Algona 8 1% 404 43% 350 38% 169 18% 931 1,053 Beaux Arts - 0% 8 6% 4 3% 114 90% 126 119 Black Diamond 40 2% 350 21% 230 14% 1,070 63% 1,690 1,808 Carnation 34 5% 119 19% 134 21% 354 55% 641 817 Clyde Hill 10 1% 39 3% 15 1% 1,055 94% 1,119 1,100 Covington 160 2% 790 11% 2,280 33% 3,770 54% 7,000 7,102 Duvall 50 2% 200 8% 250 10% 2,085 81% 2,585 2,684 Enumclaw 265 6% 1,469 31% 1,495 32% 1,515 32% 4,744 5,228 Hunts Point 4 3% 12 8% 4 3% 139 87% 159 186 Maple Valley 220 2% 530 6% 1,450 16% 6,650 75% 8,850 9,280 Medina 15 1% 19 2% 10 1% 1,125 96% 1,169 1,233 Milton 20 6% 99 28% 59 17% 175 50% 353 608 Normandy Park 150 5% 235 8% 220 8% 2,200 78% 2,805 2,876 North Bend 95 4% 340 14% 390 16% 1,565 65% 2,390 2,783 Pacific 40 2% 934 39% 840 35% 600 25% 2,414 2,460 Sammamish 180 1% 365 2% 853 4% 19,615 93% 21,013 22,159 Skykomish 4 6% 23 34% 8 12% 33 49% 68 173 Snoqualmie 45 1% 169 4% 293 7% 3,664 88% 4,171 4,748 Yarrow Point 4 1% 4 1% 8 2% 419 96% 435 416 Urban Unincorporated & Rural Unincorporated King County 2,465 3% 7,287 10% 12,223 17% 48,920 69% 70,895 93,179 Countywide Total HU, 20175 38,539 5% 109,333 13% 160,401 19% 538,834 64% 847,107 956,128 Countywide Total HU, 20196 44,000 5% 122,000 13% 180,000 19% 610,000 64% 956,000 Countywide Total HU Needed by 2044 188,000 15% 185,000 15% 236,000 19% 644,000 51% 1,253,000 4 Source: CHAS 2013-2017 (released August 25, 2020) 5 Source: 2019 data from Office of Financial Management’s April 1 postcensal estimates of housing: 1980, 1990-present. Percentages are rounded. 6 Extrapolated using the percent share of total housing units from CHAS 2013-2017 and 2019 total housing unit data from Washington State Office of Financial Management’s April 1 postcensal estimates of housing: 1980, 1990-present. Figures are rounded, see methodology above for how to recreate unrounded totals.)) Housing Needs The housing needs part of the housing analysis should include demographic data related to existing population, household and community trends that could impact future housing demand (e.g., aging of population). This data will be derived from a mixture of jurisdictional records, ((county)) County datasets, ((state)) State datasets, and ((federal)) Federal datasets. The identified need for future housing should be consistent with the jurisdiction’s ((population)) housing growth and ((housing targets)) the jurisdiction’s share of countywide housing needs, found in Tables H-1 and H-2. Combined with the results of the needs analysis, these data can provide direction on appropriate goals and policies for both the housing and land use elements of a jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan. The following guidance is offered to ensure the housing inventory and analysis data is consistently utilized and reported by all jurisdictions in King County: • ((Affordability gap means the comparison of a jurisdiction’s housing supply as compared to the countywide need percentages expressed in policy H-1. 2013-2017 housing supply is included in table H-3 • in this appendix. The County will update this table annually and make it available online.)) Housing Needs means the needs articulated in Tables H-1 and H-2. 41 of 75 • Moderate-, low-, very low- and extremely low-income households means greater than 80 to less than or equal to 120 percent, greater than 50 to less than or equal to 80 percent, greater than 30 to less than or equal to 50 percent, and 0 to less than or equal to 30 percent of area median income respectively. • Permanent supportive housing, emergency housing, and emergency shelters are defined in the Growth Management Act and relevant Commerce guidance. • Age means built in 2014 or later, built 2010 to 2013, built 2000 to 2009, built 1990-1999, built 1980 to 1989, built 1970 to 1979, built 1960 to 1969, built 1950 to 1959, built 1940 to 1949, built 1939 or earlier. • Number of bedrooms means no bedroom, 1 bedroom, 2 or 3 bedrooms, and 4 or more bedrooms. • Condition means lacking complete plumbing facilities, lacking complete kitchen facilities, and/or no telephone service available. • Tenure means renter-occupied and owner-occupied. • Income-restricted units should be reported by ((AMI)) area median income limit (i.e., ≤30 percent ((AMI)) area median income, ≤50 percent ((AMI)) area median income, and ≤80 percent ((AMI)) area median income. • Moderate-density housing means the following housing types: 1-unit attached; 2 units; 3 or 4 units; 5 to 9 units; 10 to 19 units. High-density housing means the following housing types: 20 or more units. • Accessory dwelling unit means a small, self-contained residential unit built on the same lot as an existing single-family home. Accessory dwelling units may be built within a primary residence or detached from the primary residence. • ((Household income by AMI means equal to or less than 30 percent AMI, above 30 percent to 50 percent AMI; above 50 percent to 80 percent AMI, above 80 percent to 100 percent AMI, above 100 percent to 120 percent AMI, and above 120 percent AMI.)) • Housing cost burden means a household spends more than 30 percent of its household income on housing costs. • Severe housing cost burden means a household spends more than 50 percent of its household income on housing costs. • Displacement risk means where residents and businesses are at greater risk of displacement based on ((PSRC’s)) Puget Sound Regional Council’s index or equivalent composite set of risk indicators such as: socio-demographics, transportation qualities, neighborhood characteristics, housing, and civic engagement. Policy H-((5))4: Evaluate Effectiveness Prior to updating their comprehensive plan, a jurisdiction must evaluate the effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies to ((meet)) plan for and accommodate ((a significant)) their allocated share of countywide need. This will help a jurisdiction identify the need to adjust current policies and strategies or implement new ones. Where possible, jurisdictions are 42 of 75 encouraged to identify actual housing units created, by affordability level, since their last comprehensive plan update. This evaluation must also identify gaps in existing partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources for meeting the countywide need and eliminating racial and other disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. This exercise helps a jurisdiction understand what other strategies it should pursue beyond updating the comprehensive plan to meet the goals of this chapter. Some strategies, like inclusionary housing or new dedicated resources, will be easier to evaluate a quantitative impact and for others, it may be more qualitative. Jurisdictions without the ability to identify the impact of each policy may wish to describe the policies and programs that contributed to creating or preserving a given number of income- restricted units, special needs housing units, etc. Policy H-((6))5: Racial Exclusion and Discrimination To inform a comprehensive plan strategy, a jurisdiction must also document the local history of racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and housing practices, consistent with local and regional fair housing reports and other resources. A jurisdiction must also explain the extent to which that history is still reflected in current development patterns, housing conditions, tenure, and access to opportunity. Examples of suitable data include, but are not limited to: • homeownership rates by race/ethnicity and age; • concentration or dispersion of affordable housing or housing choice voucher usage within the jurisdiction; • affordability of housing in the jurisdiction to the median income household of different races and ethnicities; • racial demographics by neighborhood, e.g., degrees of integration and segregation; • access to areas of opportunity by race and ethnicity; • demographics of residents in areas of high displacement risk; and • results of fair housing testing performed or fair housing complaint data within a jurisdiction. Jurisdictions must also identify local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing, including but not limited to: • zoning that may have a discriminatory effect; • disinvestment; and • infrastructure availability. Racially restrictive housing covenants, unrecognized treaties with Tribes, current exclusionary zoning, and lack of investment in affordable housing are examples of discriminatory practices or 43 of 75 policies a jurisdiction could include in an assessment. Jurisdictions should not limit their review to local policies and regulations. The region should share resources and work together to develop a shared understanding of how racist or discriminatory housing practices and disparities were perpetuated by all levels of government as well as the private sector. While each jurisdiction’s assessment will be unique, King County jurisdictions are encouraged to identify federal, state, and regional practices as well as local. Finally, a jurisdiction must demonstrate how current strategies are addressing impacts of those racially exclusive and discriminatory policies and practices. Using this information jurisdictions should identify and implement policies and regulations to address and begin to undo racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing caused by local policies, plans, and actions consistent with the policies in the “Implement Policies and Strategies to Equitably Meet Housing Needs” section. Jurisdictions are encouraged to refer to the 2019 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Analysis of Impediments) to understand current barriers to fair housing choice. In addition to the guidance offered in this technical appendix, the County will support jurisdictions in identifying and compiling resources, such as University of Washington reports and databases, to support this analysis. For further guidance on this analysis, refer to guidance on conducting a racially disparate impact analysis from the Department of Commerce. Policy H-((7))6: Collaborate Regionally The lack of