Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2033RESOLUTION NO. 2033 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, ratifying the adoption of the King County Countywide Planning Policies (Ordinance 19384) and the 2O2t urban growth capacity report (Ordinance 19369)' RECITALS A. The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36'7OA./LO. The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. B. The Urban Growth capacity Report is King county's buildable lands report as required by RCW 36.70A.2L5 and WAC 365-196-315. c. on December L4, 2O2L, the Metropolitan King county council adopted and ratified Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) Motion No. 21-1 and 2l-2, to adopt the updated CPPs and the urban growth capacity report. Countywide Planning Ilrban Growth - Resolution 1 D. The King County Council approved and ratified the amendments on behalf of unincorporated King County pursuant to King County Ordinance No. 19384 and Ordinance No. 19369' E. Now the amendments are presented to jurisdictions in King County for ratification. F, The Kent city council's Economic and community Development Committee reviewed the amendments at its meeting on February 74,2022, and recommended approval to the full City Council' NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION 'E9TION 7. -Anenlment The city of Kent, acting pursuant to the interlocal agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies as adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council in King County Ordinance No. 19384 and Ordinance No' L9369, attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A' SECTION 2. - Pubtic Inspection The amendment to the Countywide planning Policies adopted herein shall be filed with the City Clerk and placed in the planning services office so they are available for inspection by the public. SECTION 3, - Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this resolution. 2 CountYwide Planning Itrban Growth - Resolution SECTION 4. - Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 5. - Corrections by city clerk Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk is authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution, including the correction of clerical errors; resolution, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 6, - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. DANA RALPH, MAYOR March I.2022 Date Approved ATTEST: 0 March 1,2O22 Date AdoptedKIMBERLEYOTO, CITY CLERK APPROVED a i EYU 3 CountYwide Planning Ilrban Growth - Resolution EXHIBIT A King County Ordinance No. 19384 King County Ordinance No. 19369 KING COUNTY Signature Report 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Ordinance 19384 Proposed No. 2021-0254.3 Sponsors Dembowski 1 AN ORDINANCE relating to adoption and ratification of 1 the 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies. 2 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 3 SECTION 1. Findings: 4 A. On October 29, 2020, the Puget Sound Regional Council General Assembly 5 adopted VISION 2050 and the Multicounty Planning Policies. 6 B. The Multicounty Planning Policies call for the Countywide Planning Policies 7 to be updated, where necessary, before December 31, 2021. 8 C. On June 23, 2021, the Growth Management Planning Council approved 9 Motion 21-1 recommending the 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies to the 10 King County council. 11 D. Technical changes made by the King County council streamline and 12 strengthen the 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies. 13 E. Workplan items relating to the Affordable Housing Committee and Growth 14 Management Planning Council review of the four-to-one program implement VISION 15 2050 and the Countywide Planning Policies. 16 F. Changes to city of Sammamish growth targets reflect updated conditions that 17 impact capacity in the jurisdiction. 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E Ordinance 19384 2 SECTION 2. The 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies, Attachment 19 A to this ordinance, is hereby adopted by King County and ratified on behalf of the 20 population of unincorporated King County. 21 SECTION 3. 22 A. Growth Management Planning Council Motion 21-1 included a workplan item 23 for the Affordable Housing Committee of the Growth Management Planning Council. 24 The County shall submit to the Affordable Housing Committee the following workplan 25 items for review, consideration, and recommendation: 26 1. Monitor and report jurisdictional housing supply, housing affordability, 27 housing needs and income-restricted housing levels, including disparities between 28 subregions and comparisons to established subregional or jurisdictional affordable 29 housing needs, through the Regional Affordable Housing dashboard and reporting; 30 2. Establish subregional or jurisdictional affordable housing needs, informed by 31 local data and the data and methodology provided by the Washington state Department of 32 Commerce; 33 3. Recommend to the Growth Management Planning Council an accountability 34 and implementation framework for equitably meeting affordable housing needs across the 35 region. The Affordable Housing Committee will consider, at a minimum, the range of 36 development patterns chapter and housing chapter amendments proposed by Growth 37 Management Planning Council members in June 2021 regarding understanding and 38 accommodating housing need, holding jurisdictions accountable and allocating resources; 39 and 40 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E Ordinance 19384 3 4. Recommend to the Growth Management Planning Council any Countywide 41 Planning Policy amendments necessary to implement their recommendations. 42 B. Complete its housing needs work by the end of 2022 and submit a staff report 43 to the Growth Management Planning Council quarterly in 2022 to provide an update the 44 on its progress. 45 SECTION 4. 46 A. The county's four-to-one program has been effective in implementing Growth 47 Management Act goals to reduce sprawl and encourage retention of open space. There 48 have been previous efforts to update the four-to-one program as part of the 2020 King 49 County Comprehensive Plan update and 2021 Countywide Planning Policies update. 50 There is a need to comprehensively review the Countywide Planning Policies ("the 51 CPPs"), King County Comprehensive Plan ("KCCP") and King County Code ("KCC") to 52 ensure the three documents are consistent and reflect countywide growth management 53 goals, including collaboration with cities affected by the program. 54 B. The executive shall review the four-to-one program as follows: 55 1. Analyze all projects approved under the four-to-one program and evaluate the 56 performance of those projects against the program's goals of reducing sprawl and 57 preserving open space; 58 2. Consider the following potential amendments to the four-to-one program. The 59 review shall also include proposed procedural improvements to make it clearer how four-60 to-one program projects are applied for, reviewed, approved and monitored after 61 approval. The potential amendments to be considered include, but are not limited to: 62 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E Ordinance 19384 4 a. whether the four-to-one program should require projects be contiguous with 63 the 1994 urban growth area boundary, later adopted boundaries through subsequent joint 64 planning processes between the county and cities, or some combination thereof; 65 b. whether the four-to-one program should allow reduced open space 66 dedication if a proposal contains lands with high ecological value, such as lands that 67 could provide for high-value floodplain restoration, riparian habitat or working resource 68 lands; 69 c. whether the four-to-one program should allow for noncontiguous open space 70 preservation; 71 d. whether the four-to-one program should allow facilities, such as roads or 72 stormwater, that serve the new urban area to be located in the Rural Area; 73 e. whether the four-to-one program should allow nonresidential and 74 multifamily residential projects; and 75 f. whether the four-to-one program should allow projects that are not likely to 76 be annexed in a timely manner; 77 3. Develop and recommend to the county council changes to the CPPs, KCCP 78 and KCC, in consultation with the IJT and based on Growth Management Planning 79 Council review identified in subsection B.4 of this section; and 80 4. Submit to the Growth Management Planning Council in 2022 the following 81 items for review, consideration and recommendation: 82 a. previously adopted goals and criteria of the four-to-one program; 83 b. findings of the analyses in subsection B.1. and 2. of this section; and 84 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E Ordinance 19384 5 c. potential changes to the CPPs, KCCP and KCC necessary to implement 85 improvements to the four-to-one program. 86 C. Executive staff shall regularly update and consult with the offices of the 87 councilmembers representing the county on the GMPC, the chair and vice-chair of the 88 local services committee, or its successor, and the chair and vice-chair of the mobility and 89 environment committee, or its successor, throughout the process. 90 D. The executive recommended CPPs, KCCP and KCC changes and a GMPC 91 motion that makes recommendations on the four-to-one program shall be completed no 92 later than January 1, 2023, shall be included in the public review draft and State 93 Environmental Policy Act environmental impact statement for the 2024 Comprehensive 94 Plan Update, and shall be transmitted to the council as part of the 2024 Comprehensive 95 Plan update. 96 SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to 97 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E Ordinance 19384 6 any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the 98 application of the provision to persons or circumstances is not affected. 99 Ordinance 19384 was introduced on 7/27/2021 and passed as amended by the Metropolitan King County Council on 12/14/2021, by the following vote: Yes: 9 - Ms. Balducci, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Upthegrove, Mr. von Reichbauer and Mr. Zahilay KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ________________________________________ Claudia Balducci, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________________ Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council APPROVED this _____ day of _______________, ______. ________________________________________ Dow Constantine, County Executive Attachments: A. 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies, dated November 30, 2021, updated 12/14/2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 12/27/2021 Ordinance 19384 19384 Attachment A, updated 12/14/2021 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies November 30, 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Page intentionally left blank DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: CONTENTS 3 CONTENTS LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 6 The King County Countywide Planning Policies .......................................................................... 6 The Growth Management Planning Council ............................................................................... 6 About the 2021 Update ............................................................................................................... 7 Equity and Social Justice .............................................................................................................. 7 King County Demographics and Geography ................................................................................ 7 VISION AND FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................... 9 Vision for King County 2050 ........................................................................................................ 9 Framework Policies ...................................................................................................................... 9 ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................................... 12 Environmental Sustainability ..................................................................................................... 12 Earth and Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 12 Flood Hazards ............................................................................................................................ 14 Water Resources........................................................................................................................ 14 Open Space ................................................................................................................................ 15 Restoration and Pollution .......................................................................................................... 15 Climate Change .......................................................................................................................... 16 DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ...................................................................................................... 18 Urban Growth Area ................................................................................................................... 18 Centers and Station Areas ......................................................................................................... 29 Urban Design and Historic Preservation ................................................................................... 31 Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands .................................................................................... 32 HOUSING ................................................................................................................................. 36 Conduct a Housing Inventory and Analysis ............................................................................... 39 Collaborate Regionally ............................................................................................................... 40 Implement Policies and Strategies to Meet Housing Needs Equitably ..................................... 41 Measure Results and Provide Accountability ............................................................................ 45 ECONOMY ............................................................................................................................... 48 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: CONTENTS 4 Business Development .............................................................................................................. 49 People ........................................................................................................................................ 50 Places ......................................................................................................................................... 51 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................. 54 Supporting Growth .................................................................................................................... 54 Mobility ...................................................................................................................................... 56 System Operations .................................................................................................................... 58 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES .......................................................................................... 60 Urban and Rural Levels of Service ............................................................................................. 60 Collaboration Among Jurisdictions ............................................................................................ 60 Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 61 Locating Facilities and Services.................................................................................................. 63 Siting Public Capital Facilities .................................................................................................... 65 Public Facility and Disaster Preparedness ................................................................................. 66 Appendix 1: Generalized Land Use Categories Map ............................................................... 67 Appendix 2: Potential Annexation Areas Map ....................................................................... 68 Appendix 3: Urban Separators Map ........................................................................................ 69 Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix .............................................................................. 70 Appendix 5: King County School Siting Task Force Report ..................................................... 98 Appendix 6: King County Centers Designation Framework .................................................... 99 GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................. 105 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 5 LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Countywide Planning Policies guide how King County jurisdictions work together and plan for growth that will occur on the ancestral lands of the Coast Salish peoples. In respect for and acknowledgment of their legacy, the Countywide Planning Policies seek to create a livable, equitable, and sustainable home for current and future generations. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: INTRODUCTION 6 INTRODUCTION 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 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 The CPPs implement VISION 2050, which is the region’s plan for growth. VISION 2050 is a product of a regional planning process led by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), an association of cities, towns, four counties (King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish), ports, tribes, and state agencies. By 2050, the region’s population is projected to reach 5.8 million people. The region’s vision for 2050 is to provide exceptional quality of life, opportunity for all, connected communities, a spectacular natural environment, and an innovative, thriving economy. King County is home to 39 cities, all of which have a role in accommodating the approximately 660,000 people and 490,000 jobs projected to come to King County by 2044. The Growth Management Planning Council The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) brings together elected officials from King County and the cities and develops and recommends the CPPs to the King County Council. The GMPC is chaired by the King County Executive and includes members from the King County Council, the Mayor of Seattle, members from the Seattle Ci ty Council, representatives from the other 38 cities in King County through the Sound Cities Association, and ex -officio membership from special purpose districts, school districts, and the Port of Seattle. The GMPC is supported by the Interjurisdiction al Staff Team (IJT), which reflects the membership of the GMPC. The IJT is comprised of senior planning staff from King County and the cities. The IJT operates on a consensus basis and prepares all documents for GMPC review and consideration. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: INTRODUCTION 7 The Countywide Planning Policies and all amendments to the CPPs become effective following approval by the GMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by King County cities. About the 2021 Update With the update to VISION 2050 and the approaching 2024 statutory update of comprehensive plans, King County jurisdictions updated the Countywide Planning Policies for the next decade. Recognizing the existing Countywide Planning Policies as a starting place for the update, the Growth Management Planning Council approved Guiding Principles to establish the context and parameters for the update. The Guiding Principles call for a limited scope to the update based on the following:  2012 Countywide Planning Policies  Centering social equity and health  Integrating regional policy and legislative changes  Providing clear, concise, and actionable direction for comprehensive plans  Implementing the Regional Growth Strategy with 2044 growth targets that form the land use basis for periodic comprehensive plan upd ates Equity and Social Justice The GMPC approved the guiding principle of “centering social equity and health” in the Countywide Planning Policies. As noted in VISION 2050, historical land use and housing policies have played a role in creating and maintaining racial inequities. While some explicitly discriminatory laws have been overturned, their legacy and effects have remained, preventing Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities from sharing the recent prosperity of the county. Centering equity and health in the CPPs will continue through improvements to policies and resource allocation that explicitly counter and remedy disparities in determinants of equity and are informed by those most affected by these disparities. The policies’ collective vision for the county’s shared future will have a significant effect on local plans that shape how jurisdictions allocate public resources and set policy to achieve a future where everyone enjoys a safe and healthy place to live, work, and play. King County Demographics and Geography King County is the most populous county in Washington State and the 13th most populous county in the nation. In 2021, King County is home to about 2.3 million people and 1.5 million jobs. King County’s population continues to diversify each year. In 2019, People of Color communities comprised 40 percent of the population, 23 percent of the population was born outside the United States, and 28 percent of people over age five spoke a language other than DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: INTRODUCTION 8 English at home. People under 18 comprise 20 percent of the population, while seniors over 65 comprise about 14 percent of the population. King County’s land area is 2,130 square miles and is characterized by cities large and small, by beautiful scenery and geographic variety, stretching from the Puget Sound in the west to the crest of the Cascade Mountains in the east. King County has a variety of working farms and forestlands, as well as a significant open space network. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: VISION AND FRAMEWORK 9 VISION AND FRAMEWORK Vision for King County 2050 It is the year 2050 and our county has changed significantly in the roughly 60 years that have elapsed since the first Countywide Planning Policies were adopted in 1992. In 2050,  Communities across King County are welcoming places where every person can thrive.  All residents have access to opportunity and displacement from development is lessened.  The cities are vibrant and inviting hubs for people with a safe, affordable, and efficient transportation system that connects people to the places they want to go.  Housing is characterized by a full range of options that are healthy, safe, affordable , and open to all.  The county’s critical areas are protected and have been restored.  Open spaces are well distributed and inviting to all users.  The Rural Area is viable and permanently protected with a clear boundary between urban and rural areas.  The county boasts of bountiful agricultural areas and productive forest lands.  The economy provides opportunities to everyone and includes Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color-owned businesses; immigrant- and women-owned businesses; locally owned businesses; and global corporations. Framework Policies Unless otherwise noted, the Countywide Planning Policies apply to the Growth Management Planning Council, King County, and all cities within King County. Amendments While much has been accomplished, the Countywide Planning Policies were never intended to be static and will require amendment over time to reflect changed conditions. While the formal policy development is done by the Growth Management Planning Council, i deas for new policies begin in a variety of areas including individual jurisdictions. Policy FW-1 below describes the process for amending the Countywide Planning Policies . FW-1 Maintain the currency of the Countywide Planning Policies through periodic review and amendment. Initiate and review all amendments at the Growth Management Planning Council through the process described below: a) Only the Growth Management Planning Council may propose amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies except for amendments to the Urban Growth Area that may also be proposed by King County in accordance with policies DP-16 through DP-18; DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: VISION AND FRAMEWORK 10 b) Growth Management Planning Council recommends amendments to the King County Council for consideration, possible revision, and approval; proposed revisions by the King County Council that are of a substantive nature may be sent to the Growth Management Planning Council for their consideration and revised recommendation based on the proposed revision; c) A majority vote of the King County Council both constitutes approval of the amendments and ratification on behalf of the residents of Unincorporated King County; d) After approval and ratification by the King County Council, amendments are forwarded to each city and town for ratification. Amendments cannot be modified during the city ratification process; and e) Amendments must be ratified within 90 days of King County approval and require affirmation by the county and cities and towns representing at least 70 percent of the county population and 30 percent of those jurisdictions. Ratification is either by an affirmative vote of the city’s or town’s council or by no action being taken within the ratification period. Monitoring Periodically evaluating the effectiveness of the Countywide Planning Policies is key to continuing their value to the region and local jurisdictions. In 1994 King County and cities established the current Benchmarks program to monitor and evaluate key regional indicators. FW-2 Monitor and benchmark the progress of the Countywide Planning Policies towards achieving the Regional Growth Strategy inclusive of the environment, development patterns, housing, the economy, transportation, and the provision of public services, as well as reducing disparities in equity and health outcomes for King County residents . Identify corrective actions to be taken if progress toward benchmarks is not being achieved. Investment Key to ensuring the success of the Countywide Planning Policies is investment in regional infrastructure and programs. Balancing the use of limited available funds between regional , countywide, and local needs is extremely complex. FW-3 Work collaboratively to identify and seek regional, state, and federal funding sources to invest in infrastructure, strategies, and programs to enable the full implementation of the Countywide Planning Policies. Balance needed regional investments with countywide and local needs when making funding determinations. FW-4 Support fiscal sustainability of Rural Areas. Rural Areas provide an overall benefit for all residents of King County and strategies to fund infrastructure and services in Rural Areas may be needed to support a defined rural level of service. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: VISION AND FRAMEWORK 11 Consistency The Countywide Planning Policies provide a common framework for local planning and each jurisdiction is required to update its comprehensive plan to be consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. The full body of the Countywide Planning Policies is to be considered for decision-making within the context of each city’s needs and situations. FW-5 Adopt comprehensive plans that are consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies as required by the Growth Management Act. Equity The Countywide Planning Policies coordinate planning for a more equitable future where all King County residents have access to housing, transportation, education, employment choices, and open space amenities regardless of their race, social, or economic status. Through their comprehensive plans, jurisdictions will create targeted policies and strategies unique to their local circumstances to achieve this goal. FW-6 Enable culturally and linguistically appropriate equitable access to programs and services and help connect residents to service options, particularly for those most disproportionately cost-burdened or historically excluded. FW-7 Develop and use an equity impact review tool when developing plans and policies to test for outcomes that might adversely impact Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities; immigrants and refugees; people with low incomes; people with disabilities; and communities with language access needs. Regularly assess the impact of policies and programs to identify actual outcomes and adapt as needed to achieve intended goals. FW-8 Involve community groups especially immigrant, Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities continuously in planning processes to promote civic engagement, government accountability, transparency, and personal agency. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ENVIRONMENT 12 ENVIRONMENT Overarching Goal: The quality of the natural environment in King County is restored and protected for future generations. Environmental Sustainability Local governments have a key role in shaping sustainable communities by integrating sustainable development and business practices with ecological, social, and economic concerns. Local governments also play a pivotal role in ensuring environmental justice by addressing environmental impacts on frontline communities and by pursuing fairness in the application of policies and regulations. EN-1 Incorporate environmental protection and restoration efforts including climate action, mitigation, and resilience into local comprehensive plans to ensure that the quality of the natural environment and its contributions to human health and vitality is sustained now and for future generations. EN-2 Develop and implement environmental strategies using integrated and interdisciplinary approaches to environmental assessment and planning, in coordination with local jurisdictions, tribes, and other stakeholders. EN-3 Ensure public and private projects incorporate locally appropriate , low-impact development approaches developed using a watershed planning framework for managing stormwater, protecting water quality, minimizing flooding and erosion, protecting habitat, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. EN-4 Encourage the transition to a sustainable energy future by reducing demand through efficiency and conservation, supporting the development of energy management technology, and meeting reduced needs from sustainable sources. EN-5 Ensure all residents of the region regardless of race, social, or economic status have a clean and healthy environment. Identify, mitigate, and correct for unavoidable negative impacts of public actions that disproportionately affect those frontline communities impacted by existing and historical racial, social, environmental, and economic inequities, and who have limited resources or capacity to adapt to a changing environment. Earth and Habitat Healthy ecosystems and environments are vital to the sustainability of all plant and animal life, including humans. Protection of biodiversity in all its forms and across all landscapes is critical DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ENVIRONMENT 13 to continued prosperity and high quality of life in King County. The value of biodiversity to sustaining long-term productivity and both economic and ecological benefits is evident in fisheries, forestry, and agriculture. For ecosystems to be healthy and provide healthful benefits to people, local governments must prevent negative human impacts and work to ensure that this ecosystem remains diverse and productive over time. With the impending effects of climate change, maintaining biodiversity becomes even more critical to the preservation and resilience of resource-based activities and many social and ecological systems. Protection of individual species, including Chinook salmon, also plays an important role in sustaining biodiversity and quality of life within the county. Since 2000, local governments, citizens, tribes, conservation districts, non-profit groups, and federal and state fisheries managers have cooperated to develop and implement watershed -based salmon conservation plans, known as Water Resource Inventory Area plans, to conserve and restore habitat for Chinook salmon today and for future generations. EN-6 Locate development and supportive infrastructure in a manner that minimizes impacts to natural features. Promote the use of traditional and innovative environmentally sensitive development practices, including design, materials, construction, and ongoing maintenance. EN-7 Coordinate approaches and standards for defining and protecting critical areas, especially where such areas and impacts to them cross jurisdictional boundaries. EN-8 Use the best available science when establishing and implementing environmental standards. EN-9 Develop and implement an integrated and comprehensive approach to managing fish and wildlife habitat to accelerate ecosystem recovery, focusing on enhancing the habitat of salmonids, orca, and other threatened and endangered species and species of local importance. EN-10 Ensure that new development, open space protection efforts, and mitigation projects support the State’s streamflow restoration law. Promote robust, healthy, and sustainable salmon populations and other ecosystem functions working closely within Water Resource Inventory Areas and utilizing adopted watershed plans. EN-11 Enhance the urban tree canopy to provide wildlife habitat, support community resilience, mitigate urban heat, manage stormwater, conserve energy, protect and improve mental and physical health, and strengthen economic prosperity. Prioritize places where Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities; low-income populations; and other frontline community members live, work, and play. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ENVIRONMENT 14 Flood Hazards Flooding is a natural process that affects human communities and natural environments in King County. Managing floodplain development and conserving aquatic habitats are the main challenges for areas affected by flooding. The King County Flood Control District exists to protect public health and safety, regional economic centers, public and private property , and transportation corridors. Local governments also have responsibility for flood control within their boundaries. EN-12 Coordinate and fund holistic flood hazard management efforts through the King County Flood Control District. EN-13 Work cooperatively to meet regulatory standards for floodplain development as these standards are updated for consistency with relevant federal requirements including those related to the Endangered Species Act. EN-14 Cooperate with federal, state, and regional agencies and forums to develop and implement regional levee maintenance standards that ensure public safety and protect habitat. Water Resources The flow and quality of water are impacted by water withdrawals, land development, stormwater management, and climate change. Since surface and ground waters do not respect political boundaries, cross-jurisdictional coordination of water is required to ensure its functions and uses are protected and sustained. The Puget Sound Partnership was created by the Washington State Legislature as the state agency responsible for assuring the preservation and recovery of Puget Sound and the freshwater systems flowing into the Sound. King County plays a key role in these efforts because of its large population and its location in Central Puget Sound. EN-15 Encourage basin‐wide approaches to wetland protection, emphasizing preservation and enhancement of the highest quality wetlands and wetland systems. EN-16 Collaborate with the Puget Sound Partnership to implement the Puget Sound Action Agenda and to coordinate land use and transportation plans and actions for the benefit of Puget Sound and its watersheds. EN-17 Manage natural drainage systems to improve water quality and habitat functions, minimize erosion and sedimentation, protect public health, reduce flood risks, and moderate peak stormwater runoff rates. Work cooperatively among local, regional, state, national, and DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ENVIRONMENT 15 tribal jurisdictions to establish, monitor, and enforce consistent standards for managing streams and wetlands throughout drainage basins. EN-18 Support and incentivize environmental stewardship on private and public lands to protect and enhance habitat, water quality, and other ecosystem services, including the protection of watersheds and wellhead areas that are sources of the region’s drinking water supplies. EN-19 Establish a multijurisdictional approach for funding and monitoring water quality, quantity, biological conditions, and outcome measures and for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring efforts. Open Space EN-20 Identify and preserve regionally significant open space networks in both Urban and Rural Areas through implementation of the Regional Open Space Conservation Plan. Develop strategies and funding to protect lands that provide the following valuable functions: Ecosystem linkages and migratory corridors crossing jurisdictional boundaries; Physical or visual separation delineating growth boundaries or providing buffers between incompatible uses; Active and passive outdoor recreation opportunities; Wildlife habitat and migration corridors that preserve and enhance ecosystem resiliency in the face of urbanization and climate change; Preservation of ecologically sensitive, scenic, or cultural resources; Urban green space, habitats, and ecosystems; Forest resources; and Food production potential. EN-21 Preserve and restore native vegetation and tree canopy, especially where it protects habitat and contributes to overall ecological function. EN-22 Provide parks, trails, and open space within walking distance of urban residents. Prioritize historically underserved communities for open space improvements and investments. Restoration and Pollution EN-23 Reduce the use of toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and other products and promote alternatives that minimize risks to human health and the environment. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ENVIRONMENT 16 EN-24 Restore the region’s freshwater and marine shorelines, watersheds, estuaries, and other waterbodies to a natural condition for ecological function and value, where appropriate and feasible. EN-25 Prevent, mitigate, and remediate harmful environmental pollutants and hazards, including light, air, noise, soil, and structural hazards, where they have contributed to racialized health or environmental disparities, and increase environmental resiliency in frontline communities. EN-26 Adopt policies, regulations, and processes, related to new or existing fossil fuel facilities, which are designed to: Protect public health, safety, and welfare from all impacts of fossil fuel facilities; Mitigate and prepare for any impacts of fossil fuel facility disasters on all communities; Protect and preserve natural ecosystems from the construction and operational impacts of fossil fuel facilities; Manage impacts on public services and infrastructure in emergency management, resilience planning, and capital spending; Ensure comprehensive environmental review, and extensive community engagement, during initial siting, modifications, and on a periodic basis; and Reduce climate change impacts from fossil fuel facility construction and operations. Climate Change Greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in a changing and increasingly variable climate. King County’s snow-fed water supply is especially vulnerable to a changing climate. Additionally, the patterns of storm events and river and stream flow patterns are changing and our shorelines are susceptible to rising sea levels. Carbon dioxide reacts with seawater and reduces the water’s pH, also threatening the food web in Puget Sound. While local governments can individually work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, more significant emission reductions can only be accomplished through countywide coordination of land use patterns and promotion of transportation systems that provide practical alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. Efficient energy consumption is both a mitigation and an adaptation strategy. Local governments can improve energy efficiency through the development of new infrastructure as well as the maintenance and updating of existing infrastructure. EN-27 Adopt and implement policies and programs to achieve a target of reducing countywide sources of greenhouse gas emissions, compared to a 2007 baseline, by 50% by 2030, 75% by 2040, and 95%, including net-zero emissions through carbon sequestration and other strategies, by 2050. Evaluate and update these targets over time in consideration of the latest international climate science and statewide targets aiming to limit the most severe impacts of climate change and keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ENVIRONMENT 17 EN-28 Plan for development patterns that minimize air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, including: Directing growth to Urban Centers and other mixed -use or high-density locations that support mass transit, encourage non-motorized modes of travel, and reduce trip lengths; Facilitating modes of travel other than single-occupancy vehicles including transit, walking, bicycling, and carpooling; Incorporating energy-saving strategies in infrastructure planning and design; Encouraging interjurisdictional planning to ensure efficient use of transportation infrastructure and modes of travel; Encouraging new development to use low emission construction practices, low or zero net lifetime energy requirements, and green building techniques; and Reducing building energy use through green building methods in the retrofit of existing buildings. EN-29 King County shall assess and report countywide greenhouse gas emissions associated with resident, business, and local government buildings, vehicles, and solid waste at least every two years. King County shall update its comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions inventory that quantifies all direct local sources of greenhouse gas emissions as well as emissions associated with local consumption at least every five years. King County shall also develop city-specific emissions inventories and data, in partnership with cities. EN-30 Promote energy efficiency, conservation methods, sustainable energy sources, electrifying the transportation system, and limiting vehicle miles traveled to reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and consumption of fossil fuels to support state, regional, and local climate change goals. EN-31 Address rising sea water by siting and planning for relocation of hazardous industries and essential public services away from the 500‐year floodplain. EN-32 Protect and restore natural resources such as forests, farmland, wetlands, estuaries, and the urban tree canopy, which sequester and store carbon. EN-33 Support the production and storage of clean renewable energy. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 18 DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS The policies in this chapter address the location, type, design , and intensity of land uses that are desired in King County and its cities. They guide implementation of the vision for physical development within the county. The policies also provide a framework for how to focus multimodal improvements to transportation, public services, the environment, and affordable housing, as well as how to incorporate concerns about climate change, social equity, and public health into planning for new growth. Development patterns policies are at the core of growth management efforts in King County. They further the goals of VISION 2050 and recognize the variety of local communities that will be taking action to achieve those goals. Overarching Goal: Growth in King County occurs in a compact, centers-focused pattern that uses land and infrastructure efficiently, connects people to opportunity, and protects Rural and Natural Resource Lands. The Countywide Planning Policies designate land as Urban, Rural, or Natural Resource. The Generalized Land Use Categories Map in Appendix 1 shows the Urban Growth Area boundary and Urban, Rural, and Natural Resource Lands within King County. Further sections of this chapter provide more detailed descriptions and guidance for planning within each of the three designations. DP-1 Designate all lands within King County as one of the following. In each of these designations, critical areas may exist and these are to be conserved through regulations, incentives, and programs. a) Urban land within the Urban Growth Area, where new growth is focused and accommodated; b) Rural land, where farming, forestry, and other resource uses are protected, and very low-density residential uses and small-scale non-residential uses are allowed; or c) Natural Resource land, where permanent regionally significant agricultural, forestry, and mining lands are preserved. Urban Growth Area The Urban Growth Area encompasses all urban designated lands within King County. These lands include all cities as well as a portion of unincorporated King County. Consistent with the Growth Management Act and VISION 2050, urban lands are intended to be the focus of future growth that is compact, includes a mix of uses, and is well-served by public infrastructure. The pattern of growth within the Urban Growth Area implements the Regional Growth Strategy through the allocation of targets to local jurisdictions. The targets create an obligation to plan DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 19 and provide zoning for future potential growth, but do not obligate a jurisdiction to guarantee that a given number of housing units will be built or jobs added during the planning period. Several additional elements in the Development Patterns chapter reinforce the vision and targeted growth pattern for the Urban Growth Area. Procedures and criteria for amending the Urban Growth Area boundary address a range of objectives and ensure that changes balance the needs for land to accommodate growth with the overarching goal of preventing sprawl within the county. A review and evaluation program provides feedback for the county and cities on the effectiveness of their efforts to accommodate and achieve the desired land use pattern. Joint planning facilitates the transition of governance of the Urban Growth Area from the county to cities, consistent with the Growth Management Act, and helps ensure equitable governance and service provision. Urban form and development within the Urban Growth Area are important settings to provide people with access to jobs and housing, choices to engage in more physical activity, eat healthy food, and minimize exposure to harmful environments and substances. Access to sidewalks and pathways, healthy food, and open space is not shared equally across the urban area. Historical underinvestment in neighborhoods where Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities have been concentrated and exclusion of these communities from high- opportunity areas persists today. The stability and sustainability of the Urban Growth Area depend on fostering development patterns that provide access to opportunity for all. Goal Statement: The Urban Growth Area boundary is stable and capacity within it shall increase over time to accommodate growth consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and growth targets through land use patterns and practices that create vibrant, equitable, an d sustainable communities. Urban Lands DP-2 Prioritize housing and employment growth in cities and centers within the Urban Growth Area, where residents and workers have higher access to opportunity and high-capacity transit. Promote a pattern of compact development within the Urban Growth Area that includes housing at a range of urban densities, commercial and industrial development, and other urban facilities, including medical, governmental, institutional, and educational uses and schools, and parks and open space. The Urban Growth Area will include a mix of uses that are convenient to and support public transportation to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicle travel for most daily activities. DP-3 Develop and use residential, commercial, and manufacturing land efficiently in the Urban Growth Area to create healthy, vibrant, and equitable urban communities with a full range of urban services, and to protect the long-term viability of the Rural Area and Natural Resource DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 20 Lands. Promote the efficient use of land within the Urban Growth Area by using methods such as: a) Directing concentrations of housing and employment growth to high opportunity areas like designated centers and transit station areas, consistent with the numeric goals in the Regional Growth Strategy; b) Encouraging compact and infill development with a mix of compatible residential, commercial, and community activities; c) Providing opportunities for greater housing growth closer to areas of high employment to reduce commute times; d) Optimizing the use of existing capacity for housing and employment; e) Redeveloping underutilized lands, in a manner that considers equity and mitigates displacement; and f) Coordinating plans for land use, transportation, schools, capital facilities and services. DP-4 Focus housing growth in the Urban Growth Area within cities, designated regional centers, countywide centers, locally designated local centers, areas of high employment, and other transit supported areas to promote access to opportunity. Focus employment growth within designated regional and countywide manufacturing/industrial centers and within locally designated local centers. DP-5 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through land use strategies that promote a mix of housing, employment, and services at densities sufficient to encourage walking, bicycling, transit use, and other alternatives to auto travel, and by locating housing closer to areas of high employment. DP-6 Adopt land use and community investment strategies that promote public health and address racially and environmentally disparate health outcomes and promote access to opportunity. Focus on residents with the highest needs in providing and enhancing opportunities for employment, safe and convenient daily physical activity, social connectivity, protection from exposure to harmful substances and environments, and housing in high opportunity areas. DP-7 Plan for street networks that provide a high degree of connectivity to encourage walking, bicycling, transit use, and safe and healthy routes to and from public schools. DP-8 Increase access to healthy and culturally relevant food in communities throughout the Urban Growth Area by encouraging the location of healthy food purveyors, such as grocery stores, farmers markets, urban agriculture programs, and community food gardens in proximity to residential uses and transit facilities, particularly in those areas with limited access to healthy food. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 21 DP-9 Designate Urban Separators as permanent low-density incorporated and unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators are intended to protect Natural Resource Lands, the Rural Area, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space and wildlife corridors within and between communities while also providing public health, environmental, visual, and recreational benefits. Changes to Urban Separators are made pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies amendment process described in policy FW-1. Designated Urban Separators within cities and unincorporated areas are shown in the Urban Separators Map in Appendix 3. DP-10 No new Fully Contained Communities shall be approved in unincorporated King County. DP-11 When large mixed-use developments are proposed adjacent to the Rural Area, permitting cities shall collaborate with King County during the review process to avoid and mitigate impacts on the surrounding Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands. Growth Targets Under the Growth Management Act, King County, in coordination with the cities in King County, adopts growth targets for the ensuing 20-year planning period. Growth targets are policy statements about the amount of housing and employment growth each jurisdi ction is planning to accommodate within its comprehensive plan. Growth targets are adopted for each jurisdiction and unincorporated urban King County in the Countywide Planning Policies. Growth targets for the cities in the rural area include the incorpora ted area and the associated Potential Annexation Area, as shown in the map in Appendix 2. DP-12 GMPC shall allocate residential and employment growth to each city and urban unincorporated area in the county. This allocation is predicated on: 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; 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; 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; 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; DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 22 Improving jobs/housing balance consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy, both between counties in the region and within subareas in the county; Promoting opportunities for housing and employment throughout the Urban Growth Area and within all jurisdictions in a manner that ensures racial and social equity; Allocating growth to Potential Annexation Areas within the urban unincorporated area proportionate to their share of unincorporated capacity for housing and employment growth. DP-13 The Growth Management Planning Council shall: Update housing and employment targets periodically to provide jurisdictions with up-to- date growth allocations to be used as the land use assumption in state-mandated comprehensive plan updates; Adopt housing and employment growth targets in the Countywide Planning Policies pursuant to the procedure described in policy FW-1; 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, allocations to Regional Geographies, and individual jurisdictional growth targets; Ensure that each jurisdiction’s growth targets are commensurate with their role in the Regional Growth Strategy by establishing a set of objective criteria and principles to guide how jurisdictional targets are determined; Ensure that each jurisdiction’s growth targets allow it to meet the need for affordable housing for households with low-, very low-, and extremely low-incomes; and Adjust targets administratively upon annexation of unincorporated Po tential Annexation Areas by cities. Growth targets for the planning period are shown in Table DP-1. 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 capacity for residential, commercial, and industrial uses that is sufficient to meet 20-year growth targets 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 e) Transferring an accommodating unincorporated area housing and employment targets as annexations occur DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 23 Table DP-1: King County Jurisdiction Growth Targets 2019-2044 Net New Units and Jobs Jurisdiction 2019-2044 Housing Target 2019-2044 Job Target Metro Cities Bellevue 35,000 70,000 Seattle 112,000 169,500 Metropolitan Cities Subtotal 147,000 239,500 Core Cities Auburn 12,000 19,520 Bothell 5,800 9,500 Burien 7,500 4,770 Federal Way 11,260 20,460 Issaquah 3,500 7,950 Kent 10,200 32,000 Kirkland 13,200 26,490 Redmond 20,000 24,000 Renton 17,000 31,780 SeaTac 5,900 14,810 Tukwila 6,500 15,890 Core Cities Subtotal 112,860 207,170 High Capacity Transit Communities Des Moines 3,800 2,380 Federal Way PAA 1,020 720 Kenmore 3,070 3,200 Lake Forest Park 870 550 Mercer Island 1,239 1,300 Newcastle 1,480 500 North Highline PAA 1,420 1,220 Renton PAA - East Renton 170 0 Renton PAA - Fairwood 840 100 Renton PAA - Skyway/West Hill 670 600 Shoreline 13,330 10,000 Woodinville 2,033 5,000 High Capacity Transit Communities Subtotal 29,942 25,570 Table DP-1: King County Jurisdiction Growth Targets 2019-2044 Net New Units and Jobs DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 24 Jurisdiction 2019-2044 Housing Target 2019-2044 Job Target Cities and Towns Algona 170 325 Beaux Arts 1 0 Black Diamond 2,900 680 Carnation 799 450 Clyde Hill 10 10 Covington 4,310 4,496 Duvall 890 990 Enumclaw 1,057 989 Hunts Point 1 0 Maple Valley 1,720 1,570 Medina 19 0 Milton 50 900 Normandy Park 153 35 North Bend 1,748 2,218 Pacific 135 75 Sammamish * * Skykomish 10 0 Snoqualmie 1,500 4,425 Yarrow Point 10 0 Cities and Towns Subtotal 15,483 17,163 Urban Unincorporated Auburn PAA 12 0 Bellevue PAA 17 0 Black Diamond PAA 328 0 Issaquah PAA 35 0 Kent PAA 3 300 Newcastle PAA 1 0 Pacific PAA 134 0 Redmond PAA 120 0 Sammamish PAA 194 0 Unaffiliated Urban Unincorporated 448 400 Urban Unincorporated Subtotal 1,292 700 Urban Growth Area Total 306,577 490,103 * Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) Motion 21-4 established a process to revise the 2019-2044 growth targets for the City of Sammamish to reflect updated sewer capacity. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 25 Sammamish shall submit final growth targets to the GMPC by June 1, 2021 for ac tion by the GMPC and recommendation to the King County Council. Amendments to the Urban Growth Area The following policies guide the decision-making process by both the GMPC and King County regarding proposals to amend the Urban Growth Area. DP-15 Review the Urban Growth Area at least every ten years. In this review consider monitoring reports and other available data. As a result of this review and based on the criteria established in policies DP-16 through DP-19, King County may propose and then the Growth Management Planning Council may recommend amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies and King County Comprehensive Plan that make changes to the Urban Growth Area boundary. DP-16 Allow amendment of the Urban Growth Area only when the following steps have been satisfied: a) The proposed amendment is under review by the County as part of an amendment process of the King County Comprehensive Plan; b) King County submits the proposal to the Growth Management Planning Council for the purposes of review and recommendation to the King County Council on the proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area; c) The King County Council approves or denies the proposed amendment; and d) If approved by the King County Council, the proposed amendment is ratified by the cities following the procedures set forth in policy FW-1. DP-17 Allow expansion of the Urban Growth Area only if at least one of the following criteria is met: a) A countywide analysis determines that the current Urban Growth Area is insufficient in size and additional land is needed to accommodate the housing and employment growth targets, including institutional and other non-residential uses, and there are no other reasonable measures, such as increasing density or rezoning existing urban land, that would avoid the need to expand the Urban Growth Area; or b) A proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Area is accompanied by dedication of permanent open space to the King County Open Space System, where the acreage of the proposed open space: 1) Is at least four times the acreage of the land added to the Urban Growth Area; 2) Is contiguous with the Urban Growth Area with at least a portion of the dedicated open space surrounding the proposed Urban Growth Area expansion; and 3) Preserves high quality habitat, critical areas, or unique features that contribute to the band of permanent open space along the edge of the Urban Growth Area; or DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 26 c) The area is currently a King County park being transferred to a city to be maintained as a park in perpetuity or is park land that has been owned by a city since 1994 and is less than thirty acres in size. DP-18 Add land to the Urban Growth Area only if expansion of the Urban Growth Area is warranted based on the criteria in DP-17(a) or DP-17(b), and it meets all of the following criteria: a) Is adjacent to the existing Urban Growth Area; b) For expansions based on DP-17(a) only, is no larger than necessary to promote compact development that accommodates anticipated growth needs; c) Can be efficiently provided with urban services and does not require supportive facilities located in the Rural Area; d) Follows topographical features that form natural boundaries, such as rivers and ridge lines and does not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, that impede the provision of urban services; e) Is not currently designated as Resource Land; f) Is sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support urban development without significant adverse environmental impacts, unless the area is designated as an Urban Separator by interlocal agreement between King County and the annexing city; and g) Is subject to an agreement between King County and the city or town adjacent to the area that the area will be added to the city’s Potential Annexation Area. Upon ratification of the amendment, the Countywide Planning Policies will reflect both the Urban Growth Area change and Potential Annexation Area change. DP-19 Allow redesignation of Urban land currently within the Urban Growth Area to Rural land outside of the Urban Growth Area if the land is not needed to accommodate projected urban growth, is not served by public sewers, is contiguous with the Rural Area, and: a) Is not characterized by urban development; b) Is currently developed with a low-density lot pattern that cannot be realistically redeveloped at an urban density; or c) Is characterized by environmentally sensitive areas making it inappropriate for higher density development. Review and Evaluation Program The following policies guide the buildable lands program conducted by the GMPC and King County. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 27 DP-20 Conduct a buildable lands program that meets or exceeds the review and evaluation requirements of the Growth Management Act. The purposes of the buildable lands program are: a) To collect and analyze data on development activity, including land supply, zoning, development standards, land uses, critical areas, and capacity for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses in urban areas; b) To determine whether jurisdictions are achieving urban densities and planned growth consistent with comprehensive plans, countywide planning policies, and multicounty planning policies; and c) To evaluate the sufficiency of land capacity to accommodate growth for the remainder of the planning period. DP-21 The County and the cities, through the Growth Management Planning Council, will collaboratively determine whether reasonable measures other than amending the Urban Growth Area are necessary to ensure sufficient additional capacity if a countywide urban growth capacity report, informed by local data and analysis where appropriate, determines that: a) The current Urban Growth Area is insufficient in capacity to accommodate the housin g and employment growth targets; or b) Any jurisdiction: 1) Contains insufficient capacity to accommodate the housing and employment growth targets; 2) Has significant differences between development assumptions and growth targets and actual housing and employment growth; or 3) Has not achieved urban densities consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. DP-22 Jurisdictions shall adopt any necessary reasonable measures into their comprehensive plans to promote growth consistent with planned urban densities and adopted housing and employment targets. Reasonable measures should help implement local targets in a manner consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. Jurisdictions shall report adopted reasonable measures to the GMPC and shall collaborate to provide data periodically on the effectiveness of those measures. Joint Planning and Annexation DP-23 Coordinate the preparation of comprehensive plans with adjacent and other affected jurisdictions, military facilities, tribal governments, ports, airports, and other related entities to avoid or mitigate the potential cross-border impacts of urban development and encroachment of incompatible uses. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 28 DP-24 Designate Potential Annexation Areas in city comprehensive plans and adopt them in the Countywide Planning Policies. Affiliate all Potential Annexation Areas with adjacent cities to ensure they do not overlap or leave urban unincorporated islands between cities. Except for parcel or block-level annexations that facilitate service provision, commercial areas and residential areas shall be annexed holistically rather than in a manner that leaves residential urban unincorporated islands. Annexation is preferred over incorporation. DP-25 Cities and the County shall work to establish timeframes for annexation of roadways and shared streets within or between cities, but still under King County jurisdiction. DP-26 Facilitate the annexation of unincorporated areas that are already urbanized and are within a city’s Potential Annexation Area to increase the provision of urban services to those areas. Utilize tools and strategies such as service and infrastructure financing, tran sferring permitting authority, or identifying appropriate funding sources to address infrastructure and service provision issues in Potential Annexation Areas. DP-27 Cities with Potential Annexation Areas and the County shall work to establish pre- annexation agreements that identify mutual interests and ensure coordinated planning and compatible development until annexation is feasible. DP-28 Allow cities to annex territory only within their designated Potential Annexation Area as shown in the Potential Annexation Areas Map in Appendix 2. Phase annexations to coincide with the ability of cities or existing special purpose districts to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to be annexed. a) For areas that have received approval for annexation from the King County Boundary Review Board, the City shall include a process that includes collaboration with King County for annexation in the next statutory update of their comprehensive plan. b) Jurisdictions may negotiate with one another regarding changing boundaries or affiliations of Potential Annexation Areas and may propose such changes to GMPC as an amendment to Appendix 2. In proposing any new or revised PAA boundaries or city affiliation, jurisdictions should consider the criteria in DP-30. In order to ensure that any changes can be included in local comprehensive plans, any proposals resulting from such negotiation shall be brought to GMPC for action no later than two years prior to the statutory deadline for the major plan update. DP-29 Strive to establish alternative non-overlapping Potential Annexation Area boundaries within the North Highline unincorporated area, where Potential Annexation Areas overlapped prior to January 1, 2009, through a process of negotiation. Absent a negotiated resolution, a city may file a Notice of Intent to Annex with the Boundary Review Board for King County for territory within its designated portion of a Potential Annexation Area overlap as shown in the DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 29 Potential Annexation Areas Map in Appendix 2 and detailed in the city’s comprehensive plan after the following steps have been taken: a) The city proposing annexation has, at least 30 days prior to filing a Notice of Intent to annex with the Boundary Review Board, contacted in writing the cities with the PAA overlap and the county to provide notification of the city’s intent to annex and to request a meeting or formal mediation to discuss boundary alternatives, and; b) The cities with the Potential Annexation Area overlap and the county have either: 1) Agreed to meet but failed to develop a negotiated settlement to the overlap within 60 days of receipt of the notice, or 2) Declined to meet or failed to respond in writing within 30 days of receipt of the notice. DP-30 Evaluate proposals to annex or incorporate urban unincorporated land based on the following criteria, as applicable: Conformance with Countywide Planning Policies including the Urban Growth Area boundary; The ability of the annexing or incorporating jurisdiction to efficiently provide urban services at standards equal to or better than the current service providers; The effect of the annexation or incorporation in avoiding or creating unincorporated islands of development; The ability of the annexing or incorporating jurisdiction to serve the area in a manner that addresses racial and social equity and promotes access to opportunity; and Outreach to community, the interest of the community in moving forward with a timely annexation or incorporation of the area. Centers and Station Areas A centers strategy is the foundation for King County to achieve the Regional Growth Strategy as well as a range of other objectives, including providing a land use framework for an efficient and effective regional transit system, and guiding growth to locations planned for greater access to opportunity. Regionally designated centers, countywide centers, local centers, and the areas surrounding high-capacity transit stations provide areas of mixed-use zoning, infrastructure, and concentrations of services and amenities to accommodate both housing and employment growth. Regionally designated centers include regional growth centers and regional manufacturing/industrial centers. There are two types of regional growth centers - metro growth centers and urban growth centers - and two types of regional manufacturing/industrial centers - industrial employment and industrial growth centers. Regional growth centers are focal points for investment and development. Manufacturing/industrial centers preserve lands DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 30 for middle-wage jobs in basic industries and trade and provide areas wh ere that employment may grow in the future. Countywide growth centers serve important roles as places for concentrating jobs, housing, shopping, and recreational opportunities. These are often smaller downtowns, high-capacity transit station areas, or neighborhood centers that are linked by transit, provide a mix of housing and services, and serve as focal points for local and county investment. Countywide industrial centers serve as important local industrial areas. These areas support living wage jobs and serve a key role in King County's manufacturing/industrial economy. The King County Centers Designation Framework in Appendix 6 provides designation processes and timelines, minimum existing and planned density thresholds, and subarea planning expectations for regional and countywide centers. Regionally designated centers are shown on the Generalized Land Use Categories Map in Appendix 1. Goal Statement: King County grows in a manner that reinforces and expands upon a system of existing and planned high-capacity transit in central places within which concentrated residential communities and economic activities can flourish. Regional Growth Centers DP-31 Focus housing and employment growth into designated regional growth centers, at levels consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy, and at densities that maximize high- capacity transit. DP-32 Designate regional growth centers in the Countywide Planning Policies where city- nominated locations meet the criteria in the King County Centers Designation Framework, as adopted in Appendix 6. Regional growth centers should be limited in number and located on existing or planned high-capacity transit corridors to provide a framework for targeted private and public investments that support regional land use and transportation goals. DP-33 Establish subarea plans for designated regional and countywide centers that meet the criteria in the King County Centers Designation Framework, as adopted in Appendix 6. DP-34 Evaluate the potential physical, economic, and cultural displacement of residents and businesses in regional growth centers and high-capacity transit station areas, particularly for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities; immigrants and refugees, low- income populations; disabled communities; and other communities at greatest risk of displacement. Use a range of strategies to mitigate identified displacement impacts. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 31 Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers DP-35 Designate and accommodate industrial employment growth in a network of regional and countywide industrial centers to support economic development and middle-wage jobs in King County. Designate these centers based on nominations from cities and after determining that: The nominated locations meet the criteria set forth in the King County Centers Designation Framework and the criteria established by the Puget Sound Regional Council for regional manufacturing/industrial centers; The proposed center’s location will promote a countywide system of manufacturing/ industrial centers with the total number of centers representing a realistic growth strategy for the county; and The city’s commitments will help ensure the success of the center. DP-36 Minimize or mitigate potential health impacts of the activities in manufacturing/industrial centers on residential communities, schools, open space, and other public facilities. Countywide and Local Centers DP-37 Designate countywide centers in the Countywide Planning Policies where locations meet the criteria in the King County Centers Designation Framework, as adopted in Appendix 6. Countywide centers shall have zoned densities that support high-capacity transit and be located on existing or planned transit corridors. DP-38 Support the designation of local centers, such as city or neighborhood centers, transit station areas, or other activity nodes, where housing, employment, and services are accommodated in a compact form and at sufficient densities to support transit service and to make efficient use of urban land. DP-39 Evaluate the potential physical, economic, and cultural displacement of residents and businesses in countywide and local centers, particularly for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities; immigrants and refugees, low-income populations; disabled communities; and other communities at greatest risk of displacement . Use a range of strategies to mitigate identified displacement impacts. Urban Design and Historic Preservation The countywide vision includes elements of urban design and form intended to integrate urban development into existing built and natural environments in ways that enhanc e urban and natural settings to create vibrant places. These elements promote public health, include high DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 32 quality design, context sensitive infill and redevelopment, historic preservation, and cultural awareness, as well as the interdependence of urban and rural and agricultural lands and uses. Goal statement: The built environment in both urban and rural settings achieves high quality design that recognizes and enhances, where appropriate, existing natural and urban settings and human health and dignity. DP-40 Plan for neighborhoods or subareas to encourage infill and redevelopment, reuse of existing buildings and underutilized lands, and provision of adequate public spaces, in a manner that enhances public health, existing community character, and mix of uses. Neighborhood and subarea planning should include equitable engagement with Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities; immigrants and refugees; people with low -incomes; people with disabilities; and communities with language access needs. DP-41 Promote a high quality of design and site planning throughout the Urban Growth Area. Provide for connectivity in the street network to accommodate walking, bicycling, and transit use to promote health and well-being. DP-42 Preserve significant historic, visual, archeological, cultural, architectural, artistic, and environmental features, especially where growth could place these resources at risk. Support cultural resources and institutions that reflect the diversity of the community. Where appropriate, designate individual features or areas for protection or restoration. Encourage land use patterns and adopt regulations that protect historic resources and sustain historic community character while allowing for equitable growth and development. DP-43 Create and protect systems of green infrastructure, such as urban forests, parks, green roofs, and natural drainage systems, in order to reduce climate-altering pollution and increase resilience of communities to climate change impacts. Prioritize neighborhoods with historical underinvestment in green infrastructure. DP-44 Design communities, neighborhoods, and individual developments using techniques that reduce heat absorption, particularly in regional and countywide centers and residential neighborhoods with less tree canopy and open spaces. DP-45 Adopt flexible design standards, parking requirements, incentives, or guidelines that foster green building, multimodal transportation, and infill development tha t enhances the existing or desired urban character of a neighborhood/community. Ensure adequate code enforcement so that flexible regulations are appropriately implemented. Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 33 The Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands encompass all areas outside of the Urban Growth Area and include Vashon Island in Puget Sound and the area just east of the Urban Growth Area all the way to the crest of the Cascade Mountains. Rural Area The Rural Area is characterized by low density development with a focus on activities that are dependent on the land such as small-scale farming and forestry. The Rural Area also provides important environmental and habitat functions and is critical for salmon recovery. The location of the Rural Area, between the Urban Growth Area and designated Natural Resource Lands, helps to protect commercial agriculture and timber from incompatible uses. The Rural Area, outside of the Cities in the Rural Area, is to remain in unincorporated King County and is to be provided with a rural level of service. Goal Statement: The Rural Area geography is stable and the level and pattern of growth within it provide for a variety of landscapes and open space lands, maintains diverse low-density communities, and supports rural economic activities based on sustainable stewardship of the land. DP-46 Provide opportunities for residential and employment growth within Cities in the Rural Area at levels consistent with adopted growth targets. Growth levels should not create pressure for conversion of nearby Rural or Natural Resource lands, nor pressure for extending or expanding urban services, infrastructure, and facilities such as roads or sewer across or into the Rural Area. Transit service may cross non-urban lands to serve Cities in the Rural Area. 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. DP-48 Limit residential development in the Rural Area to housing at low densities that are compatible with rural character and comply with the following density guidelines: One home per 20 acres where a pattern of large lots exists and to buffer Forest Protection Districts and Agricultural Districts; One home per 10 acres where the predominant lot size is less than 20 acres; or One home per five acres where the predominant lot size is less than 10 acres. Allow limited clustering within development sites to prevent development on environmentally critical lands or on productive forest or agricultural lands, but not to exceed the density guidelines cited in (a) through (c). DP-49 Limit the extension of urban infrastructure improvements through the Rural Area to only cases where it is necessary to serve the Urban Growth Area and where there are no other DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 34 feasible alignments. Such limited extensions may be considered only if land use controls are in place to restrict uses appropriate for the Rural Area and only if access management controls are in place to prohibit tie-ins to the extended facilities. DP-50 Establish rural development standards and strategies to ensure all development protects the natural environment, including farmlands and forest lands, by using seasonal and maximum clearing limits for vegetation, limits on the amount of impervious surface, surface water management standards that preserve natural drainage systems, water quality and groundwater recharge, and best management practices for resource-based activities. DP-51 Mitigate negative impacts of industrial-scale development that occurs within the Rural Area. DP-52 Except as provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task Force Report), limit new nonresidential uses located in the Rural Area to those that are demonstrated to serve the Rural Area, unless the use is dependent upon a rural location. Such uses shall be of a size, scale, and nature that is consistent with rural character. DP-53 Allow cities that own property in the Rural Area to enter into interlocal agreements with King County to allow the cities to provide services to the properties they own as lon g as the cities agree to not annex the property or serve it with sewers or any infrastructure at an urban level of service. The use of the property must be consistent with the Rural Area policies in the Countywide Planning Policies and the King County Comp rehensive Plan. Natural Resource Lands Natural Resource Lands are designated areas with long-term commercial significance for agriculture, forestry, and mining. The use and designation of these lands are to be permanent, in accordance with the Growth Management Act. King County has maintained this base of agriculture and forest lands despite the rapid growth of the previous decades. The Natural Resource Lands are to remain in unincorporated King County but their benefit and significance is felt throughout the county into the cities. Within cities, farmers markets are becoming important and sought-after neighborhood amenities. The forests of the Pacific Northwest are some of the most productive in the world and King County has retained two-thirds of the county in forest cover. Large scale forestry is a traditional land use in the eastern half of King County and remains a significant contributor to the rural economy. In addition, forests provide exceptional recreational opportunities, including downhill and cross-country skiing, mountain biking, hiking, and backpacking. Goal Statement: Natural Resource Lands are valuable long-term assets of King County and are renowned for their productivity and sustainable management. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 35 DP-54 Promote and support forestry, agriculture, mineral extraction, and other resource-based industries outside of the Urban Growth Area as part of a diverse and sustainable regional economy. Avoid redesignating Natural Resource Lands to Rural. DP-55 Conserve commercial agricultural and forestry resource lands primarily for their long- term productive resource value and for the open space, scenic views, wildlife habitat, and critical area protection they provide. Limit the subdivision of land so that parcels remain large enough for commercial resource production. DP-56 Encourage best practices in agriculture and forestry operations for long-term protection of the natural resources and habitat. DP-57 Prohibit annexation of lands within designated Agricultural Production Districts or within Forest Production Districts by cities. DP-58 Retain the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District as a regionally designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County. DP-59 Prevent incompatible land uses adjacent to designated Natural Resource Lands to avoid interference with their continued use for the production of agricultural, mining, or forest products. DP-60 Support agricultural, farmland, and aquatic uses that enhance the food system, and promote local production and processing of food to reduce the need for long distance transport and to increase the reliability and security of local food. Promote activities and in frastructure, such as farmers markets, farm worker housing and agricultural processing facilities, that benefit both cities and farms by improving access to locally grown agricultural products. DP-61 Support institutional procurement policies that encourage purchases of locally grown food products. DP-62 Ensure that extractive industries and industrial-scale operations on resource lands maintain environmental quality, minimize negative impacts on adjacent lands, and that an appropriate level of reclamation occurs prior to redesignation. DP-63 Use a range of tools, including land use designations, development regulations, level -of- service standards, and transfer or purchase of development rights to preserve Rural and Natural Resource Lands and focus urban development within the Urban Growth Area. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 36 DP-64 Use transfer of development rights to shift potential development from the Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands into the Urban Growth Area, consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. Implement transfer of development rights within King County through a partnership between the County and cities that is designed to: Identify rural and resource sending sites that satisfy countywide conservation goals and are consistent with regionally coordinated transfer of development rights efforts; Preserve rural and resource lands of compelling interest countywide and to participating cities; Identify appropriate transfer of development rights receiving areas within cities; Identify incentives for city participation in regional transfer of development rights (i.e. county-to-city transfer of development rights); Develop interlocal agreements that allow rural and resource land development rights to be used in city receiving areas; Identify and secure opportunities to fund or finance infrastructure within city transfer of development rights receiving areas; and Be compatible with existing within-city transfer of development rights programs. HOUSING The Countywide Planning Policies in the Housing Chapter support a rang e of affordable, accessible, and healthy housing choices for current and future residents. 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”). DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 37 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 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. 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 (RCW 36.70A.020 and 36.70A.070). The policies below set a framework for individual and collective action and accountability to meet the countywide need and eliminate disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. These policies guide jurisdictions through a four-step process: 1. Conduct a housing inventory and analysis; 2. Implement policies and strategies to meet housing needs equitably; 3. Measure results and provide accountability; and 4. 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 1 Table H-1 includes both homeownership and rental units. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 38 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. H-2 Prioritize the need for housing affordable to households at or below 30 percent AMI (extremely low-income) by implementing tools such as: Increasing capital, operations, and maintenance funding; Adopting complementary land use regulations; Fostering welcoming communities, including people with behavioral health needs; Adopting supportive policies; and Supporting collaborative actions by all jurisdictions. 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. 