2023 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