homes affordable to low-income households is a regional problem that requires regional solutions. Jurisdictional collaboration with diverse partners is key to an effective regional response. Jurisdictions in their collaboration are encouraged to: • address ((the)) countywide housing needs; • engage and collaborate with other entities in efforts to fund, site, and build affordable housing; • join resources; • raise public and private resources together to provide the additional subsidies required to develop housing at deeper levels of affordability; • support affordable housing development or preservation in each other’s jurisdictions; and • take other collaborative action to address the countywide housing needs. Refer to the Washington State Department of Commerce’s guidance for additional recommendations for the potential and appropriate roles for interjurisdictional partnerships in 44 of 75 meeting housing needs as well as how these roles should be reflected in countywide planning policies and comprehensive plans. Partners collaborating with jurisdictions are encouraged to support the following needs: • technical assistance; • organizational capacity building; • land donations; • financial contributions for operating and capital needs to support affordable housing development, maintenance and operations needs; • funding for other needs such as data and monitoring infrastructure; and • advocate for efforts to fund, site, and build affordable housing. Policies H-((9))8 through H-((24))25: Implement Policies and Strategies to Meet Housing Needs Equitably Jurisdictions need to employ a range of policies, incentives, strategies, actions, and regulations tailored to equitably meet their housing need. The Puget Sound Regional Council’s Housing Innovations Program ((7))12 presents a range of strategies. The strategies can be filtered by objective, project type, and affordability level. Strategies marked with an asterisk include more detail and are proven to be particularly effective at meeting regional housing goals. The Municipal Research and Services Center (MSRC) ((and Washington State Department of Commerce also)) offers affordable housing-related resources on their websites, including information about techniques and incentives for encouraging and planning for housing affordability. The Washington State Department of Commerce also provides access to ample resources, including guidance on how to complete the land capacity analysis required in H-11 and on other adequate provisions jurisdictions can take to plan for and accommodate housing needs. Local jurisdictions may also refer to this table for suitable strategies, largely derived from recommendations from the December 2018 Regional Affordable Housing Task Force Final Report and Recommendations. King County’s Department of Community and Human Services will work to periodically update these suggestions on the King County website if new strategies and best practices emerge. ((7))12 ((PSRC’s)) Puget Sound Regional Council’s Housing Innovations Program [https://www.psrc.org/hip] website provides a searchable database of dozens of suggested strategies. Please refer to their database for a more comprehensive list of strategies. 45 of 75 In Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix, starting on page 82, amend as follows. Unamended sections of Table H-((4))3 and sections with only renumbered policies are excluded. Renumber policies H-9, H-20, and H-21 to H-8, H-21, and H-22, respectively: Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies H-((10))9 Adopt intentional, targeted actions that repair harms to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (((BIPOC))) households from past and current racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and housing practices (generally identified through Policy H-((6))5). Promote equitable outcomes in partnership with communities most impacted. A suggested approach to identifying reparative strategies includes: • Looking at how current policies are working to undo past racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and housing practices or where they might be perpetuating that history • When current policies are perpetuating the harm, implementing equitable countermeasures to remove those policies and their impacts and mitigate disparate impacts on housing choice, access, and affordability • Using ((PSRC’s)) Puget Sound Regional Council’s Regional Equity Strategy and associated tools and resources to center equity in comprehensive planning processes and intended outcomes Specific policies and strategies include: • Reduce or eliminate exclusionary zoning • Implement anti-displacement strategies, which include addressing housing stability for low-income renters and owners as well as preserving cultural diversity of the community • Implement policies that increase affordable homeownership opportunities for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities • Distribute affordable housing throughout a jurisdiction, with a focus on areas of opportunity • Consider environmental health of neighborhoods where affordable housing 46 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies exists or is planned and plan for environmentally healthy neighborhoods • Support and prioritize projects that promote access to opportunity, anti- displacement, and wealth-building opportunities for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities Strategies for promoting equitable outcomes in partnership with communities most impacted include: • Utilize an equity impact review tool when developing or implementing policies or strategies • Create and utilize a community engagement toolkit • Intentionally include and solicit engagement from members of communities of color or low-income households in policy decision-making and committees H-((11))10 Adopt policies, incentives, strategies, actions, and regulations that increase the supply of long-term income- restricted housing for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households and households with special needs. Suggested strategies to help ((meet)) plan for and accommodate the need at these affordability levels include: • Increase financial contributions to build, preserve, and operate long-term income- restricted housing • Increase the overall supply and diversity of housing throughout a jurisdiction, including both rental and ownership • Provide housing suitable for a range of household types and sizes, including housing suitable and affordable for households with special needs, low-, very low-, and extremely low-incomes Implement policies that incentivize the creation of affordable units, such as Multifamily Tax Exemption, inclusionary 47 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies zoning, and incentive zoning, and density bonus • Coordinate with local housing authorities to use project-based rental subsidies with incentive/ inclusionary housing units to achieve deeper affordability • Implement policies that reduce the cost to develop affordable housing • Implement universal design principles to ensure that buildings and public spaces are accessible to people with or without disabilities • Support sustainable housing development • Promote units that accommodate large households and/or multiple bedrooms • Prioritize strategies for implementation that will result in the highest impact towards addressing the affordable housing gap at the lowest income levels H-((12))11 Identify sufficient capacity of land for housing including, but not limited to: income-restricted housing; housing for moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households; manufactured housing; multifamily housing; group homes; foster care facilities; emergency housing; emergency shelters; permanent supportive housing; and within an urban growth area boundary, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. ((An approach to identifying sufficient capacity for housing types is: • Consider the local and regional housing needs and available land capacity identified in H-4. For example, a jurisdiction that doesn’t have any unhoused people may still need to provide sufficient capacity for this population if unmet need exists within the county or subregion • Determine if current capacity is sufficient to meet future needs. For example, most permanent supportive housing will require multifamily zoning • Collaborate with other jurisdictions to identify the subregional or countywide capacity needed for these housing types if current need within a jurisdiction is 48 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies substantially less than the countywide need for that housing type)) Refer to the Washington State Department of Commerce’s guidance on land capacity analysis for guidance on identifying sufficient capacity of land. H-12 Adopt and implement policies that improve the effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies and address gaps in partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources to meet the jurisdiction’s housing needs. A jurisdiction’s policies and strategies adopted and implemented in response to policy H-12 should be informed by the ineffective policies and gaps in partnerships, policies and dedicated resources identified through the analysis required by H-4. A jurisdiction may find that several comprehensive plan policies and implementation of these policies end up supporting the intent of policy H-12. Example approaches to improving policy effectiveness and addressing gaps in partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources to meet countywide housing needs include: • Reducing permitting timelines for affordable projects receiving public funding • Shifting incentive program requirements to accommodate development at different Area Median Income levels • Working with subregional collaborations to increase availability and flexibility of gap financing for local projects • Partner with local housing providers and developers to identify needed shifts in development regulations and public