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 39 Conduct a Housing Inventory and Analysis The Growth Management Act requires an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs as part of each jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan housing element. The inventory and needs analysis, together with an evaluation of recent progress to address housing needs, helps cities identify the greatest needs and prioritize strategies to address them. Understanding the impact of discriminatory housing and land use practices and current disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice helps focus polic ies and programs to achieve equitable housing outcomes. For example, understanding disparities in access to opportunity areas (i.e. areas with high quality schools, jobs, transit and access to parks, open space, and clean air, water, and soil) can identify a need for increased affordability in those areas. Appendix 4 provides further guidance on conducting a housing inventory and analysis. H-4 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: 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; Number of existing housing units by housing type, age, number of bedrooms, condition, tenure, and AMI limit (for income-restricted units); Number of existing emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing facilities and units or beds, as applicable; Percentage of residential land zoned for and geographic distribution of moderate- and high-density housing in the jurisdiction; 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; Household characteristics, by race/ethnicity: Income (median and by AMI bracket) Tenure (renter or homeowner) Size Housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden; Current population characteristics: Age by race/ethnicity; Disability Projected population growth; Housing development capacity within a half-mile walkshed of high-capacity or frequent transit service, if applicable; Ratio of housing to jobs in the jurisdiction; DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 40 Summary of existing and proposed partnerships and strategies, including dedicated resources, for meeting countywide housing need, particularly for populations disparately impacted; 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; The housing needs of communities experiencing disproportionate harm of housing inequities including Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC); and 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 Evaluate the effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies to meet a significant share of countywide need. Identify gaps in existing partnerships, policies, and dedicated resources for meeting the countywide need and eliminating racial and other dispar ities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. H-6 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. Collaborate Regionally Housing affordability is important to regional economic vitality and sustainability. Housing markets do not respect jurisdictional boundaries. For these reasons, this section promotes cross-sectoral and interjurisdictional coordination and collaboration to identify and meet the housing needs of households with extremely low-, very low-, and low-incomes. Collaborative efforts, supported by the work of the Affordable Housing Committee, the Puget Sound Regional Council and other bodies, contribute to producing and preserving affordable housing and coordinating equitable, sustainable development in the county and region. Where individual jurisdictions lack sufficient resources, collective efforts to fund or provide technical assistance for affordable housing development and preservation, and for the creation of strategies and programs, can help to meet the housing needs identified in comprehensive plans. Jurisdi ctions with similar housing characteristics tend to be clustered geographically. Therefore, there are opportunities for efficiencies and greater impact through interjurisdictional cooperation. Such DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 41 efforts are encouraged and can be a way to meet a jurisdiction’s share of the countywide affordable housing need. H-7 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 . H-8 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. Implement Policies and Strategies to Meet Housing Needs Equitably VISION 2050 encourages local jurisdictions to implement strategies to preserve, impro ve, and expand their housing stock to provide a range of affordable, accessible, healthy, sustainable, and safe housing choices to every resident. This section supports equitably meeting housing needs through strategies and actions that promote:  Distributional equity: An individual’s income race, ethnicity, immigration status, sexual orientation, ability, or income doesn’t impact their ability to access housing in the neighborhood of their choice;  Cross-generational equity: The impact of the housing policies we create result in fair and just distribution of benefits and burdens to future generations;  Process equity: The housing policy development, decision-making, and implementation process is inclusive, open, fair, and accessible to all stakeholders; and  Reparative policies: The policies implemented will actively seek to repair harms caused by racially biased policies. The strategies are grouped by theme:  Equitable processes and outcomes;  Increased housing supply, particularly for households with the greatest needs;  Expanded housing options and increased affordability accessible to transit and employment;  Expanded housing and neighborhood choice for all residents; and  Housing stability, healthy homes, and healthy communities Further detail on the range of strategies for equitably meeting housing needs is contained in Table H-4 in Appendix 4. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 42 Equitable Processes and Outcomes Working together with households most impacted by the affordable housing crisis helps to tailor solutions to best meet their needs. Taking intentional action to overcome past and current discriminatory policies and practices helps to reduce disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. H-9 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. H-10 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 . 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 need 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-11 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. H-12 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; an d within an urban growth area boundary, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. H-13 Implement strategies to overcome cost barriers to housing affordability. Strategies to do this vary but can include updating development standards and regulations, shortenin g 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 43 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. Expanded Housing Options and Increased Affordability Accessible to Transit and Employment The Regional Growth Strategy accommodates growth in urban areas, focused in designated centers and near transit stations, to create healthy, equitable, vibrant communities well -served by infrastructure and services. As the region in vests in transit infrastructure, it must also support affordability in transit areas. Lack of housing affordability negatively impacts the region’s resilience to climate change as people are forced to live far from work, school, and transit, which contributes to climate change through increased transportation emissions and sprawl. 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 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. 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. Expanded Housing and Neighborhood Choice for All Residents Extremely low-, very low-, and low-income residents often have limited choices when seeking an affordable home and neighborhood. The King County Consortium’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice found that many Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities and immigrant groups face disparities in access to opportunity areas with high quality schools, jobs, transit and access to parks, open space, and clean air, water, and soil. Some of the same groups are significantly less likely to own their home as compared to the countywide average, cutting them off from an important tool for housing stability and wealth building. Further, inequities in housing and land use practices as well as cycles of public and private disinvestment and investment have also resulted in communities vulnerable to DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 44 displacement. Intentional actions to expand housing choices throughout the community will help address these challenges. 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: a) Providing access to affordable housing to rent and own throughout the jurisdiction, with a focus on areas of high opportunity; b) Expanding capacity for moderate-density housing throughout the jurisdiction, especially in areas currently zoned for lower density single-family detached housing in the Urban Growth Area, and capacity for high-density housing, where appropriate, consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy; c) Evaluating the feasibility of, and implementing, where appropriate, inclusionary and incentive zoning to provide affordable housing; and d) Providing access to housing types that serve a range of household sizes, types, and incomes, including 2+ bedroom homes for families with children and/or adult roommates and accessory dwelling units, efficiency studios, and/or congregate residences for single adults. 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 80 percent AMI (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 co mmunities. H-20 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. H-21 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, DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 45 immigration status, national origin, familial status, religion, source of income, military status, or membership in any other relevant category of protected people. Housing Stability, Healthy Homes, and Healthy Communities H-22 Adopt and implement policies that protect housing stability for renter households; expand protections and supports for low-income renters and renters with disabilities. H-23 Adopt and implement programs and policies that ensure healthy and safe homes. H-24 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. Measure Results and Provide Accountability Each jurisdiction has a responsibility to address its share of the countywide housing need. The county and cities will collect and report housing data to help evaluate progress in meeting this shared responsibility. The county will help coordinate a transparent data collection and sharing process with cities. Further detail on monitoring procedures is contained in Appendix 4. H-25 Monitor progress toward meeting countywide housing growth targets, countywide need, 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 for unincorporated areas, will report annually to the county using guidance developed by the County on housing AMI levels: 1) In the first reporting year, total income-restricted units, by tenure, AMI limit, address, and term of rent and income restrictions, for which the city 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 increase housing diversity or increase the supply of income-restricted units in the jurisdiction; and DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 46 b) The county where feasible consolidate housing data across jurisdictions to provide clarity and assist jurisdictions with housing data inventory will report annually: 1) Countywide housing inventory of: i. Total housing units, by affordability to AMI bands; ii. Total income-restricted units, by AMI 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 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 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 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. 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 jurisdiction; and 7) Number of individuals and households experiencing homelessness, by race and ethnicity. c) Where feasible, jurisdictions will also collaborate to report: 1) Net new units accessible to persons with disabilities. H-26 The county will provide guidance to jurisdictions on goals for housing AMI levels annually provide transparent, ongoing information measuring jurisdictions’ progress toward meeting countywide affordable housing need, according to H-25, using public-facing tools such as the King County’s Affordable Housing Dashboard. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: HOUSING 47 Adjust Strategies to Meet Housing Needs H-27 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ECONOMY 48 ECONOMY Overarching Goal: All people throughout King County have opportunities to prosper and enjoy a high quality of life through economic growth and job creation. The Countywide Planning Policies in the Economy Chapter support the economi c growth and sustainability of King County’s economy. A strong and healthy economy results in business development, job creation, and investment in our communities. The Economy Chapter reflects and supports the Regional Economic Strategy and VISION 2050’s economic policies, which emphasize the economic value of business, people, and place. The Regional Economic Strategy is the region’s comprehensive economic development strategy and serves as the VISION 2050 economic functional plan. VISION 2050 integrates the Regional Economic Strategy with growth management, transportation, and environmental objectives to:  Support critical economic foundations, such as education, infrastructure, technology, and quality of life; and  Promote the region’s specific industry clusters: aerospace, advanced manufacturing, clean technology, information technology, life sciences, logistics and international trade, military, and tourism. Each local community will have an individual focus on economic development, while the region’s prosperity will benefit from coordination between local plans and the regional vision that take into account the county’s and the region’s overall plan for growth. EC-1 Coordinate local and countywide economic policies and strategies with VISION 2050 and the Regional Economic Strategy. EC-2 Support economic growth that accommodates employment growth targets (see Table DP- 1) through local land use plans, infrastructure development, and implementation of economic development strategies. Prioritize growth of a diversity of middle-wage jobs and prevent the loss of such jobs from the region. EC-3 Support industry clusters and their related subclusters that are int egral components of the Regional Economic Strategy and King County’s economy. Emphasize support for clusters that are vulnerable or threatened by market forces, provide middle-wage jobs, play an outsized role in the local economy, or have significant growth potential. EC-4 Evaluate the performance of economic development policies and strategies in business development and middle-wage job creation. Identify and track key economic metrics to help DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ECONOMY 49 jurisdictions and the county as a whole evaluate the effectiveness of local and regional economic strategies. Business Development Business creation, retention, expansion, and recruitment are the foundations of a strong economy. The success of the economy in the county depends on opportunities for business formation and growth. Our communities play a significant role through local government actions, such as by making regulations more predictable, by engaging in public-private partnerships, and by nurturing a business-supportive culture, particularly for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color; immigrant and refugee; LGBTQIA+; disabled; and women -owned businesses. These policies seek to integrate the concept of healthy communities as part of the county’s economic objectives by calling for support of the regional food economy, including production, processing, wholesaling, and distribution of the region’s agricultural food and food products. EC-5 Help businesses thrive through:  Transparency, efficiency, and predictability of local regulations and policies;  Communication and partnerships between business, government, schools, civic and community organizations, and research institutions; and  Government contracts with local businesses. EC-6 Foster the retention and development of businesses and industries that manufacture goods and provide services for export. EC-7 Promote an economic climate that is supportive of business formation, expansion, and retention, and that emphasizes the importance of small businesses, locally owned businesses, women-owned businesses, and businesses with Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color; immigrant and refugee; LGBTQIA+; disabled; and women-owned or -led businesses, in creating jobs. EC-8 Foster a broad range of public-private partnerships to implement economic development policies, programs, and projects, including partnerships with community groups. Ensure such partnerships share decision-making power with and spread benefits to community group s. EC-9 Use partnerships to foster connections between employers, local vocational and educational programs, and community needs. EC-10 Identify, support, and leverage key regional and local assets to the economy, including assets that are unique to our region's position as an international gateway, such as major DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ECONOMY 50 airports, seaports, educational facilities, research institutions, health care faciliti es, long-haul trucking facilities, and manufacturing facilities. EC-11 Support the regional food economy including the production, processing, wholesaling, and distribution of the region’s agricultural food and food products to all King County communities. Emphasize improving access for communities with limited healthy, affordable, and culturally relevant food options. People People, through their training, knowledge, skills, and cultural background, add value to the region’s economy. Creating an economy that provides opportunities for all, particularly with a focus on those communities historically most disadvantaged, can help to alleviate problems of poverty and income disparity. A diversity of jobs at a variety of wages, skill levels, and educational requirements ensure a robust economy that provides access to opportunity for everyone. Jobs that can support a household or family without significant educational requirements often referred to as “middle- wage” jobs, play a unique role in advancing equity. Given the barriers in access throughout the educational, banking, and other institutional systems, these middle-wage jobs provide key avenues for financial self-sufficiency and wealth building. Jobs in this range predominate in more locally held, smaller- and medium-sized businesses and manufacturers, such as accountants, machinists, or technicians. King County seeks to encourage new small business formation whenever possible and prevent displacement of industries and businesses that have a diversity of occupations or concentrations in those middle skills most associated with middle wage. To support middle-wage jobs and career training for residents of economically distressed areas, priority hire policies require developers to hire local workers and businesses when development projects are above a certain budget threshold and receive public funding. EC-12 Work with schools and other institutions to increase graduation rates and sustain a highly educated and skilled local workforce. This includes aligning job training and education offerings that are consistent with the skill needs of the region’s industry clusters. Identify partnership and funding opportunities where appropriate. Align and prioritize workforce development efforts with Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities; immigrant and refugees; and other marginalized communities. EC-13 Promote the local workforce through priority hire programs that create middle-wage employment opportunities in historically disadvantaged communities. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ECONOMY 51 EC-14 Celebrate the cultural diversity of local communities as a means to enhance social capital, neighborhood cohesion, the county’s global relationships, and support for cultural and arts institutions. EC-15 Eliminate and correct for historical and ongoing disparities in income, employment, and wealth building opportunities for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color; women; and other intersecting marginalized identities. EC-16 Direct investments to community and economic development initiatives that elevate equitable economic opportunity for those communities most marginalized and impacted by disinvestment and economic disruptions. Places Economic activity in the county predominantly occurs within the Urban Growth Area, including regional growth centers and manufacturing/industrial centers, which tend to be where middle- wage jobs predominate. Continuing to guide local investments to these centers will help provide the support needed to sustain the economy and provide greater predictability to businesses about where capital improvements will be located, as well as meet other goals related to supporting equitable growth. In addition to making productive use of urban land, economic activity adds to the culture and vitality of our local communities. While King County moves towards an economy dominated by high -tech and medical services, subregions within the County are hosts to concentrations in other sectors and have experienced job growth in the construction, warehousing, and transportation sectors as real estate pricing recalibrates the geography of jobs. Even as Seattle’s share of manufacturing sector jobs has fallen since 2008, South King County’s cities such as Kent, Auburn , and Renton have seen commensurate increases in manufacturing—and are competing with neighboring Snohomish and Pierce County to retain this critical industry. The policies below take a proactive approach to maintaining King County’s role as the home to internationally significant manufacturing and industrial centers and the industries and businesses that make them what they are. 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 are important for providing services to and being the economic centers for the surrounding Rural Area . EC-17 Concentrate economic and employment growth in designated regional, countywide, and local centers through local investments, planning, and financial policies. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ECONOMY 52 EC-18 Make local investments to maintain and expand infrastructure and services that support local and regional economic development strategies. Focus investment where it encourages growth in designated centers and helps achieve employment targets. EC-19 Add to the vibrancy and sustainability of our communities and the health and well-being of all people through safe and convenient access to local services, neighborhood-oriented retail, purveyors of healthy food (e.g., grocery stores and farmers markets), and transportation choices. EC-20 Promote the natural environment as a key economic asset and work to improve access to it as an economic driver. Work cooperatively with local businesses to protect and restore the natural environment in a manner that is equitable, efficient, predictable, and complements economic prosperity. EC-21 Encourage private, public, and non-profit sectors to incorporate environmental stewardship and social responsibility into their practices. Encourage development of established and emerging industries, technologies and services that promote environmental sustainability, especially those addressing climate change and resilience. EC-22 Maintain an adequate supply of land within the Urban Growth Area to support economic development. Inventory, plan for, and monitor the land supply and development capacity for, manufacturing/industrial, commercial, and other employment uses that can accommodate the amount and types of economic activity anticipated during the planning period. EC-23 Support manufacturing/industrial centers with land use policies that protect industrial land, retain and expand industrial employment, support a diverse regional economy, and provide for the evolution of these Centers to reflect industrial business trends, includ ing in technology and automation. Prohibit or limit non -supporting or incompatible activities that may interfere with the retention and operation of industrial businesses while recognizing that a wider mix of uses, in targeted areas and circumstances, may be appropriate when designed to be supportive of and compatible with industrial employment. EC-24 Facilitate redevelopment of contaminated sites through local, county, and state financing and other strategies that assist with planning, site design, and funding for environmental remediation. EC-25 Encourage economic activity within Cities in the Rural Area, at an appropriate size, scale, and type compatible with these communities and that does not create adverse impacts to the surrounding Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: ECONOMY 53 EC-26 Encourage commercial and mixed-use development that provides a range of job opportunities throughout the county to create a closer balance between the location of jobs and housing. EC-27 Develop and implement systems that provide a financial safety net during economic downturns and recovery. Direct resources in ways that reduce inequities and build economic resiliency for those communities most negatively impacted by asset poverty. EC-28 Ensure public investment decisions protect culturally significant economic assets and advance the business interests of Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities; immigrant and refugees; and other marginalized communities. EC-29 Stabilize and prevent the economic displacement of small, culturally relevant businesses and business clusters during periods of growth, contraction, and redevelopment. Mitigate displacement risks through monitoring and adaptive responses. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: TRANSPORTATION 54 TRANSPORTATION The Regional Growth Strategy identifies a network of walkable, compact, and transit-oriented communities that are the focus of urban development, as well as industrial areas with major employment concentrations. In the Countywide Planning Policies, these communities include countywide designated Urban Centers and Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers, and locally designated local centers. An essential component of the Regional Growth Strategy is an efficient transportation system that provides multiple options for moving people and goods into and among the various centers. Transportation system, in the context of this chapter, is defined as a comprehensive, integrated network of travel modes (e.g., airplanes, automobiles, bicycles, buses, feet, ferries, freighters, trains, trucks) and infra structure (e.g. sidewalks, trails, streets, arterials, highways, waterways, railways, airports) for the movement of people and goods on a local, regional, national and global scale. Goals and policies in this chapter build on the 1992 King County Countywi de Planning Policies and the Multicounty Planning Policies in VISION 2050. Policies are organized into three sections:  Supporting Growth – focusing on serving the region with a transportation system that furthers the Regional Growth Strategy;  Mobility – addressing the full range of travel modes necessary to move people and goods efficiently within the region and beyond; and  System Operations – encompassing the design, maintenance, and operation of the transportation system to provide for safety, efficiency, and sustainability. Overarching Goal: The region is well served by an integrated, multimodal transportation system that supports the regional vision for growth, efficiently moves people and goods, and is environmentally and functionally sustainable over the long term. Supporting Growth An effective transportation system is critical to equitably achieving the Regional Growth Strategy and ensuring that centers are functional and appealing to the residents and businesses they are designed to attract. The policies in this section reinforce the critical relationship between development patterns and transportation and they are intended to guide transportation investments from all levels of government to effectively support local, county, and regional plans to accommodate growth. Policies in this section take a multimodal approach to serving growth, with additional emphasis on transit and non-motorized modes to support planned development in centers. Goal Statement: Local and regional development of the transportation system is consistent with and furthers realization of the Regional Growth Strategy. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: TRANSPORTATION 55 T-1 Work cooperatively with the Puget Sound Regional Council, the state, and other relevant agencies to finance and develop an equitable and sustainable multimodal transportation system that enhances regional mobility and reinforces the countywide vision for managing growth. Use VISION 2050, including the Regional Growth Strategy, and the Regional Transportation Plan as the policy and funding framework for creating a system of regional, countywide, local centers connected by a multimodal network including high-capacity transit, bus service, and an interconnected system of roadways, freeways and high -occupancy vehicle lanes. T-2 Avoid construction of major roads and capacity expansion on existing roads in the Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands. Where increased roadway capacity is warranted to support safe and efficient travel through the Rural Area, appropriate rural development reg ulations and effective access management should be in place prior to authorizing such capacity expansion in order to make more efficient use of existing roadway capacity and prevent unplanned growth in the Rural Area. T-3 Increase the share of trips made countywide by modes other than driving alone through coordinated land use planning, public and private investment, and programs focused on centers and connecting corridors, consistent with locally adopted mode split goals. T-4 Reduce the need for new roadway capacity improvements through investments in transportation system management and operations, pricing programs, and transportation demand management strategies that improve the efficiency of and access to the current system. T-5 Prioritize transportation investments that provide and encourage alternatives to single- occupancy vehicle travel and increase travel options, particularly to and within centers and along corridors connecting centers. T-6 Develop station area plans for high-capacity transit stations and mobility hubs based on community engagement. Plans should reflect the unique characteristics, local vision for each station area including transit-supportive land uses, transit rights-of-way, stations and related facilities, multimodal linkages, safety improvements, place-making elements and minimize displacement. T-7 Support countywide growth management and climate objectives by prioritizing transit service and pedestrian safety in areas where existing housing and employment densities support transit ridership and to designated regional and countywide centers and other areas planned for housing and employment densities that will support transit ridership. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: TRANSPORTATION 56 T-8 Implement transportation programs and projects that address the needs of and promote access to opportunity for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color, people with low and no- incomes, and people with special transportation needs. T-9 Implement transportation programs and projects that prevent and mitigate the displacement of Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color, people with low and no- incomes, and people with special transportation needs. T-10 Integrate transit facilities, services, and active transportation infrastructure with public spaces and private developments to create safe and inviting waiting and transfer environments to encourage transit ridership countywide. T-11 Advocate for state policies, actions, and capital improvement programs that promote equity and sustainability, and that are consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy, VISION 2050, and the Countywide Planning Policies. T-12 Prioritize funding transportation investments that support countywide growth targets and centers framework, and that enhance multimodal mobility and safety, equity, and climate change goals. Mobility Mobility is necessary to sustain personal quality of life and the regional economy. For individuals, mobility requires an effective transportation system that provides safe, reliable, and affordable travel options for people of all ages, incomes , and abilities. While the majority of people continue to travel by personal automobile, there are growing segments of the population (e.g., urban, elderly, teens, low-income, no-income, minorities, and persons with disabilities) that rely on other modes of travel such as walking, bicycling, and public transportation to access employment, education and training, goods and services. The movement of goods is also of vital importance to the local and regional economy. International trade is a significant source of employment and economic activity in terms of transporting freight, local consumption, and exporting goods. The policies in this section are intended to address use and integration of the multiple modes necessary to move people and goods within and beyond the region. The importance of the roadway network, implicit in the policies of this section, is addressed more specifically in the System Operations section of this chapter. Goal Statement: A well-integrated, multimodal transportation system moves people and goods effectively and efficiently to destinations within the region and beyond. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: TRANSPORTATION 57 T-13 Advocate for and pursue new, innovative, and sustainable, funding methods including user fees, tolls, and other progressive pricing mechanisms that reduce the volatility of transit funding and fund the maintenance, improvement, preservation, and operation of the transportation system. T-14 Promote the mobility of people and goods through a multimodal transportation system based on regional priorities consistent with VISION 2050 and local comprehensive plans. T-15 Determine if capacity needs can be met from investments in transportation system operations and management, pricing programs, transportation demand management, public transportation, and system management activities that improve the efficiency of the current transportation system, prior to implementing major roadway capacity expansion projects. Focus on investments that are consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and produce the greatest net benefits to people, especially communities and individuals where needs are greatest, and goods movement that minimize the environmental impacts of transportation. T-16 Support effective management, maintenance, and preservation of existing air, marine and rail transportation capacity and infrastructure to address current and future capacity needs in cooperation with responsible agencies, affected communities, and users. T-17 Promote coordinated planning and effective management to optimize the movement of people and goods in the region’s aviation system in a manner that minimizes health, air quality, and noise impact to the community, especially frontline communities. Consider demand management alternatives as future aviation growth needs are analyzed, recognizing capacity constraints at existing facilities and the time and resources necessary to build new ones. Support the ongoing process of development of a new commercial aviation facility in Washington State. T-18 Develop and implement freight mobility strategies that strengthen, preserve, and protect King County’s role as a major regional freight distribution hub, an international trade gateway, and a manufacturing area while minimizing negative impacts on the community. T-19 Address the needs of people who do not drive, either by choice or circumstances (e.g., elderly, teens, low-income, and persons with disabilities), in the development and management of local and regional transportation systems. T-20 Consider mobility options, connectivity, active transportation access, and safety in the siting and design of transit stations and mobility hubs, especially those that are serviced by high-capacity transit. T-21 Make transportation investments that improve economic and living conditions so that DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: TRANSPORTATION 58 industries and workers are retained and attracted to the region and the county. T-22 Respond to changes in mobility patterns and needs for both people and goods, encouraging partnerships with nonprofit providers and the private sector where applicable. System Operations The design, management, and operation of the transportation system influence the region’s growth and mobility and they have significant impacts on equity, addressing historical inequities, and our environment. Policies in this section stress the need to make efficient use of existing infrastructure, serve the broad needs of the users, address safety and public health issues, and design facilities that are a good fit for the surroundings. Implementation of the policies will require the use of a wide range of tools including, but n ot limited to:  Technologies such as intelligent transportation systems and alternative fuels;  Demand management programs for parking, commute trip reduction and congestion; and  Incentives, pricing systems, and other strategies to encourage choices that increase mobility while improving public health and environmental sustainability. Goal Statement: A transportation system that is well-designed and managed to protect public investments, promote equitable access, provide mobility, promote public health and safety, and achieve optimum efficiency. T-23 Prioritize essential maintenance, preservation, and safety improvements of the existing transportation system to protect mobility, extend useful life of assets, and avoid costly replacement projects. T-24 Design and operate transportation facilities in a manner that is compatible with and integrated into the natural and built environments in which they are located. Incorporate features such as natural drainage, native plantings, and local design themes that facilitate integration and compatibility. T-25 Reduce stormwater pollution from transportation facilities and improve fish passage through retrofits and updated design standards. When feasible, integrate with other improvements to achieve multiple benefits and cost efficiencies. T-26 Develop a resilient transportation system (e.g., roadway, rail, transit, sidewalks, trails, air, and marine) and protect against major disruptions and climate change impacts. Develop prevention, adaptation, mitigation, and recovery strategies and coordinate disaster response plans. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: TRANSPORTATION 59 T-27 Promote the use of pricing strategies and transportation system management and operations tools to effectively manage the transportation system and provide an equitable, stable, and sustainable transportation funding source to improve mobilit y. T-28 Promote road and transit facility design that includes well -defined, safe, and appealing spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists. T-29 Design roads, including retrofit projects, to accommodate a range of travel modes within the travel corridor in order to reduce injuries and fatalities, contribute to achieving the state goal of zero deaths and serious injuries, and encourage physical activity. T-30 Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative health and environmental impacts to all communities, especially Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color communities and low-income communities, that have been disproportionately affected by transportation decisions. T-31 Provide equitable opportunities for an active, healthy lifestyle by integrating the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in local transit, countywide, and regional transportation plans and systems. T-32 Plan and develop a countywide transportation system that supports the connection between land use and transportation, and essential travel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by advancing strategies that shorten trip length or replace vehicle trips to reduce vehicle miles traveled. T-33 Apply technologies, programs, and other strategies (e.g., intelligent transportation systems (ITS), first and last mile connections) to optimize the use of existing infrastructure and support equity; improve mobility; and reduce congestion, vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions. T-34 Promote the expanded use of alternative fuel and zero emission vehicles by the general public with measures such as converting transit, public, and private fleets; applying incentive programs; and providing for electric vehicle charging stations. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 60 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Overarching Goal: County residents in both Urban and Rural Areas have timely and equitable access to the public services needed to advance public health and safety, protect the environment, and carry out the Regional Growth Strategy. Urban and Rural Levels of Service The Growth Management Act directs jurisdictions and special purpose districts to provide public facilities and services to support development. The Growth Management Act distinguishes between urban and rural services and states that land within the Urban Growth Area should be provided with a full range of services necessary to sustain urban communities while land within the Rural Area should receive services to support a rural lifestyle. Certain services, such as sanitary sewers, are allowed only in the Urban Growth Area, except as otherwise authorized. The Growth Management Act also requires jurisdictions to determine which facilities are necessary to serve the desired growth pattern and how they will be financed, to ensure timely provision of adequate services and facilities. PF-1 Provide a full range of urban services in the Urban Growth Area to support the Regional Growth Strategy and adopted growth targets and limit the availability of urban services in the Rural Area consistent with VISION 2050. Avoid locating urban serving facilities in the Rural Area. Collaboration Among Jurisdictions More than 100 special purpose districts, including water, sewer, flood control, stormwater, fire, school, and other districts, provide essential services to the residents of King County. While cities are the primary providers of services in the Urban Growth Area, in many parts of the county special purpose districts also provide essential services. Coordination and collaboration among all of these districts, the cities, King County, the tribes, and neighboring counties is key to providing efficient, high-quality, and reliable services to support the Regional Growth Strategy. PF-2 Provide affordable and equitable access to public services to all communities, especially the historically underserved. Prioritize investments to address disparities. PF-3 Provide reliable and cost-effective services to the public through coordination among jurisdictions and special purpose districts. PF-4 Recognize cities as the appropriate providers of services to the Urban Growth Area, either directly or by contract. Extend urban services through the use of special districts only where there are agreements with the city in whose Potential Annexation Area the extension is DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 61 proposed. Within the Urban Growth Area, as time and conditions warrant, cities will assume local urban services provided by special service districts. Utilities Utilities include infrastructure and services that provide water, sewage treatment and disposal, solid waste disposal, energy, telecommunications, and human and community services. Providing these utilities in a cost-effective way is essential to maintaining the health and safety of King County residents and to implementing the Regional Growth Strategy. Water Supply Conservation and efficient use of water resources are vital to ensuring the reliability of the region’s water supply, the availability of sufficient water supplies for future generations, and the environmental sustainability of the water supply system. PF-5 Develop plans for long-term water provision to support growth and to address the potential impacts of climate change and fisheries protection on regional water resources. PF-6 Ensure that all residents have access to a safe, reliably maintained, and sustainable drinking water source that meets present and future needs. PF-7 Coordinate water supply among local jurisdictions, tribal governments, and water purveyors to ensure reliable, sustainable, and cost-effective sources of water for all users and needs, including residents, businesses, fire districts, and aquatic species. PF-8 Plan and locate water systems in the Rural Area that are appropriately sized for rural uses and densities and that do not increase development potential in the Rural Area. PF-9 Recognize and support agreements with water purveyors in adjacent cities and counties to promote effective conveyance of water supplies and to secure adequate supplies for emergencies. PF-10 Implement water conservation and efficiency efforts to protect natural resources, reduce environmental impacts, and support a sustainable long -term water supply to serve the growing population. PF-11 Require water reuse and reclamation, where feasible, especially for high-volume non- potable water users such as parks, schools, and golf courses. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 62 Sewage Treatment and Disposal Within the Urban Growth Area, connection to sanitary sewers is necessary to support the Regional Growth Strategy and to accommodate urban densities. Alternatives to the sanitary sewer system and the typical septic system are becoming more cost effective and therefore, more available. Alternative technology may be appropriate when it can perform as well or better than sewers in the Urban Growth Area. Septic systems are not considered to be alternative technology within the Urban Growth Area. In the Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands, which are characterized by low-density development, sewer service is not typically provided. In cases where public health is threatened, sewers can be provided in the Rural Area but only if connections are strictly limited. Alternative technology may be necessary to substitute for septic systems in the Rural Area. PF-12 Require all development in the Urban Growth Area to be served by a public sewer system except: a) Single-family residences on existing individual lots that have no feasible access to sewers may utilize individual septic systems on an interim basis; or b) Development served by alternative technology that: 1) Provide equivalent performance to sewers; 2) Provide the capacity to achieve planned densities; and 3) Will not create a barrier to the extension of sewer service within the Urban Growth Area. PF-13 Prohibit sewer service in the Rural Area and on Natural Resource Lands except: a) Where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening existing structures; or b) As allowed by Countywide Planning Policy DP-49; or c) As provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task Force Report). Sewer service authorized consistent with this policy shall be provided in a manner that does not increase development potential in the Rural Area. Solid Waste King County and the entire Puget Sound region are recognized for successful efforts to collect recyclable waste. Continuing to reduce and reuse waste will require concerted and coordinated efforts well into the future. It is important to reduce the waste stream going into area landfills to extend the usable life of existing facilities and reduce the need for additional capacity. PF-14 Reduce the solid waste stream and encourage reuse and recycling. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 63 Energy While King County consumers have access to electrical energy derived from hydropower, there are challenges for securing long-term reliable energy and for becoming more energy efficient. PF-15 Reduce the rate of energy consumption through efficiency and conservation as a means to lower energy costs and mitigate environmental impacts associated with traditional energy supplies. PF-16 Invest in and promote the use of low-carbon, renewable, and alternative energy resources to help meet the county’s long-term energy needs, reduce environmental impacts associated with traditional energy supplies, and increase community sustainability. Telecommunications A telecommunications network throughout King County is essential to fostering broad economic vitality and equitable access to information, goods and services, and opportunities for social connection. PF-17 Plan for the equitable provision of telecommunication infrastructure and affordable, convenient, and reliable broadband internet access to businesses, and to households of all income levels, with a focus on underserved areas. Human and Community Services Public services beyond physical infrastructure are also necessary to sustain the health and quality of life of all King County residents. In addition, these services play a role in distinguishing urban communities from rural communities and supporting the Regional Growth Strategy. PF-18 Provide human and community services to meet the needs of current and future residents in King County communities through coordinated, equitable planning, funding, and delivery of services by the county, cities, and other agencies. Locating Facilities and Services VISION 2050 calls for a full range of urban services in the Urban Growth Area to support the Regional Growth Strategy, and for limiting the availability of services in the Rural Area. In the long term, there is increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness in siting and operating facilities and services that serve a primarily urban population within the Urban Growth Area. At the same time, those facilities and services that primarily benefit rural populations provide a greater benefit when they are located within neighboring cities and rural towns. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 64 PF-19 Locate schools, institutions, and other community facilities and services that primarily serve urban populations within the Urban Growth Area, where they are accessible to the communities they serve, except as provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task Force Report). If possible, locate these facilities in places that are well served by transit and pedestrian and bicycle networks. PF-20 Jurisdictions shall work collaboratively with school districts to ensure the availability of sufficient land and the provision of necessary educational facilities within the Urban Growth Area through compliance with PF-22 and PF-23 and through the land use element and capital facilities element of local comprehensive plans. PF-21 Locate new schools and institutions primarily serving rural residents in neighboring cities and rural towns, except as provided in Appendix 5 (March 31, 2012 School Siting Task Force Report). Locate new community facilities and services that primarily serve rural residents in neighboring cities and rural towns, with the limited exceptions when their use is dependent upon a rural location and their size and scale supports rural character. Public school facilities to meet the needs of growing communities are an essential part of the public infrastructure. Coordination between each jurisdiction’s land use plan and regulations and their respective school district[s] facility needs are essential for public school capacity needs to be met. The following policy applies countywide and requires engagement between each school district and each city that is served by the school district. The policy also applies to King County as a jurisdiction for areas of unincorporated King County that are within a scho ol district’s service boundary. The policy initiates a periodic procedure to identify if there are individual school district siting issues and if so, a process for the school district and jurisdiction to cooperatively prepare strategies for resolving the issue. PF-22 Plan, through a cooperative process between jurisdictions and school districts, that public school facilities are available, to meet the needs of existing and projected residential development consistent with adopted comprehensive plan policies and growth forecasts. Cooperatively work with each school district located within the jurisdiction’s boundaries to evaluate the school district’s ability to site school facilities necessary to meet the school district’s identified student capacity need s. Use school district capacity and enrollment data and the growth forecasts and development data of each jurisdiction located within the school district’s service boundaries. Commencing in January 2016 and continuing every two years thereafter, each juri sdiction and the school district(s) serving the jurisdiction shall confer to share information and determine if there is development capacity and the supporting infrastructure to site the needed school facilities. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 65 If not, cooperatively prepare a strategy to address the capacity shortfall. Potential strategies may include: a) Shared public facilities such as play fields, parking areas and access drives; b) School acquisition or lease of appropriate public lands; c) Regulatory changes such as allowing schools to locate in additional zones or revised development standards; and d) School design standards that reduce land requirements (such as multi -story structures or reduced footprint) while still meeting programmatic needs. In 2017, and every two years thereafter, King County shall report to the GMPC on whether the goals of this policy are being met. The GMPC shall identify corrective actions as necessary to implement this policy. PF-23 Coordinate and collaborate with school districts to build new and expand existing school facilities within the Urban Growth Area. Jurisdictions and school districts should work together to employ strategies such as: a) Identifying surplus properties and private properties that could be available for new school sites; b) Creating opportunities for shared use of buildings, fields, and other facilities; c) Reviewing development regulations to increase the areas where schools can be located and to enable challenging sites to be used for new, expanded, and renovated schools; d) Prioritizing and simplifying permitting of schools; e) Considering the feasibility of locating playfields on land in the rural area directly adjacent to school sites located within the urban area and with direct access from the urban area; f) Partnering with school districts in planning and financing walking and biking routes for schools; and g) Encouraging more walking, biking, and transit ridership for students, teachers, and staff. Strategies should recognize the school district’s adopted educational program requirements, established and planned school service areas, limited availability of developable sites, and established and planned growth patterns and enrollment projections. Siting Public Capital Facilities While essential to growth and development, regional capital facilities can disproportionately affect the communities in which they are located. It is important that all jurisdictions work collaboratively and consider environmental justice principles when siting these facilities to foster the development of healthy communities for all. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 66 PF-24 Site or expand essential public facilities or facilities of regional importance within the county using a process that incorporates broad public involvement , especially from historically marginalized and disproportionately burdened communities, and that equitably disperses impacts and benefits while supporting the Countywide Planning Policies. PF-25 Consider climate change, economic, equity, and health impacts when siting and building essential public services and facilities. Public Facility and Disaster Preparedness Community resilience is the ability to prepare for anticipated hazards, adapt to changing conditions, and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. The King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which was approved in 2020, assesses natural and human-caused hazards that can impact the county. Coordinated planning across all jurisdictions and agencies in King County is the best way to establish broad community resilience. Lack of planning for resilience leads to disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations. PF-26 Support coordinated planning for public safety services and programs, including emergency management, in partnership with frontline communities. PF-27 Establish new or expanded sites for public facilities, utilities, and infrastructure in a manner that ensures disaster resiliency and public service recovery. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 1: Generalized Land Use Categories Map 67 Appendix 1: Generalized Land Use Categories Map DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 2: Potential Annexation Areas Map 68 Appendix 2: Potential Annexation Areas Map DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 3: Urban Separators Map 69 Appendix 3: Urban Separators Map DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 70 Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix Policy H-1: Countywide Need Each jurisdiction, as part of its Comprehensive Plan housing analysis, will need to address affordability and the condition of existing housing supply as well as its responsibility to accommodate its share of the countywide need for affordable housing as defined in policy H-1. In order for each jurisdiction to address its share of the countywide housing need for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income housing, a four-step approach should be followed: 1. Conduct a housing inventory and analysis; 2. Implement policies and strategies to equitably meet housing needs; 3. Measure results and provide accountability; and 4. 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: 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; DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 71 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 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 72 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 purchasing currently unaffordable housing units and holding rents relatively stea dy until they are affordable, a strategy recently employed by the King County Housing Authority. As the DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 73 impact of overall housing supply increases on prices are uncertain, the jurisdiction should monitor affordability levels as overall supply of unrestrict ed 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. Preservat ion 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 74 Policy H-2: Extremely Low-Income Households The countywide need is the greatest for households at or below 30 percent AMI (extremely low-income). It will take significant cross-sector and cross-jurisdictional collaboration and resources to effectively and equitably meet the needs of these households. Jurisdictions are encouraged to explore emerging best practices to effectively meet the needs of extremely low - income households, including but not limited to:  mitigating environmental concerns for compromised properties with propos ed permanent supportive housing (PSH) projects;  prioritizing vacant lands for PSH over other uses;  making surplus publicly-owned lands suitable for 0-30 percent AMI housing development available for long-term lease or purchase at a reduced cost for extremely low-income housing;  creating a unique dwelling type for PSH coupled with cost reduction strategies for this housing type;  reducing fees, taxes, permit and hookup fees for PSH projects;  streamlining design and permit review for PSH projects;  increasing buildable height and/or floor area ratio for PSH; and  reducing or removing cost requirements such as vehicular parking requirements for PSH. Policy H-3: Housing Supply and Needs Analysis As set forth in policy H-4, 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 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 housing analysis must consider local as well as countywide housing needs because each jurisdiction has a responsibility to address its share of the countywide affordable housing need. 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),” 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 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 doe s 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 h ousing 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 76 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. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 77 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” 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 78 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 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 79 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 datasets, state datasets, and federal datasets. The identified need for future housing should be consistent with the jurisdiction’s population growth and housing targets. 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.  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 limit (i.e. ≤ 30 percent AMI, ≤ 50 percent AMI, and ≤ 80 percent AMI).  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.  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. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 80  Displacement risk means where residents and businesses are at greater risk of displacement based on PSRC’s index or equivalent composite set of risk indicators such as: socio-demographics, transportation qualities, neighborhood characteristics, housing, and civic engagement. Policy H-5: Evaluate Effectiveness Prior to updating their comprehensive plan, a jurisdiction must evaluate the effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies to meet a significant share of countywide need. This will help a jurisdiction identify the need to adjust current policie s and strategies or implement new ones. Where possible, jurisdictions are encouraged to identify actual housing units created, by affordability level, since their last comprehensive plan update. This evaluation must also identify gaps in existing partner ships, 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: 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; DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 81  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 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. Policy H-7: Collaborate Regionally DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 82 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 need;  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 need. 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 through H-24: Implement Policies and Strategies to Meet Housing Needs Equitably Jurisdictions need to employ a range of policies, incentives, strategies, actions, and regulati ons tailored to equitably meet their housing need. The Puget Sound Regional Council’s Housing Innovations Program7 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. 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 7 PSRC Housing Innovations Program https://www.psrc.org/hip DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 83 will work to periodically update these suggestions on the King County website if new strategies and best practices emerge. Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies H-9 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. Suggested strategies to ensure the process to plan for meeting countywide housing need is equitable include:  Providing capacity grants to organizations representing target communities to support engagement  Providing other support to ensure those most disproportionately impacted have equitable access to participate in planning discussions (e.g. evening meetings, translation services, food, and childcare or travel stipends)  Establishing clear decision-making structures that ensures disproportionately impacted populations’ needs and solutions are prioritized and community members and leaders, organizations, and institutions share power, voice, and resources H-10 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). 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 Regional Equity Strategy and associated tools and resources to center equity in comprehensive planning processes and intended outcomes Specific policies and strategies include: DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 84 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies  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 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 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 the need at these affordability levels include:  Increase financial contributions to build, preserve, and operate long-term income- restricted housing DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 85 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies  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 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 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 86 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies  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 substantially less than the countywide need for that housing type 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)  Streamline permitting process for affordable housing development and ADUs  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 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) for income-restricted housing, particularly for Suggested strategies to effectively prioritize the use of resources include: DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 87 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies 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.  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  Consider the countywide median income levels of BIPOC households when designing affordable homeownership programs and set the affordability levels such that they are accessible to the median BIPOC 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 ordinances and building policies in place that allow and encourage housing production at levels that improve jobs- Strategies to increase housing choice near employment and affordable to all include but are not limited to8:  Update zoning and land use regulations (including in single-family low-rise zones) to increase density and diversify housing choices, including but not limited to: 8 PSRC’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. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 88 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies housing balance throughout the county across all income levels. 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 o Other financial tools such as public land for affordable housing 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. Suggested zoning, regulation, and incentive strategies to be applied near transit station areas and transit corridors served by high-capacity or frequent transit include:  Requiring minimum densities in these areas  Providing enough multifamily zoning to accommodate a significant amount of DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 89 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies the jurisdictional share of affordable housing in these areas  Implementing comprehensive inclusionary/ incentive housing policies in existing and planned frequent transit service areas to achieve the deepest affordability possible through land use incentives, which may include increased density; reduced parking requirements, reduced permit fees, exempted impact fees, Multifamily Tax Exemption, and programmatic Environmental Impact Statements  Evaluate and update zoning in transit areas in advance of transit infrastructure investments  Evaluate the impact of development fee reductions in transit areas and implement reductions if positive impact  Implement comprehensive inclusionary/incentive housing policies in all existing and planned frequent transit service to achieve the deepest affordability possible through land use incentives  Coordinate with local housing authorities to use project-based rental subsidies with incentive/ inclusionary housing units to achieve deeper affordability near transit 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 90 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies 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 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 80 percent AMI  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) DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 91 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies  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 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-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: a. providing access to affordable housing to rent and own throughout the jurisdiction, with a focus on areas of high opportunity; b. expanding capacity for moderate-density housing throughout the jurisdiction, especially in areas currently zoned for lower density single-family detached housing in the Urban Growth Area, and capacity for high-density housing, where Other inclusive planning tools and policies that increase neighborhood choice include:  Plan for moderate or high-density housing and complete neighborhoods within a half-mile walkshed of high- capacity or frequent transit service in areas already zoned for residential housing and where exposure to air pollution and particulate matter is low to moderate.  Plan for complete neighborhoods around existing and planned essential services throughout a jurisdiction  Establish a designation that allows more housing types within single-family zoned areas near parks, schools, and other services DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 92 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies appropriate, consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy; c. evaluating the feasibility of, and implementing, where appropriate, inclusionary and incentive zoning to provide affordable housing; and d. providing access to housing types that serve a range of household sizes, types, and incomes, including 2+ bedroom homes for families with children and/or adult roommates and accessory dwelling units, efficiency studios, and/or congregate residences for single adults.  Housing types to allow development that is compatible in scale with existing housing  Revise parking regulations to prioritize housing and public space for people over space to park cars  Allow the conversion of existing houses into multiple units  Allow additional units on corner lots, lots along alleys and arterials, and lots on zone edges  Incentivize the retention of existing houses by making development standards more flexible when additional units are added  Provide technical and design resources for landowners and communities to redevelop and maintain ownership.  Reduce or remove minimum lot size requirements  Create incentives for building more than one unit on larger than average lots  Limit the size of new single-unit structures, especially on larger than average lots  Retain and increase family-sized and family-friendly housing  Remove the occupancy limit for unrelated persons in single-family zones, if applicable 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 80 percent AMI (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 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 93 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies opportunities for Black, Indigenous and People of Color communities. 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 policies and strategies that promote equitable development and mitigate displacement, 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. Suggested equitable development and anti- displacement strategies include:  Consider and plan for socioeconomic diversity and cultural stability  Encourage homeownership opportunities for low-income households  Acquire and preserve manufactured housing communities to prevent displacement  Acquire land for affordable housing ahead of planned infrastructure investments or other investments that may increase land and housing costs  Implement a community preference policy that allows housing developments to prioritize certain applicants when leasing or selling units in communities at high risk of displacement.  Implement tenant protections that increase stability such as: o Notice of rent increase o Right to live with family o Just cause eviction for tenants on termed leases o Tenant relocation assistance  Establish programs to invest in underrepresented communities to promote community-driven development and/ or prevent displacement H-21 Implement, promote and enforce fair housing policies and practices so that every person in the county has equitable access and Suggested fair housing policies and practices include: DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 94 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies 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.  Invest in programs that provide fair housing education for both renters and landlords, enforcement, and testing  Engage underrepresented communities on an ongoing basis to better understand Remove barriers to housing and increase access to opportunity  Provide more housing for vulnerable populations  Provide more housing choices for people with large families  Support efforts to increase housing stability.  Preserve and increase affordable housing in communities at high risk of displacement  Review and update zoning to increase housing options and supply in urban areas  Work with communities to guide investments in historically underserved communities.  Report annually on fair housing goals and progress H-22 Adopt and implement policies that protect housing stability for renter households; expand protections and supports for 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: DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 95 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies  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 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 80 percent AMI  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 & Disability organizations to integrate accessibility services See the King County Board of Health Guideline and Recommendation on Healthy Housing for additional guidance.9 9 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 96 Table H-4 Suggested Strategies for Achieving Policy Goals Policy Suggested Strategies H-24 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. 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 Policies H-25 and H-26: Measure Results and Provide Accountability 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” is to motivate and enhance learning, collaboration, and progress. While some CPPs 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. The information will be collected by King County and reported annually in a public-facing, interactive regional affordable housing dashboard. Policy H-27: Adjust Strategies to Meet Housing Needs The 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix 97 are insufficient for meeting the countywide need 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 5: King County School Siting Task Force Report 98 Appendix 5: King County School Siting Task Force Report On March 31, 2012 the School Siting Task Force issued the following report and recommendations related to 18 undeveloped school sites in King County, and future school siting. Countywide Planning Policies DP-52, PF-13, PF-19, and PF-21 contain references to this report, and in particular the Site Specific Solutions table found on pages 15-19 of the School Siting Task Force Report. The complete report and associated documents can be found on the Countywide Planning Policies website at:  https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/executive/performance-strategy- budget/regional-planning/CPPs.aspx DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 6: King County Centers Designation Framework 99 Appendix 6: King County Centers Designation Framework Metro Growth Centers Urban Growth Centers Countywide Growth Centers Industrial Employment Centers Industrial Growth Centers Countywide Industrial Centers 1. Purpose of Center Regional Metro Growth Centers have a primary regional role. They have dense existing jobs and housing, high-quality transit service, and are planning for significant, equitable growth and opportunity. They serve as major transit hubs for the region and provide regional services and serve as major civic and cultural centers. Regional Urban Growth Centers play an important regional role, with dense existing jobs and housing, high-quality transit service, and planning for significant, equitable growth and opportunity. These centers may represent areas where major investments – such as high-capacity transit –offer new opportunities for growth. Countywide growth centers12 serve important roles as places for equitably concentrating jobs, housing, shopping, and recreational opportunities. These are often smaller downtowns, high-capacity transit station areas, or neighborhood centers that are linked by transit, provide a mix of housing and services, and serve as focal points for local and county investment. Regional Industrial Employment Centers are highly active industrial areas with significant existing jobs, core industrial activity, evidence of long-term demand, and regional role. They have a legacy of industrial employment and represent important long-term industrial areas, such as deep-water ports and major manufacturing and can be accessed by transit. Designation is to, at a minimum, preserve existing industrial jobs and land use and to continue to equitably grow industrial employment and opportunity in these centers where possible. Regional Industrial Growth Centers are clusters of industrial lands that have significant value to the region and potential for future equitable job growth. These large areas of industrial land serve the region with international employers, industrial infrastructure, concentrations of industrial jobs, evidence of long- term potential, and can be accessed by transit. Designation will continue growth of industrial employment and preserve the region’s industrial land base for long-term growth and retention. Countywide industrial centers serve as important local industrial areas. These areas support equitable access to living wage jobs and serve a key role in the county’s manufacturing/industrial economy. 2. Distribution of Centers Centers are designated to achieve the countywide land use vision and are based on meeting the expectations of the framework. No arbitrary limit on the number of centers will be established. Same Same Same Same Same PART 1. DESIGNATION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE A. Designation Process 1. jurisdiction ordinance, motion, or resolution authorizing submittal of application Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. Fill out Form Yes Yes KC to have an application form and process. Yes Yes KC to have an application form and process. 3. Submit for eligibility review. Staff review and report Yes Yes IJT staff to review and present to GMPC. Yes Yes IJT staff to review and present to GMPC. 12 King County does not yet have designated countywide centers, although many jurisdictions have local centers that may be equiv alent. Local centers are eligible for regional and countywide funding, and this funding is distributed based on criteria and formula. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 6: King County Centers Designation Framework 10 0 Metro Growth Centers Urban Growth Centers Countywide Growth Centers Industrial Employment Centers Industrial Growth Centers Countywide Industrial Centers 4. GMPC recommendation to PSRC Yes Yes KC to have an application form and process. Yes Yes KC to have an application form and process. B. Schedule 1. Applications limited to major updates. Call for new application approx. every 5 years. Yes Yes Yes. KC to have a 5-year cycle or consider following PSRC major plan updates. Yes Yes Yes. KC to have a 5 year cycle or consider following PSRC major plan updates. C. Redesignation 1. Follows PSRC re-designation process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes PART 2: CENTER ELIGIBILITY A. Local and Countywide Commitment 1. center identified in Comprehensive Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. demonstrate center is local priority for growth and investments Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. And, commitment to protecting and preserving industrial uses, strategies, and incentives to encourage industrial uses in the center, and established partnerships with relevant parties to ensure success of manufacturing/industrial center. Yes. And area has important county role and concentration of industrial land or jobs with evidence of long-term demand. B. Planning 1. completed center plan meeting Plan Review Manual specifications 13 Yes Yes Yes14 Yes Yes. And, in consultation with public ports and other affected government entities. Yes 10 2. environmental review shows area appropriate for density Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. assessment of housing need and cultural assets, including displacement of residents and businesses Yes Yes Yes, as part of subarea plan or in dedicated Comprehensive Plan chapter Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 13 The PSRC Center Plan Checklist defines key concepts and provisions jurisdictions should use in planning for the designated centers. This includes the following: establishing a vision, considering natural and built environment topics, establishing geographic boundaries and growth targets, planning for a mix of land uses, addressing design standards, planning for a variety of housing types including affordable ho using in growth centers, addressing economic development, and providing for public services and facilities, including multimodal transportation, all as appropriate and tailored to the center type and function. 14 For Countywide Centers the topics in the Center Plan Checklist should be addressed, except that growth targets are not required, and they can be met through inclusion of a dedicated chapter in the Comprehensive Plan that specifies how each required topic is addressed for each countywide center, rather than in stand-alone subarea plans. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 6: King County Centers Designation Framework 10 1 Metro Growth Centers Urban Growth Centers Countywide Growth Centers Industrial Employment Centers Industrial Growth Centers Countywide Industrial Centers 4. documentation of tools to provide range of affordable and fair housing Yes Yes Yes, as part of subarea plan or in dedicated Comprehensive Plan chapter Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 5. documentation of community engagement, including with priority populations 15 Yes Yes Yes, as part of subarea plan or in dedicated Comprehensive Plan chapter Yes Yes Yes C. Jurisdiction and Location 1. new Centers should be in cities Yes Yes Cities or Unincorporated Urban16 Yes Yes Cities or Unincorporated Urban12 2. if unincorporated area: a. it has link light rail and is affiliated for annexation Not allowed in unincorporated urban area Not allowed in unincorporated urban area Encouraged Not allowed in unincorporated urban area Not allowed in unincorporated urban area Encouraged b. joint planning is occurring Not allowed in unincorporated urban area Not allowed in unincorporated urban area Encouraged Not allowed in unincorporated urban area Not allowed in unincorporated urban area Encouraged c. plans for annexation or incorporation are required Not applicable (center type does not exist in unincorporated area). Not applicable (center type does not exist in unincorporated area). Encouraged Not allowed in unincorporated urban area Not allowed in unincorporated urban area Encouraged D. Existing Conditions 1. infrastructure and utilities can support growth Yes Yes Yes Yes. Must include presence of irreplaceable industrial infrastructure such as working maritime port facilities, air and rail freight facilities. Yes. Access to relevant transportation infrastructure including freight. Yes 2. center has mix of housing and employment Yes Yes Yes Not applicable The center has an economic impact. Not applicable. E. Boundaries 1. justification for center boundaries Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. boundary generally round or square Yes Yes Compact, walkable size Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable F. Transportation 1. center has bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and amenities Yes Yes Yes. Supports multimodal transportation, including pedestrian infrastructure and amenities, and bicycle infrastructure and amenities. Defined transportation demand management strategies in place. Defined transportation demand management strategies in place. Defined transportation demand management strategies in place 15 King County's "Fair and Just" Ordinance 16948, as amended, identifies four demographic groups, including: low-income, limited English proficiency, people of color, and immigrant populations. 16 For multi-jurisdiction centers, please describe the manner and structure (e.g. interlocal agreement, memorandum of understanding) with which the jurisdictions will plan together over the long-term. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 6: King County Centers Designation Framework 10 2 Metro Growth Centers Urban Growth Centers Countywide Growth Centers Industrial Employment Centers Industrial Growth Centers Countywide Industrial Centers 2. center has street pattern supporting walkability Yes Yes Yes. Supports multimodal transportation, including street pattern that supports walkability. Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 3. freight access Yes To be addressed in subarea plan To be addressed in subarea plan Access to relevant transportation infrastructure including freight. Same To be addressed in subarea plan PART 3: CENTER CRITERIA A. Purpose 1. Compatibility with VISION centers concept, Regional Growth Strategy and Multicounty Planning Policies Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes B. Activity level/Zoning 17 1. existing activity 18 60 activity unit density 30 activity unit density (AUs refer to combined jobs and population) 18 activity unit density 10,000 jobs 4,000 jobs 1,000 existing jobs and/or 500 acres of industrial land 2. planned activity Above 120 activity unit density 60 activity unit density 30 activity unit density 20,000 jobs 10,000 jobs 4,000 jobs 3. sufficient zoned capacity Yes. Should be higher than target and supports a compact, complete, and mature urban form. Yes. Should be higher than target. Should have capacity and be planning for additional growth Yes. Should be higher than target. Yes. Should be higher than target. Should have capacity and be planning for additional growth. 4. planning mix of housing types and employment types Planning for at least 15% residential and 15% employment activity Planning for at least 15% residential and 15% employment activity Planning for at least 20% residential and 20% employment, unless unique circumstances make these percentages not possible to achieve. At least 50% of the employment must be industrial employment. Strategies to retain industrial uses are in place. At least 50% of the employment must be industrial employment. Strategies to retain industrial uses are in place. At least 50% of the employment must be industrial employment. Strategies to retain industrial uses are in place. C. Geographic Size 1. minimum size 320 acres 200 acres 160 No set threshold; size based on justification for the boundary. 2000 acres 1,000 existing jobs and/or 500 acres of industrial land 2. maximum size 640 acres (larger if internal HCT) 640 acres (larger if internal HCT) 500 acres No set threshold; size based on justification for the boundary. No set threshold; size based on justification for the boundary. No set threshold; size based on justification for the boundary. D. Transit 17 PSRC’s 2015 guidance on Transit Supportive Densities and Land Uses cites an optimal level of 56-116 activity units per acre to support light rail, dependent on transit costs per mile. The guidance indicates an optimal threshold of at least 17 activity units per acre to support bus rapid transit. Note: the existing threshold in the CPPs is roughly equivalent to 85 AUs existing activity for King County Urban Centers. 18 For existing centers, not meeting existing activity unit thresholds is not grounds for de-designation or re-designation by the Growth Management Planning Council. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 6: King County Centers Designation Framework 10 3 Metro Growth Centers Urban Growth Centers Countywide Growth Centers Industrial Employment Centers Industrial Growth Centers Countywide Industrial Centers 1. existing or planned transit service levels Major transit hub, has high quality/high-capacity existing or planned service including existing or planned light rail, commuter rail, ferry, or other high-capacity transit with similar frequent service as light rail. (18 hours, 15-minute headways) Fixed route bus, regional bus, Bus Rapid Transit or frequent all-day bus service (16 hours, 15 minute headways). High- capacity transit may substitute for fixed-route bus. Yes, has frequent, all-day, fixed- route bus service (16 hours, 15- minute headways). Must have existing or planned frequent, local, express, or flexible transit service. Should have documented strategies to reduce commute impacts through transportation demand management that are consistent with the Regional TDM Action Plan. Same. Should have local fixed-route or flexible transit service. 2. transit-supportive infrastructure Provides transit priority (bus lanes, queue jumps, signal priority, etc.) within the right- of-way to maintain speed and reliability of transit service. Provides infrastructure (i.e. pedestrian and bicycle) that improves rider access to transit service and increases amenities to make transit an inviting option. Provides transit priority (bus lanes, queue jumps, signal priority, etc.) within the right- of-way to maintain speed and reliability of transit service. Provides infrastructure (i.e. pedestrian and bicycle) that improves rider access to transit service and increases amenities to make transit an inviting option. Supports connection/transfers between routes and other modes. Provides infrastructure (i.e. pedestrian and bicycle) that improves rider access to transit service and increases amenities to make transit an inviting option. Provides transit priority (bus lanes, queue jumps, signal priority, etc.) within the right- of-way to maintain speed and reliability of transit service. Provides infrastructure (i.e. pedestrian and bicycle) that improves rider access to transit service and increases amenities to make transit an inviting option. Supports connection/transfers between routes and other modes, and increases amenities to make transit an inviting option. Supports connection/transfers between routes and other modes, and increases amenities to make transit an inviting option. E. Market Potential 1. Evidence of future market potential to support target and planned densities Yes, with Market Study required Yes, with Market Study required Market Study encouraged Yes, with Market Study required Yes, with Market Study required Market Study encouraged 2. Market data will inform adoption of land use, housing, economic development, and investment strategies, including equitable development strategies.19 Required within Market Study Required within Market Study Encouraged within Market Study Required within Market Study, tailored for industrial employment. Required within Market Study, tailored for industrial employment. Encouraged within Market Study, tailored for industrial employment. F. Role 1. Evidence of regional or countywide role by serving as important destination Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. Planning for long-term, significant, and equitable growth Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes G. Zoning 19 For residential development, strategies and tools could include mandatory inclusionary housing, multifamily tax exemption, or others. For commercial and industrial development, strategies and tools could include priority hire policies, incentives for affordable commercial space, or others. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: Appendix 6: King County Centers Designation Framework 10 4 Metro Growth Centers Urban Growth Centers Countywide Growth Centers Industrial Employment Centers Industrial Growth Centers Countywide Industrial Centers 1. specific zones required No No No At least 75% land area zoned for core industrial uses. This includes manufacturing, transportation, warehousing and freight terminals. Same At least 75% of land area zoned for core industrial uses. 2. specific zones prohibited No No No Commercial uses within core industrial zones shall be strictly limited. Same Same DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: GLOSSARY 10 5 GLOSSARY Affordable Housing: Housing that is affordable at 30 percent or less of a household’s monthly income. This is a general term that may include housing affordable to a wide range of income levels and includes income-restricted and non-income units. Affordable Housing Committee: A committee of the King County Growth Management Planning Council chartered to recommend actions and assess regional progress to advance affordable housing solutions and function as a point of coordination and accountability for affordable housing efforts across King County. Agricultural Production District: A requirement of the Growth Management Act for cities and counties to designate, where appropriate, agricultural lands that are not characterized by urban growth, have soils suitable for agriculture, and that have long-term significance for commercial farming. The King County Comprehensive Plan designates Agricultural Production Districts where the principal land use should be agriculture. Area Median Income: The annual household income for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development calculates median income for each metropolitan region. These are used to determine income limits for government affordable housing programs. Buildable Lands Program: A requirement of the Growth Management Act for certain counties in western Washington to report on a regular basis the amount of residential and commercial development that has occurred, the densities of that development, and an estimate of each jurisdiction’s ability to accommodate its growth target based on the amount of development that existing zoning would allow. Clean Renewable Energy: Includes the production of electricity from wind, solar and geothermal and does not include production of energy created by combustion of fuel that causes greenhouse gas emissions or produces hazardous waste. Climate Change: The variation in the earth’s global climate over time. It describes changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere. Climate change may result from natural factors or processes (such as change in ocean circulation) or from human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (such as burning fossil fuels or deforestation.) Climate Change Adaptation refers to actions taken to adapt to unavoidable impacts as a result of climate change. Climate Change Mitigation refers to actions taken to reduce the future effects of climate change. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: GLOSSARY 10 6 Comprehensive Plan: A plan prepared by a local government following the requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act, containing policies to guide local actions regarding land use, transportation, housing, utilities, capital facilities, and economic development in ways that will accommodate at least the adopted 20-year targets for housing and employment growth. Cost Burden: When a household spends more than 30 percent of their gross monthly income on housing costs. 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. Displacement: The involuntary relocation of current residents or businesses from their current residence. This is a different phenomenon than when property owners voluntarily sell their interests to capture an increase in value. Physical displacement is the result of eviction, acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of property, or the expiration of covenants on rent- or income-restricted housing. Economic displacement occurs when residents and businesses can no longer afford escalating housing costs. Cultural displacement occurs when people choose to move because their neighbors and culturally related businesses have lef t the area. Environmental Justice: The fair distribution of costs and benefits, based on a consideration for social equity. Environmental justice is concerned with the right of all people to enjoy a safe, clean, and healthy environment, and with fairness across racial, social, and economic groups in the siting and operation of infrastructure, facilities, or other large land uses. Equitable Development: Public and private investments, programs, and policies in neighborhoods, characterized by high levels of chronic and recent displacement; a history of racially driven disinvestment; and significant populations of marginalized communities. This work is conducted in partnership with community stakeholders to meet the needs of marginalized people and reduce disparities, taking into account history and current conditions, so that quality of life outcomes such as access to quality education, living wage employment, healthy environment, affordable housing, and transportation, are equitably distributed for the people currently living and working there, as well as for new people moving in. Extremely Low-Income Households: Households earning 30 percent of the area median income or less for their household size. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: GLOSSARY 10 7 Fossil Fuels: Petroleum and petroleum products, coal, and natural gas such as methane, propane, and butane, derived from prehistoric organic matter and used to generate energy. Fossil fuels do not include: a) Petrochemicals that are used primarily for non-fuel products, such as asphalt, plastics, lubricants, fertilizer, roofing, and paints; b) Fuel additives, such as denatured ethanol and similar fuel additives, or renewable fuels, such as biodiesel or renewable diesel with less than five percent fossil fuel content; or c) Methane generated from the waste management process, such as wastewater treatment, anaerobic digesters, landfill waste management, livestock manure and composting processes. Fossil Fuel Facility: A commercial facility used primarily to receive, store, refine, process, transfer, wholesale trade or transport fossil fuels, such as, but not limited to, bulk terminals, bulk storage facilities, bulk refining and bulk handling facilities. Fossil fuel facilities do not include individual storage facilities of up to thirty thousand gallons and total cumulative facilities per site of sixty thousand gallons for the purposes of retail or direct -to-consumer sales, facilities or activities for local consumption; noncommercial facilities, such as storage for educational, scientific or governmental use; or uses preempted by federal rule or law. Forest Production District: A requirement of the Growth Management Act for cities and counties to designate, where appropriate, forest lands that are not characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the commercial production of timber. The King County Comprehensive Plan designates Forest Production Districts where the primary use should be commercial forestry. Frequent Transit: Transit service that is “show-up and go,” that comes frequently enough that passengers do not require a schedule. Frontline Communities: Those communities that are disproportionately impacted by climate change due to existing and historical racial, social, environmental, and economic inequities, and who have limited resources and/or capacity to adapt. These populations often experience the earliest and most acute impacts of climate change, but whose experiences afford unique strengths and insights into climate resilience strategies and practices. Frontline communities include Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities, immigrants and refugees, people living with low incomes, communities experiencing disproportionate pollution exposure, women and gender non-conforming people, LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, + other) people, people who live and/or work outside, those with existing health issues, people with limited English skills, and other climate-vulnerable groups. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: GLOSSARY 10 8 Growth Management Act: State law (RCW 36.70A) that requires local governments to prepare comprehensive plans (including land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities and utilities) to accommodate 20 years of expected growth. Other provisions of the Growth Management Act require developing and adopting countywide planning policies to guide local comprehensive planning in a coordinated and consistent manner. Growth Targets: The number of residents, housing, or jobs that a jurisdiction is expected to use as the land use assumption in its comprehensive plan. Growth targets are set by countywide planning groups for counties and cities to meet the Growth Management Act requirement to allocate urban growth that is projected for the succeeding twenty-year period (RCW 36.70A.110). Countywide growth targets are articulated in the Development Patterns chapter. Greenhouse Gas: Components of the atmosphere that contribute to global warming, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Human activities have added to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases. Health Disparity: A gap or difference in health status between different groups of people, including race, income, education, and geographic location. This health difference is closely linked with social, economic, and/or environmental disadvantage. Healthy Housing: Housing that protects all residents from exposure to harmful substances and environments, reduces the risk of injury, provides opportunities for safe and convenient daily physical activity, and assures access to healthy food and social connectivity. High-Capacity Transit: Transit modes that operate principally on exclusive rights-of-way which provides a substantially higher level of passenger capacity, speed, and service frequency than traditional public transportation systems operating principally in general purpose roadways, including light rail, streetcar, commuter rail, ferry terminals, and bus rapid transit stations. High-Density Housing: Multifamily housing of a certain density that is considered to be more intensive than moderate-density housing. This designation includes housing types of 20 or more units. Historically Underserved Communities: Groups of people living in places that have experienced a long-term pattern of lacking investment in public services and amenities relative to neighboring communities or an expected standard. Housing Affordability: Refers to the balance (or imbalance) between incomes and housing costs within a community or region. A common measurement compares the number of households in certain income categories to the number of units in the market that are affordable at 30 percent of gross income. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: GLOSSARY 10 9 Industry Clusters: Specific economic segments and industry clusters that are the focus of the Puget Sound Regional Council's Regional Economic Strategy. Incentive Zoning: Incentive zoning is a broad regulatory framework for encouraging and stimulating development that provides a desired public benefit as established in adopted planning goals. An incentive zoning system is implemented on top of an existing base of development regulations and works by offering developers regulatory allowances in exchange for public benefits. Income-Restricted Affordable Housing Units: Housing units that provide lower-income people with an affordable place to live. To be eligible to live in one of these units, a prospective tenant’s gross monthly income must be below a certain income threshold. The unit is also limited in price so as to be affordable to households at certain income levels. Inclusionary Zoning: Inclusionary zoning stipulates that new residential development in certain zones includes some proportion or number of affordable housing units or meets some type of alternative compliance. Inclusionary zoning taps into economic gains from rising real estate values to create affordable housing for lower-income households. This mandatory approach can create more affordable housing in neighborhoods with access to transportation and quality jobs. Jobs-Housing Balance: A planning concept which advocates that housing and employment be located closer together, with an emphasis on matching housing options with nearby jobs, so workers have shorter commutes or can eliminate vehicle trips. Improving balance means adding more housing to job-rich areas and more jobs to housing-rich areas. It also means ensuring a variety of housing choices available to a people earning variety of incomes in proximity to job centers to provide opportunities for residents to live close to where they work regardless of their income. King County Open Space System: A regional system of county-owned parks, trails, natural areas, working agricultural and forest resource lands, and flood hazard management lands. Low-Income Households: Households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the Area Median Income for their household size. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers: Designated locations within King County cities meeting criteria detailed in the King County Centers Designation Framework. Mixed-Use Development: A building or buildings constructed as a single project which contains more than one use, typically including housing plus retail and/or office uses. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: GLOSSARY 11 0 Moderate-Density Housing: Housing of a certain density that bridges a gap between single- family housing and more intense multifamily and commercial areas and provides opportunities for housing types that are inclusive to people of different ages, life stages, and incomes. Moderate-density housing includes but is not limited to duplexes, townhomes, and low-rise apartments and range in unit count from 1-unit attached up to 19 units. Moderate-Income Households: Households earning between 81 percent and 120 percent of the Area Median Income for their household size. Monitoring: An organized process for gathering and assessing information related to achieving established goals and policies. The process uses performance indicators to show progress toward, movement away from, or static state in policy implementation or policy achievement. Implementation monitoring tracks whether agreed-upon actions are taking place. Performance monitoring assesses whether desired results are achieved. Natural Resource Lands: Designated areas within King County that have long-term significance for agricultural, forestry, or mining. See Appendix 1: Generalized Land Use Categories Map. Open Space: A range of green places, including natural and resource areas (such as forests), recreational areas (such as parks and trails), and other areas set aside from development (such as plazas). Opportunity Areas: Areas with high quality schools, jobs, transit; access to parks, open space, and clean air, water, and soil; and other key determinants of social, economic, and physical well-being. Populations Disproportionately Impacted by Housing Cost Burden: When a household spends more than 30 percent of their income on their housing, they are considered cost burdened. Black, Indigenous, and Latinx households, as well as many immigrant and refugee households, are disproportionately represented both among households earning less than 80 percent of AMI as well as among cost burdened households, in part due to the legacy of structural racism and discrimination in housing and land use policies and practices. Households earning at or below 30 percent are also more disproportionately impacted by housing cost burden than higher income households. Potential Annexation Area: A portion of the urban unincorporated area in King County that a city has identified it will annex at some future date. See Appendix 2: Potential Annexation Areas Map. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: GLOSSARY 11 1 Purchase of Development Rights: Programs that buy and then extinguish development rights on a property to restrict development and limit uses exclusively for open space or resource- based activities such as farming and forestry. Covenants run with the land in perpetuity so that the property is protected from development regardless of ownership. Regional Growth Strategy: The strategy defined in VISION 2050 that was developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council to help guide growth in the four -county region that includes King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. VISION 2050 directs most of the region’s forecasted growth into designated Urban Areas, and concentrates growth within those areas in designated centers planned for a mix of uses and connection by high-capacity transit Regional Transportation Plan: A 30-year action plan, adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council, for transportation investments in the central Puget Sound region intended to support implementation of VISION 2050. Renewable Energy: Energy created from sources that can be replenished in a short period of time. The five renewable sources used most often are biomass (such as wood and biogas), the movement of water, geothermal (heat from within the earth), wind, and solar. Rural Area: Designated area outside the Urban Growth Area that is characterized by small-scale farming and forestry and low-density residential development. See Appendix 1: Generalized Land Use Categories Map. Cities in the Rural Area: Cities that are surrounded by Rural Area or Natural Resource Lands. Cities in the Rural Area are part of the Urban Growth Area. Special Needs Housing: Housing arrangements for populations with special physical or other needs. These populations include the elderly, disabled persons, people with medical conditions, homeless individuals and families, and displaced people. Stormwater Management: An infrastructure system that collects runoff from storms and redirects it from streets and other surfaces into facilities that store and release it – usually back into natural waterways. Sustainable Development: Methods of accommodating new population and employment that protect the natural environment while preserving the ability to accommodate future generations. Tenure: The legal status by which people have the right to occupy their accommodation. Common housing tenure are renting (which includes public and private rented housing) and homeownership (which includes owned outright and mortgaged). DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: GLOSSARY 11 2 Transfer of Development Rights: Ability to transfer allowable density, in the form of permitted building lots or structures, from one property (the “sending site”) to another (the “receiving site”) in conjunction with conservation of all or part of the sending site as open space or working farm or forest. Transportation Demand Management: Various strategies and policies (e.g., incentives, regulations) designed to reduce or redistribute travel by single occupancy vehicles in order to make more efficient use of existing facility capacity. Transportation System: A comprehensive, integrated network of travel modes (e.g., airplanes, automobiles, bicycles, buses, feet, ferries, freighters, trains, trucks) and infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, trails, streets, arterials, highways, waterways, railways, airports) for the movement of people and goods on a local, regional, national and global scale. Universal Design: A system of design that helps ensure that buildings and public spaces are accessible to people with or without disabilities. Urban Growth Area: The designated portion of King County that encompasses all cities as well as other urban land where the large majority of the county’s future residential and employment growth is intended to occur. See Appendix 1: Generalized Land Use Categories Map. Very Low-Income Households: Households earning between 30 to 50 percent of the Area Median Income for their household size. VISION 2050: The integrated, long-range vision for managing growth and maintaining a healthy region—including the counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish. It contains an environmental framework a numeric Regional Growth Strategy, the Multicounty Policies, and implementation actions and measures to monitor progress. Walkshed: The area around a transit center typically measured as one half-mile radius used to measure the area in which walking or biking can serve as viable way to access a transit facility. Water Resource Inventory Area: Major watershed basins in Washington identified for water - related planning purposes. Workforce Housing: Housing that is affordable to households with one or more workers. Creating workforce housing in a jurisdiction implies consideration of the wide range of income levels that characterize working households, from one person working at minimum wage to two or more workers earning the average county wage or above. There is a particular need for DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies Chapter: GLOSSARY 11 3 workforce housing that is reasonably close to regional and sub-regional job centers and/or easily accessible by public transportation. DocuSign Envelope ID: D2C79C9F-33BC-48EC-93C8-E47E8FAD161E Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: D2C79C9F33BC48EC93C8E47E8FAD161E Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: Ordinance 19384.docx, Ordinance 19384 Attachment A.docx Source Envelope: Document Pages: 6 Signatures: 3 Envelope Originator: Supplemental Document Pages: 113 Initials: 0 Cherie Camp Certificate Pages: 5 AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 401 5th Ave Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98104 Cherie.Camp@kingcounty.gov IP Address: 198.49.222.20 Record Tracking Status: Original 12/16/2021 9:30:42 PM Holder: Cherie Camp Cherie.Camp@kingcounty.gov Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: FedRamp Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: King County General (ITD)Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Claudia Balducci claudia.balducci@kingcounty.gov King County General (ITD) Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 73.83.124.149 Sent: 12/16/2021 9:33:41 PM Viewed: 12/19/2021 6:26:44 AM Signed: 12/19/2021 6:27:03 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Supplemental Documents: Ordinance 19384 Attachment A.docx Viewed: 12/19/2021 6:26:47 AM Read: Not Required Accepted: Not Required Angel Allende angel.allende@kingcounty.gov Deputy Clerk of the Council King County Council Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 198.49.222.20 Sent: 12/19/2021 6:27:06 AM Viewed: 12/20/2021 10:14:10 AM Signed: 12/20/2021 10:15:48 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Supplemental Documents: Ordinance 19384 Attachment A.docx Viewed: 12/20/2021 10:14:39 AM Read: Not Required Accepted: Not Required Dow Constantine Dow.Constantine@kingcounty.gov Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image Using IP Address: 174.61.167.141 Sent: 12/20/2021 10:15:53 AM Viewed: 12/27/2021 3:49:14 PM Signed: 12/27/2021 3:49:33 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 12/27/2021 3:49:14 PM ID: 919f28d7-6ae8-456d-bc8a-3da837e7ec6b Supplemental Documents: Ordinance 19384 Attachment A.docx Viewed: 12/27/2021 3:49:29 PM Read: Not Required Signer Events Signature Timestamp Accepted: Not Required In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Kaitlyn Wiggins kwiggins@kingcounty.gov Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 12/20/2021 10:15:52 AM Viewed: 12/21/2021 12:20:57 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 12/16/2021 9:33:41 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 12/27/2021 3:49:14 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 12/27/2021 3:49:33 PM Completed Security Checked 12/27/2021 3:49:33 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE From time to time, Carahsoft OBO King County ITD (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) electronic signing system. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the ‘I agree’ button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after signing session and, if you elect to create a DocuSign signer account, you may access them for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign ‘Withdraw Consent’ form on the signing page of a DocuSign envelope instead of signing it. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 2/1/2018 6:03:55 AM Parties agreed to: Dow Constantine How to contact Carahsoft OBO King County ITD: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: bob.johnson@kingcounty.gov To advise Carahsoft OBO King County ITD of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at bob.johnson@kingcounty.gov and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc. to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in the DocuSign system. To request paper copies from Carahsoft OBO King County ITD To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to bob.johnson@kingcounty.gov and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with Carahsoft OBO King County ITD To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign session, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to bob.johnson@kingcounty.gov and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, US Postal Address, and telephone number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows® 2000, Windows® XP, Windows Vista®; Mac OS® X Browsers: Final release versions of Internet Explorer® 6.0 or above (Windows only); Mozilla Firefox 2.0 or above (Windows and Mac); Safari™ 3.0 or above (Mac only) PDF Reader: Acrobat® or similar software may be required to view and print PDF files Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: Allow per session cookies ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, you will be asked to re-accept the disclosure. Pre-release (e.g. beta) versions of operating systems and browsers are not supported. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the ‘I agree’ button below. By checking the ‘I agree’ box, I confirm that:  I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURES document; and  I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and  Until or unless I notify Carahsoft OBO King County ITD as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by Carahsoft OBO King County ITD during the course of my relationship with you. KING COUNTY Signature Report 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Ordinance 19369 Proposed No. 2021-0255.2 Sponsors Dembowski 1 AN ORDINANCE adopting and ratifying Growth 1 Management Planning Council Motion 21-2. 2 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 3 SECTION 1. Findings: 4 A. Growth Management Planning Council Motion 21-2 recommends the 2021 5 Urban Growth Capacity Report to the King County council. 6 B. The Urban Growth Capacity Report is King County’s buildable lands report as 7 required by RCW 36.70A.215 and WAC 365-196-315. 8 C. On June 23, 2021, the Growth Management Planning Council approved 9 Motion 21-2. 10 SECTION 2. The 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report, attached to 11 this ordinance via Growth Management Planning Council Motion 21-2 as Attachment A 12 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Ordinance 19369 2 to this ordinance, is hereby adopted by King County and ratified on behalf of the 13 population of unincorporated King County. 14 Ordinance 19369 was introduced on 7/27/2021 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 12/14/2021, by the following vote: Yes: 9 - Ms. Balducci, Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Upthegrove, Mr. von Reichbauer and Mr. Zahilay KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ________________________________________ Claudia Balducci, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________________ Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Council APPROVED this _____ day of _______________, ______. ________________________________________ Dow Constantine, County Executive Attachments: A. GMPC Motion 21-2, dated July 28, 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 12/27/2021 6/23/21 Attachment A Sponsored By: Executive Committee 1 GMPC MOTION NO. 21-2 2 A MOTION recommending approval of the 2021 King County 3 Urban Growth Capacity Report to the King County Council 4 5 WHEREAS; the Urban Growth Capacity Report is King County’s buildable lands 6 report as required by RCW 36.70A.215 and WAC 365-196-315; and 7 WHEREAS, this the fourth report King County has prepared; and 8 WHEREAS, the Urban Growth Capacity Report includes findings from three key 9 components as required by RCW 36.70A.215 and WAC 365-196-315: analysis of 10 countywide and jurisdictional growth trends between 2006 and 2018 compared to the 2035 11 growth targets, analysis of achieved densities by jurisdiction based on growth that occurred 12 between 2012 and 2018, and capacity for housing and job growth over the next 20 years; 13 and 14 WHEREAS, staff from King County and the cities in King County have worked 15 cooperatively to analyze and prepare the data for consideration by the Growth 16 Management Planning Council; and 17 WHEREAS, a Public Review Draft of the 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report 18 was shared with the public and comments were received from stakeholders; and 19 Revised July 28, 2021 Ordinance 19369 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B WHEREAS, the 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report documents that King County 20 continues to have sufficient urban capacity for both housing and employment growth to 21 2044 and beyond: 22 THEREFORE, the King County Growth Management Planning Council 23 recommends the 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report, included with this 24 motion as Attachment A, to the King County Council. The Interjurisdictional Staff Team 25 is authorized to make technical changes to the policies, text, maps, and tables such as 26 fixing grammatical errors, correcting spelling, or aligning policy references without 27 changing the meaning prior to transmittal to the King County Council. 28 29 _________________________________________ 30 Dow Constantine, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council 31 32 Appendix A: 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report 33 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2021 King CountyUrban GrowthCapacity Report June 2021 APPROVED BY THE KING COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL JUNE 23, 2021 (Technical updates July 28, 2021) 2012 IMAGE 2020 IMAGE DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B by GMPC on June 23, 2021. updates do not meaningfully alter the findings from the report approved July 28, 2021 Technical Update: Data for Bothell updated. Technical DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 i Acknowledgements This 2021 Urban Growth Capacity (UGC) Report was prepared by King County and its cities under RCW 36.70A.215 amendment to the Washington State Growth Management Act. Every jurisdiction in King County has participated in collecting and evaluating development information to prepare this Report. Thanks to the following cities and towns for participation:City of Algona City of Auburn Town of Beaux Arts Village City of Bellevue City of Black Diamond City of Bothell City of Burien City of Carnation City of Clyde Hill City of Covington City of Des Moines City of Duvall City of Enumclaw City of Federal Way Town of Hunts Point City of Issaquah City of Kenmore City of Kent City of Kirkland City of Lake Forest Park City of Maple Valley City of Medina City of Mercer Island City of Milton City of Newcastle City of Normandy Park City of North Bend City of Pacific City of Redmond City of Renton City of Sammamish City of SeaTac City of Seattle City of Shoreline Town of Skykomish City of Snoqualmie City of Tukwila City of Woodinville Town of Yarrow PointThis Report was compiled by the King County Office of Performance, Strategy, and Budget in collaboration with BERK Consulting and Heartland LLC. Thanks to the following individuals and groups who contributed greatly to this effort. King County: Rebeccah Maskin, Ben Larson, Karen Wolf, Ivan Miller, Lauren Smith, Jeffrey Linn, Paul McCombs, Jacqueline Reid, Kevin LeClair, David Goodman Interjurisdictional Team: Hayley Bonsteel, Michael Hubner, Angie Mathias, Nicholas Matz, Beverly Mesa-Zendt, Brian Parry, Jesse Reynolds, Liz Underwood-Bultmann, Adam Weinstein UGC Technical Committee: Jeff Dixon, David Johanson, Miryam Laytner, Andrew Leon, Katherine Nesse, Kaelene Nobis, Chris Pasinetti, Jennifer Pettyjohn, Robin Proebsting, David Pyle, Aaron Raymond, Jaimie Reavis, Jesse Reynolds BERK Consulting: Kevin Ramsey, Lisa Grueter, Ben Silver, Josh Linden, Andrew Bjorn, Jessie Hartmann, Lisa Johnson, Dawn Couch Heartland LLC: Mark Goodman, Chris Fiori, Tyson Heriot The development of this report and the data and assumptions throughout it was generously supported by a grant from the Washington State Department of Commerce. Cover images: Google Earth DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 ii Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 About the Urban Growth Capacity Report 1 Regional Planning Context 1 Summary of Findings 5 Implementing Urban Growth Capacity Findings 8 Ch. 1 Introduction 10 Regulatory and Policy Framework 10 Department of Commerce Guidelines 12 Countywide Coordination 12 Changes from the 2014 Buildable Lands Report 13 Report Components and Organization 14 Ch. 2 Methodology and Guidance Overview 16 Overview 16 Phase 1 - Achieved Densities 17 Phase 2 - Land Supply 18 Phases 3 and 4 – Capacity 22 Data Review, Land Supply, and Capacity Calculations 27 Ch. 3 Development Trends 28 Residential Growth Trends 30 Employment Growth Trends 38 Rural Development Trends 45 Ch. 4 Growth Capacity 49 General Findings 49 Findings by Regional Geography 52 Ch. 5 Reasonable Measures 64 Criteria for Evaluating Consistency 64 Summary of Potential Inconsistencies 65 Jurisdictional Review of Potential Inconsistencies 70 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 iii Reasonable Measures Recommendations 76 Ch. 6 Applying Urban Growth Capacity Findings 77 Regional Planning and Growth Targets 77 County and City Plans 81 Ch. 7 Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas 85 Metropolitan Cities 86 Core Cities 95 High Capacity Transit Communities 140 Cities and Towns 169 Urban Unincorporated Areas 246 Technical Appendices 251 Appendix A: Phase 1 Guidance - Achieved Density Appendix B: Phase 2 Guidance - Land Supply Appendix C: Phase 3 Guidance - Initial Capacity Appendix D: Phase 4 Guidance - Final Capacity Appendix E: Market Factor Guidance Appendix F: Employment Density Guidance Appendix G: Approach for Identifying Infrastructure Gaps Appendix H: Documentation of Market Factor and Infrastructure Assumptions DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 iv Exhibits Exhibit 1. PSRC VISION 2040 Regional Geographies Used for Summarizing Development Trends 3 Exhibit 2. PSRC VISION 2050 Regional Geographies Used for Summarizing Growth Capacity 4 Exhibit 3. Permitted Housing Units by Achieved Density, 2012-2018 5 Exhibit 4. Permitted Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density, 2012-2018 6 Exhibit 5. Dwelling Unit Capacity by Density Level 8 Exhibit 6. Employment Capacity by Density Level 8 Exhibit 7. Roles and Responsibilities 13 Exhibit 8. Urban Growth Capacity Analysis Overview 16 Exhibit 9. Capacity Calculation Steps 23 Exhibit 10. Map of VISION 2040 Regional Geographies Used for 2035 Growth Targets 29 Exhibit 11. Net New Housing Units by Regional Geography, 2006-2018 30 Exhibit 12. Progress Towards 2035 Housing Targets, 2006-2018 31 Exhibit 13. Residential Growth Compared to Targets, 2006-2018 32 Exhibit 14. Average Achieved Density of Permitted Housing Units, 2012-2018 33 Exhibit 15. Categories for Summarizing Achieved Residential Density 34 Exhibit 16. Countywide Permitted Housing Units by Achieved Density, 2012-2018 35 Exhibit 17. Permitted Housing Units by Regional Geography and Achieved Density, 2012-2018 36 Exhibit 18. Permitted Housing Units by Achieved Density and Regional Geography, 2012-2018 37 Exhibit 19. Permitted Housing Units by Regional Geography, 2006-2018 37 Exhibit 20: Annual Net Change in Jobs by Regional Geography, 2007-2018 38 Exhibit 21. Permitted Non-Residential Floor Area by Regional Geography, 2012-2018 39 Exhibit 22. Jobs to Housing Ratio by Jurisdiction (2018 vs 2006) 40 Exhibit 23. Progress Toward 2035 Jobs Target by Regional Geography, 2006-2018 41 Exhibit 24. Employment Growth Compared to Targets, 2006-2018 42 Exhibit 25. Categories for Summarizing Achieved Non-Residential Density (FAR) 43 Exhibit 26. Permitted Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 43 Exhibit 27. Permitted Non-Residential Development by Regional Geography and Achieved Density, 2012-2018 44 Exhibit 28. Permitted Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density and Regional Geography, 2012-2018 45 Exhibit 29. Permit Trends on Rural and Resource Lands 46 Exhibit 30. Map of VISION 2050 Regional Geographies 50 Exhibit 31. Housing and Job Capacity by VISION 2050 Regional Geography and Jurisdiction 51 Exhibit 32. Capacity Summary, King County – VISION 2050 Geographies 52 Exhibit 33. Assumed Density Levels – Residential Capacity (dwelling units per acre) 53 Exhibit 34. Buildable Residential Land by Assumed Density (acres) 54 Exhibit 35. Percent of Residential Buildable Land by Regional Geography and Assumed Density 55 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 v Exhibit 36. Housing Capacity by Assumed Density (units) 56 Exhibit 37. Percent of Non-Pipeline Housing Unit Capacity by Assumed Density 57 Exhibit 38. Assumed Density Levels – Non-Residential Capacity (FAR) 57 Exhibit 39. Buildable Non-Residential Land by Assumed Density (acres) 58 Exhibit 40. Percent of Non-Residential Buildable Land by Assumed Density 59 Exhibit 41. Job Capacity by Assumed Density (jobs) 60 Exhibit 42. Percent of Non-Pipeline Job Capacity by Assumed Density 61 Exhibit 43. Non-Pipeline Job Capacity by Land Use Type (jobs) 62 Exhibit 44. Percent of Non-Pipeline Job Capacity by Land Use Type 63 Exhibit 45. Criteria for Identifying Potential Inconsistencies 65 Exhibit 46. Consistency of Achieved Residential Densities with Planned Densities 66 Exhibit 47. Consistency of Achieved Non-Residential Densities with Planned Densities 67 Exhibit 48. Consistency of Growth Rates and Capacity with 2035 Targets 69 Exhibit 49. Theme Categories in Jurisdiction Responses to Potential Inconsistencies 71 Exhibit 50. Summary of Jurisdiction Responses - Residential Density Achieved 72 Exhibit 51. Summary of Jurisdiction Responses – Non-Residential Density Achieved 73 Exhibit 52. Summary of Jurisdiction Responses to Potential Inconsistencies – Growth Rate 74 Exhibit 53. Summary of Jurisdiction Responses to Potential Inconsistencies – Capacity 75 Exhibit 54. Recommendations for Adoption of Reasonable Measures 76 Exhibit 55. DRAFT King County Jurisdiction Growth Targets, 2019-2044 78 Exhibit 56. Share of Capacity and Share of Draft 2044 Growth Targets by Regional Geography 80 Exhibit 57. Profiled King County Jurisdictions by VISION 2050 Regional Geography 85 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 1 Executive Summary About the Urban Growth Capacity Report The 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report is King County’s periodic assessment of development capacity for future housing and employment. The report is a mid-planning cycle assessment on how jurisdictions are achieving the planning goals of their 2035 comprehensive plans. The report is a culmination of the county’s Review and Evaluation Program, commonly referred to as “Buildable Lands,” as required by the Growth Management Act in RCW 36.70A.215, and it is King County’s fourth buildable lands report. It is a collaborative production of the 40 jurisdictions across King County that analyzes the form, quantity, and density of residential and non-residential development observed between 2012 and 2018. It also estimates capacity for accommodating 2035 growth targets with consideration for market and infrastructure constraints. Amendments to the Growth Management Act in 2017 expanded the purview of the report beyond measuring capacity for projected growth, requiring the seven buildable lands counties to examine more broadly how jurisdictions are achieving targets and density goals. A finding that a jurisdiction has insufficient capacity for its target—or that a jurisdiction is not achieving its growth targets or urban densities—could necessitate Reasonable Measures to be adopted in the next periodic update of comprehensive plans. In response to this amendment, the 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report compares estimated housing and employment growth from 2006-2018 relative to 2006-2035 growth targets, as well as the achieved densities of 2012-2018 development to the densities allowed in zoning and development regulations. The 2017 GMA amendments also call for Buildable Lands counties to scrutinize market constraints, infrastructure gaps, and development regulation assumptions utilized in the report to ensure that more meaningful market-based assumptions guide capacity calculations. Regional Planning Context The 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report implements King County’s Review and Evaluation Program as set out in the King County Countywide Planning Policies. The Report analyzes King County jurisdictions’ progress toward adopted planning goals expressed in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies growth targets and 2015 Comprehensive Plans. The Report examines capacity and growth assumptions for 2035, the 20-year planning period established by the 2015 comprehensive plans. The 2015 comprehensive plans and 2012 Countywide Planning policies implement the VISION 2040 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Executive Summary King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 2 policy framework and Regional Growth Strategy, developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). While PSRC has since adopted VISION 2050 and a revised Regional Growth Strategy, because the Urban Growth Capacity Report looks back to the 2012 countywide planning policies and 2015 comprehensive plans implementing VISION 2040, most of the report’s analysis is organized by the VISION 2040 Regional Geographies, shown in Exhibit 1. Final capacity results and city profiles are grouped by VISION 2050 Regional Geographies (shown in Exhibit 2), to emphasize how the data can be used while updating comprehensive plans for the 2024 periodic update. Findings from the Urban Growth Capacity Report underscore how cities and King County are planning for growth focused on a network of designated Regional Growth Centers and high capacity transit station areas. Growth patterns have been consistent with growth targets implementing the Regional Growth Strategy. Capacity exists to support new growth across the density spectrum, and much of it is concentrated in higher density areas in Metropolitan and Core Cities with Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. Development trends in the county have been evolving toward the higher densities many jurisdictions have planned for, as the high capacity transit network builds out and demand for higher density development expands to new communities. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Executive Summary King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 3 Exhibit 1. PSRC VISION 2040 Regional Geographies Used for Summarizing Development Trends Source: PSRC VISION 2040; BERK, 2021. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Executive Summary King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 4 Exhibit 2. PSRC VISION 2050 Regional Geographies Used for Summarizing Growth Capacity Sources: PSRC VISION 2050; BERK, 2021. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Executive Summary King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 5 Summary of Findings Development Activity The Urban Growth Capacity Report summarizes the densities and locations of urban development between 2012-2018. This period was marked by significant multifamily and higher density development, reflecting King County’s continued progress towards directing growth towards cities and efficient land uses. As shown in Exhibit 3, nearly 70% of the housing permitted during the evaluation period was developed at densities of at least 48 dwelling units per acre, and 17% of permitted housing during this period was constructed at under 10 dwelling units per acre. Development in middle density formats was more limited. These findings demonstrate how residential development during this period trended towards the high and low ends of the density spectrum. Exhibit 3. Permitted Housing Units by Achieved Density, 2012-2018 Density Level Units per Net Acre Very low Less than 4 Low 4-10 Medium-Low 10-24 Medium-High 24-48 High 48+ Source: BERK, 2021, based on permit data summarized by King County jurisdictions. Non-residential development was more evenly distributed across density levels. Just over 40% of non-residential built space was developed at the highest density level, reflecting the large volume of dense office and mixed-use development during the time period. Half of observed non-residential DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Executive Summary King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 6 development developed at densities less than 1 floor area ratio (FAR).1 Exhibit 4. Permitted Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density, 2012-2018 Density Level FAR Very low <0.35 Low 0.35-0.5 Medium-Low 0.5-1.0 Medium-High 1.0-3.0 High >3.0 Source: BERK, 2021, based on permit data summarized by King County jurisdictions. This study also included analysis comparing achieved densities to maximum as-of-right densities allowed by zoning. Findings varied significantly by jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions saw average achieved residential densities higher than their planned maximum within lower or middle density zones. Others saw achieved densities much lower than planned, particularly in zones allowing the highest densities. This later finding was particularly true for non-residential development. One reason for this outcome is that communities zoned for higher density development in anticipation of future market shifts that had not yet occurred in the 2012-2018 evaluation period. Progress Toward Growth Targets King County has experienced historic population and economic growth in recovery from the Great Recession. Guided by the Regional Growth Strategy and adopted growth targets, this growth has been overwhelmingly urban; less than 3% of population growth in King County since 2006 has occurred in the rural area. The Urban Growth Capacity Report analyzes progress made by cities and urban unincorporated King County towards achieving 2006-2035 growth targets. Because past buildable lands reports have not focused on this specific outcome before, the 2021 report examines growth since 2006 and through 2018. 1 FAR stands for Floor Area Ratio, a measure comparing the area of built space to the land area of the associated lot or parcel. Higher FAR values reflect more dense development, and values higher than 1.0 indicate that the built space surpasses the land area of the associated parcel (as can occur in multi-story buildings). DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Executive Summary King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 7 Urban King County is growing at a rate to achieve its adopted growth targets. Approximately 41% of the target period has elapsed between 2006-2018. Urban King County has achieved 47% of its housing and employment targets, growing slightly faster than this prorated pace. These growth rates are particularly notable given that the time period spans the Great Recession, which diminished population and housing growth to a near standstill and netted out most of the employment gained during the 2000s. The effects of the recession and rates of recovery were not uniform across King County. At a Regional Geography level, Metropolitan, Larger, and Small Cities grew faster than the pace needed to achieve growth targets. Job growth compared to targets was also strong in Metropolitan and Small Cities. While housing growth has been less strong in Core Cities and the urban unincorporated area, these geographies are still on track to achieve their residential growth targets. Employment growth in Core and Larger Cities was slower than pace but meets the countywide definition of consistency with growth targets 2006-2018. The urban unincorporated area was slightly ahead of pace to achieve its employment growth target. More information on growth trends and achieving targets is in Chapter 3 of the Report. Development Capacity The 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report finds that urban King County has capacity for over 400,000 housing units and 600,000 jobs. This capacity is sufficient to accommodate the remainder of its 2035 housing and employment growth targets, and looking ahead, sufficient to accommodate projected future growth during the next planning period. See Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6 for summaries of residential and employment capacity by Regional Geography and density level. Approximately 50% of residential and 60% of employment capacity in King County is in Metropolitan Cities. Additionally, nearly a third of residential and non-residential developable capacity is in the eleven Core Cities. Residential capacity in Metropolitan and Core Cities is overwhelmingly at the county's highest density levels and drives the finding that 83% of the county’s developable residential capacity exists at densities greater than 24 dwelling units per acre. Nearly 80% of King County’s employment capacity is zoned at 1 FAR or higher. At the other end of the density spectrum, approximately two-thirds of King County’s developable residential land is zoned for ten dwelling units or less, making up 10% of residential capacity. More findings and detail on capacity is contained in Chapters 4 and 7. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Executive Summary King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 8 Exhibit 5. Dwelling Unit Capacity by Density Level Source: BERK, 2021, based on capacity data summarized by King County jurisdictions. Exhibit 6. Employment Capacity by Density Level Source: BERK, 2021, based on capacity data summarized by King County jurisdictions. Implementing Urban Growth Capacity Findings As a mid-planning cycle check on development trends and achievement of growth management goals, the Urban Growth Capacity Report contains a host of information useful for the upcoming periodic 2024 comprehensive plan update. Most directly, the Urban Growth Capacity Report contains DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Executive Summary King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 9 recommendations that some jurisdictions adopt Reasonable Measures in their comprehensive plans to address specific inconsistencies identified in the report. More information about the evaluation of when and where Reasonable Measures may be necessary is provided in Chapter 5. Data about achieved density and capacity by density level can help jurisdictions identify where shortfalls in development capacity may impede achieving targeted planning goals, like encouraging the production of “missing middle” housing or mixed-use development near transit station areas. Chapter 6 contains more information on applying or using Urban Growth Capacity Report data or findings for future planning efforts. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Introduction King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 10 Ch. 1 Introduction This report presents the findings of King County’s Urban Growth Capacity Study. King County is a Growth Management Act (GMA) jurisdiction and must plan to accommodate projected growth within its boundaries, with most growth focused into urban growth areas (UGAs) where urban services are available or can be made available. The purpose of the Urban Growth Capacity Study and Report are to provide a periodic evaluation to determine whether projected growth can be accommodated within the UGA. In previous cycles, this product was referred to as the King County Buildable Lands Report (BLR). Past Buildable Lands Reports were completed by King County in 2002, 2007, and 2014. This report includes findings from three key components of King County’s Buildable Lands Program which are required under RCW 36.70A.215 and WAC 365-196-315:  Analysis of countywide and jurisdictional growth trends between 2006 and 2018 compared to 2035 growth targets.  Analysis of achieved densities by jurisdiction based on growth between 2012 and 2018 and comparison to planned densities.  Capacity for housing and job growth through the year 2035. This report was developed by King County in collaboration with each of its 39 cities through the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC). The findings inform the development of new growth targets by jurisdiction for the 2019-2044 planning period. Findings will also be used by cities to inform the next round of comprehensive plan updates and subsequent implementation. Regulatory and Policy Framework The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted to address the need for rapidly growing cities and counties to adequately plan for future growth while protecting natural resource lands and environmentally sensitive areas. A key component of the GMA is the Review and Evaluation Program (also known as the Buildable Lands Program), a requirement which applies to King County and all cities within it. This program mandates the review and evaluation of urban growth capacity to ensure each jurisdiction has designated adequate residential, commercial, and industrial lands to meet growth allocations developed by the counties in consultation with their cities. In 2017, the Washington State Legislature passed the first major revision to the program (SB 5254). This update to GMA includes new requirements related to infrastructure gap analysis, market factor assumptions, and Reasonable Measures. This update to GMA specifies the following:  Reasonable Measures: Under SB 5254, these measures that are adopted to address inconsistency between forecasted and experienced growth are no longer required to be monitored and adjusted annually by buildable lands counties and cities.  Land Suitable for Development: Under SB 5254, the required evaluation of suitable land must DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Introduction King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 11 include land use or zoning regulations, environmental regulations impacting development, other regulations that might inhibit the achievement of assigned densities, and infrastructure gaps. The evaluation of suitable land must also include development of a reasonable market supply factor that identifies reductions in land suitable for development and redevelopment.  Buildable Lands Report Timing: Under SB 5254, the buildable lands report must be completed no later than two years prior to a jurisdiction's next comprehensive plan update for those comprehensive plans due to updated prior to 2024. Countywide Planning Policies The Proposed 2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) establish the county’s Urban Growth Area (UGA) and allocate projected countywide growth in the form of growth targets for each city as well as urban and rural unincorporated areas. CPPs also establish the Review and Evaluation Program for King County and guide the development of the Urban Growth Capacity Study and Report through policies DP-19, DP-20, and DP-X2.2 Components of the Buildable Lands Program include annual data collection, periodic evaluation reports, and adoption of Reasonable Measures as needed to ensure capacity to accommodate projected growth within the county’s UGA. These Reasonable Measures are to be adopted in comprehensive plans, and jurisdictions will collaborate to provide data periodically about the effectiveness of those measures. In King County, growth targets are adopted in the King County Countywide Planning Policies.3 Countywide growth targets are derived from population projections released by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM) and an economic forecast developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Population growth is converted to housing units and the projected housing and employment growth is then allocated to jurisdictions within the Regional Geographies established in the VISION 2050. Jurisdictions within Regional Geographies then collaboratively distribute their allocated growth to create city and urban unincorporated growth targets. Local Comprehensive Plans Under GMA, jurisdictions must plan and provide for both household and job growth to meet their targets through designation of sufficient land suitable for development in their comprehensive plans and regulations. This Urban Growth Capacity Report presents estimated capacity for housing and employment growth by jurisdictions based on a methodology informed by actual achieved densities from recent development activity. The results enable evaluation of whether counties and cities can meet the adopted targets. Deficiencies identified in this study must be addressed by the jurisdiction in 2 The Proposed 2021 CPPs include temporary numbering. Policy numbers could change when the final CPP are adopted. 3 The Urban Growth Capacity Report evaluates the growth targets adopted in the 2012 Countywide Planning Policies. The adopted targets cover a period of 2006-2031. For the Urban Growth Capacity Report, these targets were updated for major annexations and extended on a pro rata basis to 2035, to be consistent with the 2015-2035 planning period for 2015 comprehensive plans. This method was recommended to jurisdictions to extend their 2031 targets to 2035, as the periodic comprehensive plan update deadline was delayed to 2015 after the Great Recession. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Introduction King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 12 their next comprehensive plan update. Department of Commerce Guidelines In 2017, the Washington State Legislature passed E2SSB 5254, which constituted the first major revision to the buildable lands program since its inception in 1997. In 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) published a revised Buildable Lands Guidelines report for use by counties and cities responsible for carrying out a Review and Evaluation Program under GMA. These Guidelines summarize requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 and WAC 365-196-315, and provide best practices and methodologies for carrying out those requirements. King County used these Guidelines as a resource when developing its own policies and procedures for carrying out the Urban Growth Capacity Study. Countywide Coordination This report is the result of nearly two years of coordination and collaboration between King County and the 39 cities within King County. King County facilitated development of the report by establishing a methodology, creating standardized data collection and assumption guidelines, and completing the final report. King County also led the Technical Committee—an interjurisdictional group of planners and data technicians—to develop and vet assumptions in the study methodology. Individual cities and King County supply development and land supply data and select assumptions appropriate to their jurisdictions to complete the report. Exhibit 7 below describes the roles and responsibilities for King County and cities in developing the Urban Growth Capacity Report. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Introduction King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 13 Exhibit 7. Roles and Responsibilities King County Individual Jurisdictions Interjurisdictional coordination Facilitator of the UGC and report preparation. Volunteer and participate in Technical Committee methodology review. Developing guidance for data collection and analysis Develop standardized guidance and templates for data collection and analysis, with input from the UGC Technical Committee. Review and offer feedback on draft guidance. Conduct analysis of achieved densities Review data shared by jurisdictions for consistency with guidance. Work with jurisdictions to resolve any inconsistencies. Gather and analyze data in accordance with guidance and share results with County for review. Conduct land capacity analysis Review data shared by jurisdictions for consistency with guidance. Work with jurisdictions to resolve any inconsistencies. Identify developable land supply, select local development assumptions to calculate capacity in accordance with guidance. Reasonable Measures Identify inconsistencies between growth, capacity, and planning goals using standard criteria. Review inconsistencies and determine whether Reasonable Measures are necessary. Implement Reasonable Measures in 2024 comp plan updates. Changes from the 2014 Buildable Lands Report While the overall purpose of this report is identical to the 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report, there are several changes in the 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report. Highlights of the changes are listed below.  New analysis of capacity and achieved density for all jurisdictions. Unlike the 2014 Buildable Lands Report, which carried forward several key assumptions and findings from the previous 2007 edition, this study conducted a new and complete analysis of both development trends and growth capacity for all jurisdictions.  New regional geographies for summarizing capacity and growth targets. VISION 2050 was adopted by PSRC in 2021. This regional plan updates the Regional Growth Strategy, including the organization of cities and unincorporated areas into five Regional Geographies, each with population and employment growth targets for 2019-2044. Ch. 4 summarizes growth capacity for these new VISION 2050 regional geographies. However, Ch. 3 summarizes historic development DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Introduction King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 14 trends using the older VISION 2040 regional geographies because that growth is being compared to targets developed when those older geographies were in use.  Infrastructure gap analysis. The methodology used in this study includes a formal evaluation of infrastructure gaps and their effects on urban growth capacity. While consideration of infrastructure availability had long been a component of King County’s buildable lands analysis, this change included more specific guidance and up-front analysis to address a new requirement added by the legislature in 2017.  Updated approach to “market factor” assumptions. 2017 legislative changes also called for a more rigorous approach to developing “market factor” assumptions that account for the estimated percentage of developable land that is likely to remain undeveloped over the course of the planning period due to market barriers.  Reasonable Measures. The 2017 legislative changes added additional points of analysis for which jurisdictions would need to adopt Reasonable Measures. Under past buildable lands analyses, jurisdictions experiencing a shortfall of capacity for their adopted target could be subject to Reasonable Measures. The 2017 legislation indicated that jurisdictions not achieving their growth targets or planned densities—and unlikely to achieve them by the planning horizon—would also be required to adopt Reasonable Measures to overcome these circumstances. The 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report presents an analysis against the three Reasonable Measures tests and note jurisdictions that will adopt Reasonable Measures in their 2024 comprehensive plans. Report Components and Organization This report is organized into the following components.  Executive Summary  Ch. 1. Introduction: This chapter describes the regulatory and policy framework for Buildable Lands reporting in Washington State and King County. It provides an overview of the coordination process between the County and cities to prepare this report, identifies key changes from the 2014 Buildable Lands Report, and outlines the report components and organization.  Ch. 2. Methodology and Guidance Overview: This is an overview of the methodologies used by individual jurisdictions for evaluating historic development trends as well as future growth capacity. The full guidance provided to jurisdictions are included in appendices to this report.  Ch. 3. Development Trends: This chapter begins with a summary of residential and employment growth that occurred between 2006 and 2018. These trends are compared to adopted targets for jurisdictions and PSRC Vision 2040 Regional Geographies. This chapter also summarizes new development that occurred between 2012 and 2018 by achieved density level.  Ch. 4. Growth Capacity: This is a summary and discussion of urban growth capacity within jurisdictions and aggregated by PSRC Vision 2050 Regional Geographies. Capacity is also summarized by assumed density level to provide an indicator of how much capacity may be available for different kinds of development and housing types—from new towers in dense downtown areas to lower density single family neighborhoods and the middle density typologies in between. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Introduction King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 15  Ch. 5 Reasonable Measures: This chapter explains how the county, in collaboration with cities, evaluated whether historic growth trends in each jurisdiction have been consistent with local comprehensive plans. It also presents the results of this assessment and a summary of jurisdiction responses that provide context for the quantitative assessment. Finally, this chapter identifies instances where “Reasonable Measures” are recommended to improve consistency.  Ch. 6 Applying Urban Growth Capacity Findings: This chapter describes how jurisdictions can use this study and its findings to inform the next round of local comprehensive plan updates. It also presents a set of new population and employment growth targets by jurisdiction for the 2019-2044 period.  Ch. 7. Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas: This chapter presents detailed profiles summarizing growth trends and capacity findings for each individual jurisdiction, organized by PSRC Vision 2050 Regional Geographies. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 16 Ch. 2 Methodology and Guidance Overview Overview This chapter provides an overview of the methodology used by King County and its cities to calculate urban growth capacity for residential and non-residential development. Exhibit 8 shows the three major steps in this process in blue, as well as three major steps following this process in grey. These steps highlight how capacity analysis results will be used to inform the development of potential Reasonable Measures, new growth targets for jurisdictions, and eventually comprehensive plan updates. Exhibit 8. Urban Growth Capacity Analysis Overview Source: Graphic adapted from King County Urban Growth Capacity Guidance, 2019. This process for data collection to support urban growth capacity analysis was split into four phases:  Phase One – Achieved Densities  Phase Two – Land Supply  Phase Three – Initial Capacity  Phase Four – Final Capacity Throughout the 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report data development process, King County provided guidance documents to jurisdictions that walked through the analytical steps required in each phase, and when relevant, provided data to support the analysis. Along with the guidance documents, jurisdictions were asked to fill out standardized data tables to support data aggregation as well as comparisons across different jurisdictions and Regional Geographies. The remainder of this chapter Achieved Densities x Developable Land Supply =Capacity vs Remaining Target= Findings + Reasonable MeasuresGrowth Targets + Plan Updates DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 17 summarizes the process required of each jurisdiction throughout the phases of data collection and analysis. It also describes additional analyses King County and a consultant team developed to update and add rigor to data assumptions used in the analysis , or to develop new processes embedded in the data collection guidance. The individual guidance documents are attached to the end of this report in the Technical Appendices. Phase 1 - Achieved Densities The goal of this phase was to calculate the achieved densities of new development that occurred between 2012 and 2018. For residential development, density is typically measured in dwelling units per acre. For non-residential development, density is typically measured as floor-area ratio, or the amount of building floor area divided by the total parcel area. Achieved densities form the basis for determining the assumed density of future development in urban growth capacity calculations. That process is described in more detail in Phase 3. During Phase 1, King County jurisdictions collected the necessary data to calculate achieved density for each zone where development occurred during the six-year review and evaluation period of 2012 to 2018. An initial parcel-based analysis by King County was supplied to the jurisdictions to streamline reporting on achieved densities, which was then supplemented by jurisdiction-led analysis. The portions of reporting are: Reviewing and supplementing a parcel-based analysis of new residential development, and Reporting on additional development permitted during the review period, particularly non-residential and mixed-use development. The parcel-based analysis was the starting place for residential data collection in the Urban Growth Capacity Study. It was designed to replace the majority of plat and permit reporting by identifying new residential development on parcels that changed boundaries or added residential units during 2012-2018. Permit reporting on single family and multifamily/mixed-use development was still necessary for residential developments not identified in the parcel-based analysis data, and to review or supplement the parcel-based analysis with project data (for example, non-buildable critical areas area). New non-residential development was designed to be addressed through permit reporting. Using the parcel-based analysis supplemented by permit data, jurisdictions filled out several data templates provided by King County to support the calculation of achieved densities in residential, non-residential, and mixed-use zones. For details see Appendix A: Guide for Local Government Reporting Template PART 1. Data Review and Achieved Density Calculations With consultant support, King County staff reviewed permit data shared by jurisdictions for reliability and consistency with guidance. When necessary, jurisdictions were engaged to make corrections or refinements. This permit data provided the basis for calculating achieved densities for residential and non-residential development between 2012-2018. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 18 Jurisdictions aggregated permits and reported residential and non-residential development by zone. For residential permits, this reported data included developed residential units, gross acreage, and several categories for acreage deductions: non-buildable critical areas, public purpose area, and right-of-way area. After deducting these categories from gross acreage, jurisdictions reported net developed area for residential units within each zone. Residential achieved density is therefore measured as housing units per net acre, which accounts for area that is not suitable for residential development. Furthermore, summarization of permit activity by achieved density level in this report reflect the average achieved density of each zone, rather than the achieved density of each individual building permit. For non-residential development, achieved density is measured using floor area ratio (FAR). Jurisdictions calculated the gross developed non-residential area within each zone, and made similar deductions for critical areas, public purpose area, and right-of-way area. The total floor area of non-residential development within each zone was then divided by that zone’s net developed area (in square feet), which produced a zone-wide achieved density for non-residential development. Rural Development Trends Methodology Residential development trends on rural and resource lands were measured by residential permits issued between 2012 and 2018. Permits were geocoded by their parcel identification number or address to identify their presence outside the Urban Growth Area. Parcel quantities, area, and current use information was provided by the King County Assessor. Supplemental development-related data (year built, residential units, and non-residential square feet) was derived from Assessor data on residential and commercial buildings. Parcels were identified as rural if their centroid was located outside of the Urban Growth Area. Parcels on resource land were identified by overlaying the parcels with current King County zoning shapefiles and selecting parcels with centroids within Agriculture, Forest, or Mineral zoned land. Phase 2 - Land Supply The goal of Phase 2 was for jurisdictions to identify vacant and redevelopable land that has potential to see new development activity over the next 20 years. To quantify the developable land supply, jurisdictions followed the steps below. Results of this analysis were documented in standard data templates provided by King County.  Assemble data, including parcel/assessor data, critical areas, and zoning (a set of 2019 parcel data and assessment information was provided to jurisdictions);  Exclude land uses or parcels that are unlikely to develop for categorical reasons (e.g. parks, schools, public facilities, and other institutions);  Identify planned density by zone (see discussion below);  Define thresholds for identifying vacant and redevelopable parcels (see discussion below);  Identify vacant and redevelopable parcels using thresholds; DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 19  Review and refine the resulting developable land supply;  Remove area for environmentally sensitive lands (critical areas);  Screen for infrastructure gaps; and  Summarize developable land supply by zone. Planned Density Reporting Planned density typically refers to the maximum density allowed by zoning code and development regulations. Planned densities were collected for two reasons: First, as a part of new requirements to the Growth Management Act (GMA) buildable lands statute passed by the State Legislature in 2017, King County jurisdictions are required to evaluate whether planned densities are being achieved in the 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Study. Achieved densities (evaluated in Phase One reporting) are later compared to planned densities as one indicator of whether development is occurring as planned. Second, planned densities are used in the identification of redevelopable lands. These are lands that have some development already, but which could reasonably be expected to see additional development during the planning period. Redevelopable parcels include partially utilized parcels, meaning the parcel is large enough to be subdivided to allow for the creation of additional residential lots. They can also include underutilized parcels, which are parcels that could be converted to a more intensive use typically because the planned density is significantly higher than the existing density on the parcels. Since the 2007 Buildable Lands Report, King County has recommended jurisdictions identify both kinds of redevelopable lands by comparing the existing density of development to its planned or potential density (see additional discussion below). Typically, planned densities for residential zones are reported in dwelling units per acre (du/acre), and in floor area ratio (FAR) for non-residential zones. In certain cases, residential planned density is reported in terms of FAR or minimum lot size. Non-residential planned density has more variation and is less frequently defined as explicitly as residential zones. For these zones, jurisdictions were asked to fill out a FAR calculator to assist with consistent comparisons later in the study. Developable Land Supply Reporting This portion of the analysis involved a jurisdiction-wide scan to quantify all land available for residential or commercial/industrial development for the next 20-year planning period. “Land supply” is the phrase used to refer to an inventory of land “suitable for development.” Land supply inventories for each jurisdiction ideally strive for a snapshot of land with development potential as of January 2019, approximating the end of the most recent evaluation period (2012-2018). The land supply is comprised of both vacant and redevelopable lands and is typically based on a parcel-based dataset provided by King County. In certain cases, individual jurisdictions maintain a land supply based on development site data in lieu of parcel data. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 20 Vacant Definition Vacant lands are devoid of development or contain only low value accessory structures. For this study, a recommended two-part test was used to determine if a parcel was vacant: query parcels with assessor present use codes indicating vacant land use and query parcels with improvement values less than $10,000. Selected parcels were then screened for known exclusions, such as school district land, parking lots associated with condo buildings, government-owned land, and other land use types (see Appendix). Redevelopable Definition (Residential) For redevelopable residential land, a ratio of potential to existing density on a parcel was used to determine if a parcel was redevelopable. For example, if a city defined redevelopable land to be where existing development is less than two times the potential density for that property, then a single family property on an acre lot which is zoned for up to four units per acre, would be considered redevelopable. Jurisdictions were recommended to choose a threshold between 2and 3.5. The threshold a jurisdiction selected was influenced by development pressure and existing density, i.e. a lower threshold is more appropriate for denser, rapidly developing jurisdictions. King County provided calculated residential density by parcel for this phase. Combined with planned density, jurisdictions were able to calculate the above ratio and test various thresholds. Once a given threshold was selected, results were queried and then screened through a variety of factors (for details see Appendix B: Phase 2 Guidance). Redevelopable Definition (Non-Residential and Mixed-Use) Two methods were provided to jurisdictions for identifying redevelopable non-residential and mixed-use parcels. While a density-based ratio—as is recommended for residential lands—can be informative in some areas (particularly those facing significant development pressure), an improvement-to-land-value based ratio may also accurately identify properties likely to redevelop. Value-ratio method. In the parcel/assessor data table provided by King County, an improvement-to-land-value ratio was calculated for each parcel (appraised improvement value divided by land value). A low ratio indicates more potential for redevelopment. Theoretically, the ratio reflects the potential profitability of more intensive use of a site relative to the revenue generating potential of the existing use. Typical threshold ratios for determining “redevelopability” range from 0.25 to 1. A threshold of 0.5 was recommended for most areas within the county. Jurisdictions experiencing more intense development pressure were allowed to consider a higher ratio. Density-ratio method. Since planned densities for all zones were being evaluated for this analysis, using a density-based filter is more possible than in past studies. The existing FAR-based density was calculated for every parcel (existing development divided by the parcel area) and included in the parcel data for each jurisdiction. Using the planned density of the DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 21 parcel’s related zoning, jurisdictions could calculate a potential density value for each parcel. By comparing the potential and existing densities, jurisdictions could create a ratio by which to judge a parcel’s redevelopability. Starting with a ratio of 1.5 (potential-to-existing density) and testing a +/-0.5 tolerance was the recommended starting place for reviewing the redevelopable land supply results. Jurisdictions with less non-residential development pressure were advised to set a higher threshold. Screening Regardless of method, queried parcels were screened and selectively removed from the analysis. Full documentation on the screening process can be found in Appendix B: Phase 2 Guidance. Two major factors in reducing land supply—critical areas and infrastructure gaps—bear additional description. Critical Areas Using the initial land supply, jurisdictions intersected and removed only non-buildable critical areas and critical area buffers in accordance with development standards, as described in Appendix B. Infrastructure Gaps Comporting with the new Department of Commerce Buildable Lands Guidance, the land supply was screened to remove or discount land supply experiencing significant water, sewer, stormwater, or transportation infrastructure gaps that would fully or partially impede development at planned levels. Jurisdictions were provided with a summary of infrastructure constraints identified in their comprehensive plan, and then performed a two-step analysis to further identify infrastructure constrained development: first identifying any areas with development potential outside existing service areas or affected by a significant, but unscheduled infrastructure need, and secondly removing or discounting specific parcels that were unserved and unlikely to be serviced in the next 20 years due to these gaps. Further detail on the infrastructure gaps guidance is contained in Appendix G. Final Land Supply After critical area deductions and infrastructure constrained lands were removed, each jurisdiction reported net vacant and net redevelopable land by zone. This is the final land supply. Major Planned Development – Pipeline The last section of Phase 2 asked each jurisdiction to fill out permitted development already in the pipeline, and when possible, the corresponding parcel number. Pipeline development was considered separately in the capacity analysis, and this step was to ensure that parcels with permitted development were not double counted towards future capacity as well. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 22 Phases 3 and 4 – Capacity Calculating capacity was spread across two phases of data reporting. Phase 3 focused on an initial capacity calculation by zone paired with local reporting on achieved growth and densities. Phase 4 data reporting finalized urban growth capacity calculations for each jurisdiction by applying market factor and employment density assumptions to the initial capacity calculated in Phase 3. Capacity Overview Generally, developable capacity is calculated by zone and is the product of a zone’s assumed density and the area of land supply minus a percentage accounting for streets, sidewalks, and public purpose land. Achieved densities calculated in Phase 1 of data collection typically form the basis for the assumed densities and the land supply was reported by zone in Phase 2. Jurisdictions selected discounts for right-of-way and public purpose lands, informed by recent development trends, to reduce the land supply for non-buildable, necessary infrastructure. This process is illustrated below in Exhibit 9. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 23 Exhibit 9. Capacity Calculation Steps Calculating Residential Capacity Calculating Non-Residential Capacity Calculating Mixed-use Capacity Source: King County Phase 3 Guidance Document, 2020. Calculating Capacity The steps for calculating capacity are broken down in the following sections: reporting assumed density, determining mixed-use splits, taking discounts, and calculating capacity. Assumed Densities Assumed densities are an important part of developing capacity calculations. They are reported for each zone where development can occur. Except in limited circumstances, assumed densities must be based upon the achieved densities observed in the 2012-2018 evaluation period reported in Phase 1 of Urban Growth Capacity data collection. This is specifically called out in RCW 36.70A.215(3)a, e. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 24 Deviation from achieved density is only permitted for zones in the following circumstances:  Insufficient observed development in the evaluation period. Some zones may have experienced limited or no development to draw reasonable conclusions for anticipated development densities, either in the types of development allowed in a mixed-use zone, or in the quantity of development.  Changes in regulations. Densities achieved in development permitted during the five-year review period may reflect zoning and development regulations that have since changed. Where regulations have changed to effectively increase or decrease achievable net densities, assumed future densities should reflect the impact of those regulatory changes, and the specific changes should be documented.  Trends over time. A trend of increasing dwelling units per acre or FAR over time could justify an assumed future density higher than indicated in the zonal average reported as achieved density in Phase 1. Annual reporting in Phase 1 data would indicate this trend.  Infrastructure gaps. “Partial infrastructure gaps,” where infrastructure limitations affected portions of zones from achieving planned densities were identified in Phase 2 data reporting. In such cases, jurisdictions may look to the planned density to inform the assumed density. Documentation of the specific development circumstances that demand deviation from the achieved density, and the rationale for the selected assumed density are required in the reporting tools. Assumed densities are the basis for calculating initial capacity below. Mixed-Use Zone Splits Mixed-use zones are defined as zones with capacity for both residential and non-residential development. In some cities, mixed-use zones require the achieved use splits observed in Phase 1 to apportion area to residential and non-residential uses to calculate capacity, but all cities were asked to report on differences between achieved density and planned density for mixed-use development. Some mixed-use zones did not see development in the evaluation period. In these instances, jurisdictions were advised to draw from additional sources:  Observed splits in zones in comparable zones in or outside of the given jurisdiction  Expressed vision for these areas in comprehensive and neighborhood plan policies, or development regulations  Local knowledge of market conditions, demand for space, projects in the development pipeline, and developer interest  Existing development like that envisioned for a zone Defining these splits is a key component in understanding the breakdown in land supply available to residential and non-residential development on mixed-use land. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 25 Discounts To estimate the actual developable capacity, the area of vacant and redevelopable land supply must be reduced or “discounted” to account for land that gets utilized for rights-of-way and other public purpose uses where people do not live or work. Public purpose uses are generally stormwater facilities, parks, or other open space. These amounts vary by type and density of development. The starting place for approximating these discounts is the observed development data used to calculate achieved densities in Phase 1. Past buildable lands reports provide additional reference points, built from the development observed during those evaluation periods. As development becomes denser and occurs as infill, these discount rates reduce, as right-of-way and public purpose uses are already built into the urban fabric. Jurisdictions were encouraged to tailor discount selections to major land use types (e.g., multifamily, or non-residential development) and to vacant or redevelopable land. Some jurisdictions varied discounts by zone, based on future development conditions. Initial Capacity In this step, capacity is calculated by combining all portions of the analysis up until this point. From here, capacity was calculated by the following steps: 1. Report land supply area by vacant/redevelopable and by zone. 2. Deduct the selected percentages for rights-of-way and public purpose, determining the actual buildable area. 3. Calculate initial capacity by multiplying assumed density by buildable area, resulting in either initial dwelling unit calculations for residential capacity, or square feet of developable floor area for non-residential capacity. 4. Subtract existing units/development on redevelopable parcels in order to obtain the net capacity by zone. It is important to note that in Phase 1 data collection, achieved densities were separately calculated for the residential and non-residential components of mixed-use projects. These achieved densities were generally calculated from the number of residential units or commercial/office square footage over the entire parcel area. Calculating density in this manner factors in a split between residential and non-residential uses into the achieved density, making a separate apportionment of mixed-use zoned land before the assumed density is applied unnecessary. Some jurisdictions preferred to apportion mixed-use land to single uses to calculate achieved densities. For these jurisdictions, it was necessary to apply the achieved mixed-use land split to the land supply before applying their assumed densities. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 26 Final Capacity Creating the final urban growth capacity calculations for each jurisdiction involves applying market factor and employment density assumptions to the general capacity calculation process outlined in Phase 3. This section describes those assumptions. Market Factor Market Factor is the estimated percentage of developable land contained within an urban growth area that is likely to remain unavailable over the course of a 20-year planning period and is, in practice, the final non-developable land deduction when calculating lands suitable for development and redevelopment. Appendix E: Market Factor Guidance details considerations jurisdictions used when selecting appropriate assumptions to apply in each zone based on local market conditions or other factors. Employment Density Estimating employment densities is the final step in estimating total capacity for new job growth in a jurisdiction. While there are various ways to convert land capacity to capacity for new employment, King County selected to use an approach that converts non-residential development capacity measured in square feet of floor area to capacity for new employment. This conversion requires assumptions for the average number of built square feet of floor area for each job. The lower the square foot per job, the higher the density of use. The calculation is simply: Total job capacity = Gross square footage4 of floor area capacity / gross square footage per job Square footage per job can vary widely by building type or employment sector. For example, warehouses devote a great deal of square footage to storing inventory or other goods, and therefore typically require considerably more square footage per job than office uses. Average employment density assumptions should reflect the types of job growth that are expected in an area. Many jurisdictions selected different employment density assumptions for commercial and industrial zones to reflect different expectations for the type of development and job growth expected in those zones. Some jurisdictions even varied employment density assumptions among different commercial zones. For example, a city may assume that average square footage per job is lower in a downtown zone than in other commercial zones further from the core. This decision could reflect expectations that a higher proportion of the downtown floor area capacity will be used as office space, compared to other commercial zones where lower density retail uses may be more common. Appendix F: Employment Density Guidance provides additional details about considerations jurisdictions could use when selecting the assumptions. 4 Gross square footage simply refers to the total square footage of the building, including walls. Gross square footage capacity is calculated as the floor area ratio (FAR) * the parcel size in square feet. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Methodology and Guidance Overview King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 27 Data Review, Land Supply, and Capacity Calculations With consultant support, King County staff reviewed and summarized data received from the jurisdictions for land supply and capacity throughout Phases 2 through 4. In certain cases, jurisdictions were asked to correct or recalculate portions of the analysis due to inconsistencies discovered in the review process. In other cases, King County staff along with the consultant team reviewed and corrected calculations and sent data back to the jurisdictions for review. This was an important step for refining the data and providing greater consistency across the entire analysis. The jurisdictions were involved in all conversations when data was changed or corrected, and all data presented in this report have been reviewed and approved by each relevant jurisdiction. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 28 Ch. 3 Development Trends This chapter reviews residential and employment growth trends in King County between 2006 and 2018. It also compares these trends to growth targets set in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies—subsequently extended to 2035.5 These targets include growth for the Urban Growth Area as a whole and individual jurisdictions, as well as a set of five Regional Geographies for grouping individual jurisdictions: Metropolitan Cities, Core Cities, Larger Cities, Small Cities, and Urban Unincorporated areas (for a map, see Exhibit 10). Regional Geographies used in this chapter are based on Puget Sound Regional Council’s VISON 2040 regional plan, as the 2006-2035 targets were adopted using the VISION 2040 plan as a framework. They should not be confused with the new VISION 2050 Regional Geographies King County adopted in 2020. Chapter 6 will use the new Regional Geographies to summarize capacity with an eye towards planning for new 2019-2044 growth targets. The final section of this chapter summarizes development trends in rural areas. 5 King County extended the 2006-2031 growth targets out to 2035 using a linear projection based on continuing the same average annual growth rate. These 2035 targets may vary from land use assumptions used in local comprehensive plans for jurisdictions that selected a different method for extending their 2031 growth targets to 2035. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 29 Exhibit 10. Map of VISION 2040 Regional Geographies Used for 2035 Growth Targets Source: PSRC VISION 2040; BERK, 2021. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 30 Residential Growth Trends Between 2006 and 2018, the county had a net gain of 415,591 new residents and 130,892 new housing units. The average annual rate of net new housing production was 1.4%. Exhibit 11 shows net new housing with break downs by Regional Geography. Over half of all new housing units were constructed in Metropolitan Cities, with the vast majority in the City of Seattle. During this period only 3% of all housing production was in rural unincorporated areas. Exhibit 11. Net New Housing Units by Regional Geography, 2006-2018 Source: King County, 2021, based on Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) Small Area Estimates 6. Consistency of Residential Growth with Adopted Targets Urban King County is on pace to meet the 2035 countywide growth target of 276,604 net new units. Exhibit 12 shows progress toward the 2035 housing growth targets. As of 2018, King County was 47% of the way to achieving the 2035 target, compared to 41% of the growth period having elapsed (12 out of 29 years). The exhibit shows that progress by Regional Geography has varied. Collectively, Metropolitan Cities, Larger Cities, and Small Cities have all growth at a faster pace than needed to achieve their targets in 2035. On the other hand, Core Cities have grown more slowly than needed to achieve their 2035 targets. 6 All 2006 and 2018 city and urban unincorporated area estimates in this chapter are sourced from block-level data from the WA Office of Financial Management (OFM) Small Area Estimates Program. This source was used to develop jurisdictional estimates for both years that reflect approximate current municipal boundaries to control for growth due to annexation. Some variation from OFM official April 1st population estimates for jurisdictions will be evident. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 31 Exhibit 12. Progress Towards 2035 Housing Targets, 2006-2018 Source: King County, 2021, based on OFM Small Area Estimates. Exhibit 13 compares housing growth to targets for each jurisdiction. The column with colored cells (% of 2035 Target Pace) measures the progress of each city and urban unincorporated King County compared to the pace needed to achieve their 2035 target. A value of 100% indicates the jurisdiction was growing at exactly the right rate to meet their 2035 target, while lower values indicate the jurisdiction was growing at a slower rate than implied in the growth target. For jurisdictions growing slower than the target pace, the color of the cell indicates how close the pace of growth is to target. Jurisdictions very close to the target pace are shown in green, while those further from the pace are in yellow, orange, or red. Relatively few jurisdictions grew significantly slower than the target pace. Most cities that grew significantly faster than their target rate had relatively low residential targets. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 32 Exhibit 13. Residential Growth Compared to Targets, 2006-2018 Source: King County, 2021, based on OFM Small Area Estimates. Note that data for cities that straddle two counties include only the King County portion. City/Jurisdiction 2006 Total Housing Units 2006-2035 Housing Target 2006-2018 Housing Production 2018 Total Housing Units % of 2035 HU target pace Remaining 2035 Target Annual Growth Needed to Achieve TargetBellevue55,107 20,056 6,591 61,698 79%13,465 1.3%Seattle 292,881 99,760 63,675 356,556 154%36,085 0.6%Subtotal 347,988 119,816 70,266 418,254 142%49,550 0.7%Auburn 23,602 11,159 3,138 26,740 68%8,021 1.8%Bothell 9,522 4,420 2,204 11,726 121%2,216 1.1%Burien 19,584 5,150 1,225 20,809 57%3,926 1.1%Federal Way 34,560 9,396 2,525 37,085 65%6,871 1.1%Kent 43,552 10,753 4,259 47,811 96%6,495 0.8%Kirkland 35,556 9,941 3,100 38,656 75%6,841 1.0%Redmond 22,790 11,896 4,946 27,736 100%6,950 1.5%Renton 36,168 17,231 6,607 42,775 93%10,623 1.5%SeaTac 10,301 6,728 548 10,849 20%6,180 3.4%Tukwila 7,739 5,626 130 7,869 6%5,496 4.1%Subtotal 243,374 92,300 28,683 272,057 75%63,617 1.4%Des Moines 12,287 3,480 413 12,700 29%3,067 1.4%Issaquah 11,517 6,670 5,096 16,612 185%1,574 0.6%Kenmore 8,156 4,060 1,120 9,276 67%2,940 1.9%Maple Valley 6,765 2,088 2,061 8,826 239%27 0.0%Mercer Island 9,467 2,320 1,006 10,473 105%1,314 0.7%Sammamish 18,196 4,849 3,585 21,780 179%1,264 0.3%Shoreline 22,173 5,800 1,529 23,702 64%4,271 1.1%Woodinville 4,550 3,480 604 5,154 42%2,876 3.3%Subtotal 93,110 32,747 15,413 108,523 114%17,334 0.9%Algona 960 220 89 1,049 97%132 0.7%Beaux Arts Village 119 3 1 120 82%2 0.1%Black Diamond 1,623 2,204 112 1,735 12%2,092 7.1%Carnation 739 383 141 880 89%242 1.6%Clyde Hill 1,083 12 8 1,091 176%3 0.0%Covington 5,470 1,705 1,564 7,034 222%141 0.1%Duvall 2,105 1,322 576 2,681 105%746 1.6%Enumclaw 5,048 1,653 278 5,326 41%1,375 1.5%Hunts Point 183 1 4 187 888%- Met TargetLake Forest Park 5,226 551 201 5,427 88%350 0.4%Medina 1,162 22 72 1,234 795%- Met TargetMilton337 58 271 608 1129%- Met TargetNewcastle3,784 1,392 1,404 5,188 244%- Met TargetNormandy Park 2,794 139 83 2,877 144%56 0.1%North Bend 3,352 771 361 3,712 113%411 0.7%Pacific 2,146 331 316 2,462 231%15 0.0%Skykomish 166 12 7 173 144%5 0.2%Snoqualmie 2,864 1,873 2,087 4,951 269%- Met TargetYarrow Point 401 16 25 426 375%- Met TargetSubtotal39,560 12,670 7,601 47,160 145%5,069 0.6%Urban Unincorporated 35,910 12,837 5,498 41,408 104%7,339 1.0% Subtotal 35,910 12,837 5,498 41,408 104%7,339 1.0% Urban King County 759,942 270,370 127,461 887,403 114%142,909 0.9% Urban Unincoporated Metropolitan Cities Larger Cities Core Cities Small Cities DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 33 Achieved Residential Density This section evaluates achieved density in dwelling units per acre for residential construction that was permitted between 2012 and 2018. Achieved density varied significantly between Regional Geographies, as shown in Exhibit 14. Metropolitan Cities permitted housing at ~105 du/acre on average, while in the remainder of the county average density ranged between 6 and 21 units per acre. Exhibit 14. Average Achieved Density of Permitted Housing Units, 2012-2018 Source: BERK, 2021, based on permit data summarized by King County jurisdictions. The density of new housing development is strongly related to the types of housing that are provided. This study summarizes development by density level categories7 that correspond to typical residential development styles. Exhibit 15 shows the categories used in the study, as well as examples of development in King County that fall into each category. Allowing for and encouraging new housing development in a variety of housing types is an important way to increase housing diversity. When a community provides a greater diversity of housing options, it can meet the housing needs of a greater diversity of household types. 7 Note that these density levels are based on dwelling units per net acre. In other words, net density measures units per acre on individual buildable lots. It excludes street rights-of-way and common areas. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 34 Exhibit 15. Categories for Summarizing Achieved Residential Density Density Level Units per Net Acre Description Example Very low Less than 4 Detached single family homes on large lots Low 4-10 Detached single family homes at typical suburban density level Image: Single family neighborhood in Snoqualmie, WA Medium- Low 10-24 Small lot single family homes, duplex, triplex, & lower-density townhouses Image: Triplex in Issaquah Highlands, WA Medium- High 24-48 Low-rise apartments and condominiums; higher-density townhomes. Image: 5th Avenue condominiums in Kirkland, WA. High 48+ Mid- and high-rise apartments and condominiums. Image: Nia apartments in White Center (King County), WA. Image sources: mschellhase/flickr.com (Very Low) and Bob Bengford/Google Street View, 2017 (other categories). DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 35 Over two-thirds of all newly permitted housing units were High density (48+ units per acre), as shown in Exhibit 16. Housing in this category would almost exclusively be in multifamily buildings such as apartments or condominiums. About 17% of all housing development was in the Low or Very Low categories, indicating single-family housing built at 10 units per acre or less. Only 15% of all housing production was built at Medium densities between 10 and 48 units per acre. Residences in these categories could include “missing middle” formats such as small lot single family, multiplexes, townhomes, and some low-rise apartments or condominiums. Exhibit 16. Countywide Permitted Housing Units by Achieved Density, 2012-2018 Source: BERK, 2021, based on permit data summarized by King County jurisdictions. Exhibit 17 shows the distribution of achieved density for each Regional Geography. Over 90% of permitted units in Metropolitan Cities were in the High density housing range. High density housing also accounted for between 30% and 40% of permitted units in Core Cities and Larger Cities, both of which included a diversity of different density levels. In Urban Unincorporated and Small Cities, Low and Very Low density development was most common. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 36 Exhibit 17. Permitted Housing Units by Regional Geography and Achieved Density, 2012-2018 Source: BERK, 2021, based on permit data summarized by King County jurisdictions. Exhibit 18 presents the same permit data transposed to show the distribution by Regional Geography for each achieved density level. Not surprisingly, most of the High density growth occurred in Metropolitan Cities. Most of the Medium-High density growth was split between Metropolitan Cities and Core Cities. About 70% of both Low and Medium-Low density growth occurred in Core Cities and Larger Cities. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 37 Exhibit 18. Permitted Housing Units by Achieved Density and Regional Geography, 2012-2018 Source: BERK, 2021, based on permit data summarized by King County jurisdictions. Exhibit 19. Permitted Housing Units by Regional Geography, 2006-2018 Source: BERK, 2021, based on permit data summarized by King County jurisdictions. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 38 Employment Growth Trends Between 2006 and 2018, the county had a net gain of 246,475 new jobs. The average annual rate of job growth was 1.8%. Exhibit 20 shows annual gain or loss of jobs by Regional Geography. It shows significant job losses during Great Recession in 2009 and 2010. It also shows smaller losses of jobs in Unincorporated King County in 2008, 2011, and 2012. These are likely due to annexations of unincorporated areas into cities, which would represent a shift of jobs from one Regional Geography category to another rather than actual job losses. With regards to job growth, these trends show annual gains highly concentrated in Metropolitan and Core Cities. Exhibit 20: Annual Net Change in Jobs by Regional Geography, 2007-2018 Source: PSRC, 2020. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 39 Exhibit 21 breaks down all non-residential development permitted in urban King County by Regional Geography. Over half of this growth was within Metropolitan Cities, and nearly a third was in Core Cities. The other geographies had much smaller shares. Exhibit 21. Permitted Non-Residential Floor Area by Regional Geography, 2012-2018 Source: BERK, 2021, based on permit data summarized by King County jurisdictions. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 40 Consistency of Employment Growth with Adopted Targets Urban King County is on pace to hit the 2035 countywide growth target of 488,659 net new jobs. Exhibit 23 shows progress toward the 2035 job growth targets. As of 2018, King County was 47% of the way to achieving the 2035 target, compared to 41% of the growth period having elapsed (12 out of 29 years). The exhibit shows that progress by Regional Geography has varied. As a category, both Metropolitan Cities and Small Cities have grown at a faster pace than needed to achieve their targets in 2035. On the other hand, Core Cities and Large Cities have grown more slowly than needed to achieve their 2035 targets. Jobs Housing Balance The chart below shows the ratio of jobs to housing units for each Regional Geography. Metropolitan Cities and Core Cities are significantly higher than other geographies, reflecting their roles containing King County’s primary employment centers. The following exhibit shows the same ratio calculated for each individual jurisdiction. There is significant variation, with Tukwila, SeaTac, and Redmond each standing out with relatively high ratios. Exhibit 22. Jobs to Housing Ratio by Jurisdiction (2018 vs 2006) Source: PSRC, 2020; OFM, 2020. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 41 Exhibit 23. Progress Toward 2035 Jobs Target by Regional Geography, 2006-2018 Source: King County, 2021; PSRC, 2020. Exhibit 24 compares job growth to targets for each jurisdiction. The column with colored cells (% of Jobs Target Pace) measures the progress of each city and unincorporated urban King County compared to the pace needed to achieve their 2035 target. A value of 100% indicates the jurisdiction was growing at exactly the right rate to hit their 2035 target while lower values indicate the jurisdiction was growing at a slower rate than implied in the growth target. For jurisdictions growing slower than the target pace, the color of the cell indicates how close the pace of growth is to target. Jurisdictions close to or above the target pace are shown in green, while those slower than the pace are in yellow, orange, or red. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 42 Exhibit 24. Employment Growth Compared to Targets, 2006-2018 Source: King County 20211; PSRC, 2020. City 2006 Total Jobs 2006-2035 Jobs Target 2006-2018 Jobs Growth 2018 Total Jobs % of Jobs Target Pace Remaining 2035 Target Annual Growth to Achieve 2035 TargetBellevue120,494 61,480 22,529 143,023 89%38,951 1.6%Seattle 498,931 170,172 123,190 622,121 175%46,982 0.4% Subtotal 619,425 231,652 145,719 765,144 152%85,933 0.7%Auburn 38,252 22,446 5,518 43,770 59%16,928 2.3%Bothell 11,757 5,800 5,023 16,780 209%777 0.3%Burien 13,371 5,754 (26) 13,345 -1%5,754 2.5%Federal Way 31,616 14,268 (468) 31,148 -8%14,268 2.7%Kent 63,299 15,405 9,061 72,360 142%6,344 0.5%Kirkland 36,698 24,186 12,582 49,280 126%11,604 1.4%Redmond 81,207 26,680 11,967 93,174 108%14,713 0.9%Renton 53,431 33,640 12,720 66,151 91%20,920 1.9%SeaTac 29,585 29,348 4,937 34,522 41%24,411 4.2%Tukwila 44,345 20,358 621 44,966 7%19,737 2.6% Subtotal 403,561 197,884 61,935 465,496 76%135,455 1.7%Des Moines 6,206 5,800 859 7,065 36%4,941 4.1%Issaquah 18,889 23,200 8,950 27,839 93%14,250 3.0%Kenmore 5,062 3,480 (1,050) 4,012 -73%3,480 5.1%Maple Valley 3,297 2,320 893 4,190 93%1,427 2.0%Mercer Island 7,453 1,160 292 7,745 61%868 0.7%Sammamish 6,199 2,088 1,987 8,186 230%101 0.1%Shoreline 17,411 5,800 487 17,898 20%5,313 1.7%Woodinville 11,876 5,800 643 12,519 27%5,157 2.4% Subtotal 76,393 49,648 13,061 89,454 64%35,537 2.3%Algona 1,879 244 263 2,142 261%- Met TargetBeaux Arts Village 13 4 9 22 595%- Met TargetBlack Diamond 458 1,218 57 515 11%1,161 13.3%Carnation 871 429 15 886 8%414 2.7%Clyde Hill 713 - (79) 634 N/A N/A N/ACovington3,528 1,531 1,485 5,013 234%46 0.1%Duvall 1,182 974 301 1,483 75%673 2.7%Enumclaw 4,960 853 96 5,056 27%757 0.9%Hunts Point 51 - 13 64 N/A N/A N/ALake Forest Park 1,612 244 165 1,777 164%79 0.3%Medina 409 - 110 519 N/A N/A N/AMilton22 186 98 120 128%88 4.3%Newcastle 1,736 853 891 2,627 253%- Met TargetNormandy Park 773 75 161 934 516%- Met TargetNorth Bend 2,707 1,218 590 3,297 117%628 1.1%Pacific 1,443 429 (609) 834 -343%429 3.0%Skykomish 64 - 12 76 N/A N/A N/ASnoqualmie2,004 1,218 3,684 5,688 731%- Met TargetYarrow Point 109 - (49) 60 N/A N/A N/A Subtotal 24,534 9,475 7,213 31,747 184%4,275 0.8%Urban Unincorporated 12,843 7,900 3,557 16,400 109%4,343 1.6% Subtotal 12,843 7,900 3,557 16,400 109%4,343 1.6% Urban King County 1,136,756 496,559 231,485 1,368,241 113%265,074 1.1% Metropolitan Cities Core Cities Large Cities Small Cities Urban Unincorporated DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 43 Achieved Non-Residential Density For non-residential construction that occurred between 2012 and 2018, jurisdictions evaluated achieved density in floor area ratio (FAR). This metric compares the built floor area of structures to the total area of the parcel. For multistory buildings, this method sums floor area on each story. This can result in floor area ratios greater than 1.0. When presenting the results of this analysis, this report summarizes achieved density in five density categories, shown in Exhibit 25. Exhibit 25. Categories for Summarizing Achieved Non-Residential Density (FAR) Very Low Low Medium-Low Medium-High High Less than 0.35 0.35 – 0.5 0.5 – 1.0 1.0 – 3.0 Greater than 3.0 During the six-year analysis period, about 41% of all newly permitted non-residential development was High density (greater than 3 FAR), as shown in Exhibit 26. Medium-Low and Very Low were the two next common density levels. Medium-High was the least common with only 8% of all development. Exhibit 26. Permitted Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 Source: BERK, 2021, based on permit data summarized by King County jurisdictions. Exhibit 27 shows the distribution of achieved non-residential density for each Regional Geography. About 75% of build square footage in Metropolitan Cities was developed at High density. In all other Regional Geographies, Low or Very Low development accounted for half or more of all square footage. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 44 Exhibit 27. Permitted Non-Residential Development by Regional Geography and Achieved Density, 2012-2018 Source: BERK, 2021, based on permit data summarized by King County jurisdictions. Exhibit 28 presents the same permit data transposed to show the distribution by Regional Geography for each achieved density level. Not surprisingly, nearly all High-density development occurred in Metropolitan Cities. Development at other density levels was spread out across different Regional Geographies. The one exception is Urban Unincorporated, which saw very limited development overall and mostly in Very Low density projects. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 45 Exhibit 28. Permitted Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density and Regional Geography, 2012-2018 Source: BERK, 2021, based on permit data summarized by King County jurisdictions. Rural Development Trends While the purpose of the Urban Growth Capacity Report is to analyze urban development trends and determine whether King County and its cities have sufficient capacity within the Urban Growth Area to accommodate the county’s forecasted population and job growth, RCW 36.70A.215 (2) requires analysis of land uses and development outside the UGA. Such information can be useful in analysis of residential trends and to assist the county in directing its programs to areas of greatest need. It is also helpful in analyzing links between urban and rural growth trends. This report examines growth trends on rural and resource lands during the 2012-2018 evaluation period. Rural Areas and Resource Lands in King County The landscape of King County’s rural and resource areas is characterized by extensive forests, small-scale farms, free-flowing streams, and a variety of residential housing—mostly at very low densities. There is no growth target for rural or resource areas. Their role is as supplier of resources including timber and agricultural products with primary characteristics including:  Rural areas cover approximately 300 square miles of King County (15% of the land area), including all of Vashon Island and a band of territory east of the contiguous UGA.  Resource lands—including designated Forest and Agricultural Production Districts and Mineral Lands—cover about 1,350 square miles, or nearly 65% of King County’s total land area. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 46  By contrast, the entire King County UGA covers 460 square miles, less than 22% of the county’s land area.  Together, the rural- and resource-designated areas cover more than three-fourths of the county’s land area but contain only 130,000 people, about 6% of the county’s total population.  The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) assume only a small fraction of King County’s residential growth will occur in rural and resource areas; staff projected about two percent of countywide growth for the 2006-35 planning period. Growth Trends Outside the Urban Growth Area A major goal of the King County Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies is to focus growth into the Urban Growth Area. As Ch. 4 Growth Capacity demonstrates, King County’s Urban Growth Area has sufficient capacity to accommodate its entire growth target. Prior to the adoption of the Growth Management Act in 1991, about 10-14% of each year’s new residential units were built outside the UGA. Following adoption of the county Comprehensive Plan in 1994, the percent of growth in rural areas declined precipitously. While permitting in rural King County increased as growth returned to King County following the Great Recession, it remains a small percentage of the county’s overall growth. Since 2012, only about 1.5% of new units have been developed outside the UGA, as shown in Exhibit 29. These findings demonstrate that King County is succeeding in directing growth to—and accommodating growth within—the Urban Growth Areas. Exhibit 29. Permit Trends on Rural and Resource Lands Year Total Units Permitted Units Permitted in the Rural Area Rural Percent of County total 2012 12,191 92 0.8% 2013 11,688 138 1.2% 2014 13,350 201 1.5% 2015 13,620 215 1.6% 2016 13,300 244 1.8% 2017 14,700 278 1.9% 2018 17,400 260 1.5% Source: King County/Puget Sound Regional Council, 2020 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Development Trends King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 47 Key Development Findings on Rural and Resource Lands The major findings regarding land uses and activities in the rural areas and on resource lands are as follows:  There are approximately 48,300 existing housing units on rural and resource lands (approximately 43,500 units on rural and 4,800 units on resource lands).  An average of about 200 new residential units per year were permitted on rural and resource lands between 2012 and 2018.  This small amount of growth is expected to continue, consistent with the assumption in the CPPs of a small fraction of residential growth occurring in rural areas and resource lands.  Of approximately 66,000 total parcels in rural and resource areas, about 56,000 are developed with residential, commercial, public, or open space use. Another 10,000 parcels are vacant or in an accessory use.  Many parcels in rural areas are smaller than the minimum lot size because they were created before current zoning was in place.  At current rates of residential permitting, the rural area will still have undeveloped lots at the end of the planning period in 2035. For commercial and industrial uses on rural and resource lands, the major findings are as follows:  There are approximately 150 vacant parcels zoned for commercial or industrial uses in rural and resource lands, covering over 2,000 acres.  Approximately 40 of these parcels are on designated resource land, accounting for over half of the vacant non-residential area, nearly 1,200 acres.  A limited amount of non-residential development occurred on rural parcels from 2012-2018. Most non-residential development was school or church buildings.  Excluding the school, church, and accessory development, approximately 50,000 square feet of development was constructed across 6 different developments. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 49 Ch. 4 Growth Capacity This chapter presents urban growth capacity for housing and jobs in King County. Summaries include capacity for the county as a whole, individual jurisdictions, and a set of five Regional Geographies for grouping individual jurisdictions based on the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) VISION 2050 growth plan: Metropolitan Cities, Core Cities, High Capacity Transit (HCT) Communities, Cities & Towns, and Urban Unincorporated areas. PSRC designated three unincorporated potential annexation areas (PAAs), Federal Way PAA, North Highline PAA, and Renton PAA, as HCT Communities. However, for capacity results in this chapter, data for HCT Communities excludes all unincorporated areas and groups the PAAs into the Urban Unincorporated areas. See Exhibit 30 for a map of jurisdictions by Regional Geography. The Regional Geographies used in this chapter and in the jurisdictional profiles in Chapter 7 should not be confused with the older VISION 2040 Regional Geographies discussed in Chapter 4. These new geographies are consistent with those used in the VISION 2050 multicounty planning policies developed through PSRC in 2020, although all unincorporated urban areas are included in the urban unincorporated category. General Findings Urban King County has growth capacity of 406,124 housing units and 612,952 jobs in the urban areas of the county. This capacity is distributed within jurisdictions across the county, as shown in Exhibit 31. This exhibit breaks down both housing and employment capacity by VISION 2050 Regional Geography, and it shows the share of capacity by jurisdiction within each geography. Note that data for cities that straddle two counties include only the King County portion.8 8 These cities include Auburn, Bothell, Milton, and Pacific. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 50 Exhibit 30. Map of VISION 2050 Regional Geographies Sources: PSRC VISION 2050; BERK, 2021. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity 51 Exhibit 31. Housing and Job Capacity by VISION 2050 Regional Geography and Jurisdiction Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020-2021. Jurisdiction Total Housing Capacity (Units) Total Job Capacity (Jobs) Metropolitan Cities Bellevue 26,859 13%117,241 32% Seattle 172,440 87%245,598 68% Subtotal 199,298 362,839 Core Cities Auburn 9,151 7%7,927 4% Bothell 6,370 5%9,335 5% Burien 10,816 8%752 0% Federal Way 14,077 11%29,500 15% Issaquah 14,103 11%15,561 8% Kent 11,248 9%28,995 14% Kirkland 13,352 10%18,139 9% Redmond 17,777 14%15,851 8% Renton 16,503 13%26,210 13% SeaTac 6,396 5%15,565 8% Tukwila 8,219 6%33,749 17% Subtotal 128,011 87%201,584 HCT Communities Des Moines 8,386 17%2,410 14% Kenmore 4,135 9%3,881 23% Lake Forest Park 1,870 4%691 4% Mercer Island 1,607 3%961 6% Newcastle 3,234 7%680 4% Shoreline 25,590 53%3,953 23% Woodinville 3,705 8%4,373 26% Subtotal 48,527 87%16,950 Cities & Towns Algona 266 1%313 1% Beaux Arts 2 0%0 0% Black Diamond 8,434 37%3,188 11% Carnation 704 3%2,864 10% Clyde Hill 5 0%28 0% Covington 4,609 20%8,421 28% Duvall 1,343 6%681 2% Enumclaw 1,308 6%1,152 4% Hunts Point 5 0%0 0% Maple Valley 2,221 10%1,784 6% Medina 8 0%0 0% Milton 66 0%1,213 4% Normandy Park 135 1%35 0% North Bend 2,098 9%5,759 19% Pacific 137 1%77 0% Sammamish 1,144 5%305 1% Skykomish 29 0%0 0% Snoqualmie 372 2%4,079 14% Yarrow Point 17 0%0 0% Subtotal 22,903 1 29,899 Urban Unincorporated Subtotal 7,386 1,680 Total Urban Capacity:406,124 Housing Units 612,952 Jobs Share of Housing Capacity in Regional Geography Share of Job Capacity in Regional Geography King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity 52 Findings by Regional Geography Exhibit 32 summarizes housing and job capacity in King County, with breakdowns by VISION 2050 Regional Geographies. Nearly half of all housing capacity is in the Metropolitan Cities (Seattle and Bellevue), with another 32% of capacity located in Core Cities. Job capacity is even more focused in Metropolitan Cities and Core Cities. Only 20% of housing capacity and less than 9% of all job capacity is in the HCT Communities, Cities & Towns, or Urban Unincorporated categories. HCT Communities have a much higher relative share of housing capacity with 12% of countywide total, compared to only 3% of countywide job capacity. Exhibit 32. Capacity Summary, King County – VISION 2050 Geographies Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020-2021. Residential Capacity Exhibits in this section are grouped both by VISION 2050 Regional Geographies, as well as by assumed density level. For capacity calculations, individual jurisdictions selected an assumed density level for each zone based on a combination of factors, including the achieved density measured in historic development activity as well as current planned density. See Chapter 3 for more information about achieved density. Units Jobs Metropolitan Cities 199,298 49%362,839 59% Core Cities 128,011 32%201,584 33% HCT Communities 48,527 12%16,950 3% Cities & Towns 22,903 6%29,899 5% Urban Unincorporated 7,386 2%1,680 0.3% Total Urban Capacity 406,124 Housing Units 612,952 Jobs VISION 2050 Regional Geographies Percent Total Housing Capacity Total Job Capacity Percent King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 53 For residential capacity, each zone is categorized by density level according to the assumed dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for future development. Exhibits reporting residential capacity throughout the rest of this report rely on the following density levels, consistent with the categorization of achieved density levels in Ch. 3. Exhibit 33. Assumed Density Levels – Residential Capacity (dwelling units per acre) Very Low Low Medium-Low Medium-High High Less than 4 4 - 10 10 – 24 24 – 48 Greater than 48 Source: BERK, 2021 Residential Land Supply Exhibit 34 and Exhibit 35 show the breakdown of the net buildable land for residential development after all deductions have been made. Deductions include the removal of non-buildable critical acres and critical area buffers, infrastructure constrained areas, future rights of way and usage for public purpose, and market factor. It is important to emphasize that these exhibits do not show growth capacity for new housing units, rather they show the acreage of land available for residential development. There are 17,581 acres of buildable land available for residential development. Much of that land is grouped in the very low and low assumed density levels. This exhibit highlights the relative higher amount of land available in Very Low and Low density levels. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 54 Exhibit 34. Buildable Residential Land by Assumed Density (acres) Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020-2021. Exhibit 35 shows similar data presented by percent breakdown by geography by assumed density level as opposed to total acres of residential land supply. Metropolitan Cities have the greatest share of land supply allocated for higher density development, with 51% of available land for residential development falling into Medium-High or High density zones. The share of land in these density levels is much lower in the other Regional Geographies. HCT Communities have a somewhat higher share of Medium-High and High density land supply (27%) than Core Cities (16%), likely reflecting a relatively larger share of land in zones established to support transit-oriented residential and mixed-use development. Across the entire county, two-thirds of residential land supply falls into the Low or Very Low density levels, with just 23% of land supply categorized as High density or Medium-High density. While there is less residential land supply available at the higher density levels, the higher density levels allow for a far larger relative share of housing unit growth capacity, as discussed in the following section. Vision 2050 Geography Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High High #%Metropolitan Cities 244 1,190 590 810 1,293 4,127 23%Core Cities 1,807 3,985 819 363 867 7,841 45%HCT Communities 712 864 63 302 321 2,261 13%Cities & Towns 965 906 284 76 11 2,242 13%Urban Unincorporated 108 921 41 33 6 1,110 6% Urban King County 3,837 7,865 1,797 1,584 2,498 17,581 100% Assumed Density Total DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 55 Exhibit 35. Percent of Residential Buildable Land by Regional Geography and Assumed Density Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020-2021. Residential Unit Capacity Exhibit 36 and Exhibit 37 show residential growth capacity in terms of housing units, broken down by assumed density level and pipeline capacity. Pipeline capacity refers to housing units or non-residential development that has been permitted for construction, but not yet built as of the baseline for this study of January 1, 2019. Parcels with pipeline development are set aside and not counted in the remaining capacity broken down by assumed density level. See Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 56 Exhibit 36. Housing Capacity by Assumed Density (units) Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020. There is growth capacity for nearly 200,000 housing units in Metropolitan Cities, followed by capacity for roughly 128,000 housing units in Core Cities. These two VISION 2050 geographies make up about 80% of urban housing unit capacity in King County. The remaining 20% of capacity found in HCT Communities, with capacity for just under 50,000 housing units; Cities & Towns, with capacity for nearly 23,000 housing units; and the Urban Unincorporated areas, with capacity for nearly 7,400 housing units. Exhibit 37 shows the percent breakdown of housing unit capacity by assumed density level. Countywide, 71% of urban housing capacity (nearly 257,000 units) is in High density zones (see also Exhibit 36). Almost all the housing capacity in Metropolitan Cities is in High density zones, and in Core Cities and HCT Communities, most of the capacity is in High and Medium-High density zones. Cities & Towns and Urban Unincorporated areas have a much greater share of capacity in Low and Very Low density zones. Vision 2050 Geography Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High High Pipeline #%Metropolitan Cities 438 4,308 3,803 21,053 159,711 9,984 199,298 49%Core Cities 2,555 18,307 12,778 11,991 65,645 16,734 128,011 32%HCT Communities 622 2,649 679 8,851 30,486 5,239 48,527 12%Cities & Towns 1,846 3,558 3,265 1,860 770 11,604 22,903 6%Urban Unincorporated 68 4,656 964 1,400 298 0 7,386 2% Urban King County 5,529 33,479 21,490 45,155 256,910 43,561 406,124 100% Total Assumed Density DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 57 Exhibit 37. Percent of Non-Pipeline Housing Unit Capacity by Assumed Density Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020. Employment Capacity Exhibits in this section are grouped both by VISION 2050 Regional Geographies, as well as by assumed density level. For non-residential capacity, each zone is categorized by density level according to the assumed floor area ratio (FAR) for future development. Exhibits reporting non-residential capacity throughout the rest of this report rely on the following density levels, consistent with the categorization of achieved density in Ch. 3. Exhibit 38. Assumed Density Levels – Non-Residential Capacity (FAR) Very Low Low Medium-Low Medium-High High Less than 0.35 0.35 – 0.5 0.5 – 1.0 1.0 – 3.0 Greater than 3.0 Source: BERK, 2021. Nonresidential Land Supply Exhibit 39 and Exhibit 40 show the breakdown of the net buildable land for non-residential development after all deductions have been made. This also includes removal of critical acres and critical area buffers, infrastructure constrained areas, future rights-of-way and usage for public purpose, and market factor. It is important to emphasize that these exhibits do not show growth DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 58 capacity, rather they show the dispersion of land available for non-residential growth. Exhibit 39. Buildable Non-Residential Land by Assumed Density (acres) Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020-2021. There are roughly 6,350 acres of buildable land available for non-residential development. The overwhelming majority of non-residential land supply is focused in Metropolitan Cities and Core Cities, consistent with the location of regional growth center (RGCs) and manufacturing-industrial centers (MICs) in the VISION 2050 plan (shown in Exhibit 30). HCT Communities, Cities & Towns, and Urban Unincorporated areas have far less land available for non-residential development, totaling just 8% of total non-residential urban land supply across the county. Geography Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High High #%Metropolitan Cities 51 24 98 800 2,919 3,891 61%Core Cities 212 490 343 691 232 1,969 31%HCT Communities 93 32 73 5 1 204 3%Cities & Towns 67 45 111 24 5 251 4%Urban Unincorporated 27 0 0 5 0 32 1% Urban King County 450 591 624 1,524 3,158 6,347 100% Assumed Density Level Total DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 59 Exhibit 40. Percent of Non-Residential Buildable Land by Assumed Density Note: Metropolitan Cities includes estimated breakdowns of residential/non-residential land supply in Seattle. Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020-2021. Across all of urban King County, half of land available for non-residential development is at the High assumed density level, with the 24% in the Medium-High level, and the remaining land supply spread across the lower assumed density levels. Similar to the residential side of land supply, the Metropolitan Cities have the highest share of buildable land in the High density level, with comparatively less land available for non-residential development available in the Medium-Low, Low, and Very Low density levels. The breakdown is more varied amongst the Core Cities, HCT Communities, and Cities & Towns, with Urban Unincorporated areas being comprised of almost entirely Very Low density land supply for non-residential development. Capacity for Job Growth Exhibit 41 and Exhibit 42 show non-residential growth capacity in terms of jobs, broken down by assumed density level and pipeline capacity. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity 60 Exhibit 41. Job Capacity by Assumed Density (jobs) Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020. The Metropolitan Cities have capacity for over 360,000 jobs, 59% of total urban job capacity in King County. Most of this capacity in both Metropolitan Cities and countywide is in the High assumed density level. Countywide, there is capacity for 314,662 jobs in the High assumed density level, with 290,561 of those found in Metropolitan Cities. Capacity for another 201,584 jobs is found in Core Cities, 33% of total urban job capacity in King County. This capacity is more evenly spread across the various assumed density levels, with a higher concentration in the Medium-High level. There is comparatively less job capacity elsewhere in the county, with HCT Communities, Cities & Towns, and Urban Unincorporated areas only comprising roughly 8% of total job capacity, or just over 47,000 jobs. Exhibit 42 shows the percent breakdown of job capacity by density levels within the VISION 2050 Regional Geographies. Geography Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High High Pipeline #% Metropolitan Cities 1,699 1,694 9,593 47,015 290,561 12,278 362,839 59% Core Cities 13,828 27,289 26,427 78,837 23,229 31,973 201,584 33% HCT Communities 6,404 3,885 2,586 686 124 3,265 16,950 3% Cities & Towns 7,668 3,761 8,113 2,725 747 6,884 29,899 5% Urban Unincorporated 1,251 0 0 429 0 0 1,680 0% Total 30,850 36,629 46,719 129,693 314,662 54,399 612,952 100% Assumed Density Level Total King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 61 Exhibit 42. Percent of Non-Pipeline Job Capacity by Assumed Density Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020. Nearly all the job capacity in Metropolitan Cities is in the High or Medium-High density zones, similar to the residential capacity results. In Core Cities, the largest share of job capacity is in the Medium-High assumed density level, while in HCT Communities, Cities & Towns, and Urban Unincorporated areas, job capacity is more spread across the assumed density levels. Countywide, 80% of job capacity in urban areas is found in High or Medium-High density zones, with remaining capacity spread somewhat evenly across Medium-Low, Low, and Very Low density zones. Job Capacity by Land Use Type Throughout this study, jurisdictions were asked to categorize zones with potential for non-residential development by broad land use types: commercial, mixed-use, and industrial. The following section presents non-pipeline job capacity by those land use types and broken down by VISION 2050 Regional Geography. It is important to note that some jurisdictions allow for commercial development in industrial zones, industrial development in commercial zones, and multiple uses in mixed-use zones.9 9 Since many jurisdictions allow for non-commercial uses in some commercial zones, a portion of job growth in commercial zones is likely to be from non-commercial jobs. Therefore, this study uses the phrase ‘job capacity in commercial zones’ instead of ‘commercial job capacity’ to describe job capacity by land use type. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 62 Exhibit 43. Non-Pipeline Job Capacity by Land Use Type (jobs) Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020. Across all geographies, most of the job capacity is found in mixed-use zones. In urban King County, there is capacity for over 442,193 jobs in mixed-used zones, over 72,000 jobs in commercial zones, and nearly 45,000 jobs in industrial zones. In Metropolitan Cities alone, there is capacity for near 280,000 jobs in mixed-use zones. Metropolitan Cities and Core Cities have the greatest amount of job capacity in industrial zones, with HCT Communities and Cities & Towns having a relative higher amount of job capacity in mixed-use and commercial zones. Geography Total Commercial Mixed-Use IndustrialMetropolitan Cities 45,952 279,313 25,929 351,194Core Cities 14,033 138,563 17,015 169,611HCT Communities 1,813 11,564 308 13,685Cities & Towns 10,271 12,180 565 23,015Urban Unincorporated 429 574 677 1,680 Urban King County 72,499 442,193 44,494 559,185 Land Use Type DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Growth Capacity King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 63 Exhibit 44. Percent of Non-Pipeline Job Capacity by Land Use Type Sources: BERK, 2021; Data provided by individual King County jurisdictions, 2020. In Metropolitan Cities, Core Cities, and HCT Communities, over 80% of job capacity is found in mixed-use zones. Countywide, 79% of urban job capacity is found in mixed-use zones. HCT Communities and Cities & Towns have a small share of job capacity in industrial zones, just 2%. Cities & Towns have the highest share of job capacity in commercial zones, at 45%, whereas all other geographies have between just 8%-26% of job capacity found in commercial zones. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 64 Ch. 5 Reasonable Measures As discussed in Chapter 1, the GMA requires that certain counties and cities, including King County, conduct an analysis to determine if land is being used efficiently in urban growth areas (UGAs), and to determine if growth is occurring consistent with adopted comprehensive plans. If this review and evaluation demonstrates inconsistencies between actual growth and planning goals, the jurisdiction is required to identify Reasonable Measures that could be taken to improve consistency other than adjusting UGA boundaries. Examples of Reasonable Measures include rezones, subarea planning, permitting process streamlining, or development incentives. Any Reasonable Measures selected to address inconsistencies are required to be adopted in comprehensive plans and monitored annually. Prior to the Urban Growth Capacity study, King County and its jurisdictions did not have any adopted Reasonable Measures. This chapter reviews findings of the Urban Growth Capacity Study to determine whether new Reasonable Measures are necessary to align growth trends with planning goals or to ensure there is sufficient capacity for accommodating growth. The process includes three steps. First, the County measured consistency between actual growth and planning goals using a set of standard criteria. Second, jurisdictions reviewed findings and considered circumstances that may have contributed to observed inconsistencies. Third, based on this review, jurisdictions determined if Reasonable Measures were necessary to address observed inconsistencies. The following sections describe this process and document outcomes. Criteria for Evaluating Consistency The first step was developing criteria for determining where there are potential inconsistencies between actual growth trends and planning goals. King County developed these criteria with input from the UGC Technical Committee and Interjurisdictional Team. Exhibit 45 presents each consistency check, as well as a summary of the method used to evaluate consistency. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 65 Exhibit 45. Criteria for Identifying Potential Inconsistencies Consistency Check Evaluation Method/Criteria Are achieved densities consistent with planned densities? Group all zones by planned/allowed density level. For each density level, calculate aggregate achieved density for all development observed 2012-2018. Compare aggregate achieved density to the range of allowed densities among all zones in that density level. There is a potential inconsistency if both of the following conditions are true: o Average achieved density is outside of this range of allowed density. o Average achieved density is below 50% of the max allowed density. Is the rate of growth consistent with the 2035 growth target? Calculate the elapsed 2035 growth target for the period of 2006-2018: about 41% of the total growth target. Compare actual growth to elapsed target. If actual growth is less than 50% of the elapsed target, then there is a potential inconsistency. Is there capacity for accommodating the 2035 growth target? Calculate the remaining growth needed to achieve the 2035 growth target. If capacity for growth is less than the remaining growth target, then there is a potential inconsistency. Summary of Potential Inconsistencies This section summarizes the findings of the consistency checks described above. Achieved Densities Exhibit 46 summarizes the analysis of potential inconsistencies between average achieved residential densities between 2012 and 2018, and density levels allowed under zoning. Consistency is evaluated for development within each of the five density levels used for summarizing growth trends and capacity throughout this report. The symbols indicate where there is and is not a potential inconsistency identified. A more detailed presentation of the data that backs up both of these exhibits can be found in Ch. 7 Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas. Exhibit 47 presents this same summarization for achieved non-residential densities. It shows many cities with average achieved densities below 50% of maximum allowed density for the zone category. When interpreting these findings, keep in mind that maximum allowed densities in this report are measured in terms of floor area ratio (FAR). Many jurisdictions do not use FAR as a standard of density, and reporting maximum allowed densities often involved converting development standards such as height, bulk, and/or setback requirements to very roughly estimate FAR. In reality, achievable FAR under these development standards may vary significantly by parcel. And some requirements such as building heights may be in place to accommodate portions of structures (e.g., facades, chimneys, or signage) and were never intended to accommodate multistory buildings. These kinds of issues were considered in the jurisdictional review of potential inconsistency findings, as discussed in the following section. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 66 Exhibit 46. Consistency of Achieved Residential Densities with Planned Densities Symbol Definitions DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 67 Exhibit 47. Consistency of Achieved Non-Residential Densities with Planned Densities Symbol Definitions DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 68 Growth Rates and Capacity Exhibit 48 summarizes the evaluation of consistency between 2006-2018 growth rates and 2035 growth targets as well as capacity and remaining 2035 target growth. These findings are presented for both housing and employment. The symbols indicate where there is and is not a potential inconsistency identified. More detailed presentations of the data that backs up this evaluation can be found in Exhibit 13. Residential Growth Compared to Targets, 2006-2018, Exhibit 31. Housing and Job Capacity by VISION 2050 Regional Geography and Jurisdiction, and Ch. 7 Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 69 Exhibit 48. Consistency of Growth Rates and Capacity with 2035 Targets Growth Rate Symbol Definitions Capacity Symbol Definitions DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 70 Jurisdictional Review of Potential Inconsistencies In May 2021, King County staff shared the criteria for identifying potential inconsistencies and preliminary findings with individual jurisdictions. They also shared guidance for reviewing these inconsistencies and determining whether Reasonable Measures are necessary. This review included consideration for circumstances that may help determine whether there was an actual inconsistency and explain why such an inconsistency occurred. If the jurisdiction determined that Reasonable Measures would not be necessary to overcome an inconsistency, then they were asked to provide documentation and analysis to explain how the inconsistency would be overcome to achieve the planning goal without adopting additional Reasonable Measures. The guidance for determining whether potential inconsistencies necessitated Reasonable Measures was grounded in the Department of Commerce’s Buildable Lands Guidelines. Jurisdictions were encouraged to consider the following kinds of questions to identify issues that could have impacted development outcomes during the evaluation period or provide context for interpreting potential inconsistencies:  Are the developments permitted during the evaluation period a large enough sample and representative enough of development trends to serve as the basis for reliable findings?  Have permitting and development trends after the evaluation period shifted in significant ways?  Do code and development regulations promote unintended consequences that could impact development feasibility?  Have there been any changes to code or development regulations during or following the evaluation period that address barriers to development consistent with planning objectives?  Are there other relevant changes in market conditions such as infrastructure investment that could impact future development in the jurisdiction? After completing this evaluation, jurisdictions provided King County with documentation of their findings regarding the potential inconsistencies, noting where Reasonable Measures are and are not necessary. For the purpose of summarization in the Urban Growth Capacity Report, county staff and consultants reviewed these jurisdiction responses and categorized them by nine common themes. These themes are described in Exhibit 49. Individual jurisdiction responses to potential inconsistencies are summarized in Exhibit 50 through Exhibit 52. These tables only show cities in which a potential inconsistency was identified, where an observed trend fell short of the planning goal. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 71 Exhibit 49. Theme Categories in Jurisdiction Responses to Potential Inconsistencies Category Title Definitions Development aligned to planning framework Response cited methodological issues related to translating their planning framework into an FAR-based density approach. The observed development reflects uses, forms, and densities allowed under a jurisdiction’s planning framework. Small development sample The observed development sample included too few projects to reasonably determine whether development was achieving a planning goal, or included an unusual case causing inconsistency with the planning goal. Additional development in pipeline Additional specific projects are underway which represent a shift from trends observed during the evaluation period. Expected market shift There are indicators of shifts in market demand which would result in future development trends that do not resemble patterns observed during the evaluation period. Addition of high capacity transit High capacity transit such as light rail is coming in and is expected to shift market demand, resulting in future development that does not resemble patterns observed during the evaluation period. Recent zoning or policy change New zoning or policies have already been implemented either during or after the evaluation period. These changes are expected to shape future development trends. Anticipated policy, zoning, or strategy updates The jurisdiction anticipates adopting and implementing new policies, zoning, or strategies which are expected to shape future development trends. Fully built out The jurisdiction has no vacant land available for new development, and marginal redevelopable land maintains the existing growth pattern. Environmental or utility constraints Environmental or utility constraints are a barrier to new development. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 72 Exhibit 50. Summary of Jurisdiction Responses - Residential Density Achieved Note: This table includes jurisdictions with potential inconsistencies related to achieved residential densities being lower than 50% of the zone category density max. It also includes several cities (Burien, Renton, Des Moines, Kenmore. Mercer Island, Snoqualmie, Yarrow Point) that showed potential inconsistencies using a prior screening approach and provided responses related to the need for Reasonable Measures. Are reasonable measures necessary? Development aligned to planning approach Small development sample Additional development in pipeline Expected market shifts Addition of high capacity transit Recent zoning or policy change Anticipated policy or strategy updates Fully built out Environmental or utility constraints Core CitiesAuburn No Bothell No Burien No Federal Way No Issaquah No Kent No Kirkland No Renton No SeaTac No  HCT CommunitiesDes Moines No Kenmore No Lake Forest Park No Mercer Island No Newcastle No Shoreline No Woodinville No  Cities & TownsAlgona No Beaux Arts No Black Diamond No Carnation No Enumclaw No Maple Valley No Milton No Normandy Park No North Bend No Skykomish No Snoqualmie No Yarrow Point No  Urban Unincorporated Unincorporated King County No  Rationale For Why Reasonable Measures Are or Are Not Required DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 73 Exhibit 51. Summary of Jurisdiction Responses – Non-Residential Density Achieved Note: This table excludes jurisdictions in which there were no potential inconsistencies found with regards to achievement of non-residential densities. Are reasonable measures necessary? Development aligned to planning approach Small development sample Additional development in pipeline Expected market shifts Addition of high capacity transit Recent zoning or policy change Anticipated policy or strategy updates Fully built out Environmental or utility constraints Metropolitan Cities Bellevue No Seattle No  Core CitiesAuburn No Bothell No Burien No Federal Way No Issaquah No Kent No Kirkland No Redmond No Renton No Tukwila No  HCT CommunitiesDes Moines No Kenmore No Mercer Island No Newcastle No Shoreline No Woodinville No  Cities & TownsCarnation No Enumclaw No Maple Valley No Normandy Park No North Bend No Pacific No Skykomish No Snoqualmie No  Urban Unincorporated Unincorporated King County No  Rationale For Why Reasonable Measures Are or Are Not Required DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 74 Exhibit 52. Summary of Jurisdiction Responses to Potential Inconsistencies – Growth Rate Note: This table excludes jurisdictions in which there were no potential inconsistencies found with regards to growth rate. Are reasonable measures necessary? Development aligned to planning approach Small development sample Additional development in pipeline Expected market shifts Addition of high capacity transit Recent zoning or policy change Anticipated policy or strategy updates Fully built out Environmental or utility constraints RESIDENTIAL Metropolitan Cities Bellevue No  Core CitiesBurien No Federal Way No Kirkland No SeaTac No Tukwila Yes  HCT CommunitiesDes Moines No Kenmore No Shoreline No Woodinville No  Cities & TownsAlgona No Black Diamond No Carnation No Enumclaw No  EMPLOYMENT Metropolitan Cities Bellevue No  Core CitiesBurien Yes Federal Way No SeaTac No Tukwila Yes HCT CommunitiesDes Moines No Kenmore No Mercer Island No Shoreline No Woodinville No  Cities & TownsBlack Diamond No Carnation No Duvall No Enumclaw No Maple Valley No Pacific No  Rationale For Why Reasonable Measures Are or Are Not Required DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 75 Exhibit 53. Summary of Jurisdiction Responses to Potential Inconsistencies – Capacity Note: This table excludes jurisdictions in which there were no potential inconsistencies found with regards to capacity. Are reasonable measures necessary? Development aligned to planning approach Small development sample Additional development in pipeline Expected market shifts Addition of high capacity transit Recent zoning or policy change Anticipated policy or strategy updates Fully built out Environmental or utility constraints RESIDENTIAL Cities & TownsEnumclaw No Sammamish Yes  EMPLOYMENT Core CitiesAuburn No Burien Yes SeaTac No  HCT CommunitiesDes Moines No Shoreline Yes Woodinville - Cities & TownsPacific Yes  Urban UnincorporatedUnincorporated King County No  Rationale For Why Reasonable Measures Are or Are Not Required DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Reasonable Measures King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 76 Reasonable Measures Recommendations As a result of the review of potential inconsistencies, the Urban Growth Capacity Report recommends that some jurisdictions adopt Reasonable Measures in the 2024 periodic update to comprehensive plans. Exhibit 54 notes the jurisdictions where Reasonable Measures are recommended, the identified inconsistency that supports the finding, and the general type(s) of Reasonable Measures that will be needed to address the inconsistency. Exhibit 54. Recommendations for Adoption of Reasonable Measures Jurisdiction Inconsistency Type(s) of Reasonable Measure Recommended Burien  Insufficient employment capacity  Employment growth rate inconsistent with target  Action(s) to increase employment capacity  Action(s) to encourage and/or incentivize non-residential development Pacific  Insufficient employment capacity  Action(s) to increase employment capacity Sammamish  Insufficient housing capacity  Action(s) to increase residential capacity Shoreline  Insufficient employment capacity  Action(s) to increase employment capacity Tukwila  Housing growth inconsistent with target  Employment growth rate inconsistent with target  Action(s) to encourage and/or incentivize residential development  Action(s) to encourage and/or incentivize non-residential development Following the adoption of comprehensive plans in 2024, each jurisdiction will be required to monitor progress toward resolving the inconsistency, with regular reporting to the Growth Management Planning Council. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Applying Urban Growth Capacity Findings King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 77 Ch. 6 Applying Urban Growth Capacity Findings The findings of this study can be used to inform several kinds of policy and regulatory decisions in local jurisdictions. This chapter provides an overview of two keys applications: growth target setting and local comprehensive plan updates. Additional information will be available in the Urban Growth Capacity Report User’s Guide. Regional Planning and Growth Targets Growth capacity is one important input that King County uses to inform the allocation of projected countywide housing and employment growth by Regional Geography and jurisdiction. King County is currently in the process of developing new growth targets for the 2019-2044 time period. This process is guided by PSRC’s VISION 2050 Regional Growth Strategy which allocates shares of regionally forecasted growth to King County and its Regional Geographies, creating control allocations for each of the urban Regional Geographies. Working in Regional Geography based subgroups, the 39 cities and King County collaborate through the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), to determine appropriate growth targets for each jurisdiction. Table DP-1 in the Proposed 2021 Countywide Planning Policies identifies the draft housing and job targets for each jurisdiction, sorted by Regional Geography, as specified in VISION 2050. These growth targets are policy statements of the amount of housing and job growth each jurisdiction is expected to accommodate and plan for in their comprehensive plan. The allocations of growth are consistent with the VISION 2050 Regional Growth Strategy, focusing growth primarily to the two “Metropolitan” cities (Seattle and Bellevue), within “Core” cities with designated Urban Centers, and within “High Capacity Transit” communities. Notably, growth targets for HCT Communities include three unincorporated potential annexation areas (PAAs): Federal Way PAA, North Highline PAA, and Renton PAA. Exhibit 55 shows draft 2019-2044 growth targets for individual cities and urban unincorporated areas alongside growth capacity for context. In aggregate countywide and each Regional Geography, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the target growth. However, in some individual jurisdictions the 2044 growth target exceeds available capacity. This is appropriate, as the primary purpose of measuring growth capacity in this report is confirming available capacity to accommodate remaining growth under the current 2035 growth target. Ultimately, jurisdictions will demonstrate zoned or planned capacity for their 2044 growth targets in the next round of comprehensive plan updates in 2024. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Applying Urban Gro 78 Exhibit 55. DRAFT King County Jurisdiction Growth Targets, 2019-2044 Jurisdiction Total Housing Capacity (Units) 2044 Housing Target Total Job Capacity (Jobs) 2044 Jobs Target Metropolitan Cities Bellevue 26,859 35,000 24%117,241 70,000 29% Seattle 172,440 112,000 76%245,598 169,500 71% Subtotal 199,298 147,000 362,839 239,500 Core Cities Auburn 9,151 12,000 11%7,927 19,520 9% Bothell 6,370 5,800 5%9,335 9,500 5% Burien 10,816 7,500 7%752 4,770 2% Federal Way 14,077 11,260 10%29,500 20,460 10% Issaquah 14,103 3,500 3%15,561 7,950 4% Kent 11,248 10,200 9%28,995 32,000 15% Kirkland 13,352 13,200 12%18,139 26,490 13% Redmond 17,777 20,000 18%15,851 24,000 12% Renton 16,503 17,000 15%26,210 31,780 15% SeaTac 6,396 5,900 5%15,565 14,810 7% Tukwila 8,219 6,500 6%33,749 15,890 8% Subtotal 128,011 112,860 87%201,584 207,170 HCT Communities Des Moines 8,386 3,800 13%2,410 2,380 9% Federal Way PAA 1,318 1,020 3%613 720 3% Kenmore 4,135 3,070 10%3,881 3,200 13% Lake Forest Park 1,870 870 3%691 550 2% Mercer Island 1,607 1,239 4%961 1,300 5% Newcastle 3,234 1,480 5%680 500 2% North Highline 1,172 1,420 5%653 1,220 5% Renton PAA 2,645 1,680 6%185 700 3% Shoreline 25,590 13,330 45%3,953 10,000 39% Woodinville 3,705 2,033 7%4,373 5,000 20% Subtotal 53,662 29,942 87%18,400 25,570 Cities & Towns Algona 266 170 1%313 325 2% Beaux Arts 2 1 0%0 0 0% Black Diamond 8,434 2,900 18%3,188 680 4% Carnation 704 799 5%2,864 450 3% Clyde Hill 5 10 0%28 10 0% Covington 4,609 4,310 27%8,421 4,496 26% Duvall 1,343 890 5%681 990 6% Enumclaw 1,308 1,057 7%1,152 989 6% Hunts Point 5 1 0%0 0 0% Maple Valley 2,221 1,720 11%1,784 1,570 9% Medina 8 19 0%0 0 0% Milton 66 50 0%1,213 900 5% Normandy Park 135 153 1%35 35 0% North Bend 2,098 1,748 11%5,759 2,218 13% Pacific 137 135 1%77 75 0% Sammamish 1,144 700 4%305 305 2% Skykomish 29 10 0%0 0 0% Snoqualmie 372 1,500 9%4,079 4,425 25% Yarrow Point 17 10 0%0 0 0% Subtotal 22,903 16,183 1 29,899 17,468 Remaining Urban Unincorporated (Excluding HCT Communities) Subtotal 2,251 1,292 230 700 Total Urban Capacity:406,124 307,277 Housing Units 612,952 490,408 Jobs Share of Housing Target in Regional Geography Share of Jobs Target in Regional Geography King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Applying Urban Growth Capacity Findings King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 79 Many jurisdictions may draw from the Urban Growth Capacity Report to demonstrate sufficient capacity. However, capacity measured in the Urban Growth Capacity is focused on the 2035 planning period and constrained by achieved densities. Therefore, some jurisdictions may use zoned densities or updated future land use assumptions to inform a land capacity analysis in the 2024 comprehensive plans update to demonstrate sufficient capacity for 2044 growth targets. Nonetheless, comparing the Urban Growth Capacity Report capacity to the 2044 growth targets provides some context for the next planning cycle. Exhibit 56 compares the share of countywide capacity as calculated in the Urban Growth Capacity Report for each VISION 2050 Regional Geography, with the share of growth allocated to Regional Geographies in the 2019-2044 growth targets. As a category, Core Cities have a higher share of countywide housing and employment growth targets than their share of housing and employment capacity. Conversely Metropolitan Cities and HCT Communities both have a greater share of housing capacity than their shares of housing target growth. This implies there is significant spare capacity for additional housing growth in those areas beyond the targets. Likewise, Metropolitan Cities have a significantly greater share of employment capacity than their share of target employment growth. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Applying Urban Gro 80 Exhibit 56. Share of Capacity and Share of Draft 2044 Growth Targets by Regional Geography King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Applying Urban Growth Capacity Findings King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 81 County and City Plans All jurisdictions in King County are required to fully update their comprehensive plans by June 30, 2024. A comprehensive plan is a 20-year vision and roadmap for accommodated growth and development. It guides County or City decisions on where to build new jobs and houses, how to improve transportation systems, and where to make capital investments such as utilities, sidewalks, and libraries. Many cities are also in the process of completing Housing Action Plans which will be implemented in the years to come. These plans and implementing activities will be informed by housing and job growth targets discussed above. But there are many other ways in which the Urban Growth Capacity Report findings can inform these planning activities., as two examples: implementing Reasonable Measures findings from the Urban Growth Capacity Report and housing policy development. Detailed jurisdiction-level information available in Ch. 7 Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas, as well as resources available in the Urban Growth Capacity Report User’s Guide, can be used to focus the development of policies, development regulations, incentives, or other actions for shaping local development activity. The sections that follow provide examples and guidance for applying and building upon Urban Growth Capacity findings. Implementing Reasonable Measures Ch. 5 includes a list of jurisdictions where Reasonable Measures were determined to be necessary. Each of these jurisdictions will need to identify actions in their 2024 comprehensive plan updates that are likely to reduce or mitigate the inconsistency between actual growth with planning goals. These actions could include changes to development regulations, new incentives, subarea planning, or reviewing processes to encourage development types that are consistent with local plans. Such changes are also required to be adopted in capital facility plans and development regulations when necessary for full implementation. In some cases, Reasonable Measures must be adopted in Countywide Planning Policies, but no findings from the 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report indicate this is necessary. Wherever a measure is implemented, it should be clearly identified as a Reasonable Measure that addresses a growth inconsistency identified in the Urban Growth Capacity Report. The findings of the Urban Growth Capacity Report can help to inform the selection of appropriate Reasonable Measures. Jurisdictions can use this data to answer questions such as:  In which zones have there been inconsistencies between growth trends and planning goals?  Where are there infrastructure gaps that create barriers to new development at planned density levels?  What other barriers may be preventing development that is consistent with local plans? The King County Urban Growth Capacity Report User’s Guide will include a simple framework to help planners to zero in on potential answers to these last two questions, which lie at the heart of Reasonable Measure selection. Additional outreach to the development community, a market study, code audit, or example development feasibility analysis may to help ensure that the measures are both DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Applying Urban Growth Capacity Findings King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 82 targeted and effective. For examples of Reasonable Measures see the Department of Commerce Buildable Land Guidelines Appendix B (2018), Housing Memo: Issues Affecting Housing Availability and Affordability (2019), and Guidance for Developing a Housing Action Plan (2020) Chapter 4. Following implementation, jurisdictions may develop a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the Reasonable Measures. This will help in determining when and where additional measures may be needed. Housing Planning and Policy Development Housing affordability is an urgent and complex challenge that has impacts throughout King County. This section draws upon the Washington State Department of Commerce Housing Memo: Issues Affecting Housing Availability and Affordability (2019), to discuss how to apply Urban Growth Capacity findings to support efforts to address housing affordability. Regional Housing Planning Housing affordability is a regional challenge, and the most effective responses to this challenge will involve coordination between jurisdictions. An example includes the King County Regional Affordable Housing Task Force which developed a coordinated regional strategy and action plan to address housing needs for lower income households. Regional housing planning can also involve an assessment of countywide housing needs and setting jurisdictional goals for future housing growth by housing type or affordability level. The Urban Growth Capacity Report is an important resource to support this kind of regional collaboration within King County. By presenting data about housing capacity by density level for jurisdictions in a common format, it allows for the evaluation of aggregate countywide capacity to support different kinds of housing development. This information can be used to determine if there are any capacity limitations when compared to region housing needs. Moreover, Urban Growth Capacity data also allows for the evaluation of how capacity is distributed geographically across the county by jurisdiction. Mapping Urban Growth Capacity data can enable analysis to answer the following kinds of questions:  Is there capacity for the kinds of new housing development that are called for in countywide housing needs assessments, such as multifamily or “missing middle” formats?10  Is capacity located in high demand or amenity-rich locations, like near frequent transit, parks, schools, or employment centers?  Are areas with housing capacity aligned with high opportunity areas, as defined by PSRC? 10 The summaries of capacity by density level in the Urban Growth Capacity report provides a good proxy for capacity by housing type, with low density zones typically providing capacity for detached single family development, middle density zones often providing capacity for missing middle formats such as townhomes and multiplexes, and high density zones providing capacity for apartments and condominiums. More detailed analysis of the development code in individual jurisdictions can confirm what kinds of housing are allowed and what code barriers may hinder development in a desired format. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Applying Urban Growth Capacity Findings King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 83  What kinds of regional amenities or resources are missing in areas with significant capacity for new housing development? Local Housing Planning The findings of the Urban Growth Capacity Report can also inform the development of local housing policies and implementing actions during the next round of comprehensive plan updates. Several cities in King County have recently identified housing strategies for implementation through the process of developing Housing Action Plans with funding from Washington State Department of Commerce. The Urban Growth Capacity findings can inform the implementation of these strategies as well. Key policy questions that the Urban Growth Capacity can help answer include:  Is there capacity for the kinds of new housing development that are called for in local housing needs assessments, such as multifamily or “missing middle” formats?11  How does housing capacity compare to housing development trends? Are zones with available capacity seeing the kinds of housing development that is needed?  What kinds of housing development does your plan call for but isn’t being produced? Similar to the selection of Reasonable Measures, additional outreach to the housing development community, a market study, code audit, or example development feasibility analysis may to help to identify and prioritize actions that are most likely to encourage the kinds of new housing development that are in greatest need. Resources for the selection of actions include Guidance for Developing a Housing Action Plan (2020) Chapter 4 and Housing Memo: Issues Affecting Housing Availability and Affordability (2019), both available from the Washington State Department of Commerce. Actions could include rezones or revisions to development standards to allow new housing types or density levels, actions to streamline the processing of permit applications, addressing infrastructure limitations (see below), or proving incentives to encourage the development of housing types or affordability levels in greatest need. Targeting Anti-Displacement Efforts Displacement is a complex and multifaceted problem that local planners are faced with as they plan for growing the housing supply in their communities. Housing supply shortage is a key driver of housing cost escalation across the county. When housing costs increase, so too does economic displacement pressures on existing residents. The best way to address this issue is increasing the housing supply, with an emphasis on housing formats that are in greatest need. However, much of the capacity for new housing development is in the form of redevelopment. Many 11 The summaries of capacity by density level in the Urban Growth Capacity report provides a good proxy for capacity by housing type, with low density zones typically providing capacity for detached single family development, middle density zones often providing capacity for missing middle formats such as townhomes and multiplexes, and high density zones providing capacity for apartments and condominiums. More detailed analysis of the development code in individual jurisdictions can confirm what kinds of housing are allowed and what code barriers may hinder development in a desired format. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Applying Urban Growth Capacity Findings King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 84 redevelopable parcels contain older housing stock or commercial space that is typically less expensive to buy or rent than the prevailing market. So, when these older existing buildings are demolished in favor of redevelopment it can result in physical displacement of residents or businesses who cannot afford prevailing market costs in the area. Parcel-level data developed through the Urban Growth Capacity Report can be of use to support analysis of what kinds of uses are present on redevelopable parcels, including both residential uses as well as nonresidential uses that may include small local businesses or cultural institutions. This information, combined with outreach to residents, community groups, businesses, or other stakeholders, can be essential to developing targeted strategies or partnerships to address physical displacement risks. A good resource for such efforts includes the Washington State Department of Commerce Guidance for Developing a Housing Action Plan (2020) Chapter 5: Strategies for Minimizing and Mitigating Displacement. Addressing Infrastructure Gaps As described in Appendix G: Approach for Identifying Infrastructure Gaps, each jurisdiction conducted an assessment to identify significant infrastructure gaps or capacity issues that present barriers to realizing development capacity. This information can support both local and regional capital facilities planning to provide timely infrastructure to facilitate housing development in locations and formats that are most needed to address housing affordability challenges. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 85 Ch. 7 Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas This chapter provides detailed profiles summarizing findings for each individual jurisdiction. The profiles are divided into four separate pages covering the following topics:  Page 1: Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends  Page 2: Residential Land Supply and Capacity  Page 3: Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends  Page 4: Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity These jurisdictions are presented alphabetically by VISION 2050 Regional Geography, as shown in Exhibit 57. Exhibit 57. Profiled King County Jurisdictions by VISION 2050 Regional Geography Metropolitan Cities City of Bellevue City of Seattle Core Cities City of Auburn City of Bothell City of Burien City of Federal Way City of Issaquah City of Kent City of Kirkland City of Redmond City of Renton City of SeaTac City of Tukwila High Capacity Transit Communities City of Des Moines City of Kenmore City of Lake Forest Park City of Mercer Island City of Newcastle City of Shoreline City of Woodinville Cities and Towns City of Algona City of Beaux Arts City of Black Diamond City of Carnation City of Clyde Hill City of Covington City of Duvall City of Enumclaw Town of Hunts Point City of Maple Valley City of Medina City of Milton City of Normandy Park City of North Bend City of Pacific City of Sammamish Town of Skykomish City of Snoqualmie Town of Yarrow Point Urban Unincorporated Areas All urban unincorporated areas combined, including those that are classified as HCT Communities in VISION 2050. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Metropolitan Cities City of Bellevue City of Seattle DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Bellevue Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 20,05655,10761,698 6,591 13,465 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 67.1 10.3 0.9 1.1 54.7 120 2.2 120 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 41.0 2.3 0.7 3.3 34.7 186 5.4 277 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 7.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 4.7 76 16.2 784 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 64.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 63.9 1,560 24.4 0 High 48 & up du/acre 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 2,278 155.5 3,039 Total 194.7 15.9 1.7 4.4 172.7 4,220 4,220 7%93% 79.4%0.95%1.17% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 22.1 172.7 2.2 5.4 16.2 24.4 155.5 24.4 High Total 54.759.336.50.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Bellevue has grown at 79% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 20,056 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Bellevue grew by roughly 12%. At this current rate, Bellevue is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.2% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Bellevue Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 020406080100120140160 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 3%7%19% 0% 72% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018"High" rangeextendsto392du/acre DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Bellevue - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Note: Bellevue zone density is largely based on FAR. For these zones, a dwelling/unit per acre equivalent was calculated to categorize zone density level. Additionally, the development density/intensity of parcels with critical areas and their buffers as identified in Bellevue’s Land Use Code section 20.25H.035 was calculated using Bellevue’s development density/intensity formula specified in LUC 20.25H.45. This net acreage was carried forward when determining net vacant and redevelopable land. Assumed Density Level Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acres) Net Capacity (units)Land Supply 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% - 10.0%243.98 0.8 / 3.4 438 Land Supply 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%137.65 4.1 / 6.6 573 Land Supply 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% - 10.0%338.40 10.0 / 22.4 1,542 Land Supply 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.0% - 15.0%152.19 30.0 / 44.8 1,291 Land Supply 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% - 10.0%318.06 53.9 / 303.0 19,529 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,190.28 23,375 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 438Low Density Zones 573Medium Low Density Zones 1,542Medium High Density Zones 1,291High Density Zones 19,529 Capacity in Pipeline 3,484 Total Capacity (Units)26,859Remaining Target (2018-2035)13,465 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)13,393 Very Low Density Low Density All Zones Medium Low Density Medium High Density High Density 438 573 1,542 1,291 19,529 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Bellevue - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.1 301,651 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 60,828 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR 0.4 163,610 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.3 311,958 High 3.0 & up FAR 3.0 2,659,730 Total Total 3,497,777 7%93% 2,704,313 0.5 3.5 88.6%1.44%1.43% Very Low 0.1 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 200,8881,661,282 2,446,7340.1 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Bellevue Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 61,480120,494143,023 22,529 38,951 4,424,202 3,497,777 0.8 168,421454,922585,613768,5130.4 0.3 3.0 0 4,424,202 Medium Low 0.4 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Bellevue has grown at 89% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 61,480 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Bellevue grew by roughly 19%. At this current rate, Bellevue is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.4% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.8 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 179,905 Low1,348,453909,541 0.4 0504,925 412,671 2035 Target 010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 9%2%5%9% 76% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Bellevue - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Note: The development density/intensity of parcels with critical areas and their buffers as identified in Bellevue’s Land Use Code section 20.25H.035 was calculated using Bellevue’s development density/intensity formula specified in LUC 20.25H.45. This net acreage was carried forward when determining net vacant and redevelopable land. Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 1,699 2%Commercial 447 0.0 0.0 0.0 447 0% - 15%402.6 Lo Low Density 1,694 2%Mixed Use 382 0.0 0.0 0.0 382 8% - 10%71.3 Me Medium Low Density 5,056 5%Industrial 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 10%25.8 Me Medium High Density 17,663 17% Non-Res Land Total 858 0.0 0.0 0.0 858 499.7 Hi High Density 79,485 75% Capacity in Pipeline 11,645 Total Capacity (jobs)117,241Remaining Target (2018-2035)38,951 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)78,290Commercial Total 16.07 0.26 / 9.90 3.26 14.38 300 / 444 45,952 Mixed-UseMixed Use Total 9.24 0.30 / 5.40 3.40 18.04 300 / 500 59,644 IndustrialIndustrial Total 1.12 0.11 0.20 0.00 550 0 City TotalCommercial 16.07 0.26 / 9.90 0.69 14.38 300 / 444 45,952Mixed Use 9.24 0.30 / 5.40 0.91 18.04 300 / 500 59,644Industrial1.12 0.11 0.26 0.00 550 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 11,645 City Total 26.43 9.90 1.86 32.42 550 117,241 Job Capacity Job Capacity by Land Use Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level % Land Supply Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Floor Area Capac (million sq.ft.)Sq. ft. per Job 45,952 59,644 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Seattle Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 99,760292,881356,556 63,675 36,085 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Net Area (acres) Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre -1.0 1.9 0 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 7.8 0.0 0 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 14.2 1.6 23 Medium High 24 - 54 du/acre 52.4 68.5 2,707 High 54 & up du/acre 229.2 233.7 42,635 Total 305.7 45,365 45,365 0%100% 0 - 4 du/acre4 - 10 du/acre10 - 24 du/acre24 - 48 du/acre48 & up du/acre 154.3%1.65%0.57% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 305.7 7.8 14.2 52.4 229.2 148.4 High Total Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Achieved Density Level (du/acre) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Seattle has grown at 154% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 99,760 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Seattle grew by roughly 22%. At this current rate, Seattle is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.6% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Seattle Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 04080120160200240 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange of Zoneswith ProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0.1%6% 94% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 "High" rangeextendsto1,307 du/acre Note: Seattle’s break points forcategorizing zones by densitylevel are slightly different thanused in other jurisdictions. Note: The summarization of permittedunits by achieved density level isconsistent with breakpoints usedthroughout the rest of the report. Achieved Density Calculations ProvidedBythe City of Seattle DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Seattle - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Buildable Area (acres) Residential Split (low/high ) Assumed Densities (low/high - FAR) Market Factor (low/high) Net Capacity (units) Vacant Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 0%0Redev Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 0%0 Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0 Vacant Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 0%0Redev Subtotal 1,283.9 1,052.3 100%0.5 0% - 35%3,735 Subtotal 1,283.9 1,052.3 3,735 Vacant Subtotal 0.0*0.0*0%0.0 0%0Redev Subtotal 262.3 251.5 100%0.8 10% - 38%2,261 Subtotal 262.3 251.5 2,261 Vacant Subtotal 0.0*0.0*0%0.0 0%0Redev Subtotal 685.3 658.0 100%1.3 / 1.8 10% - 38%19,761 Subtotal 685.3 658.0 19,761 Vacant Subtotal 41.0 36.4 0% - 100%0.4 / 22.0 10% - 40%4,813Redev Subtotal 964.8 938.1 20% - 100%1.9 / 30.0 5% - 40%135,369 Subtotal 1,005.7 974.5 140,182Vacant Total 41.0 36.4 4,813Redev Total 3,196.2 2,899.9 161,127 Total 3,237.2 2,936.3 165,940 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 0Low Density Zones 3,735Medium Low Density Zones 2,261Medium High Density Zones 19,761High Density Zones 140,182 Citywide ADU Capacity 6,500 Total Capacity (Units)172,440Remaining Target (2018-2035)36,085 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)136,355 27.3 31.2 *In the Medium-Low and Medium-High density levels, the capacity showing up as vacant but with zero buildable area is a vestige of Seattle's split zoning, Very Low Density Low Density Critical Areas and Infrastructure Deductions All Zones Not available for disaggregation Not available for disaggregation Not available for disaggregation Not available for disaggregation Not available for disaggregation Medium Low Density Medium High Density High Density 10.8 0.0 231.6 3,735 2,261 19,761 140,182 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low Density Medium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Seattle - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 109,271 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 121,607 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 168,617 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 1.3 1,142,705 High 3.0 & up FAR 8.0 14,859,256 Total Total 16,401,456 0%100% 1.9 8.3 174.9%1.86%0.43% Very Low 0.3 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 397,813Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Seattle Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 170,172498,931622,121 123,190 46,982 3,272,305 16,401,456 5.0 269,387227,891588,1311,789,0821.3 8.0 3,272,305 Medium Low 0.5 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Seattle has grown at 175% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 170,172 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Seattle grew by roughly 25%. At this current rate, Seattle is over the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.4% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 5.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level Low 0.7 2035 Target 020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 1%1%1%7% 91% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity Achieved DensityCalculations ProvidedBythe City of Seattle DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Seattle - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 0 0%Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 306.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 306.0 0% - 40%231.6 M Medium Low Density 4,536 2%Industrial 417.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 417.9 0% - 25%380.6 M Medium High Density 29,352 12% Non-Res Land Total 723.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 723.9 612.1 Hi High Density 211,076 86% Uncategorized Jobs - No Density Level 633 Total Capacity (jobs)245,598Remaining Target (2018-2035)46,982 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)198,616 Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Commercial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.75 2.40 / 22.00 0.00 4.13 275 / 300 7,922 Redevelopable 18.32 0.50 / 30.00 21.71 69.42 0 / 300 211,747 Mixed Use Total 19.06 0.50 / 30.00 21.71 73.55 0 / 300 219,669 Industrial Vacant 19.74 0.40 / 2.75 5.12 20.03 500 / 700 25,929 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 19.74 0.40 / 2.75 5.12 20.03 500 / 700 25,929 City TotalCommercial 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0 0Mixed Use 19.06 0.50 / 30.00 0.91 73.55 0 / 300 219,669Industrial19.74 0.40 / 2.75 0.26 20.03 500 / 700 25,929 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 38.80 30.00 1.86 93.58 0 / 700 245,598 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 219,669 25,929Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Core Cities City of Auburn City of Bothell City of Burien City of Federal Way City of Issaquah City of Kent City of Kirkland City of Redmond City of Renton City of SeaTac City of Tukwila DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Auburn Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 11,15923,60226,740 3,138 8,021 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 173.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 173.6 5 0.0 18 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 135.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.5 525 3.9 512 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 132 21.1 132 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 255 122.1 255 Total 317.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 317.5 917 917 100%0% 68.0%1.05%1.56% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 2.1 334.0 0.0 3.9 21.1 122.1 2.9 High Total 208.6117.16.20.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Auburn has grown at 68% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 11,159 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Auburn grew by roughly 13%. At this current rate, Auburn is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.6% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Auburn Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 020406080100120140 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 2% 56% 14%0% 28% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Auburn - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 89.35 20.0% - 20.0%268.04 0.3 / 1.0 119Redev Subtotal 114.76 20.0% - 20.0%344.27 0.3 / 1.0 67 Subtotal 1,508.47 354.51 133.45 204.10 612.31 186Vacant Subtotal 121.45 15.0% - 20.0%387.16 4.4 / 7.0 1,939Redev Subtotal 183.49 15.0% - 20.0%589.17 4.4 / 7.0 2,129 Subtotal 1,947.77 299.20 123.89 304.94 976.33 4,068Vacant Subtotal 11.06 5.0% - 20.0%64.56 10.0 / 21.1 1,009Redev Subtotal 8.97 5.0% - 20.0%52.92 10.0 / 21.1 847 Subtotal 368.92 212.31 0.67 20.04 117.49 1,856Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 1.03 5.0% - 5.0%6.82 94.0 641Redev Subtotal 1.61 5.0% - 5.0%10.65 94.0 1,000 Subtotal 21.35 0.18 0.00 2.65 17.47 1,641Vacant Total 222.89 726.58 3,708Redev Total 308.83 997.01 4,043 Total 3,846.51 866.20 258.01 531.72 1,723.59 7,751 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 186Low Density Zones 4,068Medium Low Density Zones 1,856Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 1,641 Capacity in Pipeline 1,400 Total Capacity (Units)9,151Remaining Target (2018-2035)8,021 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)1,130 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 186 4,068 1,856 1,641 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Auburn - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 125,804 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 274,257 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.3 0 Total Total 400,061 100%0% 400,061 0.0 0.0 59.4%1.13%1.94% Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 766,494Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Auburn Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 22,44638,25243,770 5,518 16,928 1,435,270 400,061 0.3 668,7760000.3 0 1,435,270 Medium Low 0.4 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Auburn has grown at 59% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 22,446 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Auburn grew by roughly 14%. At this current rate, Auburn is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.9% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.3 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low01,435,270 0.0 00 0 2035 Target 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 31% 69% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Auburn - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 4,877 62%Commercial 420.4 93.2 16.4 24.5 286.3 15%237.2 Lo Low Density 3,050 38%Mixed Use 152.6 113.3 2.0 2.9 34.4 5%32.4 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 718.2 362.8 17.8 26.7 310.9 8%282.5 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 1291.1 569.4 36.1 54.1 631.5 552.1 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (jobs)7,927Remaining Target (2018-2035)16,928 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)-9,001 Vacant 5.19 0.25 0.00 1.30 375 / 400 3,270 Redevelopable 5.14 0.25 0.76 0.53 375 / 400 1334 Commercial Total 10.33 0.25 0.76 1.83 375 / 400 4,604 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.95 0.25 / 0.37 0.00 0.33 400 / 1000 531 Redevelopable 0.46 0.25 / 0.37 0.06 0.11 400 / 1000 268 Mixed Use Total 1.41 0.25 / 0.37 0.06 0.44 400 / 1000 800 Industrial Vacant 6.71 0.07 / 0.41 0.00 1.63 1,000 1,631 Redevelopable 5.60 0.07 / 0.41 0.29 0.89 1,000 892 Industrial Total 12.31 0.07 / 0.41 0.29 2.52 1,000 2,523 City TotalCommercial 10.33 0.25 0.69 1.83 375 / 400 4,604Mixed Use 1.41 0.25 / 0.37 0.91 0.44 400 / 1000 800Industrial12.31 0.07 / 0.41 0.26 2.52 1,000 2,523 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 24.05 0.07 / 0.41 1.86 4.79 375 / 1000 7,927 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 4,604 800 2,523 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Bothell Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 4,4209,52211,726 2,204 2,216 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1 0.6 6 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 179.1 43.2 0.0 19.7 116.2 670 5.8 535 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 6.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.1 49 8.1 22 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 260 High 48 & up du/acre 20.9 0.0 1.7 0.5 18.7 1,836 98.1 1,733 Total 207.9 43.5 1.7 20.2 142.5 2,556 2,556 32%68% 120.5%1.75%1.02% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 15.1 142.5 0.6 5.8 8.1 98.1 17.9 High Total 3.7112.61.69.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Bothell has grown at 121% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 4,420 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Bothell grew by roughly 23%. At this current rate, Bothell is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Bothell Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 020406080100120140 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0.2%21%1%10% 68% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Bothell - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 5.39 1.0% - 3.0%10.03 3.1 7Redev Subtotal 1.20 1.0% - 3.0%2.81 3.1 0 Subtotal 34.07 13.33 0.00 6.58 12.85 7Vacant Subtotal 42.64 3.0% - 5.0%77.45 4.3 / 8.0 392Redev Subtotal 71.22 3.0% - 5.0%126.99 4.3 / 8.0 508 Subtotal 376.01 47.71 0.00 113.86 204.45 899Vacant Subtotal 0.75 3.0% - 5.0%2.14 13.3 / 23.9 33Redev Subtotal 3.51 3.0% - 5.0%9.78 13.3 / 23.9 151 Subtotal 24.14 7.43 0.00 4.26 11.92 184Vacant Subtotal 4.47 3.0% - 3.0%12.88 25.0 / 34.0 407Redev Subtotal 7.17 3.0% - 3.0%20.66 25.0 / 34.0 620 Subtotal 64.35 17.77 0.00 11.65 33.54 1,026Vacant Subtotal 3.22 3.0% - 3.0%9.27 66.3 / 192.4 1,271Redev Subtotal 3.43 3.0% - 3.0%9.89 66.3 / 192.4 1,003 Subtotal 30.11 3.50 0.00 6.65 19.16 2,274Vacant Total 56.47 111.78 2,109Redev Total 86.53 170.13 2,282 Total 528.68 89.74 0.00 143.00 281.91 4,391 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 7Low Density Zones 899Medium Low Density Zones 184Medium High Density Zones 1,026High Density Zones 2,274 Capacity in Pipeline 1,979 Total Capacity (Units)6,370Remaining Target (2018-2035)2,216 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)4,154 Very Low Density High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones 7 899 184 1,026 2,274 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Bothell - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 90,251 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 37,092 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.3 0 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.2 0 Total Total 127,343 32%68% 121,751 0.0 0.0 209.3%3.01%0.27% Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 551,332Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Bothell Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 5,80011,75716,780 5,023 777 652,170 127,343 0.2 100,8380000.3 0.2 0 652,170 Medium Low 0.4 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Bothell has grown at 209% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 5,800 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Bothell grew by roughly 43%. At this current rate, Bothell is over the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.3% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.2 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low17,550634,620 0.0 00 5,592 2035 Target 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 71% 29% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Bothell - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Very LowVery Low Density 225 3% Commercial 6.5 2.6 0.6 0.4 2.9 5% - 10%2.7 LowLow Density 2,605 29% Mixed Use 159.4 57.2 15.3 10.2 76.6 1% - 5%71.7 Medium LowMedium Low Density 540 6% Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 Medium HighMedium High Density 5,485 62% Non-Res Land Total 165.9 59.9 15.9 10.6 79.5 74.3 HighHigh Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 480 Total Capacity (jobs)9,335 Remaining Target (2018-2035)777 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)8,558 Vacant 0.02 0.35 / 0.40 0.00 0.01 200 47 Redevelopable 0.09 0.35 / 0.40 0.07 0.01 200 69 Commercial Total 0.12 0.35 / 0.40 0.07 0.02 200 116 Mixed-Use Vacant 1.37 0.10 / 1.20 0.00 0.83 200 / 1000 4,137 Redevelopable 1.76 0.10 / 1.20 0.10 0.92 200 / 1000 4,602 Mixed Use Total 3.12 0.10 / 1.20 0.10 1.75 200 / 1000 8,739 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City Total Commercial 0.12 0.35 / 0.40 0.69 0.02 200 116 Mixed Use 3.12 0.10 / 1.20 0.91 1.75 200 / 1000 8,739 Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 480 City Total 3.24 1.20 1.86 1.77 0 / 1000 9,335 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 116 8,739 Job Capacity by Land Use Commercial Mixed Use Industrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Burien Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 5,15019,58420,809 1,225 3,926 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 17.6 12.5 0.0 0.2 4.8 33 6.9 0 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 58.3 0.0 0.5 2.1 55.6 323 5.8 356 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 63 11.0 279 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 9.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 9.4 216 23.1 27 High 48 & up du/acre 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 381 95.6 354 Total 95.5 13.0 0.6 2.5 79.5 1,016 1,016 47%53% 57.5%0.51%1.02% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 2.9 79.5 6.9 5.8 11.0 23.1 95.6 12.8 High Total 0.060.415.11.1 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Burien has grown at 57% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 5,150 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Burien grew by roughly 6%. At this current rate, Burien is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Burien Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0102030405060708090100 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0% 35%27% 3% 35% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Burien - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 1.23 18.0% - 18.0%7.17 1.0 7Redev Subtotal 0.54 20.0% - 20.0%3.03 1.0 2 Subtotal 15.23 0.53 0.00 1.76 10.20 9Vacant Subtotal 15.33 16.0% - 30.0%92.35 5.6 / 8.0 946Redev Subtotal 52.01 17.0% - 32.0%308.91 5.6 / 8.0 4,196 Subtotal 1,276.66 712.44 0.00 67.34 401.26 5,143Vacant Subtotal 2.21 22.0% - 31.0%37.90 10.8 / 23.0 721Redev Subtotal 4.97 24.0% - 32.0%82.12 10.8 / 23.0 1,365 Subtotal 204.58 29.80 0.00 7.17 120.01 2,086Vacant Subtotal 0.16 30.0% - 31.0%2.60 24.0 / 25.7 66Redev Subtotal 0.98 32.0% - 33.0%15.58 24.0 / 25.7 301 Subtotal 28.87 0.54 0.00 1.13 18.18 367Vacant Subtotal 0.60 31.0% - 100.0%2.47 120.7 349Redev Subtotal 1.33 32.0% - 100.0%20.91 120.7 2,477 Subtotal 50.50 7.05 0.00 1.93 23.38 2,826Vacant Total 19.52 142.49 2,089Redev Total 59.82 430.54 8,341 Total 1,575.84 750.36 0.00 79.34 573.03 10,431 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 9Low Density Zones 5,143Medium Low Density Zones 2,086Medium High Density Zones 367High Density Zones 2,826 Capacity in Pipeline 385 Total Capacity (Units)10,816Remaining Target (2018-2035)3,926 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)6,890 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 9 5,143 2,086 367 2,826 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Burien - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.1 172,505 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 241,140 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.2 0 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.3 0 Total Total 413,645 47%53% 329,761 0.0 0.0 -1.1%-0.02%2.14% Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 13,973113,288 808,7770.1 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Burien Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 5,75413,37113,345 -26 5,754 1,392,674 413,645 0.3 583,8970000.2 0.3 0 1,392,674 Medium Low 0.4 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Burien has grown at -1% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 5,754 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Burien grew by roughly 0%. At this current rate, Burien is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 2.1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.3 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low313,495965,891 0.0 00 69,911 2035 Target -1,00001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 42% 58% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Burien - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 414 56%Commercial 12.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 11.1 36% - 40%6.7 Lo Low Density 325 44%Mixed Use 129.3 13.7 3.5 3.5 108.7 10% - 46%64.9 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 16.3 0.0 0.5 0.5 15.3 8% - 10%13.7 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 157.6 13.9 4.3 4.3 135.1 85.3 H High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 13 Total Capacity (jobs)752Remaining Target (2018-2035)5,780 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)-5,027 Vacant 0.15 0.22 / 0.40 0.00 0.06 650 86 Redevelopable 0.14 0.22 / 0.40 0.11 0.00 650 0 Commercial Total 0.29 0.22 / 0.40 0.11 0.06 650 86 Mixed-Use Vacant 1.17 0.12 / 0.41 0.00 0.30 650 / 1200 406 Redevelopable 1.66 0.12 / 0.41 1.17 0.04 650 / 1200 62 Mixed Use Total 2.83 0.12 / 0.41 1.17 0.34 650 / 1200 469 Industrial Vacant 0.09 0.41 0.00 0.04 1,200 30 Redevelopable 0.51 0.41 0.02 0.19 1,200 154 Industrial Total 0.60 0.41 0.02 0.22 1,200 184 City TotalCommercial 0.29 0.22 / 0.40 0.69 0.06 650 86Mixed Use 2.83 0.12 / 0.41 0.91 0.34 650 / 1200 469Industrial0.60 0.41 0.26 0.22 1,200 184 Job Capacity in Pipeline 13 City Total 3.71 0.12 / 0.41 1.86 0.62 650 / 1200 752 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 86 469 184 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Federal Way Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 9,39634,56037,085 2,525 6,871 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 29.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.7 29 1.0 123 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 57.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.1 245 4.3 264 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 59.0 17.9 7.1 0.3 33.7 659 19.5 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 846 High 48 & up du/acre 14.1 0.0 0.5 1.5 12.2 723 59.2 423 Total 160.0 17.9 7.6 1.7 132.8 1,656 1,656 24%76% 65.0%0.59%1.00% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 3.7 132.8 1.0 4.3 19.5 59.2 12.5 High Total 56.546.40.026.1 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Federal Way has grown at 65% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 9,396 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Federal Way grew by roughly 7%. At this current rate, Federal Way is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Federal Way Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 020406080100120 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 7%16% 0% 51% 26% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018"High" rangeextendsto479du/acre DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Federal Way - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 91.64 18.0% - 18.0%123.06 0.2 / 2.9 258Redev Subtotal 118.17 18.0% - 18.0%158.68 0.2 / 2.9 225 Subtotal 1,391.30 791.83 0.00 209.81 281.75 483Vacant Subtotal 99.14 18.0% - 18.0%133.14 4.5 / 8.7 723Redev Subtotal 136.12 18.0% - 18.0%182.78 4.5 / 8.7 588 Subtotal 1,459.97 787.80 0.00 235.26 315.92 1,311Vacant Subtotal 12.13 7.0% - 10.0%34.88 12.1 / 18.2 479Redev Subtotal 24.82 7.0% - 10.0%69.72 12.1 / 18.2 524 Subtotal 307.20 154.15 0.00 36.95 104.60 1,003Vacant Subtotal 2.43 7.0% - 7.0%6.62 24.2 160Redev Subtotal 0.82 7.0% - 7.0%2.22 24.2 42 Subtotal 39.00 26.01 0.00 3.25 8.83 202Vacant Subtotal 17.27 10.0% - 10.0%60.44 54.0 / 135.0 3,400Redev Subtotal 23.15 10.0% - 10.0%81.03 54.0 / 135.0 7,679 Subtotal 406.99 86.43 0.00 40.42 141.47 11,079Vacant Total 222.62 358.13 5,020Redev Total 303.07 494.43 9,057 Total 3,604.46 1,846.21 0.00 525.68 852.56 14,077 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 483Low Density Zones 1,311Medium Low Density Zones 1,003Medium High Density Zones 202High Density Zones 11,079 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)14,077Remaining Target (2018-2035)6,871 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)7,207 Very Low Density High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones 483 1,311 1,003 202 11,079 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Federal Way - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.2 634,732 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.1 0 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.2 0 Total Total 634,732 24%76% 218,100 0.0 0.0 -7.9%-0.12%2.31% Very Low 0.1 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 9,12056,628 4,268,5520.2 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Federal Way Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 14,26831,61631,148 -468 14,268 4,268,552 634,732 0.1 00000.1 0.2 0 4,268,552 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Federal Way has grown at -8% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 14,268 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Federal Way grew by roughly -1%. At this current rate, Federal Way is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 2.3% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.1 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low2,989,9221,222,002 0.0 00 407,512 2035 Target -2,00002,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Federal Way - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 1,673 6%Commercial 536.0 224.3 46.8 15.6 249.3 15%202.6 Lo Low Density 3,174 11%Mixed Use 250.3 21.9 34.3 11.4 182.7 10%159.9 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 4,721 16% Non-Res Land Total 786.3 246.2 81.0 27.0 432.1 362.5 Hi High Density 19,933 68% Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (jobs)29,500Remaining Target (2018-2035)14,736 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)14,764 Vacant 4.68 0.38 0.00 1.16 700 / 900 1,302 Redevelopable 4.14 0.38 0.08 0.66 700 / 900 730 Commercial Total 8.82 0.38 0.08 1.82 700 / 900 2,032 Mixed-Use Vacant 3.00 0.18 / 4.90 0.01 1.24 450 2,761 Redevelopable 3.96 0.18 / 4.90 0.35 10.58 450 23,505 Mixed Use Total 6.96 0.18 / 4.90 0.36 11.82 450 26,266 Industrial* Vacant 1.29 0.40 0.00 0.52 1,100 469 Redevelopable 2.32 0.40 0.12 0.81 1,100 732 Industrial Total 3.61 0.40 0.12 1.32 1,100 1,201 City TotalCommercial 8.82 0.38 0.69 1.82 700 / 900 2,032Mixed Use 6.96 0.18 / 4.90 0.91 11.82 450 26,266Industrial3.61 0.40 0.26 1.32 1,100 1,201 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 19.40 4.90 1.86 14.96 450 / 1100 29,500 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 2,032 26,266 1,201Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Issaquah Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 6,67011,51716,612 5,096 1,574 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 26.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 18.7 78 4.2 67 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 47.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 47.4 481 10.1 196 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 21.4 0.2 0.0 3.1 18.1 358 19.8 1,606 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 87.2 0.1 1.0 3.5 82.5 1,238 15.0 298 High 48 & up du/acre 9.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 356 53.6 344 Total 191.9 10.9 1.0 6.6 173.4 2,511 2,511 36%64% Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Issaquah has grown at 185% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 6,670 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Issaquah grew by roughly 44%. At this current rate, Issaquah is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.5% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Issaquah Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre) Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 5.6 173.4 4.2 10.1 19.8 15.0 53.6 14.5 High Total 27.826.7103.010.2 184.6%3.10%0.53% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target 020406080100120140160 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 3%8% 64% 12%14%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018"High" rangeextendsto207du/acre DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Issaquah - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 22.10 7.0% - 15.0%69.11 4.0 175Redev Subtotal 44.47 7.0% - 15.0%137.42 4.0 224 Subtotal 392.70 103.48 0.00 66.57 206.53 399Vacant Subtotal 8.22 12.0% - 25.0%27.10 6.9 / 9.2 197Redev Subtotal 19.78 12.0% - 25.0%64.55 6.9 / 9.2 162 Subtotal 166.28 27.60 0.00 28.00 91.65 359Vacant Subtotal 1.32 1.0% - 15.0%8.28 11.7 / 15.0 109Redev Subtotal 1.27 1.0% - 15.0%7.50 11.7 / 15.0 32 Subtotal 22.65 1.89 0.00 2.60 15.78 142Vacant Subtotal 11.37 1.0% - 25.0%68.43 27.0 / 33.0 2,063Redev Subtotal 2.55 1.0% - 25.0%12.73 27.0 / 33.0 295 Subtotal 28.69 2.72 0.00 13.92 81.15 2,358Vacant Subtotal 6.29 15.0% - 20.0%33.55 50.0 / 60.0 1,982Redev Subtotal 32.50 15.0% - 20.0%122.37 50.0 / 60.0 6,503 Subtotal 292.63 21.71 0.00 38.79 155.92 8,484Vacant Total 49.30 206.47 4,526Redev Total 100.58 344.57 7,216 Total 902.95 157.40 0.00 149.87 551.04 11,743 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 399Low Density Zones 359Medium Low Density Zones 142Medium High Density Zones 2,358High Density Zones 8,484 Capacity in Pipeline 2,360 Total Capacity (Units)14,103Remaining Target (2018-2035)1,574 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)12,528 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 399 359 142 2,358 8,484 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Issaquah - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.1 99,261 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 439,629 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 122,521 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.2 217,468 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.6 149,567 Total Total 1,028,446 36%64% 938,629 2.3 3.1 93.2%3.29%2.46% Very Low 0.1 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 79,1671,069,083 1,263,4000.1 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Issaquah Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 23,20018,88927,839 8,950 14,250 2,836,727 1,028,446 0.4 1,226,830204,52192,99848,9780.2 0.6 0 2,836,727 Medium Low 0.4 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Issaquah has grown at 93% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 23,200 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Issaquah grew by roughly 47%. At this current rate, Issaquah is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 2.5% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.4 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low62,1881,705,456 0.6 00 10,650 2035 Target 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 10% 43% 12%21%15%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Issaquah - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 125 2%Commercial 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0%1.0 Lo Low Density 469 8%Mixed Use 318.6 41.0 30.1 13.9 233.6 11% - 25%183.6 M Medium Low Density 5,549 90%Industrial 18.4 1.2 1.3 0.9 15.1 15%12.5 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 338.2 42.3 31.4 14.8 249.7 197.1 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 9,418 Total Capacity (jobs)15,561Remaining Target (2018-2035)14,250 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)1,311 Vacant 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.02 250 89 Redevelopable 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 250 0 Commercial Total 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.02 250 89 Mixed-Use Vacant 1.76 1.50 0.00 0.80 0 / 300 3,117 Redevelopable 6.24 1.50 2.45 0.77 0 / 300 2657 Mixed Use Total 8.00 1.50 2.45 1.57 0 / 300 5,774 Industrial Vacant 0.36 0.50 0.00 0.18 700 254 Redevelopable 0.19 0.50 0.08 0.02 700 26 Industrial Total 0.54 0.50 0.08 0.20 700 280 City TotalCommercial 0.04 0.50 0.69 0.02 250 89Mixed Use 8.00 1.50 0.91 1.57 0 / 300 5,774Industrial0.54 0.50 0.26 0.20 700 280 Job Capacity in Pipeline 9,418 City Total 8.59 1.50 1.86 1.79 0 / 700 15,561 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 89 5,774 280Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Kent Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 10,75343,55247,811 4,259 6,495 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 81.2 27.5 0.0 41.7 11.9 48 4.0 156 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 275.7 54.6 0.0 22.1 199.0 644 3.2 755 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 50.2 4.6 0.0 1.8 43.8 255 5.8 528 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 1,080 High 48 & up du/acre 76.8 19.0 0.0 0.4 57.4 1,572 27.4 0 Total 483.9 105.7 0.0 66.0 312.2 2,519 2,519 26%74% 95.7%0.78%0.75% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 312.2 4.0 3.2 5.8 27.4 8.1 High Total 97.1155.927.132.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Kent has grown at 96% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 10,753 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Kent grew by roughly 10%. At this current rate, Kent is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.8% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Kent Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 020406080100120 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 6% 30%21% 43% 0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018"High" rangeextendsto200du/acre DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Kent - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 20.47 10.0% - 14.0%159.75 3.9 365Redev Subtotal 12.33 10.0% - 14.0%96.84 3.9 58 Subtotal 590.80 263.04 0.00 32.80 256.59 423Vacant Subtotal 28.53 5.0% - 20.0%228.17 4.7 / 5.8 1,085Redev Subtotal 30.68 5.0% - 20.0%245.26 4.7 / 9.0 119 Subtotal 880.15 287.95 0.00 59.21 473.43 1,204Vacant Subtotal 4.07 11.0% - 20.0%31.33 10.9 / 20.6 569Redev Subtotal 4.14 11.0% - 20.0%32.30 10.9 / 20.6 528 Subtotal 109.77 27.80 0.00 8.21 63.63 1,097Vacant Subtotal 8.57 11.0% - 20.0%67.54 39.7 / 40.0 2,681Redev Subtotal 2.26 11.0% - 20.0%17.77 39.7 / 40.0 703 Subtotal 190.23 84.70 0.00 10.83 85.31 3,384Vacant Subtotal 3.81 11.0% - 20.0%29.15 83.3 / 174.2 2,800Redev Subtotal 1.87 11.0% - 20.0%13.84 83.3 / 174.2 1,426 Subtotal 79.72 22.92 0.00 5.68 42.99 4,226Vacant Total 65.45 515.95 7,500Redev Total 51.28 406.00 2,833 Total 1,850.67 686.40 0.00 116.73 921.95 10,333 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 423Low Density Zones 1,204Medium Low Density Zones 1,097Medium High Density Zones 3,384High Density Zones 4,226 Capacity in Pipeline 915 Total Capacity (Units)11,248Remaining Target (2018-2035)6,495 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)4,753 Very Low Density High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones 423 1,204 1,097 3,384 4,226Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Kent - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.8 123,090 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 1,070,908 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 3,855,600 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.5 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 5,049,598 26%74% 0 0.0 0.0 142.1%1.12%0.50% Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 51,09567,191 745,9430.8 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Kent Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 15,40563,29972,360 9,061 6,344 9,268,260 5,049,598 0.5 2,598,7875,923,530000.5 0 9,268,260 Medium Low 0.4 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Kent has grown at 142% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 15,405 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Kent grew by roughly 14%. At this current rate, Kent is over the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.5% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.5 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low9,201,0690 0.7 00 4,998,503 2035 Target 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 2%21% 76% 0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Kent - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 1,187 4%Commercial 50.6 44.4 1.2 0.6 4.3 50%1.2 Lo Low Density 2,889 10%Mixed Use 425.5 146.3 55.8 27.9 195.4 11% - 20%162.6 M Medium Low Density 2,372 8%Industrial 654.3 142.4 102.4 51.2 358.3 5%332.7 M Medium High Density 21,817 77% Non-Res Land Total 1130.3 333.0 159.5 79.7 558.1 496.6 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 730 Total Capacity (jobs)28,995Remaining Target (2018-2035)6,344 Commercial*Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)22,651 Vacant 1.29 0.09 / 0.28 0.00 0.27 300 / 1200 252 Redevelopable 0.72 0.09 / 0.28 0.17 0.01 1,200 5 Commercial Total 2.01 0.09 / 0.28 0.17 0.28 300 / 1200 256 Mixed-Use Vacant 4.53 2.45 0.00 6.01 300 20,029 Redevelopable 2.55 2.45 2.44 1.12 300 3,746 Mixed Use Total 7.08 2.45 2.44 7.13 300 23,775 Industrial Vacant 6.90 0.39 / 0.64 0.00 3.35 1,200 2,790 Redevelopable 7.60 0.39 / 0.64 1.73 1.73 1,200 1444 Industrial Total 14.49 0.39 / 0.64 1.73 5.08 1,200 4,234 City TotalCommercial 2.01 0.09 / 0.28 0.69 0.28 300 / 1200 256Mixed Use 7.08 2.45 0.91 7.13 300 23,775Industrial14.49 0.39 / 0.64 0.26 5.08 1,200 4,234 Job Capacity in Pipeline 730 City Total 23.59 2.45 1.86 12.49 300 / 1200 28,995 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 256 23,775 4,234 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Kirkland Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 9,94135,55638,656 3,100 6,841 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 5.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.8 17 2.9 86 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 146.8 5.5 0.0 0.0 141.2 888 6.3 759 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 17.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 15.9 177 11.1 271 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 50 21.9 0 High 48 & up du/acre 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 705 78.4 721 Total 181.1 6.9 0.0 0.0 174.2 1,837 1,837 60%40% 75.4%0.70%0.96% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 9.1 174.2 2.9 6.3 11.1 21.9 78.4 10.5 High Total 24.6118.022.50.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Kirkland has grown at 75% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 9,941 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Kirkland grew by roughly 9%. At this current rate, Kirkland is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Kirkland Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 020406080100120140160 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 5% 41% 15% 0% 39% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Kirkland – Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 1.68 7.0% - 17.0%88.44 3.9 265Redev Subtotal 5.05 7.0% - 17.0%268.38 3.9 702 Subtotal 545.45 109.43 0.00 6.73 356.82 967Vacant Subtotal 2.98 7.0% - 17.0%46.15 4.0 / 9.3 305Redev Subtotal 35.02 7.0% - 17.0%558.07 4.0 / 9.3 2,398 Subtotal 828.95 58.12 0.00 37.99 604.22 2,703Vacant Subtotal 0.16 7.0% - 17.0%3.55 10.0 / 21.8 44Redev Subtotal 1.47 7.0% - 17.0%54.22 10.0 / 21.8 499 Subtotal 77.69 11.86 0.00 1.63 57.77 543Vacant Subtotal 0.03 7.0% - 7.0%1.31 28.0 / 40.0 47Redev Subtotal 0.88 7.0% - 7.0%40.26 28.0 / 40.0 1,244 Subtotal 48.90 3.21 0.00 0.91 41.57 1,291Vacant Subtotal 0.07 7.0% - 7.0%3.19 48.0 / 135.0 324Redev Subtotal 1.63 7.0% - 7.0%74.35 48.0 / 135.0 6,312 Subtotal 95.32 4.37 0.00 1.70 77.55 6,635Vacant Total 4.92 142.65 985Redev Total 44.05 995.29 11,155 Total 1,596.31 186.99 0.00 48.97 1,137.93 12,140 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 967Low Density Zones 2,703Medium Low Density Zones 543Medium High Density Zones 1,291High Density Zones 6,635 Capacity in Pipeline 1,212 Total Capacity (Units)13,352Remaining Target (2018-2035)6,841 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)6,510 Very Low Density High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones 967 2,703 543 1,291 6,635 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Kirkland – Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.2 118,814 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR 0.0 20,604 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR 0.5 159,369 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 2.0 156,492 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 180,793 Total Total 636,072 60%40% 0 1.6 4.5 125.7%2.49%1.25% Very Low 0.1 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 242,6661,125,119 1,439,8130.2 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Kirkland Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 24,18636,69849,280 12,582 11,604 1,803,134 633,072 0.4 55,383183,88498,50740,012 0.0 0.5 2.0 7,394 1,817,597 Medium Low 0.4 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Kirkland has grown at 126% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 24,186 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Kirkland grew by roughly 34%. At this current rate, Kirkland is over the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.3% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.3 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 183,070 Low99,8570 0.9 186,909391,250 199,942 2035 Target 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 19%3%25%25%28% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Kirkland – Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 525 3%Commercial 87.3 11.0 1.5 0.0 74.8 5%71.0 Lo Low Density 1,206 8%Mixed Use 191.8 16.2 3.5 0.0 172.1 7% - 17%159.7 M Medium Low Density 5,636 35%Industrial 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 6,692 42% Non-Res Land Total 280.2 28.3 5.0 0.0 267.7 230.7 Hi High Density 1,914 12% Capacity in Pipeline 2,165 Total Capacity (jobs)18,139Remaining Target (2018-2035)11,604 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)6,535 Vacant 0.61 0.02 / 1.80 0.00 0.14 250 561 Redevelopable 2.48 0.02 / 1.80 0.47 0.71 250 2827 Commercial Total 3.09 0.02 / 1.80 0.47 0.85 250 3,388 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.21 0.02 / 4.52 0.00 0.13 300 435 Redevelopable 6.75 0.02 / 4.52 1.68 3.10 300 10346 Mixed Use Total 6.96 0.02 / 4.52 1.68 3.23 300 10,781 Industrial* Vacant 0.01 0.88 0.00 0.01 300 30 Redevelopable 0.83 0.88 0.20 0.53 300 1775 Industrial Total 0.84 0.88 0.20 0.54 300 1,805 City TotalCommercial 3.09 0.02 / 1.80 0.69 0.85 250 3,388Mixed Use 6.96 0.02 / 4.52 0.91 3.23 300 10,781Industrial0.84 0.88 0.26 0.54 300 1,805 Job Capacity in Pipeline 2,165 City Total 10.89 0.02 / 4.52 1.86 4.62 250 / 300 18,139*Certain zones grouped as industrial allow for commercial use. Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level 3,388 10,781 1,805 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Redmond Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 11,89622,79027,736 4,946 6,950 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 17 5.6 162 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 179.1 3.2 0.0 0.0 175.9 1,099 6.2 954 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 44 16.7 51 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4 1,859 138.4 0 High 48 & up du/acre 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 482 158.5 2,439 Total 201.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 198.0 3,501 3,606 100%0% 100.5%1.65%1.32% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 17.8 199.7 5.6 6.2 16.7 138.4 158.5 17.7 High Total 46.8132.12.90.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Redmond has grown at 100% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 11,896 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Redmond grew by roughly 22%. At this current rate, Redmond is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.3% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Redmond Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 020406080100120140160180 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 4%26% 1%0% 68% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Redmond - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.36 10.0% - 10.0%1.80 0.1 / 3.0 3Redev Subtotal 0.62 10.0% - 10.0%3.08 0.1 / 3.0 5 Subtotal 209.70 193.62 9.50 0.98 4.88 8Vacant Subtotal 5.42 10.0% - 10.0%27.08 4.0 / 9.4 129Redev Subtotal 12.35 10.0% - 10.0%61.74 4.0 / 9.4 110 Subtotal 493.36 212.07 162.87 17.76 88.82 238Vacant Subtotal 6.41 5.0% - 10.0%55.91 12.0 / 23.0 1,175Redev Subtotal 10.38 5.0% - 10.0%89.30 12.0 / 23.0 1,908 Subtotal 201.95 29.85 0.49 16.79 145.21 3,084Vacant Subtotal 0.14 7.0% - 7.0%1.16 39.2 / 43.6 51Redev Subtotal 0.88 7.0% - 7.0%7.27 39.2 / 43.6 149 Subtotal 10.15 0.00 0.00 1.02 8.43 200Vacant Subtotal 0.70 5.0% - 10.0%5.78 49.2 / 161.2 315Redev Subtotal 13.82 5.0% - 10.0%115.93 49.2 / 161.2 11,968 Subtotal 149.35 2.61 1.35 14.52 121.71 12,283Vacant Total 13.02 91.73 1,672Redev Total 38.04 277.31 14,141 Total 1,064.52 438.15 174.21 51.07 369.04 15,813 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 8Low Density Zones 238Medium Low Density Zones 3,084Medium High Density Zones 200High Density Zones 12,283 Capacity in Pipeline 1,964 Total Capacity (Units)17,777Remaining Target (2018-2035)6,886 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)10,891 Very Low Density High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones 8 238 3,084 200 12,283 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Redmond - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.1 1,022,721 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR 0.2 318,430 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 136,034 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.4 310,063 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 1,787,248 100%0% 0 1.5 0.0 108.4%1.15%0.87% Very Low 0.1 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 375,6644,021,624 7,551,1560.1 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Redmond Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 26,68081,20793,174 11,967 14,713 8,021,311 1,703,894 0.2 664,724226,315206,4500 0.2 0.4 544,282 8,648,644 Medium Low 0.5 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Redmond has grown at 108% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 26,680 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Redmond grew by roughly 15%. At this current rate, Redmond is over the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.9% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.2 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low1,742,5910 0.6 2,257,0960 783,948 2035 Target 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 57% 18%8%17% 0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Redmond - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 1,505 13%Commercial 177.6 111.2 0.0 0.0 66.4 5% - 10%63.0 Lo Low Density 8,656 78%Mixed Use 377.4 54.5 16.1 16.1 290.8 5% - 10%271.7 M Medium Low Density 997 9%Industrial 134.4 32.5 0.0 0.0 101.9 35%66.2 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 695.2 198.1 16.1 16.1 464.9 401.0 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 4,693 Total Capacity (jobs)15,851Remaining Target (2018-2035)14,713 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)1,138 Vacant 0.33 0.03 / 0.60 0.00 0.06 300 / 330 181 Redevelopable 2.42 0.03 / 0.60 0.39 0.19 300 / 330 575 Commercial Total 2.74 0.03 / 0.60 0.39 0.25 300 / 330 756 Mixed-Use Vacant 3.09 0.05 / 1.13 0.00 1.21 300 / 730 3,930 Redevelopable 8.75 0.05 / 1.13 3.05 1.85 300 / 730 6077 Mixed Use Total 11.84 0.05 / 1.13 3.05 3.05 300 / 730 10,007 Industrial Vacant 0.57 0.24 / 0.50 0.00 0.16 730 224 Redevelopable 2.31 0.24 / 0.50 0.67 0.13 730 171 Industrial Total 2.88 0.24 / 0.50 0.67 0.29 730 396 City TotalCommercial 2.74 0.03 / 0.60 0.69 0.25 300 / 330 756Mixed Use 11.84 0.05 / 1.13 0.91 3.05 300 / 730 10,007Industrial2.88 0.24 / 0.50 0.26 0.29 730 396 Job Capacity in Pipeline 4,693 City Total 17.47 0.03 / 1.13 1.86 3.59 300 / 730 15,851 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 756 10,007 396Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Renton Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 17,23136,16842,775 6,607 10,623 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 14.8 2.7 3.9 0.0 8.2 16 2.0 16 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 378.1 45.4 13.0 50.8 269.0 1,550 5.8 1,707 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 48.6 3.2 0.6 6.4 38.3 452 11.8 300 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5 22.7 54 High 48 & up du/acre 17.5 1.8 0.4 2.7 12.7 630 49.6 576 Total 459.3 53.1 17.9 59.9 328.4 2,653 2,653 70%30% 92.7%1.41%1.31% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 10.7 328.4 2.0 5.8 11.8 22.7 49.6 8.1 High Total 8.2288.918.72.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Renton has grown at 93% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 17,231 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Renton grew by roughly 18%. At this current rate, Renton is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.3% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Renton Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0102030405060708090100 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 1% 64% 11%2%22% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018"High" rangeextendsto150du/acre DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Renton - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 11.89 14.0% - 14.0%25.98 0.2 / 2.0 32Redev Subtotal 6.61 14.0% - 14.0%14.44 0.2 / 2.0 15 Subtotal 106.75 38.24 0.00 18.50 40.43 47Vacant Subtotal 65.20 10.0% - 35.0%152.17 5.4 / 8.2 906Redev Subtotal 106.67 10.0% - 35.0%249.35 5.4 / 8.2 551 Subtotal 693.07 53.16 0.00 171.87 401.52 1,457Vacant Subtotal 11.79 15.0% - 35.0%34.23 10.2 / 17.4 443Redev Subtotal 11.66 15.0% - 35.0%35.28 10.2 / 17.4 367 Subtotal 137.60 20.32 0.00 23.46 69.51 810Vacant Subtotal 2.58 15.0% - 15.0%24.86 41.0 1,018Redev Subtotal 1.46 15.0% - 15.0%14.01 41.0 574 Subtotal 56.61 3.47 0.00 4.04 38.87 1,592Vacant Subtotal 4.09 11.0% - 21.0%38.78 54.3 / 112.5 3,438Redev Subtotal 9.39 11.0% - 21.0%90.39 54.3 / 112.5 6,724 Subtotal 421.82 28.69 0.00 13.48 129.17 10,161Vacant Total 95.55 276.03 5,836Redev Total 135.79 403.48 8,231 Total 1,415.85 143.87 0.00 231.34 679.50 14,067 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 47Low Density Zones 1,457Medium Low Density Zones 810Medium High Density Zones 1,592High Density Zones 10,161 Capacity in Pipeline 2,436 Total Capacity (Units)16,503Remaining Target (2018-2035)10,601 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)5,902 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 47 1,457 810 1,592 10,161 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Renton - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.2 1,530,240 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 486,520 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR 0.3 723,882 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.3 441,256 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.8 0 Total Total 3,181,898 70%30% 1,167,138 2.8 0.0 91.4%1.80%1.63% Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 88,225387,403 6,324,1430.2 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Renton Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 33,64053,43166,151 12,720 20,920 9,090,564 3,181,898 0.4 1,258,9361,347,460160,02500.3 0.3 0.8 0 9,090,564 Medium Low 0.4 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Renton has grown at 91% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 33,640 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Renton grew by roughly 24%. At this current rate, Renton is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.6% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.4 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 13,171 Low7,136,8941,518,735 0.5 047,532 1,913,364 2035 Target 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 48% 15%23%14%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Renton - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 2,989 14%Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 Lo Low Density 1,012 5%Mixed Use 261.9 32.2 11.5 6.9 211.3 11% - 35%179.8 M Medium Low Density 5,109 24%Industrial 63.6 2.8 3.0 1.8 55.9 20% - 30%41.9 M Medium High Density 11,058 51% Non-Res Land Total 325.5 35.0 14.5 8.7 267.2 221.7 Hi High Density 1,382 6% Capacity in Pipeline 4,660 Total Capacity (jobs)26,210Remaining Target (2018-2035)20,920 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)5,290 Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Commercial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mixed-Use Vacant 3.75 0.28 / 4.01 0.00 3.21 250 / 400 12,415 Redevelopable 4.08 0.28 / 4.01 0.59 2.22 250 / 400 8112 Mixed Use Total 7.83 0.28 / 4.01 0.59 5.44 250 / 400 20,527 Industrial Vacant 0.88 0.20 / 0.39 0.00 0.32 450 / 700 688 Redevelopable 0.95 0.20 / 0.39 0.14 0.20 450 / 700 336 Industrial Total 1.82 0.20 / 0.39 0.14 0.52 450 / 700 1,023 City TotalCommercial 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0 0Mixed Use 7.83 0.28 / 4.01 0.91 5.44 250 / 400 20,527Industrial1.82 0.20 / 0.39 0.26 0.52 450 / 700 1,023 Job Capacity in Pipeline 4,660 City Total 9.66 4.01 1.86 5.96 0 / 700 26,210 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 20,527 1,023Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of SeaTac Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 6,72810,30110,849 548 6,180 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 79 4.7 259 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 23.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 18.9 180 9.5 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 1 High 48 & up du/acre 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 290 100.8 289 Total 42.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 38.6 549 549 14%86% 19.7%0.43%2.69% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 2.9 38.6 4.7 9.5 100.8 14.2 High Total 0.035.70.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, SeaTac has grown at 20% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 6,728 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in SeaTac grew by roughly 5%. At this current rate, SeaTac is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 2.7% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level SeaTac Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0102030405060708090100 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0% 47% 0%0.2% 53% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 SeaTac - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.00 40.0% - 100.0%5.16 2.2 11Redev Subtotal 0.00 40.0% - 100.0%19.47 2.2 16 Subtotal 49.92 8.86 0.00 0.00 24.63 27Vacant Subtotal 0.00 20.0% - 60.0%11.69 4.0 / 6.9 55Redev Subtotal 0.00 20.0% - 60.0%131.54 4.0 / 6.9 13 Subtotal 386.22 29.48 0.00 0.00 143.23 68Vacant Subtotal 0.72 21.0% - 50.0%3.00 12.1 / 22.0 51Redev Subtotal 7.41 21.0% - 50.0%26.33 12.1 / 22.0 274 Subtotal 86.80 32.60 0.00 8.13 29.33 326Vacant Subtotal 5.87 35.0% - 75.0%19.99 26.0 / 45.0 827Redev Subtotal 5.00 35.0% - 75.0%16.82 26.0 / 45.0 386 Subtotal 119.60 22.83 0.00 10.87 36.82 1,213Vacant Subtotal 1.14 11.0% - 50.0%6.34 70.0 / 101.3 542Redev Subtotal 8.48 11.0% - 50.0%32.80 70.0 / 101.3 2,779 Subtotal 338.85 28.26 0.00 9.63 39.14 3,321Vacant Total 7.73 46.19 1,487Redev Total 20.89 226.96 3,468 Total 981.39 122.04 0.00 28.62 273.14 4,955 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 27Low Density Zones 68Medium Low Density Zones 326Medium High Density Zones 1,213High Density Zones 3,321 Capacity in Pipeline 1,441 Total Capacity (Units)6,396Remaining Target (2018-2035)6,180 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)216 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 27 68326 1,213 3,321 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 SeaTac - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.3 51,480 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR 0.5 9,050 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 112,765 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 87,220 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 260,515 14%86% 0 1.6 0.0 40.7%1.29%3.20% Very Low 0.1 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 164,245573,564 458,7730.3 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) SeaTac Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 29,34829,58534,522 4,937 24,411 593,489 173,295 0.3 19,925114,79154,7290 0.59,050 648,218 Medium Low 0.5 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, SeaTac has grown at 41% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 29,348 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in SeaTac grew by roughly 17%. At this current rate, SeaTac is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 3.2% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.4 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low00 1.0 19,9250 0 2035 Target 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 20%3% 43%33% 0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 SeaTac - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 0 0%Commercial 4.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 4.4 40%2.4 Lo Low Density 1,709 19%Mixed Use 187.0 26.3 8.0 8.0 144.6 35% - 75%66.2 M Medium Low Density 269 3%Industrial 383.6 95.1 14.4 14.4 259.6 10% - 50%151.4 M Medium High Density 6,848 78% Non-Res Land Total 575.4 121.4 22.7 22.7 408.6 220.0 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 6,739 Total Capacity (jobs)15,565Remaining Target (2018-2035)24,411 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)-8,846 Vacant 0.04 0.60 0.00 0.02 600 37 Redevelopable 0.07 0.60 0.00 0.04 600 62 Commercial Total 0.11 0.60 0.00 0.06 600 99 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.29 0.60 / 1.50 0.00 0.36 600 593 Redevelopable 2.59 0.60 / 1.50 1.01 2.62 600 4369 Mixed Use Total 2.88 0.60 / 1.50 1.01 2.98 600 4,962 Industrial Vacant 4.17 0.35 / 1.50 0.00 2.19 800 / 1200 2,218 Redevelopable 2.43 0.35 / 1.50 0.40 1.38 800 / 1200 1547 Industrial Total 6.59 0.35 / 1.50 0.40 3.57 800 / 1200 3,765 City TotalCommercial 0.11 0.60 0.69 0.06 600 99Mixed Use 2.88 0.60 / 1.50 0.91 2.98 600 4,962Industrial6.59 0.35 / 1.50 0.26 3.57 800 / 1200 3,765 Job Capacity in Pipeline 6,739 City Total 9.58 0.35 / 1.50 1.86 6.61 600 / 1200 15,565 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 99 4,962 3,765 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Tukwila Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 5,6267,7397,869 130 5,496 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 35.6 1.7 2.3 0.0 31.6 163 5.2 163 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 4.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.0 155 38.9 9 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 215 High 48 & up du/acre 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 440 82.4 371 Total 45.1 1.7 2.5 0.0 40.9 758 758 24%76% 5.6%0.14%3.17% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 3.4 40.9 5.2 38.9 82.4 18.5 High Total 0.031.60.65.3 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Tukwila has grown at 6% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 5,626 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Tukwila grew by roughly 2%. At this current rate, Tukwila is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 3.2% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Tukwila Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0102030405060708090100 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%22%1% 28% 49% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Tukwila - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 9.06 20.0% - 20.0%63.41 5.1 323Redev Subtotal 31.52 20.0% - 20.0%220.65 5.1 533 Subtotal 645.65 225.11 14.74 40.58 284.06 857Vacant Subtotal 7.65 10.0% - 20.0%44.69 14.5 / 22.0 938Redev Subtotal 6.01 10.0% - 20.0%39.04 14.5 / 22.0 710 Subtotal 388.64 95.68 0.00 13.65 83.72 1,648Vacant Subtotal 0.43 10.0% - 10.0%2.79 35.8 100Redev Subtotal 1.18 10.0% - 10.0%7.69 35.8 259 Subtotal 13.56 0.12 0.00 1.61 10.48 359Vacant Subtotal 1.37 0.0% - 10.0%8.92 61.7 / 61.7 271Redev Subtotal 13.82 0.0% - 10.0%89.84 61.7 / 61.7 2,443 Subtotal 155.60 28.98 0.00 15.19 98.76 2,714Vacant Total 18.51 119.81 1,632Redev Total 52.53 357.22 3,945 Total 1,203.45 349.89 14.74 71.04 477.03 5,577 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 0Low Density Zones 857Medium Low Density Zones 1,648Medium High Density Zones 359High Density Zones 2,714 Capacity in Pipeline 2,642 Total Capacity (Units)8,219Remaining Target (2018-2035)5,496 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)2,723 Very Low Density High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones 857 1,648 359 2,714 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Tukwila - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.3 158,640 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 90,252 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 307,035 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 73,631 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.4 0 Total Total 629,558 24%76% 533,029 1.8 0.0 7.4%0.12%2.16% Very Low 0.1 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 96,529328,799 1,141,0850.3 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Tukwila Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 20,35844,34544,966 621 19,737 1,751,080 629,558 0.4 219,547348,94841,50000.4 0 1,751,080 Medium Low 0.4 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Tukwila has grown at 7% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 20,358 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Tukwila grew by roughly 1%. At this current rate, Tukwila is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 2.2% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.4 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low01,422,281 0.9 00 0 2035 Target 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 25%14% 49% 12%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Tukwila - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 309 1%Commercial 234.4 137.9 1.9 9.7 84.9 20%65.6 Lo Low Density 2,195 7%Mixed Use 399.4 48.8 7.0 35.1 308.5 10% - 20%256.3 M Medium Low Density 5,954 19%Industrial 282.1 122.6 3.2 16.0 140.4 35%84.5 M Medium High Density 22,216 72% Non-Res Land Total 915.8 309.3 12.1 60.7 533.8 406.5 H High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 3,074 Total Capacity (jobs)33,749Remaining Target (2018-2035)19,737 Commercial*Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)14,012 Vacant 0.45 0.07 / 0.75 0.00 0.19 400 / 800 275 Redevelopable 3.97 0.07 / 0.75 0.95 1.09 400 / 800 2332 Commercial Total 4.42 0.07 / 0.75 0.95 1.28 400 / 800 2,607 Mixed-Use Vacant 5.48 0.06 / 1.75 0.00 8.67 400 21,679 Redevelopable 5.69 0.06 / 1.75 1.53 1.91 400 4,784 Mixed Use Total 11.16 0.06 / 1.75 1.53 10.59 400 26,463 Industrial Vacant 1.02 0.42 0.00 0.43 800 534 Redevelopable 2.67 0.42 0.26 0.86 800 1070 Industrial Total 3.68 0.42 0.26 1.28 800 1,604 City TotalCommercial 4.42 0.07 / 0.75 0.69 1.28 400 / 800 2,607Mixed Use 11.16 0.06 / 1.75 0.91 10.59 400 26,463Industrial3.68 0.42 0.26 1.28 800 1,604 Job Capacity in Pipeline 3,074 City Total 19.26 0.06 / 1.75 1.86 13.15 400 / 800 33,749*Certain zones grouped as commercial allow for industrial use. Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 2,607 26,463 1,604Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 High Capacity Transit Communities City of Des Moines City of Kenmore City of Lake Forest Park City of Mercer Island City of Newcastle City of Shoreline City of Woodinville DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Des Moines Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 3,48012,28712,700 413 3,067 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 2.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 2 1.5 18 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 36.0 0.9 3.9 0.2 31.0 138 4.4 131 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 4.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 3.9 44 11.2 35 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 87 High 48 & up du/acre 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 209 56.5 122 Total 46.4 2.3 3.9 0.2 40.0 393 393 57%43% 28.7%0.28%1.28% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.9 40.0 1.5 4.4 11.2 56.5 9.8 High Total 5.927.92.82.4 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Des Moines has grown at 29% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 3,480 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Des Moines grew by roughly 3%. At this current rate, Des Moines is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.3% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Des Moines Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0102030405060708090100 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 5% 33% 9%22%31% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018"High" rangeextendsto240du/acre DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Des Moines - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 3.55 20.0% - 20.0%7.82 1.2 / 3.8 28Redev Subtotal 6.33 20.0% - 20.0%13.93 1.2 / 3.8 19 Subtotal 181.56 111.71 0.00 9.89 21.75 46Vacant Subtotal 10.58 20.0% - 20.0%24.42 4.4 / 8.8 118Redev Subtotal 23.13 20.0% - 20.0%53.44 4.4 / 8.8 101 Subtotal 516.05 376.59 0.00 33.71 77.86 220Vacant Subtotal 0.07 20.0% - 20.0%0.31 12.4 4Redev Subtotal 0.85 20.0% - 20.0%3.67 12.4 37 Subtotal 10.42 4.30 0.00 0.92 3.98 41Vacant Subtotal 2.90 14.0% - 30.0%13.45 24.2 / 36.3 488Redev Subtotal 10.48 14.0% - 30.0%43.42 24.2 / 36.3 1,062 Subtotal 98.44 9.27 0.00 13.38 56.88 1,550Vacant Subtotal 2.41 20.0% - 30.0%10.01 48.4 / 129.7 988Redev Subtotal 12.71 20.0% - 30.0%51.89 48.4 / 129.7 5,084 Subtotal 103.04 1.91 0.00 15.12 61.91 6,072Vacant Total 19.51 56.01 1,626Redev Total 53.50 166.36 6,304 Total 909.51 503.78 0.00 73.01 222.37 7,930 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 46Low Density Zones 220Medium Low Density Zones 41Medium High Density Zones 1,550High Density Zones 6,072 Capacity in Pipeline 456 Total Capacity (Units)8,386Remaining Target (2018-2035)3,067 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)5,319 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 46 220 41 1,550 6,072 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Des Moines - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 29,744 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 1,853,398 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 29,583 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.2 197,841 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.5 0 Total Total 2,110,566 57%43% 2,104,363 2.1 0.0 35.8%1.09%3.17% Very Low 0.3 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 114,290Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Des Moines Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 5,8006,2067,065 859 4,941 3,979,911 2,110,566 0.5 3,724,38247,10094,13900.2 0.5 0 3,979,911 Medium Low 0.5 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Des Moines has grown at 36% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 5,800 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Des Moines grew by roughly 14%. At this current rate, Des Moines is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 3.2% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.5 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low40,9803,938,931 0.6 00 6,203 2035 Target 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 1% 88% 1%9%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Des Moines - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 1,303 54%Commercial 85.0 11.4 5.5 5.5 62.6 0% - 20%51.2 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 178.8 6.2 12.9 12.9 146.7 15% - 30%106.6 M Medium Low Density 823 34%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 160 7% Non-Res Land Total 263.8 17.6 18.5 18.5 209.3 157.8 Hi High Density 124 5% Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (jobs)2,410Remaining Target (2018-2035)4,941 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)-2,531 Vacant 0.96 0.32 / 3.50 0.00 0.42 0 / 800 727 Redevelopable 1.27 0.32 / 3.50 0.29 0.30 0 / 800 526 Commercial Total 2.23 0.32 / 3.50 0.29 0.72 0 / 800 1,253 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.51 0.01 / 0.63 0.00 0.10 400 / 800 247 Redevelopable 4.13 0.01 / 0.63 1.51 0.41 400 / 800 911 Mixed Use Total 4.64 0.01 / 0.63 1.51 0.51 400 / 800 1,157 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 2.23 0.32 / 3.50 0.69 0.72 0 / 800 1,253Mixed Use 4.64 0.01 / 0.63 0.91 0.51 400 / 800 1,157Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 6.87 3.50 1.86 1.23 0 / 800 2,410 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 1,253 1,157 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Kenmore Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 4,0608,1569,276 1,120 2,940 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 9 2.5 61 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 65.3 2.8 0.3 0.5 61.7 365 5.9 313 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 5.6 4.2 0.1 0.0 1.4 29 21.4 56 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 23 23.3 0 High 48 & up du/acre 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 320 57.7 316 Total 81.0 7.0 0.4 0.5 73.1 746 746 94%6% 66.7%1.08%1.63% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 5.3 73.1 2.5 5.9 21.4 23.3 57.7 10.2 High Total 18.346.92.60.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Kenmore has grown at 67% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 4,060 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Kenmore grew by roughly 14%. At this current rate, Kenmore is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.6% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Kenmore Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 010203040506070 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 8% 42% 8%0% 42% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Kenmore - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 3.56 5.0% - 9.0%15.04 2.5 / 3.5 47Redev Subtotal 3.48 0.0% - 9.0%13.46 2.5 / 3.5 1 Subtotal 151.92 114.06 0.00 7.05 28.50 48Vacant Subtotal 7.83 5.0% - 5.0%22.03 6.7 / 8.0 149Redev Subtotal 21.56 5.0% - 5.0%60.36 6.7 / 8.0 224 Subtotal 218.79 101.13 0.00 29.39 82.39 372Vacant Subtotal 1.36 5.0% - 5.0%7.25 16.4 / 23.3 139Redev Subtotal 2.13 5.0% - 5.0%11.36 16.4 / 23.3 205 Subtotal 32.98 9.72 0.00 3.49 18.61 344Vacant Subtotal 0.14 5.0% - 5.0%0.74 24.0 18Redev Subtotal 17.17 0.0% - 5.0%51.59 24.0 / 31.0 1,533 Subtotal 2.88 0.00 0.00 17.31 52.34 1,551Vacant Subtotal 1.02 5.0% - 10.0%5.33 48.0 / 72.0 266Redev Subtotal 3.80 5.0% - 10.0%20.19 48.0 / 72.0 1,071 Subtotal 116.09 12.21 0.00 4.82 25.51 1,336Vacant Total 13.91 50.39 618Redev Total 48.13 156.96 3,033 Total 522.66 237.12 0.00 62.04 207.35 3,651 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 48Low Density Zones 372Medium Low Density Zones 344Medium High Density Zones 1,551High Density Zones 1,336 Capacity in Pipeline 484 Total Capacity (Units)4,135Remaining Target (2018-2035)2,940 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)1,195 Very Low Density High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones 48 372 344 1,551 1,336Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Kenmore - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 20,211 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 40,976 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.3 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 61,187 94%6% 0 0.0 0.0 -72.9%-1.92%4.55% Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 134,034Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Kenmore Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 3,4805,0624,012 -1,050 3,480 239,623 61,187 0.3 105,5890000.3 0 239,623 Medium Low 0.4 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Kenmore has grown at -73% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 3,480 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Kenmore grew by roughly -21%. At this current rate, Kenmore is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 4.6% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.3 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low239,6230 0.0 00 61,187 2035 Target -2,000-1,00001,0002,0003,0004,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 33% 67% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Kenmore - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 295 8%Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 Lo Low Density 3,518 91%Mixed Use 131.4 17.4 8.0 16.0 90.1 0% - 10%87.5 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 49 1% Non-Res Land Total 131.4 17.4 8.0 16.0 90.1 87.5 H High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 19 Total Capacity (jobs)3,881Remaining Target (2018-2035)4,530 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)-649 Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Commercial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.48 0.16 / 1.50 0.00 0.19 300 / 400 623 Redevelopable 3.33 0.16 / 1.50 0.26 0.97 300 / 400 3239 Mixed Use Total 3.81 0.16 / 1.50 0.26 1.16 300 / 400 3,862 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0 0Mixed Use 3.81 0.16 / 1.50 0.91 1.16 300 / 400 3,862Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 19 City Total 3.81 1.50 1.86 1.16 0 / 400 3,881 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 3,862 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Lake Forest Park Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 5515,2265,427 201 350 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 2 0.6 34 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 17.8 4.2 0.0 0.0 13.6 67 4.9 0 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.1 77 15.2 112 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 25 High 48 & up du/acre 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 25 33.3 0 Total 27.2 4.2 0.0 0.1 22.9 171 171 100%0% 88.2%0.32%0.37% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 22.9 0.6 4.9 15.2 33.3 7.5 High Total 15.20.06.90.8 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Lake Forest Park has grown at 88% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 551 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Lake Forest Park grew by roughly 4%. At this current rate, Lake Forest Park is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.4% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Lake Forest Park Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 010203040506070 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0100200300400500600 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 20% 0% 65% 15%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Lake Forest Park - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 1.66 20.0% - 20.0%24.94 2.0 / 3.0 56Redev Subtotal 6.32 20.0% - 20.0%94.73 2.0 / 3.0 100 Subtotal 207.12 47.27 0.29 7.98 119.66 156Vacant Subtotal 2.40 20.0% - 20.0%35.93 4.4 / 6.0 192Redev Subtotal 14.79 20.0% - 20.0%221.85 4.4 / 6.0 737 Subtotal 373.29 27.13 2.45 17.19 257.78 929Vacant Subtotal 0.00 16.0% - 20.0%0.00 12.0 / 18.2 0Redev Subtotal 0.89 16.0% - 20.0%14.08 12.0 / 18.2 214 Subtotal 19.51 1.67 0.00 0.89 14.08 214Vacant Subtotal 0.00 16.0% - 16.0%0.00 24.2 / 33.3 0Redev Subtotal 0.05 16.0% - 16.0%0.71 24.2 / 33.3 20 Subtotal 0.94 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.71 20Vacant Subtotal 0.00 16.0% - 16.0%0.00 65.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.56 16.0% - 16.0%8.85 65.0 552 Subtotal 11.17 0.00 0.00 0.56 8.85 552Vacant Total 4.06 60.87 247Redev Total 22.60 340.22 1,623 Total 612.01 76.14 2.74 26.66 401.09 1,870 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 156Low Density Zones 929Medium Low Density Zones 214Medium High Density Zones 20High Density Zones 552 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)1,870Remaining Target (2018-2035)350 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)1,520 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 156 929214 20 552 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Lake Forest Park - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 0 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 163.7%0.82%0.25% Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Lake Forest Park Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 2441,6121,777 165 79 0 0 0000 0 0 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Lake Forest Park has grown at 164% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 244 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Lake Forest Park grew by roughly 10%. At this current rate, Lake Forest Park is over the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.3% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR)Achieved Density Level 0 Low00 0.0 00 0 2035 Target 050100150200250300 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Lake Forest Park - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 0 0%Commercial 3.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 3.0 26% - 50%1.6 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 31.1 1.7 1.2 0.3 28.0 16%23.3 M Medium Low Density 691 100%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 34.5 1.9 1.3 0.3 31.0 24.9 H High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (jobs)691Remaining Target (2018-2035)79 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)613 Vacant 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 465 0 Redevelopable 0.07 0.50 0.02 0.02 465 36 Commercial Total 0.07 0.50 0.02 0.02 465 36 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 465 0 Redevelopable 1.01 0.65 0.29 0.30 465 656 Mixed Use Total 1.01 0.65 0.29 0.30 465 656 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 0.07 0.50 0.69 0.02 465 36Mixed Use 1.01 0.65 0.91 0.30 465 656Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 1.08 0.65 1.86 0.32 0 / 465 691 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 36 656 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Mercer Island Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 2,3209,46710,473 1,006 1,314 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 12.2 2.2 1.7 0.0 8.3 22 2.7 22 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 16.0 0.7 2.4 0.0 13.0 60 4.6 60 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 19 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 19 22.7 0 High 48 & up du/acre 4.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 4.3 460 107.5 460 Total 33.8 3.1 4.4 0.0 26.4 561 561 17%83% 104.8%0.85%0.70% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 4.3 26.4 2.7 4.6 22.7 107.5 21.3 High Total 8.313.00.80.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Mercer Island has grown at 105% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 2,320 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Mercer Island grew by roughly 11%. At this current rate, Mercer Island is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.7% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Mercer Island Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 020406080100120140160 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 05001,0001,5002,0002,500 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 4%11%3%0% 82% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Mercer Island - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 4.96 3.0% - 3.0%32.05 2.6 / 3.3 85Redev Subtotal 13.31 3.0% - 3.0%85.97 2.6 / 3.3 35 Subtotal 352.32 211.82 0.00 18.27 118.02 120Vacant Subtotal 3.27 3.0% - 5.0%21.12 4.6 / 6.1 98Redev Subtotal 16.64 3.0% - 5.0%107.54 4.6 / 6.1 138 Subtotal 287.75 134.59 0.00 19.91 128.65 235Vacant Subtotal 0.02 20.0% - 20.0%0.45 22.7 10Redev Subtotal 0.05 20.0% - 20.0%1.13 22.7 0 Subtotal 3.12 1.05 0.00 0.07 1.58 10Vacant Subtotal 0.00 20.0% - 20.0%0.00 26.0 0Redev Subtotal 2.00 20.0% - 20.0%43.70 26.0 535 Subtotal 62.65 5.52 0.00 2.00 43.70 535Vacant Subtotal 0.02 10.0% - 10.0%0.54 100.6 / 167.8 91Redev Subtotal 0.95 10.0% - 10.0%23.47 100.6 / 167.8 437 Subtotal 29.86 2.10 0.00 0.97 24.01 528Vacant Total 8.27 54.16 284Redev Total 32.95 261.81 1,145 Total 735.70 355.08 0.00 41.22 315.97 1,429 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 120Low Density Zones 235Medium Low Density Zones 10Medium High Density Zones 535High Density Zones 528 Capacity in Pipeline 178 Total Capacity (Units)1,607Remaining Target (2018-2035)1,314 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)293 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 120 235 10 535 528Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Mercer Island - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.2 101,414 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.1 0 Total Total 101,414 17%83% 24,137 0.0 0.0 60.8%0.32%0.63% Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 77,277364,525 560,3490.2 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Mercer Island Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 1,1607,4537,745 292 868 560,349 101,414 0.2 00000.1 0 560,349 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Mercer Island has grown at 61% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 1,160 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Mercer Island grew by roughly 4%. At this current rate, Mercer Island is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.6% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.2 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR)Achieved Density Level 0 Low0195,824 0.0 00 0 2035 Target 02004006008001,0001,2001,400 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Mercer Island - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 11 1%Commercial 25.0 15.6 0.0 0.3 9.0 15% - 20%7.2 Lo Low Density 177 20%Mixed Use 29.9 2.1 0.0 1.0 26.8 10%24.0 M Medium Low Density 227 25%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 477 54% Non-Res Land Total 54.8 17.7 0.0 1.3 35.8 31.2 H High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 70 Total Capacity (jobs)961Remaining Target (2018-2035)868 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)93 Vacant 0.03 0.22 / 0.50 0.00 0.01 200 52 Redevelopable 0.29 0.22 / 0.50 0.06 0.05 200 242 Commercial Total 0.31 0.22 / 0.50 0.06 0.06 200 294 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.02 0.06 / 1.00 0.00 0.02 200 119 Redevelopable 1.02 0.06 / 1.00 0.48 0.10 200 479 Mixed Use Total 1.05 0.06 / 1.00 0.48 0.12 200 598 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 0.31 0.22 / 0.50 0.69 0.06 200 294Mixed Use 1.05 0.06 / 1.00 0.91 0.12 200 598Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 70 City Total 1.36 1.00 1.86 0.18 0 / 200 961 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 294 598 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Newcastle Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 1,3923,7845,188 1,404 0 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 10 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 77.0 18.7 11.5 4.2 42.6 223 5.2 223 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 57.9 13.6 1.0 5.4 37.9 10 0.3 0 Total 135.0 32.3 12.6 9.6 80.5 233 233 100%0% 243.8%2.67%Met Target % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 80.5 5.2 0.3 2.9 High Total 37.942.60.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Newcastle has grown at 244% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 1,392 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Newcastle grew by roughly 37%. Newcastle has achieved its 2035 housing growth target. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Newcastle Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0102030405060708090100 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0 500 1,000 1,500 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 4% 96% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018"High" rangeextendsto130du/acre DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Newcastle - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 31.01 10.0% - 10.0%70.49 1.0 70Redev Subtotal 19.23 10.0% - 10.0%43.69 1.0 32 Subtotal 218.80 0.61 35.50 50.24 114.18 102Vacant Subtotal 31.46 12.0% - 12.0%69.22 4.0 / 6.0 298Redev Subtotal 38.73 12.0% - 12.0%85.21 4.0 / 6.0 294 Subtotal 266.80 11.55 0.00 70.20 154.43 592Vacant Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%0.00 12.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%0.00 12.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%0.00 24.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%0.00 24.0 0 Subtotal 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%0.00 48.0 / 60.0 0Redev Subtotal 5.86 10.0% - 10.0%46.89 48.0 / 60.0 2,271 Subtotal 58.61 0.00 0.00 5.86 46.89 2,271Vacant Total 62.48 139.71 369Redev Total 63.82 175.79 2,597 Total 544.92 12.87 35.50 126.30 315.50 2,966 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 102Low Density Zones 592Medium Low Density Zones 0Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 2,271 Capacity in Pipeline 268 Total Capacity (Units)3,234Remaining Target (2018-2035)0 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)3,234 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 102 592 2,271 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Newcastle - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 23,330 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 2.2 90,451 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.2 0 Total Total 113,781 100%0% 23,330 2.2 0.0 252.6%3.51%Met Target Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 95,013Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Newcastle Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 8531,7362,627 891 0 135,782 113,781 0.8 0040,76902.2 0.2 0 135,782 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Newcastle has grown at 253% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 853 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Newcastle grew by roughly 51%. Newcastle has achieved its 2035 jobs growth target. 0.8 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low40,76995,013 0.0 00 90,451 2035 Target 02004006008001,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 21% 0%0% 79% 0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Newcastle - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 680 100%Commercial 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 14%0.8 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 58.6 0.0 2.9 2.9 52.8 10%46.9 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 59.6 0.0 3.0 57.4 1033.9 47.7 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (jobs)680Remaining Target (2018-2035)0 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)680 Vacant 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 300 0 Redevelopable 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.01 300 34 Commercial Total 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.01 300 34 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.00 0.10 / 0.25 0.00 0.00 300 0 Redevelopable 2.04 0.10 / 0.25 0.43 0.19 300 646 Mixed Use Total 2.04 0.10 / 0.25 0.43 0.19 300 646 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 0.03 0.30 0.69 0.01 300 34Mixed Use 2.04 0.10 / 0.25 0.91 0.19 300 646Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 2.08 0.30 1.86 0.20 0 / 300 680 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 34 646 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Shoreline Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 5,80022,17323,702 1,529 4,271 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 94 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 94.1 10.6 0.0 0.0 83.5 360 4.3 319 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 41 9.1 81 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 81 14.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 1,639 108.5 1,627 Total 119.5 10.6 0.0 0.0 108.8 2,121 2,121 24%76% 63.7%0.56%0.98% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 13.5 108.8 4.3 9.1 14.0 108.5 19.5 High Total 35.354.25.80.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Shoreline has grown at 64% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 5,800 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Shoreline grew by roughly 7%. At this current rate, Shoreline is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Shoreline Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0102030405060708090100 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 4%15%4%0% 77% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018"High" rangeextendsto146du/acre DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Shoreline - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 10.0%0.76 3.7 1Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 10.0%45.28 3.7 37 Subtotal 58.48 7.37 0.00 0.00 46.04 39Vacant Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%24.11 5.1 / 9.6 125Redev Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%94.64 5.1 / 9.6 0 Subtotal 142.68 10.74 0.00 0.00 118.74 125Vacant Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 20.0%0.13 11.9 / 12.0 2Redev Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 20.0%10.22 11.9 / 12.0 59 Subtotal 11.78 0.21 0.00 0.00 10.35 61Vacant Subtotal 0.00 20.0% - 30.0%1.03 25.0 / 44.0 36Redev Subtotal 0.00 20.0% - 30.0%98.77 25.0 / 44.0 3,474 Subtotal 141.68 0.50 0.00 0.00 99.80 3,510Vacant Subtotal 0.00 20.0% - 30.0%22.06 102.8 / 150.4 2,916Redev Subtotal 0.00 20.0% - 30.0%132.57 102.8 / 150.4 16,810 Subtotal 203.39 0.02 0.00 0.00 154.63 19,726Vacant Total 0.00 48.08 3,080Redev Total 0.00 381.47 20,381 Total 558.01 18.84 0.00 0.00 429.55 23,461 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 39Low Density Zones 125Medium Low Density Zones 61Medium High Density Zones 3,510High Density Zones 19,726 Capacity in Pipeline 2,129 Total Capacity (Units)25,590Remaining Target (2018-2035)4,271 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)21,318 Very Low Density High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones 39 125 61 3,510 19,726 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Shoreline - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.1 941,618 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.3 303,608 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.4 0 Total Total 1,245,226 24%76% 756,529 1.3 0.0 20.3%0.23%1.54% Very Low 0.1 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 470,0607,130,116 8,737,6300.1 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Shoreline Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 5,80017,41117,898 487 5,313 8,977,633 1,245,226 0.1 00240,00300.3 0.4 0 8,977,633 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Shoreline has grown at 20% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 5,800 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Shoreline grew by roughly 3%. At this current rate, Shoreline is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.5% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.1 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low66,3301,781,187 0.0 00 18,637 2035 Target 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 76% 0%0%24% 0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Shoreline - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 2,939 78%Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 345.