resources to support affordable housing development and preservation • Facilitate partnerships between community-based organizations and affordable housing developers to develop community-led affordable developments 49 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies • Establishing or enhancing a housing levy • Retooling a Multifamily Tax Exemption program to improve its effectiveness and/or increase utilization • Increase regulatory flexibility and incentives for affordable housing (e.g., reduced parking requirements) H-13 Implement strategies to overcome cost barriers to housing affordability. Strategies to do this vary but can include updating development standards and regulations, shortening permit timelines, implementing online permitting, optimizing residential densities, reducing parking requirements, and developing programs, policies, partnerships, and incentives to decrease costs to build and preserve affordable housing. Suggested strategies to overcome cost barriers to housing affordability to consider addressing include: • Reduce vehicular parking requirements • Reduce permitting timelines • Increase the predictability of the permitting process • Reduce sewer fees for affordable housing • Reduce utility, impact and other fees for affordable housing and ((Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs))) accessory dwelling units • Streamline permitting process for affordable housing development and ((ADUs)) accessory dwelling units • Update building codes to promote more housing growth and innovative, low-cost development • Explore incentives similar to the Multifamily Tax Exemption for the development of ((ADUs)) accessory dwelling units for low-income households • Maximize and expand use of the Multifamily Tax Exemption • Offer suitable public land at reduced or no cost for affordable housing development • Before implementing a policy, consider how it will impact the cost to build affordable homes H-14 Prioritize the use of local and/ regional resources (e.g., funding, surplus property) Suggested strategies to effectively prioritize the use of resources include: 50 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies for income-restricted housing, particularly for extremely low-income households, populations with special needs, and others with disproportionately greater housing needs. Consider projects that promote access to opportunity, anti-displacement, and wealth-building for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities to support implementation of policy H-((10))9. • Partner with communities most disproportionately impacted by the housing crisis, including extremely low- income households and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (((BIPOC))) communities to inform resource design and allocation decisions. These decisions should prioritize strategies that reduce and undo disproportionate harm to these communities consistent, recognizing that specific needs of these communities may vary based on location • Identify and prioritize underutilized publicly owned land and nonprofit/ faith communities for the creation of income- restricted housing, both rental and homeownership • Prioritize sites near transit, quality schools, parks and other neighborhood amenities • Fund acquisition and development of prioritized sites • Prioritize public funding resources in a manner consistent with policy H-((9))8 • Consider the countywide median income levels of ((BIPOC)) Black, Indigenous, and People of Color households when designing affordable homeownership programs and set the affordability levels such that they are accessible to the median ((BIPOC)) Black, Indigenous, and People of Color households considered H-15 Increase housing choices for everyone—particularly those earning lower wages—that is co-located with, accessible to, or within a reasonable commute to major employment centers and affordable to all income levels. Ensure there are zoning Strategies to increase housing choice near employment and affordable to all include but are not limited to((8))13: • Update zoning and land use regulations (including in single-family low-rise zones) 51 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies ordinances and building policies in place that allow and encourage housing production at levels that improve jobs-housing balance throughout the county across all income levels. to increase density and diversify housing choices, including but not limited to: o Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs) o Duplex, Triplex, Four-plex o Zero lot line townhomes, row houses, and stacked flats o Micro/efficiency units o Manufactured housing preservation o Group homes o Foster care facilities o Emergency housing o Emergency shelters o Permanent supportive housing o Low-rise and high-density multifamily development o Housing development that accommodates large households and/or multiple bedrooms • Implement strategies that provide for affordable housing near employment centers, such as: o Project-level tools like affordability covenants when funding income- restricted units or development agreements o Incentives such as density bonuses, incentive zoning, or Multifamily Tax Exemption o Other regulatory tools such as commercial linkage fees, inclusionary zoning, or TOD overlays 52 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies o Other financial tools such as public land for affordable housing H-17 Support the development and preservation of income-restricted affordable housing that is within walking distance to planned or existing high-capacity and frequent transit. Preservation strategies to consider include: • Identify areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market forces that occur with changes to zoning development regulations and public capital investments and establish anti- displacement policies, with consideration given to the preservation of historical and cultural communities as well as: o investments in low-, very low-, and extremely low-income housing equitable development initiatives o inclusionary zoning o community planning requirements; tenant protections o public land disposition policies o consideration of land that may be used for affordable housing • Collect data to better understand the impacts of growth, and the risks of residential, economic, and cultural displacement. Verify this data with residents at the greatest risk of displacement, particularly those most disproportionately impacted by housing cost burden and neighborhood-based small business owners. Supplement this information with regional data about displacement risk and ongoing displacement trends that can inform and drive policy and programs. • Prioritize affordable housing investments, incentives, and preservation tools in areas where increases in development capacity and new public capital 53 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies investments are anticipated to allow current low-income residents to stay • Support the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of income-restricted and naturally occurring affordable housing in areas with a high displacement risk, for long-term affordability serving households ((at or below)) less than or equal to 80 percent ((AMI)) area median income • Leverage new development to fund affordable housing in the same geography using zoning tools such as incentive/ inclusionary zoning • Implement anti-displacement policies (e.g., community preference, tenant opportunity to purchase, no net loss of affordable units, right-to-return, community benefits agreements) • Prioritize publicly owned land for affordable housing in areas at high risk of displacement • Support community land trust and other permanent affordability models • Identify, preserve, and improve cultural assets • Increase education to maximize use of property tax relief programs to help sustain homeownership for low-income individuals • Expand targeted foreclosure prevention • Preserve manufactured housing communities and improve the quality of the housing and associated infrastructure to improve housing stability and health for the residents while also expanding housing choices affordable to these 54 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies residents, including opportunities to cooperatively own their communities • Encourage programs to help homeowners access support needed to participate in and benefit from infill development H-19 Lower barriers to and promote access to affordable homeownership for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income, households. Emphasize: a. supporting long-term affordable homeownership opportunities for households ((at or below)) less than or equal to 80 percent ((AMI)) area median income (which may require up-front initial public subsidy and policies that support diverse housing types); and b. remedying historical inequities in and expanding access to homeownership opportunities for Black, Indigenous and People of Color communities. Suggested strategies to increase access to affordable homeownership for lower-income households include: • Support alternative homeownership models that lower barriers to ownership and provide long-term affordability, such as community land trusts, and limited or shared equity co-ops • Encourage programs to help homeowners, particularly low-income homeowners, access financing, technical support or other tools needed to participate in and benefit from infill development opportunities • Increase educational efforts to ensure maximum use of property tax relief programs to help sustain homeownership for low-income individuals • Expand targeted foreclosure prevention • Preserve existing manufactured housing communities through use-specific zoning or transfer of development rights H-20 Adopt and implement policies that address gaps in partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources to eliminate racial and other disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. What partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources are needed to eliminate racial and other disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice will depend on the results of analysis conducted under H-4. A few examples of strategies that could fill or assist in filling identified gaps include: • Establishing partnerships with local community-based organizations headed by and/or serving populations most 55 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies affected by housing cost burden, with a focus on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color-led or -serving organizations • Convening community advisory committees to oversee housing policy implementation and to evaluate policies annually for discriminatory or disparate impacts • Promoting models to promote community ownership or land and housing, including Community Land Trusts, co-ops, or Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Acts • Requiring community preference policies for recipients of jurisdictional housing funding or building incentives • Prioritizing surplus public property for community-serving uses and housing projects, in partnership with disparately impacted communities • Encouraging the use of affirmative and race-forward marketing plans in affordable housing projects utilizing public funding • Establishing down-payment assistance programs for first-time homebuyers, with a focus on first-time homebuyers of color • Expand the allowed housing types (e.g., missing middle, multifamily) in areas with limited affordability and remove barriers (e.g., conditional use permits) to constructing those types • Partner with housing authorities to expand the use of housing choice vouchers in areas that data demonstrate are racially or economically exclusive • Support fair housing education and enforcement programs 56 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies H-((22))23 Adopt and implement policies that protect housing stability for renter households; expand protections and supports for moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income renters and renters with disabilities. Tenant protection policies to consider include: • Just cause eviction for tenants with termed leases • Increase time periods for notice of rent increases • Prohibit discrimination in housing against tenants and potential tenants with arrest records, conviction records, and criminal history • Tenant relocation assistance • Increase access to legal services • Rental inspection programs Supports for landlords that promote tenant stability include: • Establish a fund that landlords can access to make repairs so costs are not passed on to low-income renters • Increase education for tenants and property owners regarding their respective rights and responsibilities Supports for low-income renters and people with disabilities to consider include: • Shallow and deep rent subsidies • Emergency rental assistance • Services to address barriers to housing, including tenant screening reports and civic legal aid • Increased funding for services that help people with disabilities stay in their homes and/or age in place H-((23))24 Adopt and implement programs and policies that ensure healthy and safe homes. Strategies to improve the quality and safety of housing include: • Establish and promote healthy housing standards • Provide home repair assistance for households earning ((at or below)) less 57 of 75 Table H-((4))3 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies than or equal to 80 percent ((AMI)) area median income • Implement proactive rental inspection programs • Implement just cause eviction to protect tenants from landlords retaliating if they request basic maintenance and repairs to maintain a healthy and safe living environment • Partner with Aging ((&))and Disability organizations to integrate accessibility services See the King County Board of Health Guideline and Recommendation on Healthy Housing for additional guidance.((9))14 H-((24))25 Plan for residential neighborhoods that protect and promote the health and well-being of residents by supporting equitable access to parks and open space, safe pedestrian and bicycle routes, clean air, soil and water, fresh and healthy foods, high-quality education from early learning through ((K-12)) kindergarten through twelfth grade, affordable and high- quality transit options and living wage jobs and by avoiding or mitigating exposure to environmental hazards and pollutants. When planning for residential neighborhoods that protect and promote health and well- being of residents, suggested strategies include: • Plan for housing in conjunction with other infrastructure investments to support equitable access to opportunity for households with a range of incomes and ensure the siting of homes is not in close to environmental hazards and pollutants • Analyze disparities in access to amenities and invest in affordable housing in areas with high access to these amenities while providing services and investment in areas where low-income people live ((8))13 ((PSRC’s)) Puget Sound Regional Council’s Housing Innovations Program (((HIP) website provides a searchable database of dozens of suggested strategies. Please refer to their database for a more comprehensive list of strategies)). ((9))14 See link: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/health/board-of-health/~/media/depts/health/board-of- health/documents/guidelines/guideline-recommendation-18-01-attachment-A.ashx 58 of 75 ((Policies H-25 and H-26: Measure Results and Provide Accountability))Review, Monitor, Report, and Adjust The Affordable Housing Committee, Growth Management Planning Council, and King County will conduct a comprehensive planning review, monitoring, reporting, and adjustment process to ensure that jurisdictions are successful in their efforts to plan for and accommodate their share of allocated countywide housing needs and meet the goals of this chapter. Information in this section provides guidance to jurisdictions on their participation in this process. H-26: Comprehensive Plan Review The Countywide Planning Policies Housing Chapter represent an agreement between cities in King County on strategies to equitably meet countywide housing needs. The comprehensive plan review process conducted by the Growth Management Planning Council or its designee is a method of confirming that the comprehensive plans prepared by jurisdictions respond to these countywide goals. Designated reviewers will use a set of plan review standards to evaluate the completeness of plans in responding to the Housing Chapter, implementation details for policies requiring adoption or implementation, and the meaningfulness of policies that jurisdictions propose to plan for and accommodate their housing needs. A complete set of standards, along with technical assistance for the comprehensive plan review process, can be found on the King County Affordable Housing Committee website. H-27: Jurisdictional and County Reporting Requirements Success at meeting a community’s need for housing can only be determined by measuring results and evaluating changes to housing supply and need. Cities and the County will collaborate to monitor basic information annually, as they may already do for permits and development activity. Annual tracking of information such as new policies, new units, and zoning changes will make periodic assessments easier and more efficient. A limited amount of annual monitoring will also aid in providing timely information to decision makers. The purpose of ((“measuring results and providing accountability”)) monitoring and reporting is to motivate and enhance learning, collaboration, and progress. While some ((CPPs)) Housing Chapter Countywide Planning Policies clearly lend themselves to quantitative measures and straightforward evaluation, some do not. This is often true when factors like the result of engagement with disproportionately impacted community members significantly shape implementation or where quantitative data is lacking. In these cases, jurisdictions have the liberty to make any reasonable interpretation of the policy and report as completely and honestly as possible how well the policy has been met. ((Policy H-25 requires cities and the County to collaborate in this monitoring to ensure continual review of the effectiveness of local strategies at meeting the countywide need.)) 59 of 75 Policy H-27 establishes a commitment to monitor countywide and jurisdictional progress toward meeting housing needs and eliminating disparities in access to housing and neighborhood choices. Both King County and the cities are required to annually report data that will assist with this monitoring process. H-28: Annual Monitoring Policy H-28 requires cities and the County to collaborate in monitoring to ensure continual review of the effectiveness of local strategies at meeting the countywide need. The Affordable Housing Committee will establish standardized benchmarks, housing data trends, and comparative standards using data collected under H-27 to aid in assessing progress over the planning period, relative to countywide trends and other jurisdictions. The information will be collected by King County and reported annually in a public-facing, interactive regional affordable housing dashboard. Updates on implementation strategies reported by jurisdictions as part of the comprehensive plan review process will also be available on the Regional Affordable Housing dashboard. Information on how to prepare implementation strategies is included in the comprehensive plan review standards guidance document on the Affordable Housing Committee website. H-((27))29: Adjust Strategies to Meet Housing Needs ((The data)) Data collected annually provides an opportunity for cities and the County to adapt to changing conditions and new information when monitoring finds that the adopted strategies are insufficient for meeting ((the countywide)) housing needs or result in the perpetuation of the inequitable distribution of affordable housing. ((Adaptation strategies can occur before the next comprehensive