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 344.5 20% - 30%254.4 M Medium Low Density 844 22%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 345.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 344.5 254.4 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 170 Total Capacity (jobs)3,953Remaining Target (2018-2035)5,313 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)-1,360 Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Commercial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mixed-Use Vacant 1.01 0.10 / 0.50 0.00 0.42 500 835 Redevelopable 10.08 0.10 / 0.50 2.08 1.47 500 2,948 Mixed Use Total 11.08 0.10 / 0.50 2.08 1.89 500 3,783 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0 0Mixed Use 11.08 0.10 / 0.50 0.91 1.89 500 3,783Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 170 City Total 11.08 0.50 1.86 1.89 0 / 500 3,953 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 3,783 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Woodinville Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 3,4804,5505,154 604 2,876 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 57.6 1.1 0.0 0.1 56.3 40 0.7 42 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 35.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.2 171 4.9 169 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 237 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 28.3 2.9 0.0 0.2 25.3 237 9.4 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 121.1 4.0 0.0 0.3 116.7 448 448 100%0% 42.0%1.04%2.64% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 116.7 0.7 4.9 9.4 3.8 High Total 61.533.521.80.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Woodinville has grown at 42% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 3,480 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Woodinville grew by roughly 13%. At this current rate, Woodinville is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 2.6% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Woodinville Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0510152025303540 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 9% 38%53% 0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Woodinville - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 20.84 5.0% - 5.0%111.14 0.7 / 1.2 91Redev Subtotal 28.62 5.0% - 5.0%152.66 0.7 / 1.2 20 Subtotal 538.85 65.66 143.44 49.46 263.80 111Vacant Subtotal 4.46 5.0% - 5.0%23.81 5.0 / 8.0 122Redev Subtotal 3.77 5.0% - 5.0%20.10 5.0 / 8.0 55 Subtotal 123.94 65.62 10.05 8.23 43.91 176Vacant Subtotal 0.13 5.0% - 5.0%0.68 12.0 / 18.0 9Redev Subtotal 2.57 5.0% - 5.0%13.70 12.0 / 18.0 0 Subtotal 22.03 4.05 0.00 2.70 14.38 9Vacant Subtotal 4.51 1.0% - 80.0%22.73 24.0 / 36.0 784Redev Subtotal 5.21 1.0% - 80.0%25.42 24.0 / 36.0 901 Subtotal 105.76 10.65 2.68 9.72 48.14 1,684Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.72 100.0% - 100.0%0.00 48.0 0 Subtotal 4.78 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0Vacant Total 29.94 158.36 1,006Redev Total 40.89 211.88 975 Total 795.36 145.98 156.17 70.83 370.24 1,981 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 111Low Density Zones 176Medium Low Density Zones 9Medium High Density Zones 1,684High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 1,724 Total Capacity (Units)3,705Remaining Target (2018-2035)2,876 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)829 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 111 176 9 1,684 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Woodinville - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 22,243 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.2 0 Total Total 22,243 100%0% 20,536 0.0 0.0 26.8%0.44%2.05% Very Low 0.1 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 223,948Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Woodinville Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 5,80011,87612,519 643 5,157 223,948 22,243 0.1 00000.0 0.2 0 223,948 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Woodinville has grown at 27% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 5,800 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Woodinville grew by roughly 5%. At this current rate, Woodinville is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 2.1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.1 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low115,688108,260 0.0 00 1,707 2035 Target 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Woodinville - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 1,176 86%Commercial 53.8 36.3 1.7 0.0 15.7 0% - 50%12.0 Lo Low Density 190 14%Mixed Use 67.7 10.7 5.7 0.0 51.3 1% - 5%50.6 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 80.0 24.2 5.6 0.0 50.1 15%41.8 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 201.4 71.2 13.0 0.0 117.2 104.4 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 3,006 Total Capacity (jobs)4,373Remaining Target (2018-2035)5,157 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)-784 Vacant 0.46 0.20 / 1.00 0.00 0.11 450 / 600 190 Redevelopable 0.07 0.20 / 1.00 0.01 0.00 450 / 600 7 Commercial Total 0.52 0.20 / 1.00 0.01 0.12 450 / 600 197 Mixed-Use Vacant 1.04 0.22 / 0.40 0.00 0.25 300 840 Redevelopable 1.16 0.22 / 0.40 0.26 0.01 300 21 Mixed Use Total 2.20 0.22 / 0.40 0.26 0.26 300 862 Industrial Vacant 1.25 0.17 0.00 0.21 700 303 Redevelopable 0.57 0.17 0.09 0.00 700 4 Industrial Total 1.82 0.17 0.09 0.22 700 308 City TotalCommercial 0.52 0.20 / 1.00 0.69 0.12 450 / 600 197Mixed Use 2.20 0.22 / 0.40 0.91 0.26 300 862Industrial1.82 0.17 0.26 0.22 700 308 Job Capacity in Pipeline 3,006 City Total 4.55 0.17 / 1.00 1.86 0.59 300 / 700 4,373 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 197 862 308 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Cities and Towns City of Algona City of Beaux Arts City of Black Diamond City of Carnation City of Clyde Hill City of Covington City of Duvall City of Enumclaw Town of Hunts Point City of Maple Valley City of Medina City of Milton City of Normandy Park City of North Bend City of Pacific City of Sammamish Town of Skykomish City of Snoqualmie Town of Yarrow Point DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Algona Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 2209601,049 89 132 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 13 4.4 37 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 24 6.1 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 37 37 100%0% 97.3%0.74%0.70% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 6.9 4.4 6.1 5.4 High Total 0.06.90.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Algona has grown at 97% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 220 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Algona grew by roughly 9%. At this current rate, Algona is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.7% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Algona Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0246810121416 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 050100150200250 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0% 100% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Algona - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 2.66 9.0% - 9.0%9.44 4.1 38Redev Subtotal 9.98 9.0% - 9.0%35.43 4.1 119 Subtotal 63.29 0.05 0.00 12.64 44.87 158Vacant Subtotal 1.96 9.0% - 35.0%4.80 12.0 / 15.0 61Redev Subtotal 1.22 9.0% - 35.0%4.07 12.0 / 15.0 48 Subtotal 16.68 0.11 0.59 3.18 8.87 109Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 4.62 14.24 99Redev Total 11.20 39.50 167 Total 79.97 0.16 0.59 15.82 53.74 266 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 0Low Density Zones 158Medium Low Density Zones 109Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)266Remaining Target (2018-2035)132 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)135 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 158 109Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Algona - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 0 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 260.9%1.10%Met Target Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Algona Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 2441,8792,142 263 0 0 0 0000 0 0 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Algona has grown at 261% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 244 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Algona grew by roughly 14%. Algona has achieved its 2035 jobs growth target. 0.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low00 0.0 00 0 2035 Target 050100150200250300 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Algona - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 113 36%Commercial 32.1 13.8 1.8 1.8 14.6 35%8.2 Lo Low Density 170 54%Mixed Use 9.3 0.0 0.9 0.9 7.4 35%4.2 M Medium Low Density 30 10%Industrial 6.6 3.2 0.3 0.3 2.7 43%1.3 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 48.1 17.1 3.1 3.1 24.8 13.7 H High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (jobs)313Remaining Target (2018-2035)0 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)313 Vacant 0.33 0.30 0.00 0.10 950 105 Redevelopable 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.01 950 8 Commercial Total 0.36 0.30 0.00 0.11 950 113 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.16 0.35 0.00 0.06 375 152 Redevelopable 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.01 375 18 Mixed Use Total 0.18 0.35 0.00 0.06 375 170 Industrial Vacant 0.05 0.50 0.00 0.03 900 30 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.05 0.50 0.00 0.03 900 30 City TotalCommercial 0.36 0.30 0.69 0.11 950 113Mixed Use 0.18 0.35 0.91 0.06 375 170Industrial0.05 0.50 0.26 0.03 900 30 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 0.60 0.50 1.86 0.20 0 / 950 313 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 113 170 30Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Beaux Arts Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 3119120 1 2 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 3 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3 2.9 0 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3 3 100%0% 81.5%0.08%0.11% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 1.0 2.9 2.9 High Total 1.00.00.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Beaux Arts Village has grown at 82% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 3 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Beaux Arts Village grew by roughly 1%. At this current rate, Beaux Arts Village is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Beaux Arts Village Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0 1 2 3 4 5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0 1 2 3 4 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Beaux Arts - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%0.31 2.9 1Redev Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%0.66 2.9 1 Subtotal 6.15 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.97 2Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 0.00 0.31 1Redev Total 0.00 0.66 1 Total 6.15 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.97 2 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 2Low Density Zones 0Medium Low Density Zones 0Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)2Remaining Target (2018-2035)2 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)0 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 2 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Beaux Arts - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 0 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 595.2%4.48%Met Target Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Beaux Arts Village Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 41322 9 0 0 0 0000 0 0 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Beaux Arts Village has grown at 595% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 4 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Beaux Arts Village grew by roughly 69%. Beaux Arts Village has achieved its 2035 jobs growth target. 0.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low00 0.0 00 0 2035 Target 012345678910 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Beaux Arts - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity (no job capacity in Beaux Arts) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Black Diamond Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 2,2041,6231,735 112 2,092 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 47 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 23.6 1.8 0.2 0.4 21.3 57 2.7 41 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 16.1 0.0 1.7 7.2 7.1 31 4.4 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 39.7 1.8 1.9 7.6 28.4 88 88 100%0% 12.2%0.56%4.77% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 28.4 2.7 4.4 3.1 High Total 19.09.40.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Black Diamond has grown at 12% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 2,204 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Black Diamond grew by roughly 7%. At this current rate, Black Diamond is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 4.8% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Black Diamond Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 02468101214161820 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 05001,0001,5002,0002,500 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 53%47% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Black Diamond - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 67.28 10.0% - 50.0%235.73 2.5 577Redev Subtotal 71.55 10.0% - 50.0%250.78 2.5 439 Subtotal 789.70 60.18 29.14 138.82 486.51 1,016Vacant Subtotal 7.00 20.0% - 20.0%21.00 4.5 94Redev Subtotal 6.86 20.0% - 20.0%20.58 4.5 70 Subtotal 84.53 5.23 10.00 13.86 41.58 163Vacant Subtotal 8.73 25.0% - 50.0%54.59 10.0 / 12.0 637Redev Subtotal 9.48 25.0% - 50.0%57.57 10.0 / 12.0 618 Subtotal 191.07 8.98 0.00 18.21 112.17 1,255Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 83.01 311.33 1,308Redev Total 87.89 328.93 1,126 Total 1,065.29 74.38 39.14 170.89 640.26 2,434 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 1,016Low Density Zones 163Medium Low Density Zones 1,255Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 6,000 Total Capacity (Units)8,434Remaining Target (2018-2035)2,092 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)6,342 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 1,016 163 1,255 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Black Diamond - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 52,231 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.6 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 52,231 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 11.3%0.98%7.22% Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Black Diamond Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 1,218458515 57 1,161 84,071 52,231 0.6 084,071000.6 0 84,071 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Black Diamond has grown at 11% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 1,218 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Black Diamond grew by roughly 12%. At this current rate, Black Diamond is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 7.2% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.6 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR)Achieved Density Level 0 Low84,0710 0.6 00 52,231 2035 Target 02004006008001,0001,2001,400 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0% 100% 0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.4 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Black Diamond - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 67 3%Commercial 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 Lo Low Density 2,179 97%Mixed Use 156.3 6.2 7.5 7.5 135.1 25% - 50%90.5 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 70.7 0.0 3.5 3.5 63.6 70%14.1 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 229.4 8.6 11.0 22.3 401.1 104.6 H High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 942 Total Capacity (jobs)3,188Remaining Target (2018-2035)1,161 Commercial*Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)2,027 Vacant 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000 0 Redevelopable 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000 0 Commercial Total 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000 0 Mixed-Use Vacant 2.07 0.20 / 0.40 0.00 0.79 600 / 860 1,310 Redevelopable 1.87 0.20 / 0.40 0.13 0.56 600 / 860 936 Mixed Use Total 3.94 0.20 / 0.40 0.13 1.35 600 / 860 2,246 Industrial Vacant 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000 0 Industrial Total 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000 0 City TotalCommercial 1.96 0.00 0.69 0.00 1,000 0Mixed Use 3.94 0.20 / 0.40 0.91 1.35 600 / 860 2,246Industrial0.62 0.00 0.26 0.00 1,000 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 942 City Total 6.52 0.40 1.86 1.35 600 / 1000 3,188*Certain zones grouped as commercial allow for industrial use. Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 2,246 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Carnation Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 383739880 141 242 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 12 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 29.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 29.6 156 5.3 147 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 12 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 14 15.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 4.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 1 1.9 0 Total 34.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 31.0 171 171 100%0% 88.7%1.46%1.44% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 31.0 5.3 15.0 1.9 5.5 High Total 3.426.90.70.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Carnation has grown at 89% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 383 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Carnation grew by roughly 19%. At this current rate, Carnation is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.4% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Carnation Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0102030405060708090100 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0100200300400500 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 7% 86% 7%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Carnation - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 3.9 0Redev Subtotal 1.39 0.0% - 0.0%3.23 3.9 1 Subtotal 98.76 87.36 6.78 1.39 3.23 1Vacant Subtotal 0.90 0.0% - 0.0%2.10 5.2 / 9.7 13Redev Subtotal 4.21 0.0% - 0.0%11.39 5.2 / 9.7 72 Subtotal 38.77 20.03 0.23 5.11 13.49 84Vacant Subtotal 0.84 0.0% - 0.0%2.96 12.0 / 17.0 49Redev Subtotal 7.87 0.0% - 0.0%26.13 12.0 / 17.0 347 Subtotal 30.25 13.55 0.00 8.71 29.09 396Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 1.74 5.06 62Redev Total 13.47 40.75 420 Total 167.78 120.95 7.01 15.20 45.82 481 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 1Low Density Zones 84Medium Low Density Zones 396Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 223 Total Capacity (Units)704Remaining Target (2018-2035)242 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)462 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 1 84 396 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Carnation - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 1,152 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.5 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 1,152 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 8.4%0.14%2.28% Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Carnation Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 429871886 15 414 2,387 1,152 0.5 2,3870000.5 0 2,387 Medium Low 0.5 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Carnation has grown at 8% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 429 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Carnation grew by roughly 2%. At this current rate, Carnation is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 2.3% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.5 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low2,3870 0.0 00 1,152 2035 Target 0100200300400500 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0% 100% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Carnation - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 0 0%Commercial 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0%0.5 Lo Low Density 27 1%Mixed Use 73.3 61.6 1.4 1.2 9.1 0%9.1 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 17.9 16.6 0.2 0.1 1.0 0%1.0 M Medium High Density 2,090 73% Non-Res Land Total 91.8 78.2 1.6 1.4 10.6 10.6 H High Density 747 26% Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (jobs)2,864Remaining Target (2018-2035)414 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)2,450 Vacant 0.00 2.25 0.00 0.00 300 0 Redevelopable 0.02 2.25 0.00 0.05 300 153 Commercial Total 0.02 2.25 0.00 0.05 300 153 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.13 1.50 / 3.00 0.00 0.33 300 / 1000 883 Redevelopable 0.27 1.50 / 3.00 0.02 0.67 300 / 1000 1801 Mixed Use Total 0.40 1.50 / 3.00 0.02 1.00 300 / 1000 2,684 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 800 0 Redevelopable 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.02 800 27 Industrial Total 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.02 800 27 City TotalCommercial 0.02 2.25 0.69 0.05 300 153Mixed Use 0.40 1.50 / 3.00 0.91 1.00 300 / 1000 2,684Industrial0.04 0.48 0.26 0.02 800 27 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 0.46 0.48 / 3.00 1.86 1.07 300 / 1000 2,864 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 153 2,684 27Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Clyde Hill Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 121,0831,091 8 3 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 6 2.2 6 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 6 6 100%0% 175.6%0.06%0.02% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 2.8 2.2 2.2 High Total 2.80.00.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Clyde Hill has grown at 176% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 12 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Clyde Hill grew by roughly 1%. At this current rate, Clyde Hill is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Clyde Hill Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0 1 2 3 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 02468101214 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Clyde Hill - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.76 2.2 2Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%1.83 2.2 3 Subtotal 479.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.59 5Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 0.00 0.76 2Redev Total 0.00 1.83 3 Total 479.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.59 5 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 5Low Density Zones 0Medium Low Density Zones 0Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)5Remaining Target (2018-2035)3 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)1 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 5 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Clyde Hill - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 0 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 Not Applicable -0.97%Not Applicable Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Clyde Hill Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 0713634 -79 Not Applicable 0 0 0000 0 0 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, the total number of jobs in Clyde Hill grew by roughly -1%. There is no 2035 jobs growth target. 0.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low00 0.0 00 0 2035 Target -90-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-1002006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Clyde Hill - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 0Commercial0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 Lo Low Density 0Mixed Use 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium Low Density 0Industrial0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 0 Non-Res Land Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hi High Density 0 Capacity in Pipeline 28 Total Capacity (jobs)28Remaining Target (2018-2035)79 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)-51 Vacant 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 300 0 Redevelopable 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 300 0 Commercial Total 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 300 0 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mixed Use Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 0.00 1.20 0.69 0.00 300 0Mixed Use 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0 0Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 28 City Total 0.00 1.20 1.86 0.00 0 / 300 28 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Covington Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 1,7055,4707,034 1,564 141 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 135.8 11.7 13.1 9.2 101.8 493 4.8 493 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 7.0 0.0 0.7 1.2 5.1 356 69.9 356 Total 142.9 11.7 13.8 10.4 106.9 849 849 58%42% 221.7%2.12%0.12% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 5.1 106.9 4.8 69.9 7.9 High Total 0.0101.80.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Covington has grown at 222% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 1,705 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Covington grew by roughly 29%. At this current rate, Covington is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Covington Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 01020304050607080 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0% 58% 0%0% 42% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Covington - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 2.38 10.0% - 10.0%9.52 1.0 8Redev Subtotal 3.84 10.0% - 10.0%15.34 1.0 6 Subtotal 48.67 17.59 0.00 6.22 24.87 15Vacant Subtotal 22.46 1.0% - 5.0%89.85 4.1 / 5.5 424Redev Subtotal 57.45 1.0% - 5.0%229.79 4.1 / 5.5 717 Subtotal 500.85 101.31 0.00 79.91 319.64 1,141Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 30.0%0.00 12.0 / 18.0 0Redev Subtotal 1.51 0.0% - 30.0%8.55 12.0 / 18.0 65 Subtotal 18.19 8.13 0.00 1.51 8.55 65Vacant Subtotal 1.50 10.0% - 25.0%2.55 24.0 / 42.0 76Redev Subtotal 17.14 10.0% - 25.0%29.14 24.0 / 42.0 448 Subtotal 159.96 35.66 0.00 18.64 31.70 524Vacant Subtotal 0.76 20.0% - 20.0%1.29 64.0 63Redev Subtotal 6.95 20.0% - 20.0%11.81 64.0 567 Subtotal 53.27 1.88 0.00 7.71 13.11 630Vacant Total 27.11 103.22 571Redev Total 86.88 294.64 1,804 Total 780.95 164.57 0.00 113.99 397.86 2,375 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 15Low Density Zones 1,141Medium Low Density Zones 65Medium High Density Zones 524High Density Zones 630 Capacity in Pipeline 2,234 Total Capacity (Units)4,609Remaining Target (2018-2035)141 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)4,468 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 15 1,141 65 524 630 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Covington - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 0 58%42% 0 0.0 0.0 234.4%2.97%0.05% Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Covington Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 1,5313,5285,013 1,485 46 0 0 0000 0 0 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Covington has grown at 234% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 1,531 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Covington grew by roughly 42%. At this current rate, Covington is over the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low00 0.0 00 0 2035 Target 02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Covington - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 3 0%Commercial 42.1 9.7 3.2 1.6 27.6 5% - 10%24.5 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 213.2 37.5 17.6 8.8 149.3 0% - 25%111.4 M Medium Low Density 5,485 100%Industrial 11.3 0.4 1.1 0.5 9.2 45%4.3 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 266.6 47.7 21.9 10.9 186.1 140.3 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 2,933 Total Capacity (jobs)8,421Remaining Target (2018-2035)46 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)8,375 Vacant 0.79 0.23 / 0.69 0.00 0.41 400 1,019 Redevelopable 0.30 0.23 / 0.69 0.03 0.13 400 320 Commercial Total 1.09 0.23 / 0.69 0.03 0.54 400 1,339 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.30 0.26 / 0.80 0.00 0.23 400 / 450 582 Redevelopable 3.27 0.26 / 0.80 1.18 1.37 400 / 450 3429 Mixed Use Total 3.57 0.26 / 0.80 1.18 1.60 400 / 450 4,012 Industrial Vacant 0.22 0.50 0.00 0.11 800 138 Redevelopable 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 800 0 Industrial Total 0.22 0.50 0.00 0.11 800 138 City TotalCommercial 1.09 0.23 / 0.69 0.69 0.54 400 1,339Mixed Use 3.57 0.26 / 0.80 0.91 1.60 400 / 450 4,012Industrial0.22 0.50 0.26 0.11 800 138 Job Capacity in Pipeline 2,933 City Total 4.88 0.23 / 0.80 1.86 2.25 400 / 800 8,421 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 1,339 4,012 138Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Duvall Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 1,3222,1052,681 576 746 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 67 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 51.8 11.6 4.5 8.0 27.8 122 4.4 55 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 7.3 0.0 0.8 1.3 5.2 71 13.7 71 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 59.1 11.6 5.3 9.2 33.0 193 193 100%0% 105.3%2.04%1.46% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 33.0 4.4 13.7 5.9 High Total 20.47.45.20.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Duvall has grown at 105% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 1,322 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Duvall grew by roughly 27%. At this current rate, Duvall is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.5% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Duvall Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0 5 10 15 20 25 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 02004006008001,0001,2001,400 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 35%28%37% 0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Duvall - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 1.45 5.0% - 5.0%4.05 3.3 13Redev Subtotal 9.91 5.0% - 5.0%27.73 3.3 56 Subtotal 93.22 38.46 0.00 11.35 31.79 70Vacant Subtotal 0.68 5.0% - 10.0%1.89 4.5 / 8.0 14Redev Subtotal 20.63 5.0% - 10.0%54.30 4.5 / 8.0 223 Subtotal 108.45 10.88 0.00 21.32 56.18 237Vacant Subtotal 1.99 20.0% - 50.0%15.54 12.0 / 21.0 284Redev Subtotal 2.48 20.0% - 50.0%7.61 12.0 / 21.0 106 Subtotal 58.97 0.00 0.00 4.47 23.15 389Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 4.12 21.48 311Redev Total 33.01 89.64 385 Total 260.64 49.34 0.00 37.14 111.12 696 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 70Low Density Zones 237Medium Low Density Zones 389Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 647 Total Capacity (Units)1,343Remaining Target (2018-2035)746 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)597 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 70 237389 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Duvall - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 101,294 High 3.0 & up FAR 2.6 0 Total Total 101,294 100%0% 101,294 2.6 0.0 74.7%1.91%2.23% Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Duvall Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 9741,1821,483 301 673 39,075 101,294 2.6 0039,07502.6 0 39,075 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Duvall has grown at 75% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 974 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Duvall grew by roughly 25%. At this current rate, Duvall is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 2.2% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 2.6 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low039,075 0.0 00 0 2035 Target 02004006008001,0001,200 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0% 100% 0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Duvall - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 206 95%Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 Lo Low Density 12 5%Mixed Use 24.1 0.0 1.2 0.2 22.7 25% - 50%14.4 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 15%0.9 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 25.3 0.0 1.3 0.3 23.8 15.4 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 464 Total Capacity (jobs)681Remaining Target (2018-2035)673 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)8 Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Commercial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.60 0.20 0.00 0.12 500 / 600 205 Redevelopable 0.03 0.20 0.02 0.00 500 / 600 1 Mixed Use Total 0.63 0.20 0.02 0.12 500 / 600 206 Industrial Vacant 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.02 1,400 12 Redevelopable 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 1,400 0 Industrial Total 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.02 1,400 12 City TotalCommercial 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0 0Mixed Use 0.63 0.20 0.91 0.12 500 / 600 206Industrial0.04 0.40 0.26 0.02 1,400 12 Job Capacity in Pipeline 464 City Total 0.67 0.40 1.86 0.14 0 / 1400 681 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 206 12Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Enumclaw Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 1,6535,0485,326 278 1,375 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 104 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 46.1 0.0 1.7 3.9 40.6 157 3.9 226 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 52 14.4 53 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 46.0 4.1 8.9 10.8 22.2 174 7.8 0 Total 95.7 4.1 10.5 14.6 66.4 383 383 86%14% 40.7%0.45%1.36% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 66.4 3.9 14.4 7.8 5.8 High Total 32.829.93.70.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Enumclaw has grown at 41% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 1,653 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Enumclaw grew by roughly 6%. At this current rate, Enumclaw is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.4% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Enumclaw Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 024681012141618 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 27% 59% 14%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Enumclaw - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 11.59 5.0% - 40.0%63.44 3.2 112Redev Subtotal 46.42 5.0% - 40.0%207.07 3.2 466 Subtotal 816.36 28.62 215.28 58.01 270.51 577Vacant Subtotal 10.70 5.0% - 50.0%47.38 4.4 / 6.8 288Redev Subtotal 1.01 5.0% - 50.0%4.31 4.4 / 6.8 22 Subtotal 71.84 3.42 0.00 11.71 51.69 309Vacant Subtotal 2.86 50.0% - 50.0%11.44 14.4 164Redev Subtotal 0.70 50.0% - 50.0%2.82 14.4 4 Subtotal 37.44 1.78 0.00 3.57 14.26 169Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 25.15 122.27 564Redev Total 48.13 214.19 492 Total 925.64 33.83 215.28 73.28 336.45 1,056 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 577Low Density Zones 309Medium Low Density Zones 169Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 252 Total Capacity (Units)1,308Remaining Target (2018-2035)1,375 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)-67 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 577 309 169 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Enumclaw - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.1 162,743 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR 0.1 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.2 0 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.2 0 Total Total 162,743 86%14% 124,555 0.0 0.0 27.2%0.16%0.82% Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 14,549135,907 1,042,3860.1 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Enumclaw Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 8534,9605,056 96 757 1,042,386 162,743 0.2 00000.1 0.2 0.2 0 1,042,386 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Enumclaw has grown at 27% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 853 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Enumclaw grew by roughly 2%. At this current rate, Enumclaw is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.8% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.2 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 1,623 Low98,488785,991 0.0 022,000 22,016 2035 Target 0100200300400500600700800900 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Enumclaw - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 981 92%Commercial 86.7 4.1 4.1 4.1 74.3 15% - 20%60.6 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 10.7 1.1 0.5 0.5 8.7 40% - 50%4.5 M Medium Low Density 90 8%Industrial 74.9 11.5 3.2 3.2 57.0 36%34.2 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 172.3 16.7 7.8 7.8 140.0 99.2 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 81 Total Capacity (jobs)1,152Remaining Target (2018-2035)757 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)395 Vacant 0.97 0.07 / 0.22 0.00 0.15 660 230 Redevelopable 1.67 0.07 / 0.22 0.02 0.28 660 427 Commercial Total 2.64 0.07 / 0.22 0.02 0.43 660 657 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.06 0.50 0.00 0.03 0 / 660 41 Redevelopable 0.14 0.50 0.01 0.04 0 / 660 64 Mixed Use Total 0.19 0.50 0.01 0.07 0 / 660 106 Industrial Vacant 1.15 0.25 0.00 0.29 1,200 239 Redevelopable 0.34 0.25 0.00 0.08 1,200 69 Industrial Total 1.49 0.25 0.00 0.37 1,200 308 City TotalCommercial 2.64 0.07 / 0.22 0.69 0.43 660 657Mixed Use 0.19 0.50 0.91 0.07 0 / 660 106Industrial1.49 0.25 0.26 0.37 1,200 308 Job Capacity in Pipeline 81 City Total 4.32 0.50 1.86 0.87 0 / 1200 1,152 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 657106 308 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Town of Hunts Point Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 1183187 4 0 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3 1.0 3 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3 3 100%0% 887.9%0.19%Met Target % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 3.2 1.0 1.0 High Total 3.20.00.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Hunts Point has grown at 888% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 1 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Hunts Point grew by roughly 2%. Hunts Point has achieved its 2035 housing growth target. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Hunts Point Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0 1 2 3 4 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 012345 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Hunts Point - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%2.68 1.0 / 3.6 5Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 1.0 / 3.6 0 Subtotal 17.08 6.54 0.40 0.00 2.68 5Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 0.00 2.68 5Redev Total 0.00 0.00 0 Total 17.08 6.54 0.40 0.00 2.68 5 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 5Low Density Zones 0Medium Low Density Zones 0Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)5Remaining Target (2018-2035)0 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)5 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 5 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Hunts Point - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 0 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 Not Applicable 1.91%Not Applicable Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Hunts Point Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 05164 13 Not Applicable 0 0 0000 0 0 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, the total number of jobs in Hunts Point grew by roughly 2%. There is no 2035 jobs growth target. 0.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low00 0.0 00 0 2035 Target02468101214 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Hunts Point - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity (no job capacity in Hunts Point) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Maple Valley Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 2,0886,7658,826 2,061 27 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 126.9 30.6 0.1 0.2 96.0 557 5.8 557 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 255 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 30.7 0.0 1.1 4.4 25.2 381 15.1 126 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 157.7 30.6 1.3 4.7 121.2 938 938 87%13% 238.6%2.24%0.02% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 121.2 5.8 15.1 7.7 High Total 0.096.020.15.1 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Maple Valley has grown at 239% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 2,088 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Maple Valley grew by roughly 30%. At this current rate, Maple Valley is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Maple Valley Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0510152025303540 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 05001,0001,5002,0002,500 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0% 59% 27%13%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Maple Valley - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.02 12.0% - 12.0%0.07 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.08 12.0% - 12.0%0.36 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.43 0Vacant Subtotal 9.74 5.0% - 7.0%29.94 5.4 / 7.4 186Redev Subtotal 33.79 5.0% - 7.0%103.96 5.4 / 7.4 459 Subtotal 202.24 12.99 0.00 43.53 133.90 645Vacant Subtotal 0.00 12.0% - 20.0%0.00 12.0 / 18.0 0Redev Subtotal 11.78 12.0% - 20.0%42.19 12.0 / 18.0 352 Subtotal 62.87 0.00 0.00 11.78 42.19 352Vacant Subtotal 3.51 12.0% - 20.0%15.80 24.0 / 24.6 388Redev Subtotal 6.12 12.0% - 20.0%27.55 24.0 / 24.6 676 Subtotal 60.20 0.00 0.00 9.63 43.35 1,064Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 13.26 45.81 574Redev Total 51.78 174.07 1,487 Total 325.92 12.99 0.00 65.04 219.87 2,061 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 0Low Density Zones 645Medium Low Density Zones 352Medium High Density Zones 1,064High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 160 Total Capacity (Units)2,221Remaining Target (2018-2035)27 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)2,195 Very Low Density High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones 645 352 1,064 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Maple Valley - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.2 689,893 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.1 0 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.1 0 Total Total 689,893 87%13% 275,858 0.0 0.0 93.0%2.02%1.74% Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 409,2092,140,550 4,337,8280.2 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Maple Valley Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 2,3203,2974,190 893 1,427 4,337,828 689,893 0.2 00000.1 0.1 0 4,337,828 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Maple Valley has grown at 93% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 2,320 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Maple Valley grew by roughly 27%. At this current rate, Maple Valley is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.7% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.2 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low63,5132,133,765 0.0 00 4,826 2035 Target 05001,0001,5002,0002,500 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Maple Valley - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 1,256 100%Commercial 105.2 10.8 6.6 8.5 79.3 12% - 16%66.6 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 12%0.4 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 105.8 10.8 6.7 8.6 79.8 67.0 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 528 Total Capacity (jobs)1,784Remaining Target (2018-2035)1,427 Commercial*Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)357 Vacant 2.54 0.03 / 0.29 0.00 0.55 500 1,103 Redevelopable 2.36 0.03 / 0.29 0.12 0.08 500 151 Commercial Total 4.89 0.03 / 0.29 0.12 0.63 500 1,254 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 700 0 Redevelopable 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 700 2 Mixed Use Total 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 700 2 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 4.89 0.03 / 0.29 0.69 0.63 500 1,254Mixed Use 0.02 0.08 0.91 0.00 700 2Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 528 City Total 4.91 0.29 1.86 0.63 0 / 700 1,784*Certain zones grouped as commercial allow for industrial use. Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 1,254 2 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Medina Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 221,1621,234 72 0 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 55.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 50.9 89 1.7 46 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 43 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 55.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 50.9 89 89 100%0% 794.6%0.51%Met Target % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 50.9 1.7 1.7 High Total 40.810.00.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Medina has grown at 795% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 22 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Medina grew by roughly 6%. Medina has achieved its 2035 housing growth target. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Medina Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0 1 2 3 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0 20 40 60 80 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 52%48% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Medina - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.50 10.0% - 10.0%4.00 3.0 7Redev Subtotal 0.50 10.0% - 10.0%4.00 3.0 1 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 8.00 8Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 0.50 4.00 7Redev Total 0.50 4.00 1 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 8.00 8 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 8Low Density Zones 0Medium Low Density Zones 0Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)8Remaining Target (2018-2035)0 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)8 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 8 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Medina - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 0 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 Not Applicable 2.00%Not Applicable Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Medina Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 0409519 110 Not Applicable 0 0 0000 0 0 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, the total number of jobs in Medina grew by roughly 2%. There is no 2035 jobs growth target. 0.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low00 0.0 00 0 2035 Target020406080100120 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Medina - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity (no job capacity in Medina) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Milton Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 58337608 271 0 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 1 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 1 0.1 0 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 1 1 100%0% 1128.6%5.04%Met Target % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 14.0 0.1 0.1 High Total 14.00.00.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Milton has grown at 1129% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 58 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Milton grew by roughly 80%. Milton has achieved its 2035 housing growth target. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Milton Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0123456 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 050100150200250300 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Milton - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 45.36 45.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.07 0.0% - 0.0%0.44 5.4 2Redev Subtotal 1.08 0.0% - 0.0%7.22 5.4 37 Subtotal 16.88 8.07 0.00 1.14 7.66 39Vacant Subtotal 0.10 0.0% - 0.0%0.70 12.0 8Redev Subtotal 0.25 0.0% - 0.0%1.65 12.0 18 Subtotal 3.84 1.09 0.00 0.35 2.35 26Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 0.17 1.13 11Redev Total 1.33 8.87 55 Total 66.09 54.52 0.00 1.50 10.01 66 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 0Low Density Zones 39Medium Low Density Zones 26Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)66Remaining Target (2018-2035)0 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)66 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 39 26Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Milton - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 0 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 127.6%15.49%3.28% Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Milton Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 18622120 98 88 0 0 0000 0 0 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Milton has grown at 128% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 186 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Milton grew by roughly 445%. At this current rate, Milton is over the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 3.3% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low00 0.0 00 0 2035 Target 0 50 100 150 200 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Milton - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 63 100%Commercial 7.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.2 50%2.6 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 7.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.2 2.6 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 1,150 Total Capacity (jobs)1,213Remaining Target (2018-2035)88 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)1,125 Vacant 0.10 0.25 0.00 0.02 450 53 Redevelopable 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 450 10 Commercial Total 0.11 0.25 0.00 0.03 450 63 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mixed Use Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 0.11 0.25 0.69 0.03 450 63Mixed Use 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0 0Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 1,150 City Total 0.11 0.25 1.86 0.03 0 / 450 1,213 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 63 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Normandy Park Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 1392,7942,877 83 56 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 6.5 4.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 7 3.7 2 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2 5.0 7 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 20 High 48 & up du/acre 1.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 20 29.5 0 Total 8.5 4.6 1.0 0.0 3.0 29 29 100%0% 143.8%0.24%0.11% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 3.0 3.7 5.0 29.5 9.7 High Total 1.01.30.00.7 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Normandy Park has grown at 144% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 139 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Normandy Park grew by roughly 3%. At this current rate, Normandy Park is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Normandy Park Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 020406080100120140 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 0 50 100 150 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 7% 24% 0% 69% 0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Normandy Park - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 9.99 41.0% - 41.0%15.09 2.0 / 3.3 38Redev Subtotal 6.96 41.0% - 41.0%10.51 2.0 / 3.3 0 Subtotal 132.96 19.34 40.12 16.95 25.61 38Vacant Subtotal 1.38 41.0% - 41.0%2.09 5.0 / 8.0 10Redev Subtotal 2.21 41.0% - 41.0%3.35 5.0 / 8.0 17 Subtotal 15.78 0.00 0.48 3.60 5.43 28Vacant Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%0.00 18.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.17 10.0% - 10.0%0.48 18.0 9 Subtotal 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.48 9Vacant Subtotal 0.00 10.0% - 10.0%0.01 24.0 / 29.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.08 10.0% - 10.0%1.57 24.0 / 29.0 44 Subtotal 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.09 1.58 45Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 11.37 17.19 49Redev Total 9.43 15.91 70 Total 151.29 19.34 40.60 20.80 33.10 119 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 38Low Density Zones 28Medium Low Density Zones 9Medium High Density Zones 45High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 16 Total Capacity (Units)135Remaining Target (2018-2035)56 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)79 Very Low Density High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones 38 289 45Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Normandy Park - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 3,873 High 3.0 & up FAR 1.2 0 Total Total 3,873 100%0% 3,873 1.2 0.0 516.0%1.59%Met Target Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Normandy Park Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 75773934 161 0 3,101 3,873 1.2 003,10101.2 0 3,101 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Normandy Park has grown at 516% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 75 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Normandy Park grew by roughly 21%. Normandy Park has achieved its 2035 jobs growth target. 1.2 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR)Achieved Density Level 0 Low03,101 0.0 00 0 2035 Target 020406080100120140160180 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0% 100% 0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Normandy Park - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 35 100%Commercial 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 11%0.4 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.7 10%1.6 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.2 2.0 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (jobs)35Remaining Target (2018-2035)0 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)35 Vacant 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 250 19 Redevelopable 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 250 0 Commercial Total 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 250 19 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 250 0 Redevelopable 0.07 0.15 0.01 0.00 250 15 Mixed Use Total 0.07 0.15 0.01 0.00 250 15 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 0.02 0.28 0.69 0.00 250 19Mixed Use 0.07 0.15 0.91 0.00 250 15Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 0.09 0.28 1.86 0.01 0 / 250 35 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 19 15 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of North Bend Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 7713,3523,712 361 411 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 4 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 159.3 26.0 23.7 32.9 76.7 592 7.7 592 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 18.5 0.0 3.1 3.5 11.9 194 16.3 194 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 85 20.8 81 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 181.9 26.0 26.8 36.4 92.7 871 871 91%9% 113.0%0.86%0.62% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 92.7 7.7 16.3 20.8 9.4 High Total 1.576.711.92.6 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, North Bend has grown at 113% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 771 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in North Bend grew by roughly 11%. At this current rate, North Bend is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.6% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level North Bend Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 05101520253035404550 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 02004006008001,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0.5% 68% 22%9%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 North Bend - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 11.01 10.0% - 30.0%25.07 2.0 50Redev Subtotal 12.23 10.0% - 30.0%33.94 2.0 12 Subtotal 69.64 5.56 0.00 23.24 59.01 62Vacant Subtotal 1.81 10.0% - 10.0%5.58 4.0 22Redev Subtotal 19.25 10.0% - 10.0%59.70 4.0 166 Subtotal 388.92 76.23 175.49 21.06 65.28 188Vacant Subtotal 3.37 4.0% - 25.0%11.63 15.0 / 21.0 186Redev Subtotal 4.68 4.0% - 25.0%15.77 15.0 / 16.0 228 Subtotal 47.27 12.28 0.00 8.04 27.40 414Vacant Subtotal 0.70 25.0% - 25.0%2.60 32.0 83Redev Subtotal 1.30 25.0% - 25.0%4.78 32.0 144 Subtotal 128.64 53.75 17.58 2.00 7.38 227Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 16.89 44.88 342Redev Total 37.45 114.20 550 Total 634.47 147.82 193.07 54.34 159.07 891 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 62Low Density Zones 188Medium Low Density Zones 414Medium High Density Zones 227High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 1,207 Total Capacity (Units)2,098Remaining Target (2018-2035)411 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)1,687 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 62 188 414 227 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 North Bend - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 511,711 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR 0.3 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.1 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 511,711 91%9% 0 0.0 0.0 117.1%1.66%1.03% Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 2,756,296Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) North Bend Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 1,2182,7073,297 590 628 2,756,296 511,711 0.2 00000.3 0.1 0 2,756,296 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, North Bend has grown at 117% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 1,218 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in North Bend grew by roughly 22%. At this current rate, North Bend is over the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.2 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 413,860 Low1,122,2300 0.0 01,634,066 97,851 2035 Target 02004006008001,0001,2001,400 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 North Bend - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 1,234 23%Commercial 129.1 89.5 3.2 3.2 33.3 20%25.4 Lo Low Density 928 18%Mixed Use 59.5 0.0 4.8 4.8 50.0 25%35.1 M Medium Low Density 2,507 47%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 636 12% Non-Res Land Total 188.7 89.5 7.9 16.0 167.9 60.5 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 453 Total Capacity (jobs)5,759Remaining Target (2018-2035)628 Commercial*Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)5,131 Vacant 2.81 0.30 / 0.75 0.00 0.95 350 / 800 1,815 Redevelopable 0.89 0.30 / 0.75 0.03 0.33 350 / 800 789 Commercial Total 3.69 0.30 / 0.75 0.03 1.28 350 / 800 2,604 Mixed-Use Vacant 1.02 0.75 / 1.50 0.01 0.79 300 / 500 1,682 Redevelopable 0.51 0.75 / 1.50 0.02 0.43 300 / 500 1019 Mixed Use Total 1.53 0.75 / 1.50 0.03 1.22 300 / 500 2,701 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 3.69 0.30 / 0.75 0.69 1.28 350 / 800 2,604Mixed Use 1.53 0.75 / 1.50 0.91 1.22 300 / 500 2,701Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 453 City Total 5.22 1.50 1.86 2.51 0 / 800 5,759*Certain zones grouped as commercial allow for industrial use. Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 2,6042,701 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Pacific Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 3312,1462,462 316 15 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 2 1.1 2 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 20.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 19.4 117 6.0 117 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 23.9 2.6 0.0 0.0 21.3 119 119 100%0% 230.9%1.15%0.04% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 21.3 1.1 6.0 5.6 High Total 1.919.40.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Pacific has grown at 231% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 331 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Pacific grew by roughly 15%. At this current rate, Pacific is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Pacific Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 01234567 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 050100150200250300350 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 2% 98% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Pacific - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 4.19 30.0% - 50.0%10.16 1.1 / 4.0 13Redev Subtotal 3.97 30.0% - 50.0%9.85 1.1 / 4.0 5 Subtotal 68.75 27.94 0.00 8.16 20.01 18Vacant Subtotal 1.70 28.0% - 28.0%4.43 5.9 26Redev Subtotal 11.64 28.0% - 28.0%30.27 5.9 93 Subtotal 86.40 19.68 0.00 13.35 34.70 119Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 5.90 14.59 40Redev Total 15.61 40.12 98 Total 155.15 47.62 0.00 21.51 54.71 137 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 18Low Density Zones 119Medium Low Density Zones 0Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)137Remaining Target (2018-2035)15 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)123 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 18 119 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Pacific - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 756 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 756 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 -342.9%-4.46%4.88% Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 22,128Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Pacific Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 4291,443834 -609 429 22,128 756 0.0 00000.0 0 22,128 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006- 2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Pacific has grown at -343% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 429 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Pacific grew by roughly -42%. At this current rate, Pacific is under the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 4.9% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low22,1280 0.0 00 756 2035 Target -800-600-400-2000200400600 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Pacific - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 77 100%Commercial 14.1 11.4 0.3 0.3 2.2 50%0.8 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 3.8 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 50%0.2 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 27.7 8.8 1.9 1.9 15.1 50%5.7 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 45.6 23.2 2.2 2.2 17.9 6.7 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (jobs)77Remaining Target (2018-2035)1,038 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)-961 Vacant 0.03 0.25 0.00 0.01 450 16 Redevelopable 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.00 450 3 Commercial Total 0.04 0.25 0.00 0.01 450 20 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.00 450 4 Redevelopable 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 450 2 Mixed Use Total 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.00 450 7 Industrial Vacant 0.08 0.26 0.00 0.02 1,200 18 Redevelopable 0.17 0.26 0.00 0.04 1,200 33 Industrial Total 0.25 0.26 0.00 0.06 1,200 51 City TotalCommercial 0.04 0.25 0.69 0.01 450 20Mixed Use 0.01 0.30 0.91 0.00 450 7Industrial0.25 0.26 0.26 0.06 1,200 51 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 0.29 0.25 / 0.30 1.86 0.07 450 / 1200 77 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 20 751 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Sammamish Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends Note: Sammamish includes right-of-way or public purpose areas in the gross site area to calculate the net buildable area. While this report shows achieved density varying from planned density, if you adjust the approach to use Sammamish's formula for net buildable area, the densities are more comparable. 4,84918,19621,780 3,585 1,264 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 25.1 6.5 3.4 0.0 15.1 21 1.4 21 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 338.5 14.1 162.3 16.9 145.2 1,498 10.3 917 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 10.2 0.6 2.3 0.2 7.2 364 50.7 631 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 92 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 222 Total 373.8 21.2 167.9 17.1 167.5 1,883 1,883 87%13% 178.7%1.51%0.33% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 2.1 167.5 1.4 10.3 50.7 11.2 High Total 15.1108.040.12.2 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Sammamish has grown at 179% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 4,849 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Sammamish grew by roughly 20%. At this current rate, Sammamish is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.3% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Sammamish Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0102030405060 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 1% 49%34% 5%12%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Sammamish - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 4.26 10.0% - 10.0%7.01 1.0 7Redev Subtotal 4.88 10.0% - 10.0%8.04 1.0 5 Subtotal 2,128.94 852.74 166.21 9.14 15.05 12Vacant Subtotal 16.27 10.0% - 50.0%26.79 4.0 / 8.0 122Redev Subtotal 60.53 10.0% - 50.0%99.70 4.0 / 8.0 268 Subtotal 7,729.35 2,223.54 282.52 76.80 126.49 389Vacant Subtotal 0.00 50.0% - 50.0%0.00 12.0 / 16.0 0Redev Subtotal 38.38 50.0% - 50.0%18.06 12.0 / 18.0 81 Subtotal 339.26 77.64 63.83 38.38 18.06 81Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 20.52 33.80 129Redev Total 103.79 125.80 354 Total 10,197.55 3,153.91 512.57 124.32 159.60 483 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 12Low Density Zones 389Medium Low Density Zones 81Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 661 Total Capacity (Units)1,144Remaining Target (2018-2035)1,264 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)-120 Very Low Density High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones 12 389 81 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Sammamish - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Note: Between 2012-2018, three mixed-use projects were completed in Town Center, some of which included parcels in multiple zones. Densities for all of these projects were guided by a Unified Zone Development Plan which established the level and intensity of new commercial and residential development within the city’s Town Center. Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.4 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 160,700 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 160,700 87%13% 0 0.0 0.0 230.0%2.34%0.07% Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 160,700377,774 00.4 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Sammamish Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 2,0886,1998,186 1,987 101 377,774 160,700 0.4 377,774000 0 377,774 Medium Low 0.4 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Sammamish has grown at 230% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 2,088 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Sammamish grew by roughly 32%. At this current rate, Sammamish is over the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.4 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low00 0.0 00 0 2035 Target 05001,0001,5002,0002,500 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0% 100% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Sammamish - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 0 0%Commercial 18.5 13.7 0.9 0.8 3.2 50%0.8 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 12.7 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 50%0.0 M Medium Low Density 1 100%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 31.2 26.4 0.9 0.8 3.2 0.8 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 304 Total Capacity (jobs)305Remaining Target (2018-2035)101 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)204 Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.03 0.50 0.03 0.00 370 1 Commercial Total 0.03 0.50 0.03 0.00 370 1 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.00 0.11 / 0.23 0.00 0.00 0 / 370 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.18 / 0.23 0.00 0.00 0 / 370 0 Mixed Use Total 0.00 0.11 / 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 / 370 0 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 City TotalCommercial 0.03 0.50 0.69 0.00 370 1Mixed Use 0.00 0.11 / 8.00 0.91 0.00 0 / 370 0Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 304 City Total 0.03 8.00 1.86 0.00 0 / 370 305 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 1 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Town of Skykomish Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 12166173 7 5 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 2 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2 1.6 0 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2 2 100%0% 144.1%0.34%0.16% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 1.2 1.6 1.6 High Total 1.20.00.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Skykomish has grown at 144% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 12 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Skykomish grew by roughly 4%. At this current rate, Skykomish is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 0.2% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Skykomish Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0123456789 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 02468101214 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Skykomish - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 1.25 41.0% - 41.0%6.14 4.0 / 8.0 29Redev Subtotal 0.00 41.0% - 41.0%0.00 4.0 / 8.0 0 Subtotal 118.13 105.41 0.19 1.25 6.14 29Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 36.0% - 40.0%0.00 24.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 36.0% - 40.0%0.00 24.0 0 Subtotal 5.90 5.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 1.25 6.14 29Redev Total 0.00 0.00 0 Total 124.03 111.31 0.19 1.25 6.14 29 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 0Low Density Zones 29Medium Low Density Zones 0Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)29Remaining Target (2018-2035)5 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)25 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 29 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Skykomish - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 2,450 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR 0.5 0 Total Total 2,450 100%0% 2,450 0.0 0.0 Not Applicable 1.44%Not Applicable Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Skykomish Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 06476 12 Not Applicable 5,227 2,450 0.5 5,2270000.5 0 5,227 Medium Low 0.5 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, the total number of jobs in Skykomish grew by roughly 1.4%. There is no 2035 jobs growth target. 0.5 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low05,227 0.0 00 0 2035 Target02468101214 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0% 100% 0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Skykomish - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity (no job capacity in Skykomish) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 City of Snoqualmie Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 1,8732,8644,951 2,087 0 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4 4.1 4 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 52.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.0 640 12.3 640 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 52.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.9 644 644 100%0% 269.2%4.67%Met Target % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 52.9 4.1 12.3 12.2 High Total 0.01.052.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Snoqualmie has grown at 269% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 1,873 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Snoqualmie grew by roughly 73%. Snoqualmie has achieved its 2035 housing growth target. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Snoqualmie Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 02468101214 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 05001,0001,5002,0002,500 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%1% 99% 0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Snoqualmie - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 4.45 75.0% - 75.0%6.67 0.2 1Redev Subtotal 0.03 75.0% - 75.0%0.04 0.2 0 Subtotal 79.30 34.58 0.00 4.47 6.71 1Vacant Subtotal 0.06 35.0% - 35.0%0.31 4.2 1Redev Subtotal 1.17 35.0% - 35.0%6.41 4.2 26 Subtotal 12.63 11.01 0.00 1.22 6.72 27Vacant Subtotal 0.00 1.0% - 1.0%0.00 12.0 / 12.3 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 1.0% - 1.0%0.00 12.0 / 12.3 0 Subtotal 33.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 1.0% - 1.0%0.00 25.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 1.0% - 1.0%0.00 25.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.20 5.0% - 5.0%1.07 130.0 139Redev Subtotal 0.00 5.0% - 5.0%0.00 130.0 0 Subtotal 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.20 1.07 139Vacant Total 4.70 8.05 142Redev Total 1.19 6.45 26 Total 126.27 68.59 0.00 5.90 14.50 168 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 1Low Density Zones 27Medium Low Density Zones 0Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 139 Capacity in Pipeline 204 Total Capacity (Units)372Remaining Target (2018-2035)0 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)372 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 1 27 139 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Snoqualmie - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.3 698,916 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 580,644 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.1 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 1,279,560 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 731.0%9.12%Met Target Very Low 0.2 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 1,239,8613,819,208 3,396,2410.3 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Snoqualmie Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 1,2182,0045,688 3,684 0 4,555,372 1,279,560 0.3 01,159,131000.1 0 4,555,372 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Snoqualmie has grown at 731% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 1,218 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Snoqualmie grew by roughly 184%. Snoqualmie has achieved its 2035 jobs growth target. 0.3 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low736,1640 0.5 00 39,699 2035 Target 05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 55% 0% 45% 0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Snoqualmie - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 3,633 89%Commercial 42.9 18.7 1.2 2.4 20.6 15% - 45%11.1 Lo Low Density 446 11%Mixed Use 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.1 1% - 5%1.1 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%0.0 M Medium High Density 0 0% Non-Res Land Total 44.2 18.7 1.3 3.2 26.9 12.2 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (jobs)4,079Remaining Target (2018-2035)0 Commercial*Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)4,079 Vacant 0.45 0.25 / 0.40 0.00 0.16 300 / 490 3,978 Redevelopable 0.16 0.25 / 0.40 0.01 0.03 300 / 490 70 Commercial Total 0.60 0.25 / 0.40 0.01 0.20 300 / 490 4,048 Mixed-Use Vacant 0.05 0.25 0.00 0.01 300 / 400 31 Redevelopable 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 300 / 400 0 Mixed Use Total 0.05 0.25 0.00 0.01 300 / 400 31 Industrial Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800 0 Redevelopable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800 0 Industrial Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800 0 City TotalCommercial 0.60 0.25 / 0.40 0.69 0.20 300 / 490 4,048Mixed Use 0.05 0.25 0.91 0.01 300 / 400 31Industrial0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 800 0 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 0.65 0.40 1.86 0.21 300 / 800 4,079*Certain zones grouped as commercial allow for industrial use. Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 4,048 31 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Town of Yarrow Point Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 16401426 25 0 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2 2.0 2 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 High 48 & up du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 0 Total 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2 2 100%0% 374.6%0.51%Met Target % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 High Total 1.00.00.00.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Yarrow Point has grown at 375% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 16 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Yarrow Point grew by roughly 6%. Yarrow Point has achieved its 2035 housing growth target. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Yarrow Point Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0 1 2 3 4 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 051015202530 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 100% 0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Yarrow Point - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%1.93 2.0 / 3.6 5Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%8.67 2.0 / 3.6 12 Subtotal 26.79 9.44 0.39 0.00 10.60 17Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0Redev Subtotal 0.00 0.0% - 0.0%0.00 0.0 0 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Vacant Total 0.00 1.93 5Redev Total 0.00 8.67 12 Total 26.79 9.44 0.39 0.00 10.60 17 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 17Low Density Zones 0Medium Low Density Zones 0Medium High Density Zones 0High Density Zones 0 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)17Remaining Target (2018-2035)0 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)17 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 17 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Yarrow Point - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR -1.0 0 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 0 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR -1.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 0 100%0% 0 0.0 0.0 Not Applicable -4.85%Not Applicable Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 00 0Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Yarrow Point Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 010960 -49 Not Applicable 0 0 0000 0 0 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, the total number of jobs in Yarrow Point grew by roughly -5%. There is no 2035 jobs growth target. 0.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low00 0.0 00 0 2035 Target -60-50-40-30-20-1002006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 0%0%0%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non -Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Yarrow Point - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity (no job capacity in Yarrow Point) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Urban Unincorporated Areas DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Urban Unincorporated King County Housing Growth and Residential Development Trends 12,83735,91041,408 5,498 7,339 Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) Public Purpose (acres) ROWs (acres) Net Area (acres) Total Units Total Units Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 110.3 0.7 0.0 1.7 107.9 526 4.9 31 Low 4 - 10 du/acre 169.4 1.6 0.0 6.0 161.9 732 4.5 1,520 Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 25.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 24.0 208 8.7 0 Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 179 27.0 479 High 48 & up du/acre 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 384 21.8 0 Total 341.2 2.3 0.0 9.6 318.0 2,029 2,030 73%27% 103.5%1.19%0.96% % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Housing Growth Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Needed to Meet 2035 Target Estimated Housing Growth Remaining 2035 Target 0.0 318.4 4.9 4.5 8.7 27.0 21.8 6.4 High Total 36.7268.20.013.5 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High Achieved Density (DU/acre)Net Area (acres) Residential Achieved Densities Since 2006, Unincorporated King County has grown at 104% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 12,837 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Unincorporated King County grew by roughly 15%. At this current rate, Unincorporated King County is over the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1% to reach its remaining target by 2035. Zoned Density (du/acre) Achieved Density Level Unincorporated King County Housing Growth Target: 2006-20352006 Estimated Housing Units2018 Estimated Housing Units 0102030405060 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level Achieved Density by Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 Zoned DensityRange ofZones withProducedUnits AverageAchievedDensity 2035 Target 02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 2% 75% 0% 24% 0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level Permitted Units by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Urban Unincorporated - Residential Land Supply and Capacity Assumed Density Level Vacant/ Redevelopable Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area ROW & Public Purpose Discount Market Factor (low/high) Net Available Acres Assumed Densities (low/high - units/acre) Net Capacity (units)Vacant Subtotal 36.97 0.0% - 20.0%91.43 0.1 / 0.7 61Redev Subtotal 6.63 0.0% - 20.0%16.95 0.1 / 0.7 7 Subtotal 1,524.99 324.83 221.63 43.61 108.38 68Vacant Subtotal 214.72 0.0% - 50.0%740.60 4.3 / 9.6 3,813Redev Subtotal 43.53 0.0% - 50.0%180.31 4.3 / 9.6 843 Subtotal 1,062.74 499.00 139.28 258.25 920.91 4,656Vacant Subtotal 2.47 7.0% - 21.0%18.34 23.5 431Redev Subtotal 3.06 7.0% - 21.0%22.93 23.5 534 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.53 41.27 964Vacant Subtotal 2.42 0.0% - 50.0%13.84 36.0 / 42.1 580Redev Subtotal 2.79 0.0% - 50.0%19.52 36.0 / 42.1 819 Subtotal 64.78 7.20 0.19 5.21 33.36 1,400Vacant Subtotal 0.68 10.0% - 21.0%5.35 49.0 262Redev Subtotal 0.10 10.0% - 21.0%0.77 49.0 36 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 6.12 298Vacant Total 257.26 869.57 5,147Redev Total 56.11 240.48 2,239 Total 2,652.51 831.02 361.11 313.38 1,110.05 7,386 Capacity (units)Very Low Density Zones 68Low Density Zones 4,656Medium Low Density Zones 964Medium High Density Zones 1,400High Density Zones 298 Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (Units)7,386Remaining Target (2018-2035)17,586 Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)-10,200 High Density Medium High Density Medium Low Density Low Density All Zones Very Low Density 68 4,656964 1,400 298 Very Low Density Low Density Medium Low DensityMedium High DensityHigh Density Housing Capacity by Density Level (units) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Urban Unincorporated - Employment Growth and Commercial/Industrial Development Trends Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Very Low 0 - 0.35 FAR 0.0 218,390 Low 0.35 - 0.5 FAR -1.0 0 Medium Low 0.5 - 1.0 FAR -1.0 28,975 Medium High 1.0 - 3.0 FAR 0.0 0 High 3.0 & up FAR -1.0 0 Total Total 247,365 73%27% 0 0.0 0.0 108.8%2.06%1.39% Very Low 0.0 Non-Residential Achieved Densities 109,9747,294,688 10,059,2930.0 Net Area (sq. feet)Zoned Density (FAR) Unincorporated King County Jobs Growth Target: 2006-2035 Remaining 2035 Target 2006 Jobs (PSRC)2018 Jobs (PSRC) Total Jobs Growth 7,90012,84316,400 3,557 4,343 10,096,643 247,365 0.0 037,350000.0 0 10,096,643 Medium Low 0.0 % of Pace Needed to Achieve 2035 Jobs Target Average Annual 2006-2018 Growth Rate 2018-2035 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Needed to Meet 2035 Target Since 2006, Unincorporated King County has grown at 109% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 jobs growth target of 7,900 units. During this period, the total number of jobs in Unincorporated King County grew by roughly 28%. At this current rate, Unincorporated King County is over the pace needed to meet its 2035 jobs growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 1.4% to reach its remaining target by 2035. 0.0 Medium High High Net Area (sq. feet)Total Floor Area (sq. feet) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Average Achieved Density (FAR) Achieved Density Level 0 Low2,801,9550 0.8 00 137,391 2035 Target 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Jobs Growth(From 2006 Baseline) Target Actual 88% 0%12%0%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total Floor AreaAchieved Density Level Non-Residential Development by Achieved Density Level, 2012-2018 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighFloor Area RatioZoned Density Level Achieved Density vs Zoned Density Level, 2012-2018 ZonedDensityRange ofZones withNon-ResidentialDevelopment AverageAchievedDensity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Profiles of Cities and Unincorporated Areas King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Urban Unincorporated - Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Job Capacity Gross Area (acres) Critical Areas (acres) ROWs (acres) Public Purpose (acres) Initial Land Supply Market Factor Buildable Area (acres)# Vacant / Redev.Ve Very Low Density 1,251 74%Commercial 4.5 1.9 0.1 0.1 2.4 10% - 25%2.0 Lo Low Density 0 0%Mixed Use 79.3 8.0 3.6 3.6 64.2 0% - 50%47.3 M Medium Low Density 0 0%Industrial 154.4 47.8 5.3 16.0 85.3 0% - 30%72.8 M Medium High Density 429 26% Non-Res Land Total 238.2 57.6 9.0 19.7 151.9 122.1 Hi High Density 0 0% Capacity in Pipeline 0 Total Capacity (jobs)1,680Remaining Target (2018-2035)5,468 Commercial Surplus/Deficit Capacity (jobs)-3,788 Vacant 0.09 2.50 0.00 0.21 350 / 500 429 Redevelopable 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 350 / 500 0 Commercial Total 0.09 2.50 0.00 0.21 350 / 500 429 Mixed-Use Vacant 1.13 0.17 / 0.25 0.00 0.23 0 / 660 505 Redevelopable 0.93 0.17 / 0.25 0.18 0.04 0 / 660 68 Mixed Use Total 2.06 0.17 / 0.25 0.18 0.27 0 / 660 574 Industrial Vacant 1.12 0.25 0.00 0.28 0 / 1000 290 Redevelopable 2.05 0.25 0.13 0.38 0 / 1000 387 Industrial Total 3.17 0.25 0.13 0.67 0 / 1000 677 City TotalCommercial 0.09 2.50 0.69 0.21 350 / 500 429Mixed Use 2.06 0.17 / 0.25 0.91 0.27 0 / 660 574Industrial3.17 0.25 0.26 0.67 0 / 1000 677 Job Capacity in Pipeline 0 City Total 5.32 0.17 / 2.50 1.86 1.15 0 / 1000 1,680 Job Capacity by Assumed Density Level Job CapacitySq. ft. per Job Floor Area Capac. (million sq.ft.) Existing Floor Area (million sq.ft.) Assumed Density Range (FAR) Net Buildable Area (mil.sq.ft.) % Land Supply Job Capacity by Land Use 429 574 677 Job Capacity by Land Use CommercialMixed UseIndustrial DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 251 Technical Appendices This section contains the guidance documents and methodologies provided to King County jurisdictions throughout this study. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Appendix A: Phase 1 Guidance - Achieved Density DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B February 2019 1 King County 2020 Urban Growth Capacity Study (Buildable Lands) Guide for Local Government Reporting Template PART 1 This document describes the data reporting process and template for local governments in King County to use to report consolidated data and analysis results in compliance with the Review and Evaluation/Buildable Lands requirement of the Growth Management Act. Jurisdictions should send complete sections of the reporting template to Rebeccah Maskin, rmaskin@kingcounty.gov, at the King County Office of Performance, Strategy, and Budget, for inclusion in the 2020 Urban Growth Capacity Study (formerly Buildable Lands Report) to the State of Washington. Standardized reporting is necessary to provide King County (and the state Legislature) with information that is comparable across jurisdictions, and that may be aggregated into a countywide evaluation report. King County and the cities will collaborate to draft a countywide report in 2020. That report will present jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction reporting of recent development and capacity, as well as summaries for the county and UGA as a whole and regional geographies. The template and guide include prompts for standardized technical documentation, which is crucial to making the Buildable Lands analyses both transparent and defensible to public officials, major stakeholders, and the public. An interjurisdictional group of planning and technical staff reviewed the Local Government Reporting Template and Guide in 2019 for both its content and format. Under the current schedule, data reporting for the 2020 report will be phased over 2019. Reporting for Part 1 should be completed and submitted back to King County by June 1st, 2019. Part 2 will be sent out in mid-2019. Data will be reviewed and compiled by King County staff in coordination with local planning staff on the Interjurisdictional Team, and sent back to cities for review, in late fall 2019. For staff that has worked on buildable lands reports in the past, this cycle’s reporting will be different, particularly for residential development. The King County GIS Center is completing an initial analysis of residential development over the reporting period (2012-18) that aims to provide the bulk of residential reporting data. Cities will review this data, adding local detail from permits or development plans, to accurately calculate achieved densities over the reporting period. The GIS analysis, and further instructions, will be sent out after this guide, in March 2019. This guidance is organized into two parts covering the three major questions the Urban Growth Capacity Study answers. Part 1 will cover reporting on the first question. Part 2 will cover the second and third questions, and will follow Part 1 reporting. The parts and their different sections are: PART 1: I. Are Zoned Densities Being Achieved? A. Achieved Densities 2012-2018 (Reporting Tables 1-7) B. Achieved Density Documentation and Background (Reporting Tables 8-10) PART 2: II. Are Growth Targets Being Met? A. Demand for Development: Remaining Growth Targets III. Is there Sufficient Capacity for Remaining Growth Targets? A. Land Supply and Capacity Inventory DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B February 2019 2 The template tables in the Excel workbook that accompanies this document are to be filled in by all jurisdictions, and returned to King County.1 This document describes these template tables and instructs on how to fill out the template and provide documentation on data sources and methodology. Not all tables will apply to every jurisdiction. Tables for data that are not relevant to local situations should be labeled to indicate “not applicable,” with justification, e.g., “No multifamily development during reporting period.” Thank you for your assistance in completing the reporting template! 