planning cycle during annual comprehensive plan updates, updates to the land use map, and/or a jurisdiction’s urban growth strategy (buildable lands) reporting process. The King County Affordable Housing Committee can serve as a venue for discussing regional progress and challenges jurisdictions face. The results of these conversations and recommended actions to meet countywide need more effectively can be shared with the Growth Management Planning Council.)) To ensure the successful implementation of comprehensive plan goals related to housing needs, the Growth Management Planning Council, Affordable Housing Committee, and King County will organize an adjustment period for comprehensive plans at the midpoint of the ten- year planning cycle. The intent of the adjustment period is to provide a formal opportunity for the Growth Management Planning Council or its designee to assess jurisdictional efforts in planning for and accommodating needs, and to require jurisdictions to take reasonable measures, if necessary, to address any identified shortfalls. The Growth Management Planning Council or its designee will develop Housing Chapter amendments that articulate the procedure 60 of 75 and adequacy standards used to assess jurisdictional efforts no earlier than 2024. This includes work to outline the reasonable measures that the Growth Management Planning Council will use to address shortfalls. In developing these amendments, the Growth Management Planning Council or its designee will develop Countywide Planning Policy amendments, informed by guidance, if available, from the Washington State Department of Commerce, who, under directive from 2021 House Bill 1241, will organize a state-run implementation progress report process for local comprehensive plans. Per state law, the progress report process is also meant to occur at the five-year midpoint of the planning cycle. In the Glossary, starting on page 105, amend as follows: Glossary ((Countywide Need: Also called the countywide affordable housing need, this is the number of additional, affordable homes needed in King County by 2044 so that no household earning at or below 80 percent of area median income is housing cost burdened. The countywide need for housing is estimated at 263,000 affordable homes affordable at or below 80 percent area median income built or preserved by 2044 as shown in Table H-1.)) Extremely Low-Income Households: Households earning less than or equal to 30 percent of the area median income ((or less)) for their household size. Housing Needs: The number of housing units needed in King County by the end of the planning period to ensure sufficient and attainable housing for all households. Jurisdictional housing needs are shown in Table H-2. Low-Income Households: Households earning ((between 51)) greater than 50 percent ((and)) to less than or equal to 80 percent of the ((Area Median Income)) area median income for their household size. Moderate-Income Households: Households earning ((between 81)) greater than 80 percent ((and)) to less than or equal to 120 percent of the ((Area Median Income)) area median income for their household size. Net New Housing Needs: The total number of new units needed in addition current housing units to meet projected housing needs by the end of the planning period. Very Low-Income Households: Households earning ((between)) greater than 30 percent to less than or equal to 50 percent of the ((Area Median Income)) area median income for their household size. 61 of 75 Countywide Planning Policies - Housing Requirement(s) Consistency Analysis Why/How & Notes H-1 Plan for and accommodate the jurisdiction’s allocated share of countywide future housing needs for moderate-, low-, very low- and extremely low-income households as well as emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing. Sufficient planning and accommodations are those that comply with the Growth Management Act requirements for housing elements in Revised Code of Washington 36.70A.020 and 36.70A.070, that outline regulatory and nonregulatory measures to implement the comprehensive plan (Washington Administrative Code 365-196650), and that comply with policies articulated in this chapter. Projected countywide and jurisdictional net new housing needed to reach projected future need for the planning period is shown in Table H-1. Partially HG-8, HP-22, HP-43, HP-44 Lacking demonstration of ability to accommodate allocated share. Updated chapter will address this policy accordingly H-2 Prioritize the need for housing affordable to households less than or equal to 30 percent area median income (extremely low-income) by implementing tools such as a) Increasing capital, operations, and maintenance funding; b) Adopting complementary land use regulations; c) Fostering welcoming communities, including people with behavioral health needs; d) Adopting supportive policies; and e) Supporting collaborative actions by all jurisdictions. No Existing goals and policies do not prioritize this income level nor include such implementing tools. Updated chapter will address this policy accordingly. H-3 Conduct an inventory and analysis in each jurisdiction of existing and projected housing needs of all segments of the population and summarize the findings in the housing element. The inventory and analysis shall include… Partially Housing Action Plan needs assessment addresses many of the inventory requirements Updated chapter will address policy accordingly and update data H-4 Evaluate the effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies to meet the jurisdiction’s housing needs. Identify gaps in existing partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources for meeting housing needs and eliminating racial and other disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. Yes Analysis complete and will be submitted to the AHC as part of plan review. See Attachment C. H-5 Document the local history of racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and housing practices, consistent with local and regional fair housing reports and other resources. Explain the extent to which that history is still reflected in current development patterns, housing conditions, tenure, and access to opportunity. Identify local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing, including zoning that may have a discriminatory effect, disinvestment, and infrastructure availability. Demonstrate how current strategies are addressing impacts of those racially exclusive and discriminatory policies and practices. The County will support jurisdictions in identifying and compiling resources to support this analysis. Yes Analysis complete and will be submitted to the AHC as part of plan review. H-6 Collaborate with diverse partners (e.g., employers, financial institutions, philanthropic, faith, and community-based organizations) on provision of resources (e.g., funding, surplus property) and programs to meet countywide housing need. Yes Past and ongoing community outreach conducted will be reflected in the forthcoming community outreach Public Participation Compendium 62 of 75 H-7 Work cooperatively with the Puget Sound Regional Council, subregional collaborations and other entities that provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions to support the development, implementation, and monitoring of strategies that achieve the goals of this chapter. Yes HG-9, HG-10, HP-37, HP-45, HP- 46 Federal Way is a member of SKHHP a South King County Subregional group H-8 Collaborate with populations most disproportionately impacted by housing cost burden in developing, implementing, and monitoring strategies that achieve the goals of this chapter. Prioritize the needs and solutions articulated by these disproportionately impacted populations. Partially Housing Action Plan Strategy 8 Updated chapter will address this policy accordingly. H-9 Adopt intentional, targeted actions that repair harms to Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color households from past and current racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and housing practices (generally identified through Policy H-6). Promote equitable outcomes in partnership with communities most impacted. Partially HP-21, Housing Action Plan Objectives 1 and 2 Updated chapter will address this policy accordingly. H-10 Adopt policies, incentives, strategies, actions, and regulations that increase the supply of long-term income-restricted housing for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households and households with special needs. Yes HG-5, HG-6, HP12, HP-23, HP-24, HP-45, H-11 Identify sufficient capacity of land for housing including, but not limited to income restricted housing; housing for moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households; manufactured housing; multifamily housing; group homes; foster care facilities; emergency housing; emergency shelters; permanent supportive housing; and within an urban growth area boundary, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. Partially HP-22, HP-26, HP-27, Hp-39 HG- 8, HP-43, HP-44 Policy direction is there, but the identification and evaluation of sufficient land capacity is needed. Updated chapter will address this policy appropriately. H-12 Adopt and implement policies that improve the effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies and address gaps in partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources to meet the jurisdiction’s housing needs. Partially Housing Action Plan Strategy 5, Chapter does not evaluate gap nor provide guidance for addressing goas Updated chapter will address this policy accordingly H-13 Implement strategies to overcome cost barriers to housing affordability. Strategies to do this vary but can include updating development standards and regulations, shortening permit timelines, implementing online permitting, optimizing residential densities, reducing parking requirements, and developing programs, policies, partnerships, and incentives to decrease costs to build and preserve affordable housing. Yes HG-5, HP-11, HP-12, HP-19, Housing Action Plan Strategy 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 H-14 Prioritize the use of local and regional resources (e.g., funding, surplus property) for income-restricted housing, particularly for extremely low-income households, populations with special needs, and others with disproportionately greater housing needs. Consider projects that promote access to opportunity, anti-displacement, and wealth building for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities to support implementation of policy H-10. Partially HP-30, HP-31, HP-32, HP-47 Updated chapter will address local and regional funding sources, anti-displacement, and targeted wealth building portion of this policy accordingly. H-15 Increase housing choices for everyone, particularly those earning lower wages, that is co located with, accessible to, or within a reasonable commute to major employment centers and affordable to all income levels. Ensure there are zoning ordinances and development regulations in place that allow and encourage housing production at levels that Yes HG-3, HG-5, HG-6, HP12, HP-23, HP 29, HP-28 Housing Action Plan Strategy 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 63 of 75 improve jobs-housing balance throughout the county across all income levels. H-16 Expand the supply and range of housing types, including affordable units, at densities sufficient to maximize the benefits of transit investments throughout the county. Yes HG-2, HP-14, HP-16, HP-18, HP- 20, HP-39 Housing Action Plan Strategies #1 and #2 Updated chapter will address this policy accordingly. H-17 Support development and preservation of income-restricted affordable housing near high-capacity transit. Yes HP-18, HP-36 Updated chapter will further address the locational component of this policy. H-18 Adopt inclusive planning tools and policies whose purpose is to increase the ability of all residents in jurisdictions throughout the county to live in the neighborhood of their choice, reduce disparities in access to opportunity areas, and meet the needs of the region’s current and future residents by… Partially HP-21, HP-42 Updated chapter will address this policy accordingly H-19 Lower barriers to and promote access to affordable homeownership for extremely low-, very low-, and low--income, households. No Updated chapter will address this policy accordingly H-20 Adopt and implement policies that address gaps in partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources to eliminate racial and other disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. Partially HP-30, HP-21, HP-42 Housing Action Plan Objective 2 H-21 Adopt policies and strategies that promote equitable development and mitigate displacement risk, with consideration given to the preservation of historical and cultural communities as well as investments in low-, very low-, extremely low-, and moderate-income housing production and preservation; dedicated funds for land acquisition; manufactured housing community preservation, inclusionary zoning; community planning requirements; tenant protections; public land disposition policies; and land that may be used for affordable housing. Mitigate displacement that may result from planning efforts, large-scale private investments, and market pressure. Implement anti- displacement measures prior to or concurrent with development capacity increases and public capital investments. No HP-36 Updated chapter will address this policy accordingly. H-22 Implement, promote, and enforce fair housing policies and practices so that every person in the county has equitable access and opportunity to thrive in their communities of choice, regardless of their race, gender identity, sexual identity, ability, use of a service animal, age, immigration status, national origin, familial status, religion, source of income, military status, or membership in any other relevant category of protected people. Partially HP-21, HP-39, HP-42 Updated chapter will address this policy accordingly H-23 Adopt and implement policies that protect housing stability for renter households; expand protections and supports for moderate-, low-, very low- and extremely low-income renters and renters with disabilities. Partially Housing Action Plan Objectives 3 and 4, Strategy 7 and 8 64 of 75 H-24 Adopt and implement programs and policies that ensure healthy and safe homes. Partially HP-32 Housing Action Plan 8 H-25 Plan for residential neighborhoods that protect and promote the health and well-being of residents by supporting equitable access to parks and open space, safe pedestrian and bicycle routes, clean air, soil and water, fresh and healthy foods, high-quality education from early learning through K-12, affordable and high-quality transit options and living wage jobs and by avoiding or mitigating exposure to environmental hazards and pollutants. HP-21, HP-32, HP-42 Housing Action Plan Strategy 1, 2, 65 of 75 Goal/ Policy # Evaluate policies to see they support or challenge achieving desired housing outcomes and address racially disparate impacts, displacement and exclusion Policy Evaluation Challenge, Approaching, Supportive, N/A Does the policy contribute to racially disparate impacts (RDI)? Displacement? Or exclusion in housing? Is the policy effective in accommodating more housing? If not, does it cause disparate impacts, displacement or exclusion in housing? Does the policy increase displacement risk? If so, can this be mitigated through policies or actions? Overall Goal Preserve, protect, and enhance Federal Way’s existing high-quality residential neighborhoods and promote a variety of opportunities to meet the housing needs of all residents of the community and region. Approaching Preserving and protecting existing “high quality” neighborhoods may contribute to exclusion in housing due to the nature of the existing housing stock. However, the policy also includes promoting a variety of housing opportunities In a limiting way it does accommodating more housing, because preserving existing high-quality neighborhoods may be in conflict with promoting a variety of options Likely, preserving and protecting existing neighborhoods likely will prevent infill and innovative housing solutions necessary for keeping up with demand and meet the diverse housing needs. HG1 Preserve and protect the quality of existing residential neighborhoods and require new development to be of a scale and design that is compatible with existing neighborhood character. Challenge Preserving and protecting existing neighborhoods contributes to exclusion in housing by providing no direct intention to include historically excluded groups. Also, this policy limits new development to be within the same scale and design that is compatible In a limiting way it does accommodating more housing. However, preserving and protecting existing residential neighborhoods may be in conflict with promoting some infill options which may perpetuate exclusion and result in disparate impacts and displacement. Likely, goal requires compatibility to restrict neighborhood character to appropriately evolve to meet growing need. Policies that expand housing choice appropriately can help mitigate this. HP1 High-density housing projects, with the exception of senior housing, will not be permitted in existing single-family residential neighborhoods. More moderate densities such as cottage housing are permitted. Challenge Yes, policy contributes to RDI and housing exclusion by perpetuating exclusion thoroughly limiting housing types that serve vulnerable populations. Excluding high density multifamily may lead RDI. No, is not effective in accommodating more housing. The policy limits housing choice through typology permitted in current SF zones. There is only one cottage housing development in the City. Yes, continued preserving and protecting of SF zoning regulations prevents more variety in housing choice. SF zoning that is more inclusive of diverse and denser housing types will expand housing options in many areas of the city. 66 of 75 HP 2 Amend development regulations to accommodate a diverse range of housing forms that are compatible with neighborhood character and create an effective transition between the City Center, business areas, and residential neighborhoods. Approaching No, this policy does not contribute to RDI contributes to diversifying housing type, choice, and stock throughout the City. This policy aims to expand housing options, and costs, which could serve more income levels. Yes. This policy is effective in accommodating more housing as it applies Citywide and transitions between areas. No, this does not increase displacement risk. HP 3 Continue to allow accessory housing units within single-family neighborhoods in a way that protects residential character, maintains specific design standards, and complies with all applicable laws. Review accessory housing regulations and, if necessary, revise any regulation that inappropriately limits their development. Approaching This policy may contribute to RDI, exclusion, and displacement through "protecting" residential character. However, ADUs often serve intergenerational households and aging in place. Somewhat, but contains barriers that limit the opportunities for ADUs that could meet specialized housing needs for some members of the community No, this does not increase displacement risk. Although it creates barriers for expanding opportunities for ADU construction. Mitigation could be reducing or limiting barriers to ADUs such as design standards HP4 Maintain a strong code enforcement program to protect residential areas from illegal land use activities. Challenge N/A N/A N/A HP5 Subject to funding availability, conduct periodic surveys of housing conditions and fund programs, including housing rehabilitation, to ensure that older neighborhoods are not allowed to deteriorate. Supportive This policy may effectively prevent displacement by funding necessary improvements