1Please email completed reporting documents to rmaskin@kingcounty.gov. If electronic submission is not possible, please contact Rebeccah Maskin at 206-263-0380. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B February 2019 3 I.Are Zoned Densities Being Achieved? A. Measuring Achieved Densities (2012-2018) Background Section IA consists of Tables 1-6, and collects data on residential and non-residential development activity for the full 6-year review and evaluation period (2012-2018).2 This data will come from a parcel-based analysis described below, and building permits for new development between 2012 and 2018. After compiling development data from the parcel-based analysis and building permits, residential units, square footage built, and net land area are aggregated by zone, and the densities achieved over the review period are calculated. These densities will be used in Part 2 to calculate capacity of developable land. Local reporting on residential data has two steps: 1.) reviewing and supplementing a parcel-based analysis of new residential development, and 2.) reporting on any additional development permitted during the review period. The parcel-based analysis is the starting place for residential data collection in the Urban Growth Capacity Study. It was designed to replace the majority of plat and permit reporting by identifying new residential development on parcels that changed boundaries or added residential units 2012-2018. Permit reporting on single family and multifamily/mixed-use development may still be necessary for developments not identified in the parcel-based analysis data, and to review or supplement the parcel-based analysis with project data (for example, non-buildable critical areas area). New non-residential development will be addressed through permit reporting. Any reporting on permitted development should capture new residential units or non-residential space that came online between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2018. Permits finaled or completed between these dates provide the best estimate of completed development. If your jurisdiction does not uniformly track completed permits, issued permits may be used, so long as the development was demonstrably completed between 2012 and 2018. Please document the basis for how permits are selected to cover the review period. How to fill out the tables Table 1 should be filled in with zone level data, summarized from the parcel-based analysis. The forthcoming parcel-based analysis packet will contain tables and maps of plat and parcel level (identified by parcel identification number (PIN)) development over the review period. Your review of the gross development area and residential units developed, and the provision of any constrained critical areas data, is essential for accurately estimating the net density achieved by recent development. Because the source for this analysis is parcel data, public right-of-way, tract parcels, open water, and additional public purpose parcels commonly found in formal plats, have already been removed from the “gross” development site area presented in this analysis. However, additional constrained critical areas outside of tract or public purpose parcels need to be reported, so that they can be removed from the gross site area to calculate the net buildable area. For short plats or other residential development identified in the parcel-based analysis, constrained areas of developed parcels (for example, private roads or retention ponds), in addition to critical areas, may need to be reported to subtract from the gross site area. A general flow for review the parcel-based analysis follows below. More specific instructions will be included with the parcel-based analysis when it is sent in March. 2 Countywide analysis requires consistency across jurisdictions on the time frame of the development history data. Time frames for growth monitoring activities by individual jurisdictions will vary, based on the adoption date of comprehensive plans and other factors. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B February 2019 4 1. Review the parcel-based analysis for location, number of units built, and gross site area to verify the amount and location of development over the review period. a. The analysis is grouped by plat or parcel PIN. b. Shapefiles of the identified parcels are also available. c. Review the preliminary achieved densities, unit totals, or locations for anomalies (e.g., a density much higher or lower than expected for its zone) d. Correct any of the raw data in the parcel-based analysis (e.g., number of units, gross site area). e. If the parcel-based analysis captures development that should not be included (because it did not happen during the review period, or did not add residential units), note the parcels affected, and exclude that development from the reporting in Table 1. 2. Identify if there are other significant developments not included in the parcel analysis, from permit or other development sources. a. Add the number of units, gross site area, critical areas, public purpose area, right-of-way area, to the parcel-based analysis via Tables 2 and 3. Instructions follow Table 1 below. 3. Sum the number of residential units and gross area by zone and enter it into Table 1, columns A and B. 4. Calculate the square footage of constrained critical areas on developed plats/parcels included in the parcel-based analysis. Sum by zone and add to column C in Table 1. 5. Calculate the square footage of any other constrained area for developed parcels included in the parcel-based analysis, Sum by zone and add to the “D” columns in Table 1. a. Only complete this step as necessary. You do not need to compute public right-of-way and tract parcels that were already removed from the gross area as a part of the parcel-based analysis. Just include any additional constrained areas. Be mindful of short plats or subdivisions that might have private roads or environmentally constrained areas outside of tract parcels. b. “Public Purpose Area” refers to drainage/retention areas, open space, or other public facilities, outside of tract parcels. 6. If the zone has mixed-use development, please indicate “yes” in the “mixed-use development” column. a. Reporting on the share of mixed use development in residential/non-residential use will be captured the non-residential permit analysis in Table 6. If the parcel-based analysis does not serve as a helpful starting point for reporting residential development accurately, please contact rmaskin@kingcounty.gov. Table 1: Residential Parcel-based Analysis Summary A B C D1 D2 E Zone 2012-18 Developed Gross Site Area 2012-18 Developed Parcel Units Critical Areas Public Purpose Area Right-of-way Area Net Buildable Area Achieved Density Mixed-use Development? Sq Ft DU Sq Ft Sq Ft Sq Ft Acres DU/acre Y/N Summed from parcel-based analysis Summed from parcel-based analysis REPORT HERE REPORT HERE REPORT HERE Calculated: (A- (C+Ds))/ 43,560 Calculated: B/E DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B February 2019 5 Tables 2 and 3 collect single family and multifamily/mixed-use residential projects, additional to the parcel-based analysis. Use these tables to document development not captured in the parcel-based analysis. Please report new units by zone, gross area from the developed parcels, critical areas, and other public purpose and right-of-way area. Reporting should be by year, by zone when possible. Table 2: Single-Family Residential Building Permits* A B1 B2 B3 C D Zone Permit Year Gross Area Critical Areas Public Purpose Area Right-of-way Area Net Buildable Area** Number Units Achieved Density Gross site Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres (calculated: A- (B1+B2+B3)) DUs DUs/Acre (calculated: D/C) Document permit data sources used here. * Each line in this table should represent all permits issued in a single year in a zone. ** Net buildable area equals parcel area, less critical areas and other constrained area. Be mindful of short plats and parcel subdivisions with right of way or other public purpose easements. These areas should be removed from the net buildable area. Table 3 is for reporting on multifamily and mixed-use development. Reporting on multifamily permits is similar to reporting on single family development in Table 2. Mixed-use development refers to developments with both residential and non-residential components, and reporting requires a few more steps: • Report only on the residential portions of mixed-use development here; non-residential portions will be captured in Table 6. • To identify a mixed use project, mark “Yes” in the “Mixed-use Project” column. • To assist with calculating mixed-use capacity later on, it is important to report the share of residential development in the mixed-use development in column A of Table 3. o Calculate this by dividing the total built square footage (floor area) of the mixed-use development by the amount of built square feet in residential use. o When totaling the development floor area for a mixed-use development, do not include the area of parking structures, public plazas or other amenity spaces in the gross or net floor area/built square feet. o It’s ok if development is captured in the parcel-based analysis and does not appear in Table 3. The non-residential share will be captured in Table 6. This table is designed to calculate achieved density in dwelling units per acre. If your city regulates density by Floor Area Ratio (FAR), instead of reporting dwelling units in column E, report the amount of residential floor area constructed, and convert the net buildable area acreage to square feet. Indicate the use of FAR densities in the table documentation. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B February 2019 6 Table 3: Multifamily Building Permits, Including Residential Portions of Mixed-Use Projects A B C1 C2 C3 D E Zone Permit Year Project Name Mixed-use Project % of Mixed- use in Residential Gross Area Critical Areas Public Purpose Area Right-of- way Area Net Buildable Area Number Units Achieved Density (If applic.) Y/N % Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres (calc’d: B- (C1+C2+C3)) DUs DUs/Acre (calc’d: E/D) Document permit data sources or FAR densities used here. Table 4 tallies demolitions, plus accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and conversions. For projects adding units through ADUs or conversion, include the number of units already existing on the parcel and the parcel area, to calculate an achieved density for these types of developments. For demolitions, report the number of units demolished, where no replacement or additional units were constructed. Table 4: Other New Units and Demolitions* A B C D E Zone Number of ADUs Number of Units Added through Conversion Pre-existing Units Parcel Area ADU/Convert Achieved Density Number of Demolished Units Net Other New Units For ADUs and Conversions For ADUs and Conversions DUs/Acre (calc’d: [A+B+C]/D) Calc’d: A + B - E * Each line in this table represents all permits completed in a zone, single year. Table 5 summarizes the permit data and parcel-based analysis (Tables 1, 2, and 3), and calculates achieved density in each zone. Table 5: Residential Achieved Densities—Consolidation by Zone* A B Zone Total Residential Units Total Net Buildable Area Overall Achieved Density Table 1 column B + Table 2 column D + Table 3 column E Table 1 column E + Table 2 column C + Table 3 column D A/B * Aggregate by zone for all years Table 6 reports data on building permits for employment-based uses by zoning type, including the non-residential components of mixed-use development. The types of uses to include in this table are commercial and industrial developments where employees are located, and are broadly referred to as “commercial” or “non-residential,” for simplicity. This includes developments on publicly owned lands, so long as they are employment sites (like a school or office building). Do not report on any tenant improvements or temporary/moveable structures. “Mixed-use” developments include residential and non- residential components. Commercial developments with different non-residential uses (e.g., a hotel and office), are not counted as mixed-use developments. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B February 2019 7 Purely commercial or industrial developments should be reported by zone, by year, with the gross parcel/site area of the development, constrained critical areas, right-of-way, and public purpose areas, and floor area (the built square footage) of the development. Do not include parking structures, plazas, or amenity spaces as built floor area. The floor area ratio (FAR) is the measure of non-residential density, and is calculated from the floor area and the net site area fields. It expresses the ratio of the amount of built space to the area of the site/parcel. Mixed-use development requires additional reporting on the portion of development in non-residential use. For mixed-use developments: •To identify a mixed use project, mark “Yes” in the “Mixed-use Project” column. •Report the total built square feet for the project in column F1 •Report the non-residential built square feet for the project in column F2 •To assist future mixed-use capacity calculation, report the share of commercial development in the mixed-use development in column A. o Divide the total built floor area (F1) of the mixed-use development by the amount of built square feet in commercial use (F2). Table 6: Commercial and Industrial Building Permits, Including Commercial Portions of Mixed-use Projects A B C1 C2 C3 D E F1 F2 Zone Permit Year Project Name Mixed- use Project % of Mixed- use in Commercial Gross Site Area Critical Areas Public Purpose Area Right-of- way Area Net Site Area Net Site Area MU Floor Area Commercial Floor Area Achieved FAR (If applic.) Y/N Calc’d: F2/F1 Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres (calc’d: B- (C1+C2+C3)) Sq. Ft. (calc’d: D* 640) Sq. Ft. (MU dev. Only) Sq. Ft. Calc’d: F2/E Document permit data sources used here. Table 7 consolidates the annual or project level data from Table 6 by zone. Simply sum the built floor area and net site area from Table 6 by zone to calculate the achieved density for each zone, expressed in floor area ratio (FAR). Table 7: Non-residential Achieved Densities—Consolidation by Zone* A B Zone Total Floor Area Total Net Site area Overall Achieved Density (FAR) Table 6, column F2 Table 6, column E A/B DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B February 2019 8 B. Achieved Density Documentation and Background Background Section IA presented data on recent development activity, particularly achieved densities averaged across the six-year review period. Section IB provides a space for further analysis of achieved densities to consider a range of factors responsible for the densities achieved. The objective is to consider on the causes leading to the densities achieved in preparation for Part 2 reporting, where “assumed” densities are selected to apply to vacant and redevelopable land to calculate remaining capacity. This section provides a space to reflect on the densities achieved in each zone, whether they approximate expected densities, and why they may not. Buildable lands legislation now requires jurisdictions to review their development regulations for changes during the evaluation period that have significantly affected the supply of developable land (either positively or negatively). Additionally, cities must account for circumstances where zoned densities are not achieved during the evaluation period. Non-achievement of zoned densities may necessitate the adoption of reasonable measures in 2023 comprehensive plans. These requirements will be addressed in Part 2 of reporting, but the context behind the achieved densities will be collected while it is freshly in mind. How to fill out the tables For Tables 8 and 9, for each zone, enter the achieved densities (from Tables 5 and 7), or for zones where no development occurred during the review period, enter “0” for achieved density. Then, use the documentation space to supply any information documenting or exploring factors responsible for the achieved density. Is the density higher or lower than expected? Have there been significant recent changes in the zone? Provide any qualitative or quantitative data that helps contextualize the densities achieved. The following describes some factors that can influence achieved densities. Inadequate Density Data Some zones may have had little or no development activity during the review period. If no activity occurred, there is no direct data from which to project future densities. In these situations, describe why development has not occurred. In Part 2 of reporting, when it’s time to select an assumed density, development in other similar land use categories, including similar zones from other cities, analysis of not-yet-built development projects, and assumptions from code, can help inform assumed densities. It may be helpful to note these any of these data points at this time. Planned Development Issued permits, preliminary plats, or developer agreements for permitted or under-construction development that will come online after the end of the review period (12/31/18) can provide a fuller story of development within a zone. Do these types of development add any detail to the achieved density of a zone? Summary analysis of data on planned development can be provided now. Changes in Regulations In several jurisdictions, significant changes to zoning and other land use regulations, like rezones, upzones, changes to setbacks or impervious surface requirements, occurred during the review period. The impacts of such changes will likely be reflected, in part, in the density trends analysis. Note whether any of these circumstances affecting achieved densities apply over the review period. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B February 2019 9 Shifting Jurisdiction For cities that annexed large areas during the review period (2012-2018), a significant number of the development projects included Section 1 tables may have been approved under King County’s jurisdiction. The type and density of development approved by the county may not be representative of what is likely to occur under municipal jurisdiction in these areas. Density findings that show significant differences between county and city approved development may support alternative future assumptions about the capacity of land that is now incorporated. Infrastructure Gaps and Limitations Limited infrastructure availability may keep densities low in the foreseeable future, despite zoning that allows for higher densities. In most cases, this will be reflected in the achieved density data. Alternatively, infrastructure deficits that may have depressed achievable densities during the review period, may be resolved in the near future, allowing for higher density development within the planning horizon. Note if these circumstances apply. Table 8: Document Achieved Residential Densities Zone Achieved DUs/Acre Reasons/Documentation From Table 5 Add any footnotes from Tables 1-5, and any supplemental documentation on the densities achieved in each zone. Table 9: Document Achieved Non-Residential Densities Zone Achieved FAR Reasons/Documentation From Table 7 Add any footnotes from Table 6-7, and any supplemental documentation on the densities achieved in each zone. Table 10 is similar in intent as tables 8 and 9, but examines the split of uses in zones allowing mixed-use development. Are certain zones experiencing more residential or commercial development than expected? Is mixed-use development tilted towards one use? Have development regulations only recently allowed mixed use? Report any qualitative or quantitative data to describe your city’s outcomes. Table 10: Achieved Shares of Residential and Commercial Development in Mixed-use Zones Zoning Achieved % of Floor Area Developed Residential Achieved % of Floor Area Developed Commercial Reasons/Documentation for Mixed-use Use Splits Zones w/ Mixed-use dev. only calculated: 1- Table 6 column A From Table 6 column A DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Technical Appendices King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Appendix B: Phase 2 Guidance - Land Supply DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 1 I. Overview of the Urban Growth Capacity Study The Urban Growth Capacity Study, also known as “buildable lands,” is a collaboration between cities and King County to analyze recent land use development trends, and to compare those trends to comprehensive plans and growth targets, providing meaningful information on development and capacity for updating growth targets and comprehensive plans. King County coordinates the development of the report, and each city provides and a standardized set development data for their jurisdiction. In phase one of data collection, earlier in 2019, cities collected data on recent development 2012-18, in an effort to determine the zone-based achieved development densities. In phase two of data collection, cities and King County will review their urban land area to identify the supply developable land available over the next 20 years. This document will guide planners and analysts through that process. Phase three of data collection will take place in early 2020 and focus on calculating capacity and new requirements of the buildable lands process. II. Purpose of Data Collection Phase 2 Phase one of data collection for the Urban Growth Capacity Study focused on calculating the achieved densities of recent development. Phase two will identify developable vacant and redevelopable lands to combine with the achieved density data to ultimately calculate capacity. Phase two also concerns the quantification of the planned density for each zone in your jurisdiction, to understand whether densities are being achieved as planned. Planned densities also help determine whether developable land is redevelopable or not. Planned densities are different from achieved densities (calculated in phase 1), in that they are expected densities based on your jurisdiction’s code and development regulations. Planned densities will be detailed further in section III below. This guidance will help you define vacant and redevelopable developable land, and identify the densities being planned for in each zone. Your task is then to use those definitions to quantify developable land and report planned densities. In the following sections we’ll describe the details for the types of data to provide to complete phase two of data collection. Ideally, you’ll submit GIS-based zone- or parcel-level data identifying developable residential and non- residential land, and tabular data expressing the planned densities for each zone in your jurisdiction. Tables of data, in lieu of GIS data may be submitted as a last resort. If you do not have GIS to assist in this exercise, King County has resources available to support your efforts. Don’t hesitate to request technical support by contacting Rebeccah Maskin, rmaskin@kingcounty.gov or 206-263-0380. King County is requesting Phase two data to be returned by January 7, 2020. III. Planned Density Reporting Planned densities are collected for two reasons. First, as a part of new requirements to the GMA buildable lands statute1 passed by the State Legislature in 2017, King County jurisdictions are now required to evaluate whether planned densities are being achieved in the 2020 Urban Growth Capacity Study. Achieved densities (evaluated in Phase one reporting) will be compared to planned densities to as one indicator of whether development is occurring as planned. 1 RCW 36.70A.215 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 2 Second, planned densities are used in the identification of redevelopable lands. Since the 2007 Buildable Lands Report, King County has recommended jurisdictions identify redevelopable lands by comparing the existing density of development to its planned, or potential, density, particularly for residential and mixed use lands. A planned density should be reported for each zone where people live or work in your jurisdiction. The next section will describe how King County is defining “planned densities.” Defining Planned Densities For the Urban Growth Capacity Study, planned densities will be defined as the “as-of-right" density granted by code for each zone, that is the maximum allowed density without any bonus or incentive density. In many communities, residential densities are defined in dwelling units per acre (DU/acre) or by minimum lot size, while non-residential zones use development regulations or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to define the allowed density. The following sections describe selecting or calculating DU/acre and FAR for each zone. While this guidance will provide instructions for relatively precise calculations, these should be reviewed with your professional judgement for the intent of your comprehensive plan and implementing code. Residential Densities For this analysis, we are requesting residential planned densities to be reported in terms of dwelling units per acre (DU/acre), unless your jurisdiction solely uses FAR to define density. Some jurisdictions use minimum lot sizes to define residential densities, particularly in single-family zones. Minimum lot sizes can easily be converted to DU/acre by dividing 43,560 square feet (one acre) by the minimum lot size. The result is the maximum dwelling units/acre allowed. Residential densities for mixed use zones should also be supplied. Non-residential Densities Densities in commercial and industrial zones are less frequently defined as explicitly as residential zones, typically relying on bulk, height, and use regulations to define the size or density of a development. Some jurisdictions have used floor area ratio (FAR) to define the density of non-residential development, and this is what is requested for non-residential planned density reporting. If your jurisdiction does not use FAR to define density, Table 1a in the data reporting tables template is a “FAR calculator” table and instructions to assist in determining a FAR-based density. Please provide non-residential densities for mixed use zones as well as residential densities. Planned Density Template Table Planned density data should be reported in Table 1: Planned Densities, which has the following format: The following table describes the reporting table with field-level definitions and instructions for completing the table. Note that the optional fields duplicate fields in the FAR calculator. Store the values Zone Residential Non-Residential Mixed-use Other DU/acre FAR Minimum Lot Size Maximum Height Estimated Stories Maximum Lot Coverage Front Setback Rear Setback Side Setbacks Select:Optional Fields (to assist with density calculation) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 3 used in the FAR calculator in Table 1, or by duplicating the FAR calculator in that tab of the template spreadsheet. Zone Zone name/ID. Include all zones where people live and/or work Select: Residential Characterize the zone by its dominant use, mark with an “x” Non-Residential Mixed-use Other DU/acre Where residential development is allowed, fill in the as-of-right maximum density allowed, per the guidance, in dwelling units per acre FAR Where non-residential development is allowed, fill in the as-of-right maximum density allowed, per the guidance, in FAR. Use the following optional fields or the FAR calculator, as needed. Optional Fields (to assist with density calculation) Minimum Lot Size Residential zones in particular. To convert to dwelling units per acre, divide the minimum lot size by 43,560. Maximum Height Non-residential zones; maximum building height allowed in zone. Estimate a maximum height if “unlimited,” not specified, or site specific. Estimated Stories Non-residential zones; estimate from the maximum height. A rule of thumb to approximate: divide by 10 and round down (e.g, 35’ = ~3 stories). Maximum Lot Coverage Non-residential zones; as a percentage expressed in code as maximum lot coverage, impervious surface coverage, or a maximum building size/development site (if 1 story only) Front Setback Non-residential zones, in feet Rear Setback Non-residential zones, in feet Side Setbacks Non-residential zones, in feet IV. Developable Land Supply Reporting This portion of the analysis involves a jurisdiction-wide scan to quantify all land available for residential or commercial/industrial development for the next 20-year planning period. “Land supply” is the phrase used to refer to an inventory of land “suitable for development.” Land supply inventories for each jurisdiction should strive for a snapshot of land with development potential as of January 2019, approximating the end of the most recent evaluation period (2012-2018). The land supply includes vacant and redevelopable lands To quantify the developable land supply, jurisdictions will: • Assemble necessary data for the entire jurisdiction, including parcel/assessor data, critical areas, and zoning. • Define vacant and developable lands using a density and/or value threshold, • Exclude land uses or parcels that are unlikely to develop for categorical reasons (e.g., parks, schools, public facilities, other institutions), • Apply vacant and redevelopable land definitions to the parcel data, • Review and refine the resulting developable land supply, • Remove area for environmentally sensitive lands, DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 4 • Screen for infrastructure gaps, and • Summarize developable land supply by zone. The graphic below illustrates the process: Later on in Phase 3 of data collection, cities will discount lands for area deductions for right-of-way and public purpose uses and apply a “market factor,” to quantify capacity for housing and employment. Data Needs for Identifying Developable Land Supply King County has supplied cities with a data package including a shapefile and spreadsheet of parcel and assessor data that contains land use, existing development, area, and valuation data. Cities should supply their own zoning and critical areas data to relate to the parcel data. Planned densities from Section II should also be related to the data for use in determining if land is redevelopable. More information on defining redevelopment and vacant land thresholds follows below. Parcel Data Parcel data comes from the King County Assessor. It was downloaded in September 2019, to account for lag in data transmission, and approximates valuation and development on the ground in January 2019. This data source was selected because it is comprehensive and relatively consistent across the county, but cities should feel free to supplement it with their own data, if it improves accuracy. King County has related tables from the assessor database and selected fields that will be helpful for the land supply analysis. A field dictionary was included with the initial guidance email and data package. Data fields in the spreadsheet include: (a * indicates key data fields and blue text indicates calculated fields): Major Minor PIN* Jurisdiction PropName PlatName Owner SqFtLot* PresentUseCode PresentUse* CurrentZoning* PropType* LandValue* ImpValue* ILR* Gather: Parcels, Critical Areas, Zoning Remove Non- developable Uses Define: Vacant + Redevelopable Apply Definitions Review + Exclude Environmentally Sensitive Sum Developable Area by Zone DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 5 SFunits CondoUnits AptUnits TotalResUnits* ResDensity* BldgGrossSqFt* FARexist* YrBuilt Address CondoFlag* VacantFlag* WaterSystem SewerSystem Access TidelandShoreland PowerLines Contamination ErosionHazard HundredYrFloodPlain SeismicHazard LandslideHazard SteepSlopeHazard Stream Wetland SpeciesOfConcern SensitiveAreaTract ParcelGroup* EconomicUnitName EconomicUnitPart EconomicUnitParcelList To join the assessor data table to the parcel shapefile, use the PIN (parcel identification number) field. If you do not have staffing capacity to perform GIS analysis, please contact King County staff for assistance. Zoning Data While a zoning field is present in the parcel data, the value may not be the most current zoning for your jurisdiction. It is recommended that you overlay the parcel data with your current zoning to ensure that each parcel is related to the correct zone. While the parcel data represents early 2019, the zoning used should be the most current and forward looking as possible to reflect a truer picture of future development capacity over the planning period. Critical Areas Data Jurisdictions must deduct land from the set of potentially developable parcels that is constrained by environmentally sensitive areas. Environmental features associated with critical areas include wetlands, streams and other water bodies, steep slopes, geologic hazards, shoreline buffers and other features identified in a jurisdiction’s update critical areas ordinance or other regulations. Ideally, jurisdictions maintain their own critical areas GIS data, and this should be used in the analysis. As a fallback for some areas of the county, cities may rely on critical areas GIS data provided by King County or state agencies. The parcel data also contains several fields that cities may be used as a backup for critical areas. Uses to Exclude from Analysis Certain development types or land uses should be removed from consideration as developable land supply. These include: public lands and facilities, religious institutions, cemeteries, golf courses, schools, landfills and quarries, railroads and utilities, and other miscellaneous institutional uses. These uses can be identified by the existing land use codes and other methods identified in the table below. While these development types are generally not suitable for future development, exceptions exist, e.g., a churchyard might be planned for housing or a government agency might have plans to sell surplus property, and jurisdictions should use their best judgement to refine the results from a purely rule- based analysis. Red-colored comments in the table below identify cases to watch out for while broadly applying rules. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 6 If your jurisdiction maintains a layer of parks and open space, consider using it to screen out parks or trail properties as well. Use Type Identification Methods Comments Public facility or public ownership KC Assessor indicates property tax exemption. PropType = X. KC Assessor. Query Owner field for records containing strings, such as “CITY OF” or “SCHOOL.” KC Assessor. Query PresentUse field for codes indicating various public uses (e.g., 184 for public schools). Individual jurisdiction parcel inventories of public facilities and parks. Ownership may include city, school district, county, or state agencies. Watch out for multiple spellings or abbreviations used for public agency names (e.g., Dept. vs. Department vs. DNR). PropType query will select both “public” parcels as well as a number of additional parcels that fall into one of the categories below (e.g., church land, some railroad land, subsidized housing, and other non- profits). Exclusion of these parcels is consistent with additional categories described below. PropType query will also select some parcels owned by individual homeowners who qualify for tax exemption. Such parcels should not be excluded from the inventory. Religious institution use or ownership PropType screen (see above). Query for PresentUseCode = 165 (Church/Welfare/Relig. Srvc.) Query Owner field for records containing strings, such as “CHURCH.” Query for Present Use will select only those parcels in church use; parcels in church ownership will be more completely selected using Owner name query. Parcels in religious institution ownership, but not use, are more likely to be available for future development. Use discretion in selecting or excluding properties. Queries for strings in Owner name field (here and below) will select some parcels not intended for exclusion (e.g., “JOHN CHURCH”). Un-select these records by visually screening selected set. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 7 Use Type Identification Methods Comments Cemeteries Query for PresentUseCode = 179 (Mortuary/Cemetery/Crematory) PropType screen (see above). Will identify private mortuaries or other uses that may be redevelopable. Golf courses Query for PresentUseCode = 143 (Golf Course) Private schools Query for PresentUseCode = 185 (Private School) Taxpayer name contains the string “SCHOOL” Not all private school uses should be removed from the inventory. Use best judgment. Large institutions are more likely to be stable uses than small private ones, such as day care centers. PropType query (see above) will likely select many private, non-profit educational institutions, most of which should be excluded from the inventory. Some school uses may appear as vacant per Assessor’s records (e.g., playfields). Landfills and quarries Query for PresentUseCode = 138 (Mining/Quarry/Ore Processing), or 266 (public utility). Other institutional uses and institutional campuses Query by PresentUseCode (various). Hospitals (173), nursing homes (59), colleges and universities (185, 184, 56) government services (172), etc. Railroads and utilities Query for PresentUseCode = 332 or 261 (Right of Way/Utility, Road, Rail Terminal) and = 266 (Utility, Public). Query Taxpayer Name field for records containing strings, such as “#RR#” or “BURLINGTON” If not excluded from the inventory, many of these parcels will be misclassified as vacant. There are some parcels along RR ROWs that are of course, redevelopable. Make case-by-case determinations based on local knowledge. Related Parcels DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 8 The parcel/assessor data includes fields titled or beginning with “EconomicUnit.” These fields are intended to assist in identifying properties or developments that should be considered as a single development, such as a parking lot and a store on separate parcels, or a large development spanning several parcels. The data are linked by their EconomicUnitName. If a parcel is not connected with others, EconomicUnit fields will be blank. Economic unit data can be helpful in screening parcels that may be identified as vacant or redevelopable because of a low value or vacant land use, but are not functionally available as such. Conversely, this might identify parcels where aggregation (treating several individual parcels as a single unit) might render a site as redevelopable. Major Planned Developments Parcels where large known future developments are located may also be excluded from the land supply analysis. Please record the parcel PINs, zone, planned number of units and/or square feet, and anticipated year of completion in Table 5: Major Planned Developments. This step is optional; use only as necessary and supported by data. Defining and Identifying Redevelopable and Vacant Lands Jurisdictions’ previously used definitions were included in the initial email with this guidance, in a PDF titled: “Past Vacant and Redevelopable Definitions.” These definitions were used in the 2007 Buildable Lands Report, which what the last comprehensive compilation of developable land supply. Previous definitions for redevelopable and vacant lands are a good starting place for the 2020 Urban Growth Capacity Study, but jurisdictions should review and update assumptions for current circumstances. Generally, four definitions are recommended: a single definition for vacant lands (of all types), and separate thresholds for redevelopable single family, multifamily, and commercial/mixed-use lands. Fewer definitions are not recommended (unless a use is not applicable in your jurisdiction). Record your selected definitions in template Table 3: Vacant/Redevelopable Definitions. Vacant Land Vacant lands are devoid of development, or contain only low value accessory structures. King County advises using a two-part test of existing land use and an improvement value limit to define vacant land. Use the Present Use and Improvement Value fields in the parcel data, for example: PresentUseCode = 300, 301, 309, or 316 (Vacant), and/or ImpValue <$10,000, to query vacant parcels. A single-part test (only land use or only value) may alternatively be used. Other undeveloped properties may not be classified with a vacant use code, like parking lots. These properties should be included as vacant land, unless local knowledge informs otherwise. Commercial parking lots have a present use code of 180, parking associated with other development is coded 159. As another resource, the King County Assessor now includes a vacant lot table in the assessment data. Vacant lots are identified as those without any buildings present. These are identified in the field VacantFlag in the parcel data. Including a value-based screen to define vacant lands (to include parcels that are effectively vacant) is still recommended, and at least visually reviewing the results if using the VacantFlag field to identify vacant parcels. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 9 After the vacant land definition has been applied to the data, review the results to identify that only vacant land has been included. In addition to reviewing the parcel attributes for identified vacant lands, aerial photography or site visits may be used to validate the results. Redevelopable Land - Residential Regardless of use, redevelopable land includes all developments that are not utilizing their full development potential. This can include partly developed land, infill development, properties that have been recently rezoned, or non-conforming uses. There are multiple ways to classify redevelopable land. For residential lands, King County’s preferred method uses a ratio of potential to existing density on a parcel to determine whether land is redevelopable. For example, if a city defined redevelopable land to be where existing development is less than two times the potential density for that property, a single family property on an acre lot is zoned for up to four units per acre, would be considered developable. Drawing from King County studies of redeveloped land to inform redevelopable thresholds, defining a threshold between 2 and 3.5 is recommended. The threshold your jurisdiction selects may be influenced by development pressure and existing density, i.e., a lower threshold is be more appropriate for denser, rapidly developing jurisdictions. We recommend testing a 0.25-0.5 tolerance around your jurisdiction’s past threshold and comparatively reviewing the resulting parcel output. To use this method, follow these steps, using the provided assessor/parcel data: 1.) Review existing density. This has been calculated for parcels in the field ResDensity, by dividing the existing units by the parcel area to approximate the existing density. 2.) Calculate potential density. Using the Planned Density by zone reported in Table 1, and the parcel area from the assessor/parcel data, calculate the approximate potential units allowed on the parcel. Note: for this analysis, this is not the same as capacity. Capacity calculations for the Urban Growth Capacity Study are more refined and will be completed in Phase Three of data collection. 3.) Select a redevelopment threshold. Review the previous threshold, and make adjustments as described above. 4.) Query the results. Using the selected redevelopment threshold, query the parcel data to identify redevelopable lands. 5.) Review the results. Based on your professional judgement, local knowledge, site visits, or other screening factors listed below, exclude parcels that are unlikely redevelopment sites. Screening Results Consider the following additional rules and manual data screens to refine and finalize results from the redevelopable residential land supply identification. Condo ownership. Condominium buildings may be excluded as redevelopable, as complex ownership makes redevelopment unlikely. Condo ownership is identified in the PropType field in the assessor data, with a value of “K.” Townhouse Plats. Townhouse plats or unit lot subdivisions are unlikely to redevelop on a parcel by parcel basis, and may be excluded from developable land supply. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 10 Homeowner Association Properties. Covenant protected lands and structures (golf clubs, recreation centers, gyms) are unlikely to redevelop, and may be excluded from the developable land supply. These may be identified by a homeowner’s association name in the Owner field. Higher value homes. Crosscheck selected redevelopable parcels against value of single-family home. Highly valued homes may be less likely to subdivide. A recommended cut-off for this secondary screen is between $400,000 and $600,000—depending on the local market conditions. Consider your jurisdiction’s, or the county median home value for reference. The King County Assessor’s Local Scape tool can quickly provide this information for your jurisdiction. Recently developed properties. Crosscheck selected parcels against year of construction (YrBuilt). Parcels with recently constructed residences are less likely to further subdivide over the remainder of the planning horizon. Year-built date cut-offs for this secondary screen should be made with respect to local development and market conditions. Building Footprints. Visually inspect the location of existing buildings on smaller parcels (redevelopment ratio between 2 and 3) using GIS data for building footprints. Ground checks. Spot check selected parcels against aerial imagery and/or field observations. Redevelopable Land – Non-residential + Mixed Use Setting redevelopable thresholds for mixed use, commercial, industrial zoned lands should be considered separately from residential lands. While a density-based ratio, as is recommended for residential lands, can be informative in some areas, particularly those facing significant development pressure, an improvement-to-land-value based ratio may also accurately identify properties likely to redevelop. Value-ratio method. In the parcel/assessor data table, an improvement-to-land-value ratio has been calculated for each parcel (appraised improvement value divided by land value). A low ratio indicates more potential for redevelopment. Theoretically, the ratio reflects the potential profitability of more intensive use of a site relative to the revenue generating potential of the existing use. Typical threshold ratios for determining redevelopability range from 0.25 to 1. A threshold of 0.5 is recommended for most areas within the county. Jurisdictions experiencing more intense development pressure could consider a higher ratio. Density-ratio method. Since planned densities for all zones are being evaluated for this analysis, using a density based filter is more possible than in the past studies. The existing FAR-based density is calculated and included in the parcel data, in the field FARexist. Relate this value to the planned FAR calculated for each zone to create a ratio of potential to existing density. Sorting and reviewing the range of results in GIS will be helpful to get a sense of the range in your jurisdiction. Starting with a ratio of 1.5 (potential-to-existing density), and testing a +/-0.5 tolerance is a good starting place for reviewing the redevelopable land supply that results. Jurisdictions with less non-residential development pressure would be advised to set a higher threshold. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 11 Comparing density- and value-based methods is recommended in GIS, hard copy maps, or by site review. Screening Results Consider the following additional rules and manual data screens to refine and finalize results from the non-residential redevelopable land supply identification. Low-intensity uses. Include additional parcels as redevelopable based on current land uses that are considered low intensity (e.g., surface parking, storage, single-family homes in commercial or industrial zones) relative to parcel size and location, and market demand for more intensive uses of these sites. Parcel size and shape. Many parcels that turn up as redevelopable present challenges to redevelopment due to factors such as parcel size, shape, and fractured ownership with limited land assembly potential. Parcel data should be queried by size to identify and exclude sites that are too small to be redeveloped. Review maps of identified redevelopable parcels to identify potential parcel shape and assembly issues that warrant taking parcels out of the inventory. Recently developed properties. Crosscheck selection against year of construction (YrBuilt). Parcels with recently constructed development are less likely to redevelop over the remainder of the planning horizon. Year built date cut-offs for this secondary screen should be made with respect to local development and market conditions. Condo ownership. Condominium buildings may be excluded as redevelopable, as complex ownership makes redevelopment unlikely. Condo ownership is identified in the PropType field in the assessor data, with a value of “K.” Site contamination. Identify potentially redevelopable parcels that are constrained by on-site environmental contamination from current or historical land uses. Based on local knowledge, remove such parcels if site conditions effectively preclude further development within the planning horizon. Limited availability of information on the presence and extent of site contamination may hinder the ability of local governments to quantify its impact on future development potential. The Contamination field in the assessor data (value of “Y”) can help identify contaminated properties. Remove Environmentally Sensitive Lands Once vacant and redevelopable parcels have been identified, environmentally constrained land should be deducted from the land supply inventory. Environmentally sensitive areas may include the following: • Wetlands • Streams and buffers • Shoreline buffers • Slopes and geologic hazards • Fish and wildlife habitat • Aquifer recharge areas • Frequently flooded areas DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 12 The precise definitions for each constraint will vary across jurisdictions, depending on provisions of local updated critical areas ordinances and other regulations, local environmental features, and recent development history. A recommended GIS-based methodology for deducting critical areas is as follows: 1.) Select relevant GIS layers and features (e.g., wetlands, streams). 2.) Apply buffers to these features, based on local ordinances, where applicable. Features should be sorted by type, class, and/or location in order to apply appropriate buffer widths consistent with regulations. 3.) Merge buffered features into a combined “critical areas” layer. 4.) Overlay this layer with selected parcels (vacant, redevelopable, etc.) to delineate and quantify areas that intersect with land subject to development restrictions. Deduct constrained areas from the aggregate supply of developable land within each zoning/land use category. Reliability of GIS environmental data for the capacity analysis depends on their completeness in representing the extent of features on the ground, as well as the positional accuracy of the mapped features in relation to parcels. GIS data may be deemed so incomplete or inaccurate as to render them unreliable as the sole indicator of the extent of critical areas that constrain the land supply. Insufficient data may still be useful for the Buildable Lands analysis, particularly if utilized as a starting point for enhancements from field surveys, aerial imagery classification, and other secondary approaches. For the jurisdictions that lack adequate GIS data on environmental features, constrained land may be deducted through the use of assumed % discounts. Due to differences in degree of urbanization, and due to differences in land base, the actual percentage of land constrained within individual cities will vary considerably. Determination of appropriate discounts should rely on best available GIS, hard copy, and other information about the type and extent of critical areas at the zoning district level within jurisdictions. Screen for Infrastructure Gaps A new requirement this cycle, jurisdictions must consider how lapses in infrastructure availability affect the amount of developable land supply. The buildable lands statue notes that this review shall include at least transportation, water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure in the selection of developable land supply. Capital facilities and transportation plans will be key sources for this screen. King County is working with a consultant to recommend an approach for screening out infrastructure constrained, but otherwise developable, land supply. Our recommended approach will follow in November. This will be the last step in in identifying developable land supply, so please do not hesitate to begin the other steps first. Summarize Data by Zone After you have crafted definitions, queried the data, and screened the results, summarize parcel-based developable land area by zone in template Table 4: Land Supply, as illustrated below. Transmit any GIS- based land supply data to King County as well. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2020 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Guidance 13 Field-level definitions and instructions for completing Table 4 follow below: Zone Zone name/ID. Include all zones where people live and/or work Gross Acres Total area of zone, summed from parcels (in acres) Critical Areas Total area of critical or environmentally sensitive areas (in acres) Infrastructure Constrained Area Total area of infrastructure constrained area (in acres) more information on this field will be provided in November Vacant Area Total area of vacant land supply (acres) , summed from vacant parcel area Redevelopable Area Total area of redevelopable land supply (acres), summed from redevelopable parcel area Select: Residential Characterize the zone by its dominant use, mark with an “x” Non-Residential Mixed-use Other V. Wrapping Up and Next Steps What to send to King County When your jurisdiction’s planned density and developable land supply identification are complete, please send the completed phase two table template and GIS-based representations of developable land supply to King County, via the contact information at the beginning of this guidance. If necessary, include any other accompanying materials to document methods or assumptions. King County staff will review your data and follow up with any questions. What’s next? As laid out in the introduction, phase two data will be combined with achieved density data collected in phase one to calculate capacity in phase three of data collection. Phase three will begin in early 2020. Stay in touch! If you need assistance or have questions, get in touch with King County staff anytime. We are available for direct assistance if your jurisdiction does not have GIS software or other resources. King County is planning workshops in November to help with phase two data collection; more information will follow soon. Thank you for your attention and partnership in completing the 2020 Urban Growth Capacity Study! Zone Gross Acres Critical Areas Infrastructure Constrained Area Vacant Area Redevelopable Area Residential Non- Residential Mixed-use Other Select: DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County 2020 Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Data Collection - Additional Guidance on Infrastructure Gaps 1 Background This guidance supplements previous guidance from October 2019 on Phase 2 data reporting for the Urban Growth Capacity Study. The final step in completing the inventory of vacant and redevelopable land is a consideration of whether infrastructure availability will limit the developable land supply. Formally identifying “infrastructure gaps” is a new requirement for the Urban Growth Capacity Study. To satisfy this requirement, King County is recommending the following process to identify any land unlikely to be serviced or achieve its planned density in the planning period, based on physical or ownership characteristics of the land, not because of service expense. What Are Infrastructure Gaps? For the Urban Growth Capacity Study, an infrastructure gap exists for a property when one or more critical types of infrastructure– transportation, water, sewer, or stormwater– will not be available over the 20-year planning horizon, and will prevent land development. An infrastructure gap can prevent development in two ways: • A total preemption of development potential e.g., no improvement is planned to deliver necessary urban services to a piece of land • A reduction of development potential, e.g., an improvement cannot be provided to serve land at its planned density Process for Determining Gaps The infrastructure evaluation process includes the following steps to identify parcels with long term infrastructure gaps significant enough to wholly or partially remove the land from the buildable lands supply: 1. Identify system capacity issues – are there gaps within the service area or capacity for water, sewer, or stormwater providers in your city? 2. Identify site-specific infrastructure gaps – are any parcels within a service area unlikely to be served because of their site characteristics? 3. Update developable land supply – remove parcels with infrastructure gaps from the land supply inventory. Detailed instructions on how to complete these steps is provided in the next section. Completing the Data Tables In the reporting template tables spreadsheet, the tab labeled “Table 2: Infrastructure Gaps” provides three tables to complete this assessment. If you determine no infrastructure gaps to exist in your city, this will be indicated by the results of Tables 2.1 and 2.3 Step 1: Identify System Capacity Issues 1.1. Verify and update the data provided in the most recent Comprehensive Plan, documenting major changes in policy, service provision and other relevant details in Table 2.1. 1.2. List the providers serving your jurisdiction with essential infrastructure: water, sewer, and stormwater, in Table 2.1. 1.3. Collaborate with service providers, drawing from sewer and water district and comprehensive plans, to identify out-of-date planning information and any underserved portions of each city or the unincorporated urban area. Jurisdictions are advised to coordinate with public works staff to review, interpret and verify data. Note underserved areas or other gaps in the column “Service Deficiencies.” DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County 2020 Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Data Collection - Additional Guidance on Infrastructure Gaps 2 1.4. Document any future capital facilities investments planned to address these issues in Table 2.1. Determine if specific investments will resolve infrastructure gaps to “unlock” development potential and when it is expected to occur. Record these investments in column “Planned Investments.” 1.5. Evaluate each system-wide capacity issue to determine if the issue is expected to stop or delay future development, or limit the types or densities of development that will be feasible. Record determinations in the column “Infrastructure Gap Present?” in Table 2.1 1.6. Preferably using GIS, overlay the service areas of providers with system capacity issues on the set of vacant and redevelopable parcels. Identify affected parcels in Table 2.2, noting the type of gap affecting development, whether it is a full or partial gap, and for partial gaps, the density restricted by the gap. Example Table 2.1: Service Provider Infrastructure Type Service Deficiencies Planned Investments Infrastructure Gap Present? Westedge Water + Sewer District Sewer Zone 3 - lift station required Zone 3 lift station in CIP, planned completion by 2030 No Westedge Water + Sewer District Water None None No Westedge Water + Sewer District Water Comprehensive Plan last updated 2011 No update planned No, but land use assumptions need updating West City Comprehensive Plan Capacity project required to serve West Ridge neighborhood currently on septic None for West Ridge Yes Example Table 2.2: PIN Area Infrastructure Type Partial or Full Gap Density Constraint Density Type 1111111111 0.32 Sewer Full 1111111114 1.15 Sewer Part 2 DU/acre Step 2: Identify and Document Site-Specific Infrastructure Gaps 2.1. Review remaining vacant and redevelopable parcels to identify parcels with physical characteristics or locations that make them unlikely to be served with water, sewer, stormwater services, or roads, either completely, or to their planned density. Examples could include single parcels without road access, surrounded by other unrelated parcels lacking road access, or a parcel with site characteristics that would prevent sufficient sewer service for the planned highest and best use. This review is most easily done through GIS. The previously supplied assessor data includes fields indicating whether a parcel currently has water, sewer, and transportation services. Suggested criteria for determining site-specific gaps for each utility are listed below. Jurisdictions may tailor these guidelines to meet local conditions. Please document any additional criteria used below Table 2.3: DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County 2020 Urban Growth Capacity Study Phase 2 Data Collection - Additional Guidance on Infrastructure Gaps 3 • Sewer: • No pipe within 200’ • Pipe within 200’, but insufficient for highest and best use • Lift station required • Water: • No pipe within 200’ • Pipe adjacent, but insufficient for highest and best use • Stormwater: • No adjacent public main • No available discharge point • No on-site infiltration capacity • Transportation: • Inaccessible due to geographic constraints • No infrastructure to provide physical access to site • Infrastructure is aging, fails to meet adopted LOS or is otherwise out of compliance 2.2. Draw from code or adopted policy to determine if the issues are expected to stop or delay future development, or limit the types or densities of development feasible on vacant or redevelopable parcels. Review parcels with multiple gaps, regardless of severity, to consider if their combined impact will stop or delay development. 2.3. In Table 2.3, record identified site-specific infrastructure gaps, by documenting infrastructure constrained parcels in the developable land supply. List the parcel identification number, parcel area, type of infrastructure causing the gap, whether the gap fully removes the parcel from developable land supply or merely limits the density, and for partial gaps, the limit to the density, expressed in dwelling units per acre or floor area ratio. If no gaps exist, please write “NONE” in the table. Example Table 2.3: PIN Area Infrastructure Type Partial or Full Gap Density Constraint Density Type Note 1111113462 0.48 Transportation Full (# if part) (FAR or DU/ac) surrounded by parcels without access Step 3: Update Developable Land Supply 3.1. Drawing from Tables 2.2 and 2.3, in Table 4 (Land Supply), update the field “Infrastructure Constrained Area” with the area of developable land supply affected by FULL infrastructure gaps. Subtract this area and the critical areas from the gross area for the net buildable redevelopable or vacant land supply. 3.2. For partially constrained parcels, in Table 4 create a new line for each affected zone, noting the infrastructure constraint in the “Zone” field (e.g., for zone R-6, create a row for R-6-constrained, or similar). Include the area of the affected parcels in the “Infrastructure Constrained Area” field. 3.3. Summarize vacant and redevelopable land supply by zone. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Technical Appendices King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Appendix C: Phase 3 Guidance - Initial Capacity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report – DRAFT Phase 3 Reporting Guidance June 2020 1 Introduction The Urban Growth Capacity Study, also known as “buildable lands,” is a collaboration between cities and King County to analyze recent land use development trends, and to compare those trends to comprehensive plans and growth targets. The study will provide meaningful information to cities and King County on development and capacity for updating growth targets and comprehensive plans. King County coordinates the development of the report, and each city provides a standardized set of development data for their jurisdiction. In Phase 1 of data collection, conducted in 2019, cities collected data on recent development 2012-2018, in an effort to determine the zone-based achieved development densities. In Phase 2 of data collection, conducted in late 2019 and early 2020, cities collected data to identify the supply of available land over the next 20 years as well as information on planned densities for each zone. Phase 3 of the data collection process will build off the work of previous phases to determine assumed density and calculate an initial capacity for each zone. Phase 3 will also include review and reporting of housing and employment growth relative to cities’ growth targets, as well as an opportunity to review achieved densities relative to planned densities. This document will guide planners and analysts through this process. Cities will submit data for Phase 3 in a separate reporting template table accompanying this document. Due to circumstances and limited capacity caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic, King County is allocating resources and technical support for cities facing challenges meeting this data request. All previously submitted data relevant to Phase 3 has been entered into collection tables for each city (in tables 1, 2, and 4), and gaps in data collection have been noted or left as blank, but reviewing the completeness for the list of zones within your city, supplied densities, and land supply information is a great place to start. Any questions or requests for support can be forwarded to the Rebeccah Maskin rmaskin@kingcounty.gov or Ben Larson blarson@kingcounty.gov. Reporting for Phase 3 data collection is due August 10th. About Phase 3 Reporting Phase 3 data reporting has three key components: 1. Calculating an initial capacity for each zone in your city 2. Reviewing and reporting on housing and employment growth relative to adopted growth targets 3. Reviewing and reporting on achieved densities relative to planned densities Why “Initial” Capacity? Phase 3 will work towards calculating capacity, but two assumptions used within the process for calculating capacity are currently being updated to provide more up-to-date information and meet state requirements. In the autumn 2020, jurisdictions will incorporate these assumptions and calculate final capacity for the Urban Growth Capacity Report. The two assumptions are: • Market Factor. An assumption that accounts for the amount of land kept out of development because of landowner preference not to develop. • Square feet per Job Assumptions. These assumptions are used to convert non-residential capacity expressed in square feet to employees. How Initial Capacity is calculated Generally, developable capacity is calculated by zone, and is the product of a zone’s assumed density and the area of land supply, minus a percentage accounting for streets, sidewalks, and public purpose land. Achieved densities calculated in Phase 1 of data collection form the basis for the assumed densities, and the land supply was reported by zone in Phase 2. Jurisdictions will select discounts for right-of-way and public purpose lands, informed by recent DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report – DRAFT Phase 3 Reporting Guidance June 2020 2 development trends, to reduce the land supply for non-buildable, necessary infrastructure. The following graphics illustrate the how capacity is calculated. Calculating Residential Capacity Calculating Non-Residential Capacity Calculating Mixed-use Capacity Reviewing Progress toward Targets and Densities Reviewing and reporting on progress toward growth targets and planned densities provides context on how each jurisdiction is meeting its planning goals. Should a city or the unincorporated urban area of the county be found to not be achieving its growth target or planned densities, reasonable measures may need to be adopted in the 2024 comprehensive plan. Reasonable measures are policy or planning strategies selected by jurisdictions to bring growth or development into alignment with planning goals. This is a new requirement for the buildable lands program, and more information is provided in the guidance below. In Phase 3, we are asking cities to compare adopted targets and growth, and achieved and planned densities, and report on policy, code, or other planning circumstances that may explain or otherwise account for the difference. For reference, the graphic below illustrates the difference between the three types of densities that are referenced in developing the Urban Growth Capacity Report. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report – DRAFT Phase 3 Reporting Guidance June 2020 3 Types of Density Reported in the Urban Growth Capacity Report How to Complete Phase 3 Reporting There are six tables in the template spreadsheet in the reporting packet that must be filled out to complete Phase 3 reporting. Additional materials in the reporting packet email and reporting template spreadsheet will assist your completion of Phase 3 reporting including: • Past right of way and public purpose assumptions to discount undevelopable land • Recommendations on adjusting discounts based on recent development trends • Your jurisdiction’s data provided in Phases 1 and 2 The next sections of this guidance will explain how to fill out the template spreadsheet tables. Table 1: Assumed Densities Assumed densities are an essential component to calculating capacity. They are reported for each zone where development can occur. Assumed densities, except in limited circumstances, must be based upon the achieved densities observed in the 2012-2018 evaluation period reported in Phase 1 of Urban Growth Capacity data collection. This is specifically called out in RCW 36.70A.215(3)a, e. Deviation from achieved density is only permitted for zones in the following circumstances: • Insufficient observed development in the evaluation period. Some zones may have experienced limited or no development to draw reasonable conclusions for anticipated development densities, either in the types of development allowed in a mixed use zone, or in the quantity of development. • Changes in regulations. Densities achieved in development permitted during the 5-year review period may reflect zoning and development regulations that have since changed. Where regulations have changed to effectively increase or decrease achievable net densities, assumed future densities should reflect the impact of those regulatory changes, and the specific changes should be documented. • Trends over time. A trend of increasing dwelling units per acre or FAR over time could justify an assumed future density higher than indicated in the zonal average reported as achieved density in Phase 1. Annual reporting in Phase 1 data would indicate this trend. • Infrastructure gaps. “Partial infrastructure gaps,” where infrastructure imitations affected portions of zones from achieving planned densities were identified in Phase 2 data reporting. In such cases, jurisdictions may look to the planned density to inform the assumed density. Documentation of the specific development circumstances that demand deviation from the achieved density, and the rationale for the selected assumed density are required. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report – DRAFT Phase 3 Reporting Guidance June 2020 4 Reporting for this section is completed in table 1, as described below. Rows in table 1 will be populated with jurisdictional data provided in Phases 1 and 2. Depending on the completeness of data provided, achieved or planned densities for some zones may still need to be provided. Please review data provided for completeness vis-à-vis the zones in your jurisdiction. When filling out table 1 for mixed use zones, create an individual row for each use. Carrying over from Phase 2 reporting, if a portion of a zone is partly constrained by an infrastructure gap, create a separate row for those subareas, and use the constrained density in the assumed density field, noting the infrastructure gap in the document differences field. Table 1: Assumed Densities Zone Land Use Type Achieved Density Planned Density Assumed Density Document differences between Assumed and Achieved densities, and rationale for selected density Table 1 Fields and Reporting Instructions Field Name Definition and Reporting Instructions Zone Gathered from Phase 2 reporting. Each zone where development may occur must have values for all three densities below. For zones that allow multiple land uses list that zone once for each use. Land Use Type Residential, non-residential, mixed use, or Other (e.g. public lands, park zones, etc. that are occasionally recorded). Achieved Density (both DU/acre and FAR) From Phase 1 reporting. The achieved density the observed density of development occurring in a zone during the evaluation period 2012-2018. It is expressed in dwelling units per acre (residential) or FAR (non-residential). If no development was observed in a given zone, mark with zero and document in the “Documenting Differences” field. Planned Density (both DU/acre and FAR) From Phase 2 reporting. The planned density is the as-of-right density granted by code for each zone, that is the maximum allowed density without any bonus or incentive density. Assumed Density (both DU/acre and FAR) The density used to calculate capacity in this zone. In most cases this will be the same as the achieved density. Exceptions to this rule are described in the above section. Documenting Differences Use this field to report on the circumstances that warrant deviation from using the achieved density as the assumed density to calculate capacity. Table 2: Mixed Use Zone Use Splits Mixed use zones are defined as zones with capacity for both residential and non-residential development. In some cities, mixed use zones require the achieved use splits observed in Phase 1 to apportion area to residential and non-residential uses to calculate capacity, but all cities should report on differences between achieved and planned mixed use development. Some mixed use zones did not see mixed use development in the evaluation period. In these instances, jurisdictions can draw from additional sources: • Observed splits in zones in comparable zones in or outside of your jurisdiction • Expressed vision for these areas in comprehensive and neighborhood plan policies, or development regulations • Local knowledge of market conditions, demand for space, projects in the development pipeline, and developer interest • Existing development similar to that envisioned for a zone DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report – DRAFT Phase 3 Reporting Guidance June 2020 5 Be sure to document which sources of information were used to determine assumed mixed use splits. Reporting for this section is completed in table 2, as described below. Table 2: Mixed Use Zone Use Splits Zone Achieved % of Residential Development Achieved % of Non-residential Development Assumed % of Residential Development Assumed % of Non-residential Development Document differences between Assumed and Achieved Residential/Non-residential % Table 2 Fields and Reporting Instructions Field Name Definition and Reporting Instructions Zone Gathered from Phase 2 reporting. Achieved % of Residential Development From Phase 1 reporting; zones without observed mixed use development will be zero. Achieved % of Non- residential Development From Phase 1 reporting; zones without observed mixed use development will be zero. Assumed % of Residential Development The share of residential development that will be used to apportion land to residential use. Assumption is to be based off of achieved splits, unless circumstances described above apply. Assumed % of Non- residential Development The share of non-residential development that will be used to apportion land to non- residential use. Assumption is to be based off of achieved splits, unless circumstances described above apply. Documenting Differences Use this field to report on the circumstances that warrant deviation from using the achieved development splits as the assumed splits to calculate capacity. In cases where no development was observed, cite the sources used to estimate assumed use splits. Table 3: Discounts To more accurately estimate the actual developable capacity, the area of vacant and redevelopable land supply must be reduced or “discounted” to account for land that gets utilized for rights-of-way and other public purpose uses where people do not live or work. Public purpose uses are generally stormwater facilities, parks, or other open space. These amounts vary by type and density of development. The starting place for approximating these discounts is the observed development data used to calculate achieved densities in Phase 1. Past buildable lands reports provide additional reference points, built from the development observed during those evaluation periods. As development becomes denser and occurs as infill, these discount rates reduce, as right-of-way and public purpose uses are already built into the urban fabric. To support jurisdictional selection of discounts, King County has performed analysis of developments constructed 2012- 2018 that informed Phase 1 reporting. Discounts used in the 2007 Buildable Lands Report are also provided to inform the discount selection for the 2021 report. There may be reasons to deviate from the observed or past discounts, including: •Increasingly dense or infill development experienced or anticipated in the future, could lend to reduced discounts, as essential infrastructure is already present. •Changes in development regulations could affect discounts in either direction. Development regulations requiring additional set asides for environmental protection, for example could suggest increased discounts, while upzones or increases in land use intensity would suggest decreased discounts. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report – DRAFT Phase 3 Reporting Guidance June 2020 6 While zone-specific discounts are not recommended, additional detail may be provided. Land use or density patterns in some cities may justify a single discount being applied across residential land supply, or for multifamily and mixed uses. Table 3: Discounts Right of Way Public Purpose Parcel Analysis SF Discount % % Parcel Analysis MF/MU Discount BLR 2007 SF Discount BLR 2007 MF Discount BLR 2007 MU/Comm/Ind Discount SF Discount Selected MF Discount Selected MU/Comm/Ind Discount Selected Table 3 Fields and Reporting Instructions Field Name Definition and Reporting Instructions Parcel Analysis SF Discount Drawing from the comparison of 2012 and 2018 parcels that supplied data for Phase 1 reporting, this is the calculated portion of single family parcels developed during that period that went to right-of-way or public purpose uses. Parcel Analysis MF/MU Discount Drawing from the comparison of 2012 and 2018 parcels that supplied data for Phase 1 reporting, this is the calculated portion of multifamily and mixed use parcels developed during that period that went to right-of-way or public purpose uses. Values are not jurisdiction specific, and draw from a sampling of development BLR 2007 SF Discount This is the discount used for single family land supply in the 2007 Buildable Lands Report. Note that formatting may differ based on how discounts were applied in 2007 report. BLR 2007 MF Discount This is the discount used for multifamily land supply in the 2007 Buildable Lands Report. Note that formatting may differ based on how discounts were applied in 2007 report. BLR 2007 MU/Comm/Ind Discount This is the discount used for mixed use, commercial, and industrial land supply in the 2007 Buildable Lands Report. Note that formatting may differ based on how discounts were applied in 2007 report. SF Discount Selected Fill in your jurisdiction’s selected discount for single family land supply here. Selecting a single discount for multiple land uses is also possible depending on your city’s circumstance. MF Discount Selected Fill in your jurisdiction’s selected discount for multifamily land supply here. Selecting a single discount for multiple land uses is also possible depending on your city’s circumstance. MU/Comm/Ind Discount Selected Fill in your jurisdiction’s selected discount for non-residential and/or mixed-use land supply here. Selecting a single discount for multiple land uses is also possible depending on your city’s circumstance. Table 4: Initial Capacity In the template spreadsheets, the two tables on the tab titled “Table 4” calculate residential and non-residential capacity. The tables are separated for clarity, but are filled out in a similar way, moving from left to right to calculate initial capacity. In each table, you’ll create separate rows for each zone, and for vacant and redevelopable lands within each zone. Mixed use zones should have rows in both residential and non-residential tables. Be mindful of capacity affected by partial infrastructure gaps identified in Phase 2 reporting. These areas should also have their own rows to reflect the constrained densities of the infrastructure gaps. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report – DRAFT Phase 3 Reporting Guidance June 2020 7 About Calculating Mixed Use Capacity In Phase 1 data collection, achieved densities were separately calculated for the residential and non-residential components of mixed use projects. These achieved densities were generally calculated from the number of residential units or commercial/office square footage over the entire parcel area. Calculating density in this manner factors in a split between residential and non-residential uses into the achieved density, making a separate apportionment of mixed use zoned land before the assumed density is applied unnecessary. A handful of cities calculated density in a different, but equivalent, way— either expressing density only in FAR, or calculating the achieved densities for each use over a portion of the parcel relegated to individual land uses. Cities that calculated mixed use achieved density in one of these alternative ways will need to use the assumed mixed use shares recorded in Table 2 to apportion mixed use land supply to residential and non-residential use in each zone before applying the achieved densities, and document this approach in notes on table 4. Table 4: Initial Capacity (Residential) Zone Mixed Use Zone Land Use Vacant/ Redevelopable Assumed Density Land Supply Area Right of Way % Public Purpose % Buildable Area Initial Residential Capacity Existing Units on Redevelopable Parcels Phase 2/ table 1 Y/N SF/MF/MU Select from table 1 Phase 2 from table 3 from table 3 Acres Housing units Housing units Table 4: Initial Capacity (Non-residential) Zone Mixed Use Zone Land Use Vacant/ Redevelopable Assumed Density Land Supply Area Right of Way % Public Purpose % Buildable Area Initial Non- residential Capacity Existing construction on Redevelopable Parcels Phase 2/ table 1 Y/N Com/Ind/MU Select from table 1 Phase 2 from table 3 from table 3 Square Feet Square feet Square feet Table 4 Fields and Reporting Instructions (both sub-tables combined) Field Name Definition and Reporting Instructions Zone Gathered from Phase 2 reporting, copied from Phase 3, table 1. Mixed Use Zone Yes or no- indicate whether this is a mixed use zone. Mixed use zones should have a residential and a non- residential row. Land Use Residential or Non-residential. Vacant/Redevelopable Indicate whether this is redevelopable or vacant land supply. Assumed Density Copied from table 1. Land Supply Area Gathered from Phase 2 reporting, table 4. Right of Way % Copied from table 3. Public Purpose % Copied from table 3. Buildable Area Developable land area for zone, from which capacity is calculated. Calculated field: Multiplies the single use land supply by 1-right of way % and 1-public purpose % discount fields. Residential land is expressed in acres (to be multiplied by DU/acre), non-residential land is expressed in square feet (to be multiplied by assumed FAR). DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report – DRAFT Phase 3 Reporting Guidance June 2020 8 Field Name Definition and Reporting Instructions Initial (Non-)Residential Capacity Initial capacity for zone. Multiply the buildable area by the assumed density in DU/acre. Existing construction on Redevelopable Parcels Compile the existing development in housing units or built square feet on land identified as redevelopable. Table 5: Achieving Growth Targets The review and evaluation program of the Growth Management Act requires that the county and its cities evaluate how they are achieving urban densities by comparing growth and targets. Further analysis is required where county or city growth targets are not being achieved. This concept has long been a part of the review and evaluation program, but amendments to the statute in 2017 strengthened analysis and reporting requirements, making non-achievement of growth targets a potential trigger for reasonable measures in the subsequent periodic comprehensive plan update. To achieve this aim, King County is comparing estimated housing unit and employment growth 2006-2018 to growth targets adopted in the 2012 Countywide Planning Policies, extended to 2035. The extended growth targets were first published in a 2013 memo to help develop 2015 comprehensive plans. The extended targets have been adjusted to account for major annexations that have occurred since 2013. The memo and adjusted 2006-2035 targets are included in this Phase 3 data reporting packet. For the recent estimates used to compare to the growth targets, 2006-2018 housing unit growth is derived from block- level OFM Small Area Population Estimates, using consistent geographic boundaries for cities in 2019. 2006-2018 employment estimates derive from the PSRC Covered Employment estimates. Employment estimates reflect total employment, less construction/resource sector employment, to mirror the targets for this period. For Phase 3 data reporting, King County is requesting cities review the estimates in comparison to growth targets. This data will support the assessment of whether targets are being achieved. This data is presented in Table 6 of the Phase 3 reporting template. In addition to reviewing this data, jurisdictions are requested to consider the observed growth over the 2006-2018 evaluation period relative to the target, and report mitigating circumstances that have landed to significant differences between growth and the target. Such circumstances may include (but are not limited to): • Development moratoria • Timing or financing of infrastructure investments • Preexisting developer agreements or major planned developments • Development occurring well below planned densities • National economic trends or factors outside of local land use control Reporting for this section is completed in Table 5a and 5b, and described below. Data for all cities is also contained in a Tableau dashboard available here: https://public.tableau.com/profile/arrmask#!/vizhome/CompareTargets2006-35_all Table 5a: Housing 2006-2035 Extended Housing Target 2006-2018 Target Elapsed % of Target Period Elapsed 2006-2018 Housing Growth % of Target Achieved Discussion Table 5b: Jobs DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report – DRAFT Phase 3 Reporting Guidance June 2020 9 2006-2035 Extended Job Target 2006-2018 Target Elapsed % of Target Period Elapsed 2006-2018 Job Growth % of Target Achieved Discussion Table 5 Fields and Reporting Instructions Field Name Definition and Reporting Instructions 2006-2035 Extended Housing/Job Target This field is supplied by King County, and reflects the adopted 2006-2031 target, extended to 2035 per the memo provided in the Phase 3 reporting packet. Jobs data reflects total employment minus construction/resource sector employment. City geographic boundaries reflect major annexations current through 2019. 2006-2018 Target Elapsed This field is supplied by King County. It is a time-based estimate of the amount of target that has elapsed from 2006-2018. 41% of the 2006-2035 period has elapsed, so it is equal to 41% of the housing or jobs target. Review this number and compare it to the 2006-2018 growth estimate. % of Target Period Elapsed This field is supplied by King County. It is a time-based estimate of the amount of target that has elapsed from 2006-2018. 41% of the 2006-2035 period has elapsed, so it is equal to 41% of the housing or jobs target. 