or repairs to keep qualifying households in their homes. Policy has no effect on accommodating more housing. Policy preserves housing and prevents displacement No. HP6 If allowed by applicable law, development inside and outside the City should be required to provide their fair share of onsite and offsite improvements. N/A N/A N/A N/A Community Involvement & Development Review HG2 Involve the community in the development of new housing to a degree that is consistent with the scale of impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. Challenge May lead to exclusion in housing through NIMBY mentality that limits new and innovative housing options. This policy may not be effective in accommodating new housing. Policy is restrictive and may lead to exclusion No, existing noticing requirements already exist. HP7 Continue to encourage public input into development of planning and regulatory documents through a formal public process characterized by broad, thorough, and timely public notice of pending action. N/A N/A N/A N/A 67 of 75 HP8 Consider the economic impact of all development regulations on the cost of housing. Approaching Not directly Yes, this policy takes into considerations one of the most crucial variables for developers - cost. By considering the impact development regulations have on cost of housing the city is informed on what may present as barriers to production. No HP9 Continue to provide streamlined permitting processes for development that is consistent with the FWCP and FWRC, and that has minimum adverse impacts. Supportive Not directly Yes, this policy intends to make the development process faster/easier. No HP10 Encourage community input, where appropriate, into the development permit process by providing thorough and timely information to the public. Approaching Not directly, but possibly. Especially when considering new or absent housing from the existing housing stock such as missing middle. This policy is not effective in accommodating more housing. No HP11 Continue to assist developers with housing proposals at the earliest possible opportunity, including preapplication meetings to produce projects that can be reviewed quickly and maximize their ability to receive permits. Approaching N/A Yes, this policy directly addresses supporting developers through a streamlined permitting the process. Not directly Good Design & Diversifying Housing Choice HG3 Develop a zoning code that provides flexibility to produce innovative housing solutions, does not burden the cost of housing development and maintenance, and diversifies the range of housing types available in the City. Approaching Not directly Yes, policy does accommodate new/additional housing, speaks to innovative housing solutions which signals infill or redevelopment Not directly HG4 Proactively plan for and respond to trends in housing demand. Supportive No, policy is mitigating harms and introduces equity by proactively responding to housing trends and demands. Yes, policy is effective in accommodating housing Possibly, if housing demands/trends inhibit affordable housing development, or only support market rate housing projects 68 of 75 HP12 The FWRC and Land Use chapter of the FWCP will be coordinated to facilitate locating housing affordable to low-income, very low-income, and special needs households throughout the City, especially around the City Center and other areas that provide proximity to employment, safe and convenient access to transportation and human services, and adequate infrastructure to support housing development. Supportive No Yes, policy accommodates more housing and builds on equitable outcomes No, policy will allow more income levels an option to obtain housing within their affordability range, also provides more equitable access to transit and community amenities HP13 Continue to use design guidelines to ensure that new and infill developments have aesthetic appeal and minimize impacts on surrounding development Approaching No Yes, policy references new/infill development. This will add to the existing housing stock available No, this policy will likely aid communities of interest from becoming displaced, or decrease the likelihood of displacement as new development/infill occurs HP14 Review zoning, subdivision, and development regulations to ensure that they further housing policies, facilitate infill development and don’t create unintended barriers. Supportive No, policy mitigates and introduces more equitable outcomes for community members Yes, policy accommodates more housing and reduces the risk of possible displacement or exclusion through intentional measures to reduce barriers and create infill No, this policy has mitigating effects on RDI and introduces more equitable outcomes to marginalized communities HP15 As appropriate, reduce minimum lot sizes to allow construction of smaller, detached single-family houses on smaller lots. Approaching No, this policy speaks to expanding housing choice Yes, more housing in terms of quantity possibly, but is still limiting because only speaks to detached single family houses on smaller lots whereas middle housing options are not included Not directly, potential policies or actions could include securing and preserving existing housing stock 69 of 75 HP16 Increase capacity and encourage greater diversity of housing types and costs for both infill and new development through various methods, such as inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, and transfer of development rights, cluster housing, cottage housing, garden housing, duplexes, and low to moderate density housing types. Supportive No, policy mitigates exclusion and RDI through expanding housing choice in terms of style, size, and cost which is anticipated to achieve more equitable outcomes for community members Yes, policy is effective in accommodating more housing, and introduces more equitable outcomes in housing by providing variety in housing type Not directly HP17 Continue to permit commercial/residential mixed-use development in designated commercial areas throughout the City. Develop incentive programs to ensure an adequate amount of housing is developed in these areas. Supportive Not directly, Yes Possibly, policies and action to mitigate displacement risk should be added such as including programs and incentives for mixed-income projects. HP18 Continue to pursue public-private partnerships to develop mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods in close proximity to transit. Approaching Not directly, but possibly if not done in an inclusive way that serves diverse community needs Yes, policy accommodates new/more housing No directly, policy is silent to preserving existing housing that may be affordable and does not include mitigating factors. HP19 Continue to provide incentives, such as density bonuses, for multi-family housing, and expand the types of incentives offered to encourage new developments to include affordable housing. Supportive No Yes, policy accommodates more housing and mitigates /reduces RDI, and possible displacement by incentivizing the development of affordable housing Not directly HP20 Periodically review and update development regulations to incorporate opportunities for new housing types. Approaching Not directly, but possibly if not done in an inclusive way that serves diverse community needs Likely will accommodate more housing variety, but not a guarantee against RDI, displacement, or exclusion in housing for some communities of interest Possibly, could increase RDI, exclusion or displacement if there are not anti- displacement goals and policies in place as well Housing Affordability HG5 Develop a range of affordable housing opportunities for low-income households consistent with the CWPPs and the needs of the community. Approaching Not directly, policy would mitigate displacement and some exclusion Yes, policy accommodates additional housing stock Not directly, by diversifying housing type and choice, policy introduces more equitable outcomes in housing stocks available HG6 Encourage development of mixed-income projects and communities. Supportive No, mixed income projects and communities are more inclusive Yes No, mixed-income projects actively reduce displacement risk by increasing supply of income restricted units. 70 of 75 HP21 Promote fair housing access to all persons without discrimination. Supportive No, policy introduces an unbiased level of protection to all home seekers Not implied that policy will add additional housing stock for city No, policy may serve to house some families or individuals with preexisting barriers HP22 As required by the CWPPs, maintain sufficient land supply and adequate zoning within the City to accommodate those types of housing consistent with the City’s affordable housing targets. Supportive No, policy is intentional about targeting low income affordable housing targets Yes, policy is intentional about creating new housing and housing type No, policy provides a level of protection to low income home seekers HP23 Continue to require a portion of new housing on sites of significant size to be affordable to low-income households at a level not provided otherwise by the private market. Developers should be compensated for providing this affordable housing by increased density or other benefits. Supportive No, policy seeks to incentivize housing that would accommodate larger low-income families outside of private market restrictions Yes, policy would accommodate more housing and mitigates RDI and introduces a level of equity No, policy does not increase displacement risks HP24 Ensure that any new affordable housing required by the City remains affordable through some tool approved by the City, such as recording a lien on the property. Supportive No, policy mitigates some forms of housing insecurity by setting defined parameters of cost over a set amount time Yes, policy does accommodate new/additional housing No, policy mitigates displacement risks if "monitoring tool" is effective HP25 To the extent possible, coordinate all City affordable housing programs so that a developer can use multiple incentives or programs for a single project. Required affordability levels and duration of affordability should be the same for all programs. Approaching Unlikely, but depends on the programs/incentives Possibly through administering programs and incentives to accommodate more income restricted units Possibly by requiring all programs to have the same terms HP26 Continue to allow manufactured housing in residential zones; provided it conforms to all applicable federal, state, and local requirements and is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Supportive Not necessarily Not necessarily, this policy does not accommodate new housing No HP27 In order to maintain existing affordable housing, the City should continue to allow manufactured home parks in existing locations. Supportive No, policy would mitigate displacement and some exclusion by maintaining spaces that allow for manufactured homes as a more affordable option for long term housing solutions Not explicitly accommodating more housing, but could potentially offer that option if new locations/zoning changes were introduced to allow manufactured homes, however existing lots would N/A 71 of 75 not allow for denser placement of manufactured homes HP28 In order to maintain existing affordable housing, continue to enhance programs that support and finance rehabilitation, energy efficiency, and weatherization of existing housing stock. Advocate for state and federal funding to support these programs. Supportive No No, policy speaks of existing housing stock No HP29 Encourage development of mixed income projects in appropriately zoned areas. Approaching No, accommodates mitigating factors and introduces a level of equity inclusive of varying income earners No, this policy does not expand housing options or give direction to increase production of mixed income project No HP30 Explore federal, state, and local resources to assist in financing affordable rental and ownership housing. Advocate for increased resources for the State Housing Trust Fund. Encourage expansion of home ownership options through such means as first time home buyer programs, housing cooperatives, lease-purchase ownership, and other housing models. Supportive No, policy mitigates and provides a level of equity into homeownership opportunities No, policy speaks of existing housing stock available No, policy would serve to mitigate displacement, exclusion, or RDI HP31 Consider delaying, deferring, or exempting affordable housing from development fees, concurrency requirements, payment of impact fees, offsite mitigation, and other development expenses that do not compromise environmental protection or public health, safety, and welfare concerns, or constitute a nuisance. Supportive No, policy mitigates RDI by reducing cost and removing barriers to affordable housing development Yes, policy provides direction for incentives to increase the quantity of housing No, policy provides mitigation to some displacement risk through affordable housing development 72 of 75 HP32 Consider options for locally financing affordable housing such as creating a rehabilitation or land acquisition loan fund to support creation of healthy affordable housing. Supportive No Yes, policy is effective in introducing new housing stock. Land rehabilitation/acquisition for the purpose of affordable housing allows for more housing equity in the market No, policy introduces mitigating factors and provides a level of equity HP33 Support nonprofit affordable housing organizations during all stages of siting, project planning and permitting. Supportive No Yes, policy accommodates more housing stock No, project support would aid in countering displacement for communities of interest HP34 Support tax law amendments that provide relief to owners of affordable and special needs housing. Supportive No No, policy speaks to existing homeowners and those in specialized housing No HP35 Advocate for tax law reform that encourages even and proportionate distribution of affordable housing on a countywide basis. Supportive No, policy supports mitigating harms by encouraging more uniform distribution of affordable housing countywide Potentially, but not necessarily No HP36 Identify low-income and very low-income housing resources that may be lost due to redevelopment or deteriorating housing conditions. Develop strategies that seek to preserve this existing housing, and that seek to provide relocation assistance to households that are displaced as a result of any redevelopment. Supportive Possibly displacement and RDI, however mitigating factors are mentioned Yes, policy would accommodate new housing, and preserve existing NOAH stock No, this policy intends to decrease physical displacement pressures HP37 Periodically monitor residential development to determine the total number of new and redeveloped units receiving permits and units constructed, housing types, developed densities, and remaining capacity for residential growth for all income levels and needs. Supportive No No, the policy is just for monitoring No HP38 Integrate and coordinate construction of public infrastructure with private development to minimize housing costs wherever possible or practicable. Approaching Not necessarily - if the project leads to public benefit such as income restricted affordable housing Yes, policy intends to make housing production cheaper and easier Not directly, depends on the outcome of the project 73 of 75 HG7 Develop a range of housing opportunities that meet the requirements of people with special housing needs, including the elderly, mentally ill, victims of domestic abuse, and persons with physical and/or developmental disabilities. Supportive No, expands housing options for communities of interest Yes, policy accommodates new/more housing stock in the city No, policy serves as a stabilizing housing option for some communities of interest HP39 Periodically review the FWRC and remove any regulatory barriers to locating special needs housing and emergency and transitional housing within the City as required by the federal Fair Housing Act, to avoid over-concentration, and to ensure uniform distribution throughout all residential and mixed-use zones. Supportive No, policy mitigates and provides a level of equity into housing stock distribution Yes, policy seeks to add distribution where applicable No HP40 Review permit applications for special needs housing in close coordination with service providers and the City’s Community Services Division. Supportive No No, but is intended to support development of special needs housing No HP41 Assist special needs housing developers, local service organizations, and self-help groups to obtain funding and support. Supportive No, policy serves communities of interest Yes, if designated funding for specialized housing is used to develop new housing units No, policy establishes a level of inclusiveness for families with specialized housing needs HP42 Ensure that access to special needs housing is provided without discrimination. Supportive No, policy mitigates impacts and introduces a level of equity No, policy does not expressly mention construction of new units, implies existing specialized units No HG8 Develop emergency shelter and transitional housing facilities for the homeless. Supportive No Not effective in providing long term solutions to combat housing affordability for certain incomes, would accommodate temporary measures for unsheltered individuals No HP43 Coordinate City actions related to homelessness with the City’s Community Services Division and non-profit housing and human services providers. Supportive No No No 74 of 75 HP44 Emergency shelters should be permitted and regulated to ensure there are adequate opportunities to locate them within the City, to avoid over-concentration of facilities, to ensure that such facilities and housing are properly managed, and to avoid or mitigate significant impacts on existing residential neighborhoods or other surrounding uses. Supportive No Yes, to an extent. This is not considered "housing" but a sheltering of the individual/family unit for an undesignated amount of time No Regional Participation HG9 Coordinate and integrate the City’s housing programs with regional housing efforts and with local housing and service providers. Supportive No Yes, policy accommodates additional housing stock No HG10 Work with other King County jurisdictions to ensure that affordable housing is equitably distributed across jurisdictions and not concentrated in less affluent cities and communities. Challenge No, policy seeks to add equity through intentional placement of affordable housing Yes, policy accommodates more housing stock No, policy does not increase displacement risks HP45 Policies and regulations related to affordable housing should be consistent with the CWPPs and multi-county policies. Supportive No N/A No, policy should mitigate HP46 Establish effective links with King County and other area cities to assess need and create housing opportunities for low- income and special needs households, and develop housing programs that address issues common throughout the region. Supportive No, policy mitigates Yes, policy would accommodate additional housing stock to the city No, policy would serve to offer stabilized housing options for communities of interest HP47 Subject to availability of funds, participate in the production and periodic update of a housing needs assessment for the City and the region to ensure that policy is based upon a rational evaluation of housing needs and priorities. Supportive No No, policy speaks to existing housing stock evaluation to access need/demand for additional housing stock Unsure HP48 Ensure equitable and rational distribution of affordable housing throughout the region that is compatible with land use, transportation, and employment locations. Supportive No Yes, policy would accommodate additional housing stock to the city No 75 of 75