2006-2018 Housing/Job Growth This field is supplied by King County. Housing unit data is sourced from OFM Small Area Estimates; job data is sourced from PSRC’s employment estimates, minus construction/resource sector employment. City geographic boundaries reflect major annexations current through 2019. Review this estimate and compare to the 2006-2018 target elapsed estimate. % of Target Achieved This field is supplied by King County, calculated from the housing or job growth estimates divided by the extended target. Discussion Use this field for reporting specific events or conditions during the 2006-2018 period that could allow for a slower or quicker rate of target absorption. Examples are described in the preceding section. Table 6: Achieving Planned Densities Reporting on densities has always been a part of the review and evaluation program, but the review plays a more prominent role in this iteration of the Urban Growth Capacity Report. Like reporting on growth targets, amendments to the buildable lands statute in 2017 strengthened analysis and reporting requirements, making non-achievement of growth of planned densities a potential trigger for reasonable measures in the subsequent periodic comprehensive plan update. Phase 3 data reporting will build towards this requirement by requesting your jurisdiction’s reflection on differences in the densities achieved during the 2012-2018 evaluation period, and those you are planning for. Achieved densities derive from Phase 1 data reporting. Planned densities were requested in Phase 2 data reporting. Determination of “achieving” planned densities will be made later in 2020 according to countywide standards. Further analysis will be required where cities are determined to not be achieving planned densities. For this phase of data reporting, King County is requesting jurisdictions compare achieved and planned densities for each zone, and evaluate potential reasons why densities may not have been achieved by development during the evaluation period. Such circumstances may include (but are not limited to): • Rezones that occurred during the evaluation period • Significant development regulation changes • Infrastructure or level of service limitations • Lack of capacity for new development • Limited quantity of development to draw a comparison • National economic conditions or development trends outside of local control DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report – DRAFT Phase 3 Reporting Guidance June 2020 10 • Development vested under preexisting development regulations • Development moratoria in specific zones or neighborhoods Reporting for this section is completed in Table 6, and described below. Table 6: Density Reporting Zone Land Use Type Planned Density Achieved Density Difference Discussion Table 6 Fields and Reporting Instructions Field Name Definition and Reporting Instructions Zone Supplied by King County- please review for completeness. Cities with complex zoning codes may aggregate zones to a more generalized zone category that makes sense for monitoring. Land Use Type Indicate the type of use, residential, non-residential, or mixed use. For mixed use zones, include two lines for both the residential and non-residential planned and achieved densities. If your jurisdiction only uses FAR densities, you may report a single FAR value instead of indicating non-residential and residential densities. Planned Density From Phase 2 reporting Achieved Density From Phase 1 reporting Difference Calculated as a percentage: Achieved Density / Planned Density Discussion Use this field for reporting specific events or conditions during the 2006-2018 period that could allow for a slower or quicker rate of target absorption. Examples are described in the preceding section. Wrapping up and Next Steps Thank you for taking the time to read this guidance and complete Phase 3 reporting. Your partnership is essential to completing the Urban Growth Capacity Report. When your tables have been completed, please email them back to King County, to both rmaskin@kingcounty.gov and blarson@kingcounty.gov. Submissions are due July 13th, 2020. King County’s goal is to have all Phase 1 and 2 data completely submitted in early August 2020. This will facilitate countywide estimates of initial capacity in early September 2020. After Phase 3 is complete, we will follow up with information on calculating final capacity, and determinations on target and density achievement. If you have questions or need help at any time, do not hesitate to contact Ben and Rebeccah, via the emails above or at 205-263-9590 (Ben) and 206-263-0380 (Rebeccah). DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Technical Appendices King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Appendix D: Phase 4 Guidance - Final Capacity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report Phase 4 Guidance February 2021 1 Introduction The Urban Growth Capacity Study, also known as “buildable lands,” is a collaboration between cities and King County to analyze recent land use development trends, and to compare those trends to comprehensive plans and growth targets. The study provides meaningful information to cities and King County on development and capacity for updating growth targets and comprehensive plans. King County coordinates the development of the report, and each city provides a standardized set of development data for their jurisdiction. In February 2021, King County cities will report on the final assumptions necessary to calculate final capacity for this project. The previous three phases of reporting have cumulatively built upon each other towards the goal of calculating final capacity for each jurisdiction, as shown in Figure 1 below. FIGURE 1: FLOW OF URBAN GROWTH CAPACITY REPORTING PHASES Phase 4 of data collection will again build off work from previous phases of data collection to calculate residential and non-residential capacity. Final capacity will be compared to the remaining 2006-2035 growth target to determine whether sufficient capacity exists for targeted growth. To calculate final capacity, cities will select two assumptions for each zone: Market Factor and Employment Density (Employment Density applies to mixed use and non-residential zones only). This guidance and set of reporting tables aim to provide the information necessary for each city to select appropriate assumptions for each zone. Cities will submit data for Phase 4 in a separate reporting table template accompanying this document. King County staff are pursuing an accelerated timeline for Phase 4 data collection to complete capacity data for a draft Urban Growth Capacity Report in March 2021. Phase 4 data is requested by March 5, 2021. Resources and direct technical support are available to help meeting this data request. All previously submitted data relevant to Phase 4 has been entered into collection tables for each city and gaps in data collection have been noted or highlighted. Capacity calculations hare been pre-programed to the extent possible to facilitate efficient reporting. Additionally, staff are encouraged to schedule appointments with Ben Larson to facilitate data collection. Staff are invited to book time via Calendy, an online scheduling website linked to Microsoft Outlook. You can schedule an appointment by clicking the following link: https://calendly.com/kingcounty_ugc/phase-iv. No account is necessary Any questions or requests for support can be sent to Rebeccah Maskin rmaskin@kingcounty.gov or Ben Larson blarson@kingcounty.gov. As always, we greatly appreciate your assistance and cooperation with this request. Do not hesitate to reach out to let us know how we can facilitate your involvement in completing Urban Growth Capacity reporting. Phase 1 Achieved Densities Phase 2 Land Supply Phase 3 Initial Capcity Phase 4 Final Capacity DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report Phase 4 Guidance February 2021 2 Background on Phase 4 Data Assumptions Phase 4 data reporting will build directly upon the data your jurisdiction reported in Phase 3 (initial capacity). Cities will select Market Factor assumptions to discount the identified land supply for each developable zone. Then, for zones with non-residential development, cities will select Employment Densities, expressed as square feet per job ratios, to convert built space capacity into employment capacity. Through allocated buildable lands grant funding from the Department of Commerce, King County has performed an updated analysis to support recommended assumptions, to comport with new statute requirements and recent development trends. Documents detailing the new analysis are included in the Phase 4 reporting package. Market Factor The Market Factor, also known as the Market Supply Factor, is a final adjustment to the developable land supply that follows other deductions that account for critical areas, infrastructure gaps, right-of-way, and future public facilities. It accounts for the percentage of buildable land that, due to market constraints, will not be developed during the 20-year planning period. Traditionally, it has been used as a proxy to account for landowner preference to not develop, or inability to develop property over the planning period. Market Factor will be applied to both residential and non-residential zones to determine final housing and employment capacity for each city. In general, land uses and zones where a high level of development or land conversion are expected over the planning period should assume a low market factor. Conversely, land uses and zones where development may be more difficult or slower to develop should assume a high market factor. Through an updated analysis 1, recommended market factor ranges have been developed for residential and non-residential zones, varying by Regional Geography and relative market strength (market factor alignment). The analysis behind these recommended ranges compares historical development and land supply identified in the 2021 UGC study. Grouping cities by VISION 2050 Regional Geography, consultants analyzed the amount of development by “product type” (e.g., multifamily/mixed-use residential or industrial development) compared to the amount of capacity in zones linked to that product type, resulting in a distribution of rate of development for cities within a Regional Geography category. Based on this distribution, cities were grouped into low, medium, and high market factor recommendation, with an associated range of market factors calculated from the relative amount of land left undeveloped in the product type classification. This process is illustrated in Figure 2, and detailed in pages 17-27 of the Market Factor Guidance document included in the reporting package 1 King County Urban Growth Capacity Market Factor Guidance developed by Heartland, LLC and BERK Consulting, 2021. Excerpts from this guidance, including a step by step guide to selecting market factor are included in the reporting package. For the full draft guidance (includes appendices), please contact King County staff. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report Phase 4 Guidance February 2021 3 FIGURE 2: MARKET FACTOR RANGES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OVERVIEW The recommended ranges for product types by Regional Geography and market alignment are shown in Figure 3. FIGURE 3: RECOMMENDED MARKET FACTOR RANGES City Typology Residential Non-Residential Market Factor Alignment Multifamily/ Mixed-Res Single Family Commercial (Office/Retail/Mix) Industrial Metropolitan Cities Low 5%-10% 1%-14% 1%-10% 1%-15% Core Cities Low 5%-10% 1%-14% 1%-10% 1%-15% Medium 11%-20% 15%-20% 11%-20% 16%-35% High 21%-35% 21%-30% 21%-50% 36%-50% High-Capacity Transit Communities Low 5%-10% 1%-9% 1%-14% 1%-19% Medium 11%-15% 10%-20% 15%-25% 20%-30% High 16%-30% 21%-35% 26%-50% 31%-50% Cities and Towns Low 10%-24% 1%-10% 1%-10% 1%-15% Medium 25%-35% 11%-40% 11%-20% 16%-35% High 36%-50% 41%-50% 21%-50% 36%-50% DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report Phase 4 Guidance February 2021 4 Selecting Market Factor for Your City The first task of Phase 4 reporting will be to select the appropriate market factors for your city. For each zone, staff completing reporting will identify a market factor within the recommended ranges and update the reporting table. If the ideal market factor for a zone is determined to be outside of the recommended range, the specific rationale for selecting this market factor must be documented in the reporting table. Cities may vary their selected market factors by the relative complexity of zoning and available land within their jurisdiction. For smaller cities or less complex zoning, a single market factor by land use type may be appropriate, whereas larger cities or more complex development situations may require a more refined identification of appropriate market factors. The following guidance describes the factors to weigh when selecting a value within the recommended ranges. More detail is included on pages 25-27 of the included Market Factor Guidance document, with the key factors to consider outlined here. REDEVELOPABLE VS. VACANT LAND Cities are welcome to attune their market factors separately for vacant and redevelopable land stock. Be sure to consider how redevelopable lands were identified in calculating the land supply in phase 2 of data reporting. If in identifying the redevelopable land supply, a higher existing-to-planned density ratio or improvement-to-land value ratio was assumed for redevelopable lands, consider whether differentiating between redevelopable and vacant market factors is further required, as that definition already assumes a differentiation between these lands based on market forces. Traditionally, redevelopable lands have assumed higher market factors than vacant lands to account for the relative ease of converting vacant land to development. As redevelopment takes more of the share of development, it could suggest the remaining vacant land could have significant development challenges that reduce this advantage. MARKET TRENDS If trends indicate growth in demand for a given product, consider a downward adjustment on market factor to reflect this demand. Alternatively, if the market data for a given product indicates more difficult market conditions, consider selection of a higher market factor within the recommended range. UPZONED EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY AREAS Market factor may be adjusted to account for relative uncertainty regarding how existing single-family zones that have been rezoned for greater intensity may redevelop. The age and value of the housing stock, presence of transit infrastructure, and recent sales or permitting activity can inform how to refine the appropriate market factor for these areas. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS Some areas that have been rezoned or upzoned may still be subject to restrictive covenants that run with the land and limit how development may occur. This is most likely to exist in existing single-family neighborhoods but may also pose a challenge in business parks and other similar commercial districts. A higher market factor can account for this situation. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report Phase 4 Guidance February 2021 5 FRAGMENTED OWNERSHIP AND PARCEL SIZE Where capacity for a given product type is largely spread across fragmented or non-contiguous parcels and parcel sizes are generally smaller in size, a higher market factor may be considered to account for difficulties in parcel assemblage for future redevelopment. ACCESS TO TRANSIT Planned transit infrastructure can greatly improve development feasibility and owner willingness to sell/redevelop land. Market factor assumptions can be tuned to reflect where such improvements exist or are planned in the future. INFRASTRUCTURE COST In phase 2 of data reporting, we examined the presence or availability of infrastructure in the identification of land supply. Market factor can build on this work, including selecting a higher factor to account for the cost or likeliness of significant infrastructure construction to support planned development. Employment Densities Selecting a square feet per job assumption, or employment density, per zone or land use is the last step of calculating non-residential capacity, converting built space capacity to jobs. Cities may vary their selected employment densities by the relative complexity of zoning and available land, or the sectors of employment that are likely to exist within their jurisdiction. Smaller cities or those with less complex zoning may consider a single value or values depending on the land use. Our most basic recommendation is differentiating between commercial and industrial jobs, because of the wide variance in employment density between these types. To prepare for the 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report, an analysis of recent employment densities compared to past densities across King County was performed.2 The analysis compared the amount of industrial and other commercial jobs to the aggregated amount of similarly classified non-residential built space in subareas covering King County to calculate ranges in employment density. This analysis was performed on 2006 and 2019 data to observe if employment density patterns have changed over time. The recommended ranges by subarea and general land use type (commercial/mixed use or industrial) are shown in Figure 4. A map of cities by subarea is included in Figure 5 below, and a city-specific table is included in the reporting table template and the employment density guidance document. FIGURE 4: RECOMMENDED SQUARE FEET PER JOB RANGES BY SUBAREA Market Area Average 2006 Employment Density (all zones) Average 2019 Employment Density (all zones) Recommended Range for Commercial and Mixed-Use Zones Recommended Range for Industrial Zones Central 655 608 300–600 700–1,200 Eastside 398 386 200–400 500–800 Northwest 445 415 200–400 500–800 Outlying Cities 669 630 300–600 700–1,200 South 701 724 300–600 700–1,200 2 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report Employment Density Guidance, BERK Consulting, 2021. Full guidance included in reporting package. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report Phase 4 Guidance February 2021 6 FIGURE 5: EMPLOYMENT DENSITY SUBAREAS Selecting Employment Density for Your City The final task for calculating employment capacity will be reporting selected employment densities in the phase 4 reporting tables. Recommended ranges for your city are supplied in the reporting table template. If you select employment density values outside of the recommended range, please record specific rationale or alternative methods for doing so in the reporting table. The employment density guidance contains additional detail on pages 8-9 for refining employment densities within the recommended range for your city. Guidance for Filling Out the Reporting Tables About the Reporting Tables The Phase 4 reporting table template consists of four tables. The reporting tables have been populated with data from previous phases of data reporting and programed with calculations to facilitate completion of this round of reporting. Columns include a header with a description of the calculation used to trace how data is used in across the table. Columns that require input values are highlighted in yellow. City staff completing reporting will input selected market factor values by zone on Table 1, column E; and Table 2, column K. Selected employment densities will be inputted by zone on Table 3, column C. Table 4 includes the final capacity calculation. This calculation is primarily automated from values in the reporting tables, but a few values need to be inserted as indicated in the Table 4 explanation below. As a final step before submitting your tables, back to King County, please review calculated capacity in Table 4. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report Phase 4 Guidance February 2021 7 Reporting Tables The below copies of the tables in the reporting table template include mocked-up examples of completed reporting, but otherwise mirror the versions provided in the table template. Each city has a version unique to their jurisdiction that reflects inputted phase 3 data, and recommended market factor or employment density ranges based on the guidance described in previous sections. FIGURE 6: REPORTING TABLE 1: MARKET FACTOR Table 1 includes all zones imported from phases 2 and 3 of data reporting, and their land use type (zone type) classification. Select a market factor within the given range in column D, and provide any documentation if selecting a value outside of the given range. FIGURE 6: REPORTING TABLE 2: INITIAL CAPACITY Zone Mixed Use Zone Land Use Vacant/ Redevelopable Assumed Density (DU/Acre) Land Supply Area Right of Way % Public Purpose % Final Market Factor % Buildable Area (Acres) Initial Residential Capacity (Housing Units) Name of Zone Y/N SF/MF/MU Select Vacant or Redevelopable From Phase 3 From Phase 3 From Phase 3 From Phase 3 From Table 1 = Column F * (1 - Column G - Column H - Column I) = Column E * Column J Example1 N MF Vacant 24.2 9.7 15% 10.0% 7 176.6 Existing Units on Redevelopable Parcels (Housing Units) Initial Capacity summed by zone (Housing Units) Existing units on redevelopable parcels summed by zone (Housing Units) From Phase 3 To help with calculations on Table 4 To help with calculations on Table 4 0 235.8 12.0 Table 2 has two sub-tables, one for initial residential capacity, and one for initial non-residential capacity. Only the residential table is shown above. The non-residential table has an identical format, but is tailored to calculating developable square footage, not housing units. Table 2 is largely imported from the final table in phase 3 data reporting. It includes almost all the data necessary for calculating capacity. In column I, input the selected market factor by zone from Phase 4 Table 1. Zone Zone Type Market Factor Alignment (Low, Med, High) Market Factor Range (%) (Based on Place-Type, Zone Type, and Market Factor Alignment) (See Guidance) Final Market Factor Comments (if final market factor is outside of the suggested range) Zone Name SFR, MFR, MU, Comm, Ind Selected from Market Factor Guidance Selected from Market Factor Guidance To be decided by city staff. Please consult market factor guidance. Please provide comments if final market factor is outside of the suggested range Example 1 MU Med 10% - 20% 15% N/A Example 2 Comm Low 5% - 10% 20% Owner of only vacant land directly opposed to development DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report Phase 4 Guidance February 2021 8 FIGURE 7: REPORTING TABLE 3: EMPLOYMENT DENSITIES Zone Zone Type (Ind/Comm/MU) Square Feet Per Job If you are uncertain about how many square feet per job should be selected for each zone, please consult our employment densities guidance. Example 1 MU Table 3 also includes the following reference table (nothing to be reported by the city) Recommended Ranges for City Recommended Range: Commercial and Mixed-Use Zones Recommended Range: Industrial Zones For more information on these ranges please consult attached guidance on employment densities. 200–300 450–700 FIGURE 8: REPORTING TABLE 4: FINAL CAPACITY Zone Zone Type Initial Residential Capacity Existing Dwelling Units on Redevelopable Parcels Development in the Pipeline Final Residential Capacity (Dwelling Units) Name of the Zone SFR/MFR/MU From Table 2 From Table 2 From Phase 2 = Column C + Column E - Column D Example 1 MU 1,809 0 0 1,809 Table 4 has two sub-tables, one for residential capacity, and one for non-residential capacity. Please review this table, as it records the final capacity to be compared to the remaining target. As you select market factors, the calculated initial capacity will change. It will be lower than the initial capacity from phase 3 data reporting, as market factor discounts the land supply. Input values for employment densities selected in Table 3 into Table 4 column G (non-residential table only). Also add any information on major planned developments to their appropriate zones in column E. Pay special attention to any zones that your city has that are specific to single developments, institutions, or master planned areas. If applicable, we recommend using any capacity values relating to developer agreements, master plans, plats, or any other controlling documents rather than calculating capacity for these types of zones. Wrapping up Once you have completed phase 4 reporting, send the completed table and all necessary documentation back to King County staff: Ben Larson blarson@kingcounty.gov and Rebeccah Maskin rmaskin@kingcounty.gov. Quality capacity data is the central product of the Urban Growth Capacity Report, and we cannot complete it without your support. You have our most esteemed respect and gratitude for completing this portion of King County’s growth management journey, and we look forward to continuing to work with you as we compile findings for the report and complete additional analysis on achieved densities and growth targets, in addition to overall capacity findings. A hearty THANK YOU for reading this guidance and partnering to complete this report. Please schedule time if you need technical assistance, or get in touch if you have any questions. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Technical Appendices King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Appendix E: Market Factor Guidance DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report January 2021 Market Factor Guidance DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Introduction and Purpose 4 Approach and Methodology 6 Market Factor Guidance 16 Appendix 24 King County Wide Data and References 28 Seattle Specific Guidance 40 January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 1.Market Factor: Introduction 3January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor: Introduction Intro and Purpose The Market Factor, also known as the Market Supply Factor, is a final adjustment to the buildable land supply that follows other deductions that account for critical areas, infrastructure gaps, right-of-way, and future public facilities. It accounts for the percentage of buildable land that is unavailable or infeasible to develop during the 20-year planning period. Historically, it has been used as a proxy to account for landowner preferences and unwillingness to sell, with various methodologies and approaches employed to develop and inform the assumption. As stated in the Department of Commerce’s 2018 Buildable Lands Guidelines: Over a 20-year planning period, not all land will be available for development or redevelopment, no matter how suitable. One key constraint on property availability is market availability, or whether or not land will transact for purpose of development or redevelopment. Owners of property that could be developed or redeveloped may have no interest in selling or developing over an extended period of time for any number of reasons. E2SSB-5254 introduced new language regarding the overall buildable lands reporting requirements including new recommendations related to Market Factor assumptions. As part of King County’s 2020/2021 updated Land Capacity Analysis the County is seeking guidance on development of Market Factor assumptions for municipalities across the County. King County, as mandated by GMA requirements, now seeks to develop a process and methodology for implementing Market Factors that comport with the revised buildable lands guidelines, and better reflect more current market realities present across the region. Definition of Market Factor Department of Commerce Guidelines. Several definitions of Market Factor are discussed in the Department of Commerce’s 2018 Guidance Publication (see Buildable Lands Guidelines, 2018). Included are several references to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) as well as the Washington Administrator Code (WAC). Overall, the guidelines describe Market Factor as: Market Supply Factor is the estimated percentage of developable land contained within an urban growth area that is likely to remain unavailable over the course of a 20-year planning period and is, in practice, the final non-developable land deduction when calculating lands suitable for development and redevelopment. Process Overview The following is an overview of the process utilized to develop Market Factor guidance for King County. •Review Commerce guidance and past studies/methodologies •Explore and evaluate potential methodologies, data sources and implementation frameworks •Engage with planners and development community to inform methodology •Conduct test fit analysis to inform Market Factor guidance (similar to case study examples to test data sources and results of the proposed methodology) •Develop a framework for each City to evaluate and select a Market Factor assumption •Recommended Market Factors for application across King County •Create a “menu” of options organized by geography, product and market typologies •Provide additional discussion and recommendations related to specific conditions that may impact the Market Factor assumption Engagement A critical component of the overall approach was the engagement with the public and private sector planning and development communities. The following groups were engaged throughout the development of the guidance document. •King County Urban Growth Capacity (UGC) Technical Committee •External Stakeholders (workshop and survey) •City of Seattle 4January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor: Introduction 5 Engagement Process to Inform Market Factor To inform development of a methodology for Market Factor, Heartland and Berk leveraged King County’s UGC Technical Committee to discuss and review potential Market Factor methodologies. A survey was also distributed to the group of planners and feedback from the process was used to inform how the methodology and overall framework were developed. In addition, a stakeholder focus group and survey were conducted to inform the development of the Market Factor Methodology as well as to validate conditions affecting the availability of land. A diverse list of professionals active throughout King County comprised primarily of developers and industry association representatives were invited to attend a discussion of the King County Land Capacity Analysis, and more specially, to discuss Market Factor. In attendance were a mix of representative including: •Public sector representatives •Industry/Association advocates •Representation from both market-rate and income- restricted housing developers •Developers/professional with expertise in multifamily, mixed use and single-family development •Affordable Housing Advocacy Organizations Below are highlights from the discussion. Bolded items are also discussed later in the guidance document. Single Family Discussion What We Heard: •Political environment •Reevaluate what is redevelopable •Issue of up-zones, resulting land price increase and impact on feasibility •Slow turnover rate of SFR in MF or MU zones •Anticipate that regulations will only get tougher •High degree of variability between cities in permit process/timing •Lack of land zoned for townhomes •On up zoned parcels, if too slow to convert large SFR lots into higher density, they will be redeveloped into more expensive SFR •Pricing expectations Multifamily and Mixed-Use Discussion What We Heard: •Permitting process and timing impacts matter •Access to transit shapes project feasibility •Missing/inadequate infrastructure in smaller communities to support higher density housing •Restrictive covenants impacts newly up-zoned areas •Emphasized need for predictability •Consider sale volume and growth as an indicator •Discussion of outlier communities: -Mercer Island an example of a high price but limited growth community •Consider the existing land use mix and connections to employment centers •Consider physical parcel attributes •Include additional details for considering unique conditions and associated data sources to further evaluate January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Approach The guidance developed for King County focuses on a real estate product-type framework, wherein Market Factor assumptions/recommendations are organized by major real estate development typologies, also called product-types for the purposes of this report. Market Factor is to be selected by product-type and regional geography and applied to land capacity in areas of where the product type is projected to be the predominant use for a given zoning designation. The approach to Market Factor for King County considers demonstrated supply, demand and projected capacity (projected for the 2021 UGC study). Demonstrated supply is informed by historical development deliveries. Relative demand for product is measured by both pricing and historical delivery by product type. All deliveries are measured in either residential units or non-residential square feet. The data referenced above were selected after a review of the Department of Commerce Buildable Lands Guidelines, review of former analysis of Market Factor conducted by King County as well as an evaluation of alternative data sources available at a County-wide scale. This approach evaluates the recent demonstrated delivery rate for a certain product-type applied to a 20- year planning period as a ratio to the current projected capacity. This highlights the relationship between what is being developed by the market historically and the capacity a city is projecting into the future. Rather than use the ratio to directly calculate a market factor, it is instead used to indicate and inform reasonable ranges of market factors and adjustments that cities in similar geographies and comparable market alignments can then choose to apply. These ranges serve as guidance and are recommended in Step 2 of the Market Factor Guidance Section. Additionally, cities can reference these ratio calculations for other cities to assess their own market factor assumptions and evaluate areas with different market conditions and historical development patterns. Approach Considerations The Market Factor assumption as applied in the Land Capacity Analysis framework is designed to account for a myriad of non-physical development conditions that would limit or prohibit the development of certain lands in the future. The approach, methodology and data sources in the guidance document are leveraged to inform the recommended ranges and selection framework, but are not meant to be directly translated to actual Market Factor percentages in a given City’s estimates. For example,projecting a linear historical delivery trend does not necessarily represent the actual delivery trends for coming 20 years, but rather provides important context for how a City has grown historically versus how it expects to growth in the future. Approach to City of Seattle The City of Seattle, as one of two designated Metropolitan Cities in King County and the largest and most diverse City in the region, was analyzed at a more granular level than other Cities in King County. This is due to its geographic scale, total population and relative importance in terms of overall impact on capacity in King County. Seattle’s distinct neighborhoods and zoning also allow for a more granular analysis and application of Market Factor. Seattle specific guidance is provided in the Appendix of document on page 40. It is important to note that the methodology for the City of Seattle is the same as the one used across the County, only at a neighborhood scale. The approach and framework herein does allow for more granular application of Market Factor in Cities where it may be appropriate, such as the City of Bellevue. Market Factor: Approach 6January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Why use this approach? •Historical deliveries by product-type data is the best proxy for the nexus of real estate market conditions, willingness to sell and other factors that limit the development of land. •This approach leverages readily available data from the King County Assessor to provide uniform analysis across all jurisdictions on existing supply, new deliveries, units and predominant use breakdowns to provide a historical and current market evaluation. •The approach considers the demand for development land and attempts to account for the complexities associated with development economics that most often drive development decisions. •The approach provides an empirical approach to deriving more realistic assumptions but also provides flexibility for Cities to address more qualitative and subjective conditions. •The framework allows for a zone-by-zone approach for considering and selecting market factors for cities that wish to do so. Some cities may not have the complexity or need to apply Market Factor at that scale and may elect to apply at a City-wide scale. The exhibit below depicts the overall process for selecting Market Factor deductions to apply to each City’s capacity analysis. Approach Summary Analyze development patterns over the last 20 years by regional geography and product-type: •What was delivered over the last 20 years by product type? •How do historical rates of deliveries align with future capacity planned in the area? •How does current supply for any given product type align with projected capacity? •Leverage this data to inform Market Factor recommendations. Provide recommendations for determining Market Factor based on: •Product-type •Regional Geography •Market conditions •Other known market constraints Market Factor: Approach 7January 2021 Methodology Overview DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor: Key Definitions and Reference Terms Explained January 2021 8 The following terms and definitions are key to understanding the methodology and using the guidance document. Product-type: This refers to the general type of product that new construction would deliver in a particular zone. Using the Product-type in this approach serves as a bridge in applying market data to a jurisdiction’s capacity data. Detailed Product-type definitions are provided in Table 1A under the first step in the Market Factor Guidance Framework. Regional Geography: This represents the PSRC Regional Geographies outlined in the PSRC Vision 2050 document. These are used to serve as place-type groupings for cities based on shared characteristics. Market Factor Indicators: The methodology centers around calculating Market Factor Indicator values. These values provide an indication of how capacity would be absorbed based on the annual delivery rate of development (by Product-type) found over the past 5-years. The indicators are not meant to directly translate into market factors but are intended to inform Market Factor Alignments and the Market Factor Ranges (both defined herein). Note: the analysis evaluated both the 5-year annual average and 20-year annual average historical deliveries. The Market Factor Indicator applies the 5-year average historical delivery rate to the estimated capacity of a given geography over a 20-year planning horizon. This calculation as it relates to the projected capacity is used to indicate what percentage of the capacity is not absorbed over the coming 20 years. The resulting percentage value serves as an indicator of the amount of buildable land that is unavailable or infeasible to develop during the 20-year planning period Market Factor Alignments: Three specific groupings for assigning Market Factor Ranges (low, medium, and high) are provided. These are assigned by Product-type and Regional Geography. The Market Factor Indicators for all cities are compared to each other for each Product-type. Given the range of Market Factor Indicator values, Cities are then grouped into low, medium, or high Market Factor Alignments based on how the Cities’ Market Factor Indicator rankings compared to other cities (see Tables A1-4 in the Appendix). The Cities are then segmented by their respective Regional Geographies. Market Factor Ranges: Market Factor Ranges represent the range of Market Factors derived for King County organized by Product- type and Regional Geography. The ranges are informed by Market Factor Indicators and available market data (see page 10 to learn more about how the ranges were informed). •For each Product-type and the corresponding Market Factor Alignment, a city can use the Table of Market Factor Ranges to serve as initial guidance for selecting a Market Factor. •The discretion to select a value within the informed range or outside the range is left to each individual City. The comparative approach of this methodology is intended to provide flexibility for cities and allow them to make informed assumptions based on this framework but also leverage their unique knowledge of local conditions affecting capacity and future availability of land. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor: Methodology 9 Methodology Overview A: Establish the Market Factor Indicator through analysis of historical deliveries and the planned capacity for the coming twenty-year planning period. Measurements:5-year avg. annual deliveries Cities’ Planned capacity Regional Geographies: PSRC Regional Geographies classifications. Data Sources: -King County Parcel Data -Year 2020 King County Buildable Lands Data -PSRC Regional Geographies Output:Market Factor Indicators for all Geographies and product types Process : •Assemble and evaluate past deliveries by evaluating the 5-year and 20-year average annual deliveries. These are used to project trends into the future. •Evaluate Assumed capacity estimated by King County cities using UGC Phase III data. Assign this capacity data by product type based on zoning. •Create an indicator by extending the 5-year annual delivery trend over the 20-year forward planning period and express as a percent of projected capacity. This gives an indication of what percentage of the planned capacity will be absorbed over the coming years. This indication can also be used to calculate what percentage of capacity does NOT develop over the 20-year planning horizon, which serves in this analysis as an indicator for Market Factor. The values from this analysis informed Market Factor recommendations but were not used to directly calculate Market Factors. B: Establish Market Factor Alignments for all cities and general product types in King County In the next step, cities were sorted into Low/Med/High Market Factor Alignment categories, based on the relationship of their Market Factor Indicators for each Product-type. C: Establish Market Factor Ranges for each Regional Geography,Product-type and Market Factor Alignment. •The Market Factor Indicators from Part A inform a reasonable baseline for the Market Factor Ranges for each city type, product type and Market Factor Alignment –covering every combination of these segments. •Market price data (rents, median house prices) are used to inform how these ranges should be distributed among Market Factor Alignments (Part B) for each Product-Type. •The Market Factors used in previous buildable lands analyses (referenced in Appendix Table A10) helped inform the maximum market factor (50%) to be found in the menu of ranges and provided useful context when evaluating appropriate ranges for cities to consider. D: Adjustments –Cities can refine and adjust the Market Factor based on local analysis. •Cities should adjust their Market Factor within the either the range provided OR the range that aligns most closely with the cities’ market conditions. •Further discussion of these adjustments is provided in step 4 of the Market Factor Guidance Framework. •Additional data are provided in the appendix to aid cities in adjusting and in potentially re- aligning with another range that may better represent market conditions anticipated over the 20-year planning horizon. Methodology Summary A: Establish the Market Factor Indicators B: Establish Market Alignments for each City and each Product-Type C: Establish Market Factor Ranges for each Regional Geography , product type and Market Factor Alignment. D: Refine and Adjust Market Factor January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor: Establishing Market Factor Ranges January 2021 10 Process: This process leverages the calculated Market Factor Indicators and identifies a test-fit city in each Regional Geography that has a reasonable alignment of historical deliveries and projected capacity. The test-fit city’s indicator value is used as the foundation for the market factor range. The Market Factor Alignment for the test fit geography serves as the starting point for deriving the range, and the bounds for the ranges found under the remaining Market Factor Alignments (low/med/high) are derived through examining market pricing data (median sales price for single- family, and average rents for all other product types as shown in the Appendix Tables A5-9). These adjustments to find the bounds consider both the average price points and the range of prices across cities in King County. With higher ranges of market price data, a wider range of Market Factors generally resulted. To ensure that the recommended Market Factor Ranges provided in the Guidance Document are reasonable and not overly impactful to a given City’s estimated capacity, historical Market Factor assumptions were reviewed to inform an upper limit on the ranges across all product types. Summary: In summary, the Market Factor Ranges provided later in this document are informed by a review of calculated Market Factor Indicators and selection from this dataset to establish baseline Market Factor assumptions by Product-type and PSRC Geography. Baseline values were selected from those cities that illustrate relative alignment between historical deliveries and the projected capacity. Smaller Market Factor Ranges are found where pricing of a given Product-type is more clustered and the overall range of pricing is smaller. Where large differences in pricing for a given Product-type exists, the resulting Market Factor Ranges are larger. These larger Market Factor Ranges reflect the variability in market conditions found for a given Product-type across a particular Regional Geography. This is reflected in Exhibits 1b-3b on the following pages. Product Type PSRC Designation Test Fit City Test-Fit Market Factor Range Alignment Market Factor Indicator Multifamily Core City Kirkland Low 0.08 Multifamily HCT Kenmore Low 0.07 Multifamily Cities and Towns Covington Medium 0.23 Multifamily Metropolitan Bellevue Low Single Family Core City Kirkland Medium 0.18 Single Family HCT Lake Forest Park Medium 0.34 Single Family Cities and Towns Pacific Medium 0.5 Single Family Metropolitan Bellevue Low COM(off)Core City Federal Way Medium 0.5 COM(off)HCT Mercer Island Medium 0.5 COM(off)Cities and Towns Snoqualmie Medium 0.48 COM(off)Metropolitan Bellevue Low Industrial Core City Redmond Medium 0.5* Industrial HCT Woodinville Low 0.5* Industrial Cities and Towns Enumclaw High 0.5* Industrial Metropolitan Bellevue Low Chosen test-fit Market indicators: The table to the left shows each test fit city for each Regional Geography grouped by each Product-type. *NOTE: the Market Factor upper bound was limited to 0.5, if there was value greater than this value, it was reduced to 0.5 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor: Historical Delivery Data 11 Historical Delivery Data Analysis of historical development patterns across King County began with the compilation and detailed analysis of King County Assessor data. Assessor data provides detailed information on each parcel within the County as well as building specific attributes. Leveraging this information, Heartland established the following: •Number of residential units by jurisdiction •A county-wide time-series of delivery data, based upon year of building/unit completion •Square footage of development by year completed •Building predominant use, and total square footage of each sectional use. Product Classifications Assigned to Assessor Data: Exhibits 1 -3 Charts on the following pages illustrate overall development patterns across the County organized by Regional Geography. The data illustrates overall development patterns by specific Product Type. The historical delivery data provides a proxy for a number of issues raised in the Buildable Lands Guidelines to which Market Factor is meant to address. These data provide a valuable indicator of: •Demand for a given product in any given geography. •The efficiency of the market to deliver the product. •Willingness to sell. •Impacts of planned or completed infrastructure. •Other factors impacting the availability and development of land. Other Data Analyzed Capacity Data:Another key data point used to help inform this methodology includes the capacity data projected by each city by zone for the 2021 Buildable Lands Report. Historical Market Data: Historical pricing data, for each market product-type were also analyzed. Other market data includes rental rates, sale pricing, vacancy, and the growth/trends associated with each of these, which are also previewed in exhibits 1-3. The three data sources combined provide a viewpoint of: •Historical development deliveries by product type. •Planned future capacity for a given Product-type. •Current and past geography specific market conditions for the given product types. Data Limitations: Several limitations exist and are important to acknowledge in the context of their impact to inform the Market Factor assumptions contained later in the Guidance Document. None of the data discussed herein lend themselves to a directly translatable Market Factor value, rather they are used to inform ranges and recommended assignments. In addition, it is important to note that with historical delivery data the year-built attribute may not align directly with a City’s permitting data. In addition, for the purposes of the analysis, assumptions were made in classifying the building’s product type based upon the predominant uses and overall residential densities. January 2021 Residential Non-Residential Single Family Industrial Multifamily/Mixed Residential Office Retail Commercial (non- industrial) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor: Delivery Data and Market Indicators 12 Exhibit 1a: Single Family Unit Deliveries, 2000-2019 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018# of Units DeliveredYear Built Cities and Towns High Capacity Transit Community Core City Metropolitan Exhibit 1b: Single Family Unit Supply and Median Sales Price Source: King County Assessor Data, Redfin $1.00 $500,001.00 $1,000,001.00 $1,500,001.00 $2,000,001.00 $2,500,001.00 $3,000,001.00 $3,500,001.00 $4,000,001.00 $4,500,001.00 $5,000,001.00 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000Median Sales Price ($)Supply In Units Cities and Towns Core City High Capacity Transit Community Source: King County Assessor Data January 2021 Notes: Metro’s are excluded from Exhibit 1b for readability, as supply greatly exceeds that of the other cities. Single family is inclusive of attached single family units and townhomes DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor: Delivery Data and Market Indicators 13 Exhibit 2a: Multifamily & Mixed-Use Unit Deliveries 2000-2019 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018# of Units DeliveredYear Built Cities and Towns High Capacity Transit Community Core City Metropolitan Exhibit 2b: Multifamily & Mixed-Use Supply and Current Rent ($/square foot) 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000Rent Rates $/SFSupply In Units Cities and Towns Core City High Capacity Transit Community Notes: •Excludes Cities with Zero Supply; Assessor data completion year can come before actual occupancy and this may be reflected in 2019. •Metro’s are excluded from Exhibit 2b for readability, as supply greatly exceeds that of the other cities. Source: King County Assessor Data January 2021 Source: King County Assessor Data, Costar DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor: Delivery Data and Market Indicators 14 Exhibit 3a: Commercial Space (sq ft) Deliveries 2000-2019 0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000 16,000,000 18,000,000 20,000,000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018# of Commercial sqft DeliveredYear Built Commercial Space (sq ft) Deliveries, 2000-2019 Cities and Towns High Capacity Transit Community Core City Metropolitan $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 $40.00 $45.00 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000Rent Rates $/SFSupply In Square Feet Cities and Towns Core City High Capacity Transit Community Exhibit 3b: Commercial Supply and Current Rent ($/ sq ft) January 2021 Source: King County Assessor Data, Costar Notes: •Metro’s are excluded from Exhibit 3b for readability, as supply greatly exceeds that of the other cities. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor: UGC Assumptions 15 Connecting Market Factor and other UGC Assumptions Key considerations Market conditions also enter the capacity analysis through other assumptions in the Urban Growth Capacity analysis. These assumptions can affect the values of selected market factors. Below is additional commentary on other assumptions made within the capacity analysis framework and how these assumptions should be considered when using the Market Factor Guidance document. It is important to note that all of the assumptions discussed are calculated and applied outside of the application of the Market Factor deduction and represent stand alone assumptions estimated by each City. •Identifying Redevelopable Lands.The approach to identifying redevelopable lands and the selected thresholds for determining what could be redeveloped in the future is of great importance to how a City’s capacity relates to market conditions and future development economics and conditions.More conservative thresholds, i.e., those that anticipate that less redevelopable lands will develop over the planning period, would result in less redevelopable land being available. Less conservative thresholds would result in more land being available for redevelopment, and may warrant the selection of a market factor at the higher end of the suggested range, depending on market strength. Each City should evaluate how their redevelopment assumptions already incorporate market conditions (or not) when selecting a Market Factor to apply. •Assumed Densities. The density at which property develops in the future is in part dependent on market conditions and greatly impacts overall capacity. Each City has studied historical achieved densities and planned densities to arrive at an assumed density assumption. Where appropriate, each City should evaluate whether their assumptions reflect more aspirational product types and densities versus historical development patterns and achieved densities in a given zone and consider this when selecting a Market Factor to apply. •Infrastructure. Analysis and deductions have been completed to account for deficiencies in infrastructure which could limit the development of land in the future. Jurisdictions may want to consider higher Market Factors for zones or land supply included as capacity, but requiring infrastructure investments to serve the assumed density. This adjustment would be intended to reflect the cost of the infrastructure investment, which was not a component of the previous infrastructure gaps analysis. This would only be a valid consideration where Cities believe the initial applied infrastructure gap deductions do not fully represent the infrastructure challenges in a given area. January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 2.Market Factor Guidance: Framework 16January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance: Framework DetailsDefinitions and Reference Explanation of step Identify and align PSRC Regional Geographies and Market Conditions Identify the predominant Product-type in each zone of the City where capacity exists Menu of Regional Geographies (PSRC) and Market Factor Alignments (Tables 2A-2D) Explanation of each Product-type (Table 1A) •Select applicable Regional Geography based on the Menu •Select appropriate Market Factor Alignment from menu •Find correct table, review and use the selected range to inform Market Factor assumption prior to adjustments in Step 4. •Select the Product-types that align with the zones within your City that have capacity •The Product-type would be the predominant use expected to develop in each corresponding zone For each Product- type select a Market Factor Range to apply to the capacity analysis Market Factor Ranges (Table 3A) Step Step 4. Adjustments •Review known conditions that impact Market Factor (p. 12) •Evaluate applicability in your City •Adjust Market Factor assumption based on on-the-ground conditions in your jurisdiction, and document in table template. Adjust selected Market Factor Range assumptions based on known conditions Condition Considerations (Table 4A) Step 3. Select from Market Factor Ranges Step 2. Identify Regional Geography and Market Alignment Step 1. Identify Zoning by Predominant Product- Type 17 Framework Overview The following provides an overview of the Market Factor guidance framework developed for King County. There are four distinct steps defined within the framework outlined below. Additional details and data are provided on the subsequent pages detailing each step. January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance: Framework STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 Step 1 : Identify Zoning by Product Type Explanation of step Identify the predominant Product-Type in each zone of the City where capacity exists Definitions and Reference •Table 1A -Product-type Reference Select applicable Product-types on the following page Directions In Step 1, assign the applicable Product-type to each zone based upon the anticipated predominant uses in the corresponding zone. To better understand the Product-types used in this guidance, reference Table 1A: Product-Type Reference The Product-type assigned to each zone should represent the predominant building typology and use that is likely to occur. This can be based on past buildout within a given zone OR the Product-type envisioned and supported by the zoning regulations and requirements. 18 Residential Single Family Multifamily/Mixed Residential Non-Residential Industrial Office Retail Commercial (non-industrial) Zoning Mixed use (y/n)Land Use Product-type Mkt Factor R1 N SF Single Family R4 N SF Single Family R6 N SF Single Family R12 N MF Single Family R18 N MF Multifamily R24 N MF Multifamily R48 N MF Multifamily (MHC)N Single Family NB Y MU Mixed Res CB Y MU Mixed Res DR Y MU Mixed Res TOTALS Zoning Designations Product-Types Capacity Tables Example January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance: Framework 19 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 Product-type Description/Application Illustrative Examples Residential Single Family All areas where single family residential product inclusive of any of the following listed as the predominant use: detached, duplex, tri-plex four plex or townhouse plat. Detached single family homes and subdivisions, attached townhomes and duplexes. Multifamily/Mixed Residential All areas where multilevel stacked residential product in the form of rental housing or condominium ownership is the predominant permitted use. Inclusive of high density multifamily and mixed- use developments. Stacked flat apartment buildings, garden style apartment complexes, mid-rise multifamily podium projects, mid-rise multifamily podium projects with ground floor commercial uses, residential high-rise, residential condominium projects. Non-Residential Industrial Industrial facilities inclusive of manufacturing, warehousing, distribution and light industrial and facilities Heavy industrial and manufacturing, warehousing and logistics development, light industrial and flex industrial facilities. Office Areas where the predominant use is office and zoning caters to office heavy commercial uses Business Parks, Downtown CBDs. Retail Areas designated for standalone retail development. Malls, power centers, lifestyle centers. Commercial (non- industrial) Inclusive of all nonindustrial commercial uses. Appropriate to apply in mixed use areas where the commercial use is the predominant use inclusive of instances where mixed residential is allowed but commercial component is primary. Retail and office development (stand alone of mixed). Commercial components of residential mixed- use products. Table 1A –Product-Type Reference January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance: Framework STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 Step 2 : Identify Regional Geographies mm and Market Factor Alignment Explanation of step Use the following tables to identify the Regional Geography and to align with corresponding market conditions. Definitions and Reference •Table 2A –Metropolitan •Table 2B –High-Capacity Transit Market Factor Alignment Table •Table 2C –Core Cities Market Factor Alignment Table •Table 2D –Cities and towns Market Alignment Table Directions Regional Geography Designation In addition to Product-type, this guidance segments different jurisdictions into like-kind Regional Geographies using the PSRC Designations. The four designations present in King County are given below: •Metropolitan •Core City •High-Capacity Transit Community (HCT) •Cities and Towns Cities in these Regional Geographies share similar characteristics among peers. However, despite similarities amongst these Regional Geographies, market conditions still vary. To account for these variations amongst Regional Geographies peers, different Market Factor Alignments (high, medium, low) are be applied to the target cities to segment by these variations. Use the Tables 2a -2d as a reference in selecting appropriate Market Factor Ranges by product type in Step 3. To review the Market Factor Indicators by City and Product type, refer to the Appendix Tables A1-A4. To review the methodology and explanation of Market Factor Indicators see Methodology Overview and Definitions section on page 8. Market Factor Alignment Each city’s market conditions have been evaluated and Market Alignment has been assigned by Product-type. Use the rankings to select a Market Factors Range in Step 3. •Low –market data and test fit analysis indicated that a lower Market Factor range is appropriate for the given Product-type. •Medium –market data and test fit analysis indicated that a mid level Market Factor range is appropriate for the given Product-type. •High –market data and test fit analysis indicated that a higher Market Factor range is appropriate for the given Product-type. Further adjustments to the Market Factor, including how to select within the recommended range are completed in Step 4. 20January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance: Framework 21 City/Regional Geography Product-Type Market Factor Alignment City PSRC Designation Multifamily/MU Single Family Office/Commercial Industrial Redmond Core City Low Low Low Medium Tukwila Core City Low Medium Medium Medium Bothell Core City Low Low Low Low Issaquah Core City Medium Low Low Low Kirkland Core City Low Medium Low Low Kent Core City Medium Low High Low Burien Core City High Medium High Low SeaTac Core City High Medium Low High Federal Way Core City Low Medium Medium Low Renton Core City High Low Medium Low Auburn Core City Low Medium Medium Low Table 2B –Core Cities Market Factor Alignment Table STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 City/Regional Geography Product-Type Market Factor Alignment City PSRC Designation Multifamily/MU Single Family Office/ Commercial Industrial Newcastle HCT Low Medium Low High Woodinville HCT Low Low Low Low Mercer Island HCT High Low Medium Medium Des Moines HCT High Low Low Low Shoreline HCT High Medium High High Kenmore HCT Low Low Medium Medium Lake Forest Park HCT High Medium High NA Table 2C–High-Capacity Transit (HCT) Market Alignment Table City/Regional Geography Product-Type Market Factor Alignment City PSRC Designation Multifamily/MU Single Family Office/ Commercial Industrial Bellevue Metropolitan Low Low Low Low Seattle*Metropolitan NA*NA*NA*NA* Table 2A –Metropolitan Market Alignment Table *Reference Appendix (page 40) for City of Seattle specific Market Factor guidance. January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance: Framework 22 City/Regional Geography Product-Type Market Factor Alignment City PSRC Designation Multifamily/MU Single Family Office/ Commercial Industrial North Bend Cities and Towns Medium Low Medium High Maple Valley Cities and Towns Low Low Medium High Snoqualmie Cities and Towns Low Low Medium High Covington Cities and Towns Medium Low Low High Enumclaw Cities and Towns High Low Medium High Sammamish Cities and Towns High Low High High Milton Cities and Towns High High High High Carnation Cities and Towns High Low Low High Duvall Cities and Towns High Low High Low Black Diamond Cities and Towns High Medium NA High Medina Cities and Towns High Low High High Normandy Park Cities and Towns Low High Medium High Pacific Cities and Towns High Medium High High Skykomish Cities and Towns High Medium High High Algona Cities and Towns High Low High High Beaux Arts Cities and Towns High Low NA NA Clyde Hill Cities and Towns High Low NA NA Hunts Point Cities and Towns High Low NA NA Yarrow Point Cities and Towns High Low NA NA Table 2D –Cities and towns Market Alignment Table STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance: Framework STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 Step 3 : Select From Market Factor Ranges Explanation of step For each Product-type select a Market Factor Range suitable for your City Definitions and Reference •Table 3A –Market Factor Ranges by Product-type Directions Building upon Steps 1 and 2, Step 3 applies Market Factor Ranges by relating each Regional Geography and Market Factor Alignment (Step 2) to a specific Product-type which can then be applied to zoning through a given zoning designation’s corresponding Product-type, which was identified in Step 1. The following table contains Market Factors Ranges for all combinations of Regional Geographies, Market factor Alignments, and product-types. 23 Table 3A –Market Factor Ranges by Product-Type Methodology Reminder: These ranges are informed by the Market Factor Indictor test-fit analysis. This relates historical delivery trends to projected capacity. These ranges were then further differentiated among peers in each Regional Geography by evaluating price data including both rents and median sale price (for single family product). Reference Methodology Overview on Page 10 for more detail. Product-Type Regional Geography Residential Non-Residential Market Factor Alignment Multifamily/ Mixed-Res Single Family Commercial (Office/Retail/Mixed)Industrial Core City Low 5%-10%1%-14%1%-10%1%-15% Medium 11%-20%15%-20%11%-20%16%-35% High 21%-35%21%-30%21%-50%36%-50% High-Capacity Transit Low 5%-10%1%-9%1%-14%1%-19% Medium 11%-15%10%-20%15%-25%20%-30% High 16%-30%21%-35%26%-50%31%-50% Cities and Towns Low 10%-24%1%-10%1%-10%1%-15% Medium 25%-35%11%-40%11%-20%16%-35% High 36%-50%41%-50%21%-50%36%-50% Metropolitan Low 5%-10%1%-14%1%-10%1%-15% January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance: Framework STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 Step 4 : Adjustments Explanation of step Make selected adjustments to suggested Market Factor Ranges based on known conditions Definitions and Reference •Table 4A –Adjustment Implementation Overview Step 4 provides a framework for selecting a Market Factor from within the range selected in Step 3. Specific conditions are discussed that would influence future development and impact the Market Factor value assumed by a given City. The conditions listed below reflect specific topics and questions flagged during the engagement process described earlier in the guidance document. Each city should carefully consider these conditions and how they might impact their assumptions related to Market Factor. The conditions discussed do not represent all the potential conditions and issues that Market Factor may address. Cities should adjust within the given ranges or deviate from it altogether to account for known conditions that impact the development of and availability of land in their jurisdiction. Table 4A on the following pages provides more detailed descriptions of theses conditions and how adjustment should be considered. Note that assumptions previously incorporated into the Land Capacity Analysis (see page 15 UGC Assumptions) may already account for the adjustments discussed in this section. •Vacant versus redevelopable lands assumptions •Strong market growth indicators (Reference appendix market Tables A5-A9) •Single family uses in recently up-zoned areas •Restrictive Covenants in planned communities •Parcel size and assemblage challenges •Transit accessibility Selecting Within The Range Based on Market Conditions: A range for each Product-type by each Regional Geography is provided in Step 3. In order to select within this range, each city must review their specific attributes, assumptions and market conditions and consider whether a higher or lower Market Factor is appropriate for that given Product-type (and therefore, applicable zone within the city). It is important to note that additional factors may need to be considered to account for unique circumstances influencing the market availability of land in any given jurisdiction. Several sets of data may be leveraged to evaluate the adjustments outlined in Table 4a: •Appendix Tables A1-A4:Market Factor Indicators and supporting data for each jurisdiction in King County (illustrating historical deliveries and planned capacity) •Appendix Tables A5-A9: Market conditions by product-type (key indicators for all applicable jurisdictions within the County) •Appendix Table A10: Past Market Factor assumptions 24January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance: Framework 25 Table 4A –Adjustment Template Condition Explanation Recommendation on Market Factor Adjustment Select a lower value from the range if: Select a higher value from the range if: Assumption for Vacant versus Redevelopable Lands Where a City has a mix of vacant and redevelopable lands as part of their capacity and it is appropriate to differentiate the Market Factor assumption for vacant and redevelopable lands. Consider the overall ratio of vacant land versus redevelopable land and the condition of said lands. For example, if >50% of capacity is on vacant land, consider adjusting Market Factor downward on vacant land upward on redevelopable land. The relative location of vacant and redevelopable lands is also an important consideration. Where redevelopable lands are located near or adjacent to important infrastructure and amenities, the need to differentiate between the two is less pronounced. For vacant lands, select a value that is lower within the given range (or outside the low end of the range if deemed appropriate) when the supply of vacant lands represents a significant portion of overall capacity for a given product and the location and relative attributes of said supply do not represent barriers to redevelopment For redevelopable lands, select a higher value in the Market Factor range if conditions are known that may limit or impact the turnover and availability of land with existing uses. Market Trends Where recent real estate market trends for a given Product-type indicate more or less challenging conditions for development in the next 20 years. If trends indicate growth in demand for a given product, consider a downward adjustment on Market Factor to reflect this demand. Such indicators include growth in pricing/lease rates and/or decreases. Alternatively, if the market data for a given product indicates more difficult market conditions in terms of ranking amongst jurisdictions, consider selection of a higher market factor within the given range. Market trends align with trends amongst peer cities falling in a lower Market Factor Alignment indicates that a lower market factor may be appropriate. Market trends suggest a downward trend in overall demand or overall rankings amongst peer cities suggesting that a higher market factor may be appropriate. STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance: Framework 26 Table 4A –Adjustment Template Condition Explanation Recommendation on Market Factor Adjustment Select a lower value from the range if: Select a higher value from the range if: Single Family Up-zoned Areas Where significant capacity for higher density single family or multifamily/ mixed-use housing is assumed on existing single family uses Where capacity exists on lands that currently house single family uses but greater densities are permitted, many cities have cited concern regarding how such areas will redevelop and if a specific Market Factor adjustment should be leveraged. The Cities of Shoreline and SeaTac serve as examples where single family areas were up-zoned around planned or completed transit facilities. The turnover and development of single family areas in these cities is captured in through the analysis of historical deliveries data and may be leveraged for reference or comparison on a county wide scale. Important indicators to consider when adjusting for such a condition include: -Whether home prices are below, on par or above median prices in the region -The age and quality of the housing stock -Recent transaction activity -Recent permitting activity The conditions of the capacity lands with single family uses reflect the following conditions: -Home prices at or below median prices for the area -The housing stock is aging -There is a higher rate of recent transactions reflecting interest from developers The conditions of the capacity lands with single family uses reflect the following conditions: -Home prices are above median prices for the area representing a potential market barrier to redevelopment -The housing stock includes recently constructed or updated structures -Recent transactions reflect value in use (meaning the highest and best use of the property is still considered the single family residence) Restrictive Covenants in Planned Communities Where restrictive home- owner associations or other similar covenants may limit the redevelopment at a higher intensity/use In some cases, areas that have been rezoned or up-zoned are still subject to restrictive covenants that run with the land and limit how development may occur. This is most likely to exist in existing single family neighborhoods but may also pose a challenge in business parks and other similar commercial districts. If restrictive covenants are not known to exist or would have a limited impact on redevelopment in the future. If restrictive covenants are known and would need to be removed/eliminated in order for redevelopment per new zoning allowances to occur (at a higher intensity). STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance: Framework 27 Table 4A –Adjustment Template (Continued) Condition Explanation Recommendation on Market Factor Adjustment Select a lower value from the range if: Select a higher value from the range if: Fragmented Ownership and Parcel Size Where capacity in a given neighborhood or zone is fragmented and generally consists of smaller parcels (less than ..25 acres for multifamily site for example) Where capacity for a given Product- type occurs on largely fragmented or non-contiguous parcels and the parcels are generally smaller in size, a higher market factor may be considered. Such conditions may limit options for parcel assemblage in the future and result in less land being redeveloped in the future. Vacant and/or redevelopable lands consist of a mix of contiguous and non- contiguous properties and parcel sizes do not appear to represent a challenge to development in the future Conditions are observed that reflect an abundance of capacity on smaller, non-contiguous properties in a given zone or neighborhood Access to Transit Where planned or recently completed transit facilities may impact develop feasibility in the surrounding neighborhood/zone. Planned infrastructure like Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail and other major transportation improvement that improve access and mobility can greatly improve development feasibility and owner willingness to sell/redevelopment land. Market Factor assumptions should reflect where such improvements either exist or are planned in the future (within an impacted area such as a ¼ mile walk shed). A significant transportation infrastructure investment is completed or planned that will greatly improve transit access in a given zone or neighborhood. NA STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 3.Appendix A – Reference Tables 28January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Appendix A 29 Appendix Tables Summary The following tables are available for reference and were used to inform the Market Factor alignment for Cities (low, medium or high) by product and the Market Factor range value. •Table A1. Supply, Deliveries, & Capacity Table:Multifamily + Mixed Res •Table A2. Supply, Deliveries, & Capacity Table:Single Family •Table A3. Supply, Deliveries, & Capacity Table:Non-residential -Commercial (Office/Retail) •Table A4. Supply, Deliveries, & Capacity Table:Non-Residential -Industrial Additional Market data is available in the following tables to further inform Market Factor selection and adjustments. Included is an overview of past Market Factor assumptions used across Washington State. •Table A5. Market Data –Multifamily Residential Product •Table A6. Market Data –Single Family Product •Table A7. Market Data –Retail Product •Table A8. Market Data –Office Product •Table A9. Market Data –Industrial Product •Table A10. Market Factor –Past Assumptions January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Appendix A 30 Table A1. Supply, Deliveries, & Capacity Table: Multifamily + Mixed Res City Regional Geography Market Factor Alignment Total Supply (Units) 5-yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross,2015- 2019) Assumed Capacity Estimates from Cities (Gross) Market Factor Indicator Algona Cities and Towns High 36 0 53 100% Beaux Arts Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Black Diamond Cities and Towns High 41 0 1886 100% Carnation Cities and Towns High 45 0 196 100% Clyde Hill Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Duvall Cities and Towns High 119 0 856 100% Enumclaw Cities and Towns High 1,053 0 632 100% Hunts Point Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Medina Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Milton Cities and Towns High 300 23 0 100% Pacific Cities and Towns High 599 0 3 100% Skykomish Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Yarrow Point Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Sammamish Cities and Towns High 3,021 25 2157 76% North Bend Cities and Towns Med 803 9 390 56% Covington Cities and Towns Med 665 65 1689 23% Maple Valley Cities and Towns Low 1,121 65 269 0% Normandy Park Cities and Towns Low 584 1 12 0% Snoqualmie Cities and Towns Low 944 58 148 0% SeaTac Core City High 4,626 41 7044 88% Renton Core City High 17,274 153 15476 80% Burien Core City High 7,635 120 7624 68% Kent Core City Med 21,166 278 13077 57% Issaquah Core City Med 10,277 426 14172 40% Kirkland Core City Low 18,348 427 9327 8% Tukwila Core City Low 4,484 126 2551 1% Auburn Core City Low 8,481 201 3511 0% Bothell Core City Low 6,168 350 3238 0% Federal Way Core City Low 16,085 192 617 0% Redmond Core City Low 19,531 1,144 20414 0% Lake Forest Park High Capacity Transit Community High 786 0 844 100% Shoreline High Capacity Transit Community High 7,568 208 24037 83% Des Moines High Capacity Transit Community High 5,348 106 6657 68% Mercer Island High Capacity Transit Community High 3,352 78 4748 67% Kenmore High Capacity Transit Community Low 2,335 53 1147 7% Woodinville High Capacity Transit Community Low 2,996 126 2612 4% Newcastle High Capacity Transit Community Low 2,330 202 2772 0% Bellevue Metropolitan Low 30,707 993 23473 15% Source: King County Assessor January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Appendix A 31 Table A2. Supply, Deliveries, & Capacity Table: Single Family City Regional Geography Market Factor Alignment Total Supply (Units) 5-yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross,2015- 2019) Assumed Capacity Estimates from Cities (Gross) Market Factor Indicator Value Milton Cities and Towns High 370 0 70 100% Normandy Park Cities and Towns High 2,279 9 4931 96% Skykomish Cities and Towns Medium 136 0 54 85% Black Diamond Cities and Towns Medium 1,442 16 1606 80% Pacific Cities and Towns Medium 1,722 12 586 58% Algona Cities and Towns Low 847 5 59 0% Beaux Arts Cities and Towns Low 116 0 3 0% Carnation Cities and Towns Low 725 33 110 0% Clyde Hill Cities and Towns Low 1,100 16 0 0% Covington Cities and Towns Low 6,195 52 295 0% Duvall Cities and Towns Low 2,411 34 446 0% Enumclaw Cities and Towns Low 3,867 92 1078 0% Hunts Point Cities and Towns Low 181 0 5 0% Maple Valley Cities and Towns Low 8,204 87 1314 0% Medina Cities and Towns Low 1,147 9 60 0% North Bend Cities and Towns Low 2,028 64 893 0% Sammamish Cities and Towns Low 18,960 257 994 0% Snoqualmie Cities and Towns Low 3,804 55 54 0% Yarrow Point Cities and Towns Low 411 7 24 0% Burien Core City Medium 12,813 58 8034 85% SeaTac Core City Medium 5,489 20 1757 78% Federal Way Core City Medium 20,058 50 4082 75% Tukwila Core City Medium 3,677 31 1914 67% Auburn Core City Medium 15,664 152 6859 56% Kirkland Core City Medium 22,231 246 6019 18% Bothell Core City Low 5,472 77 1065 0% Issaquah Core City Low 7,319 102 1321 0% Kent Core City Low 24,572 224 3174 0% Redmond Core City Low 11,947 148 153 0% Renton Core City Low 23,217 169 2887 0% Shoreline High Capacity Transit Community Medium 16,241 51 1926 47% Newcastle High Capacity Transit Community Medium 3,267 29 942 38% Lake Forest Park High Capacity Transit Community Medium 4,605 36 1084 34% Des Moines High Capacity Transit Community Low 7,770 45 549 0% Kenmore High Capacity Transit Community Low 6,725 86 307 0% Mercer Island High Capacity Transit Community Low 7,200 65 942 0% Woodinville High Capacity Transit Community Low 2,945 51 159 0% Bellevue Metropolitan Low 30,991 180 1401 0% Source: King County Assessor January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Appendix A 32 Table A3. Supply, Deliveries, & Capacity Table: Non-residential -Commercial (Office/Retail/Mixed-use) City Regional Geography Market Factor Alignment Total Supply (square feet) 5-yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross,2015- 2019) Assumed Capacity Estimates from Cities (Gross) Market Factor Indicator Value Algona Cities and Towns High 82,157 0 1,937,549 100% Beaux Arts Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Black Diamond Cities and Towns High 112,398 24 0 100% Carnation Cities and Towns Low 107,218 3,173 45,869 0% Clyde Hill Cities and Towns High 3,943 0 0 100% Covington Cities and Towns Low 1,600,545 17,681 21,500 0% Duvall Cities and Towns High 329,706 0 0 100% Enumclaw Cities and Towns Med 1,069,481 8,426 510,812 67% Hunts Point Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Maple Valley Cities and Towns Med 1,000,677 6,225 3,034,746 96% Medina Cities and Towns High 17,769 0 1,466 100% Milton Cities and Towns High 0 0 453,024 100% Normandy Park Cities and Towns Med 220,497 912 1,364,473 99% North Bend Cities and Towns Med 815,721 5,093 1,816,293 94% Pacific Cities and Towns High 44,398 0 986,895 100% Sammamish Cities and Towns High 701,175 22,701 0 100% Skykomish Cities and Towns High 17,793 0 0 100% Snoqualmie Cities and Towns Med 861,700 15,282 589,806 48% Yarrow Point Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Auburn Core City Med 6,044,887 29,832 3,117,316 81% Bothell Core City Low 2,668,767 12,787 49,675 0% Burien Core City High 3,154,588 25,970 0 100% Federal Way Core City Med 9,915,400 40,014 2,297,392 65% Issaquah Core City Low 6,213,142 15,918 22,297 0% Kent Core City High 8,619,483 69,824 0 100% Kirkland Core City Low 8,423,096 229,860 2,042,751 0% Redmond Core City Low 17,730,711 124,991 0 100% Renton Core City High 14,388,628 329,953 0 100% SeaTac Core City Low 4,465,866 38,001 114,580 0% Tukwila Core City Med 10,102,478 10,163 1,847,445 89% Des Moines High Capacity Transit Community Low 1,192,091 65,619 1,081,548 0% Kenmore High Capacity Transit Community High 599,267 8,177 0 100% Lake Forest Park High Capacity Transit Community High 346,900 0 65,635 100% Mercer Island High Capacity Transit Community Med 1,072,265 2,133 125,344 66% Newcastle High Capacity Transit Community Low 309,937 7,889 12,170 0% Shoreline High Capacity Transit Community High 3,240,969 5,866 0 100% Woodinville High Capacity Transit Community Low 1,692,157 11,304 6,614 0% Bellevue Metropolitan Low 35,827,922 684,660 1,828,205 0% *Note: Capacity does not reflect the assumed capacity projected in mixed-use development Source: King County Assessor January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Appendix A 33 Table A4. Supply, Deliveries, & Capacity Table: Non-Residential -Industrial City Regional Geography Market Factor Alignment Total Supply (square feet) 5-yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross,2015-2019) Assumed Capacity Estimates from Cities (Gross) Market Factor Indicator Value Algona Cities and Towns High 2,436,435 0 308056 100% Beaux Arts Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Black Diamond Cities and Towns High 71,790 3,520 0 100% Carnation Cities and Towns High 161,286 0 21321 100% Clyde Hill Cities and Towns High 2,430 0 0 100% Covington Cities and Towns High 350,018 40,329 0 100% Hunts Point Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Maple Valley Cities and Towns High 321,719 0 0 100% Medina Cities and Towns High 16,283 0 0 100% Milton Cities and Towns High 1,300 0 0 100% Normandy Park Cities and Towns High 47,284 0 0 100% North Bend Cities and Towns High 852,090 0 0 100% Pacific Cities and Towns High 254,978 0 1931973 100% Sammamish Cities and Towns High 163,595 0 0 100% Skykomish Cities and Towns High 12,385 0 0 100% Yarrow Point Cities and Towns High 0 0 0 100% Snoqualmie Cities and Towns High 1,083,332 6,982 9893940 99% Enumclaw Cities and Towns High 1,028,576 15,684 2248545 86% Duvall Cities and Towns Low 164,303 17,881 125140 0% Bothell Core City High 1,891,744 25,976 0 100% Kirkland Core City High 3,759,313 17,595 0 100% Renton Core City High 13,611,660 175,518 0 100% SeaTac Core City High 4,256,960 91,460 0 100% Tukwila Core City Med 14,963,571 34,945 3397732 79% Redmond Core City Med 10,139,556 19,167 1043760 63% Auburn Core City Low 23,959,569 184,213 3092704 0% Burien Core City Low 1,811,122 141,140 272973 0% Federal Way Core City Low 2,732,946 88,774 1651415 0% Issaquah Core City Low 1,421,025 17,721 327789 0% Kent Core City Low 46,653,264 492,318 7856045 0% Kenmore High Capacity Transit Community High 536,730 2,880 0 100% Lake Forest Park High Capacity Transit Community High 14,757 0 0 100% Mercer Island High Capacity Transit Community High 96,230 0 0 100% Newcastle High Capacity Transit Community High 227,320 0 0 100% Shoreline High Capacity Transit Community High 1,447,694 76,424 0 100% Des Moines High Capacity Transit Community Low 1,892,369 311,055 7619 0% Woodinville High Capacity Transit Community Low 5,868,390 50,850 371356 0% Bellevue Metropolitan Low 4,853,067 32,740 143435 0% Source: King County Assessor January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Appendix A 34 Table A5. Market Data –Multifamily Residential Product CITY Total Product Supply Total Housing Supply Product % of total Housing units Total Unit Deliveries 2000-2019 Average Annual Deliveries 2000-2019 (Units) Total Deliveries last 5 years (gross, units) Average Annual Deliveries last 5 years (Gross, Units) 5-yr. Total Deliveries as a % of 20- year Total Deliveries (Gross) Current average rent, (Monthly $/SF ) Average Rent 2015, (Monthly $/SF ) Average Rent 2010, (Monthly $/SF ) ALGONA 36 884 4.1%0 0 0 0 0.0%$1.53 $1.25 $1.02 AUBURN 8,481 24,155 35.1%2,055 103 1,003 201 9.8%$1.53 $1.25 $1.02 BEAUX ARTS 0 116 0.0%0 0 0 0 0.0%$2.60 $2.30 $1.83 BELLEVUE 30,707 61,914 49.6%10,231 512 4,964 993 9.7%$2.60 $2.30 $1.83 BLACK DIAMOND 41 1,828 2.2%0 0 0 0 0.0%$1.90 $1.61 $1.27 BOTHELL 6,168 11,742 52.5%2,841 142 1,750 350 12.3%$2.02 $1.71 $1.37 BURIEN 7,635 20,456 37.3%1,124 56 602 120 10.7%$1.69 $1.39 $1.07 CARNATION 45 779 5.8%0 0 0 0 0.0%$1.90 $1.61 $1.27 CLYDE HILL 0 1,100 0.0%0 0 0 0 0.0%$2.60 $2.30 $1.83 COVINGTON 665 6,870 9.7%665 33 326 65 9.8%$1.90 $1.61 $1.27 DES MOINES 5,348 13,218 40.5%772 39 532 106 13.8%$1.69 $1.39 $1.07 DUVALL 119 2,557 4.7%93 5 0 0 0.0%$1.90 $1.61 $1.27 ENUMCLAW 1,053 4,928 21.4%73 4 0 0 0.0%$1.90 $1.61 $1.27 FEDERAL WAY 16,085 36,149 44.5%2,357 118 962 192 8.2%$1.61 $1.33 $1.00 HUNTS POINT 0 181 0.0%0 0 0 0 0.0%$2.60 $2.30 $1.83 ISSAQUAH 10,277 17,600 58.4%5,744 287 2,129 426 7.4%$2.08 $1.82 $1.40 KENMORE 2,335 9,153 25.5%521 26 267 53 10.2%$2.02 $1.71 $1.37 KENT 21,166 45,764 46.3%3,066 153 1,390 278 9.1%$1.76 $1.42 $1.09 KIRKLAND 18,348 40,736 45.0%5,394 270 2,135 427 7.9%$2.41 $2.07 $1.58 LAKE FOREST PARK 786 5,395 14.6%1 0 0 0 0.0%$2.02 $1.71 $1.37 MAPLE VALLEY 1,121 9,332 12.0%614 31 326 65 10.6%$1.90 $1.61 $1.27 MEDINA 0 1,148 0.0%0 0 0 0 0.0%$2.60 $2.30 $1.83 MERCER ISLAND 3,352 10,556 31.8%1,983 99 389 78 3.9%$2.60 $2.30 $1.83 MILTON 300 670 44.8%300 15 116 23 7.7%$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 NEWCASTLE 2,330 5,707 40.8%1,444 72 1,009 202 14.0%$2.08 $1.82 $1.40 NORMANDY PARK 584 2,864 20.4%118 6 6 1 1.0%$1.69 $1.39 $1.07 NORTH BEND 803 2,845 28.2%308 15 43 9 2.8%$1.90 $1.61 $1.27 PACIFIC 599 2,321 25.8%79 4 0 0 0.0%$1.53 $1.25 $1.02 REDMOND 19,531 31,587 61.8%8,571 429 5,722 1,144 13.4%$2.39 $2.12 $1.69 RENTON 17,274 40,576 42.6%4,771 239 763 153 3.2%$1.88 $1.56 $1.23 SAMMAMISH 3,021 21,989 13.7%1,310 66 127 25 1.9%$1.90 $1.61 $1.27 SeaTac 4,626 10,115 45.7%1,213 61 207 41 3.4%$1.69 $1.39 $1.07 SEATTLE 191,061 362,153 52.8%82,778 4,139 46,027 9,205 11.1%$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 SHORELINE 7,568 23,906 31.7%2,053 103 1,042 208 10.2%$2.05 $1.78 $1.52 SKYKOMISH 0 137 0.0%0 0 0 0 0.0%$1.90 $1.61 $1.27 SNOQUALMIE 944 4,748 19.9%836 42 291 58 7.0%$1.90 $1.61 $1.27 TUKWILA 4,484 8,298 54.0%629 31 629 126 20.0%$1.88 $1.56 $1.23 WOODINVILLE 2,996 6,208 48.3%1,455 73 630 126 8.7%$2.02 $1.71 $1.37 YARROW POINT 0 413 0.0%0 0 0 0 0.0%$2.60 $2.30 $1.83 Note: all deliveries are gross and measured in units Source: King County Assessor, Costar January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Appendix A 35 Table A6. Market Data –Single Family Product Note: all deliveries are gross and measured in units Source: King County Assessor, Redfin CITY Total Product Supply Total Housing Supply Product % of total Housing units Total Unit Deliveries 2000- 2019 Average Annual Deliveries 2000- 2019 (Units) Total Deliveries last 5 years (gross, units) Average Annual Deliveries last 5 years (Gross, Units) 5-yr. Total Deliveries as a % of 20-year Total Deliveries (Gross) Median Sale Price 2020 Median Sale Price 2015 Median Sale Price 2012 6-year CAGR 9-year CAGR ALGONA 847 884 95.8%223 11 25 5 11%$371,000 $234,000 $140,000 8.0%11.4% AUBURN 15,664 24,155 64.8%3,545 177 759 152 21%$493,000 $302,000 $220,000 8.5%9.4% BEAUX ARTS 116 116 100.0%17 1 2 0 12%$2,530,000 $1,167,000 $660,000 13.8%16.1% BELLEVUE 30,991 61,914 50.1%3,458 173 900 180 26%$1,098,000 $680,000 $507,000 8.3%9.0% BLACK DIAMOND 1,442 1,828 78.9%216 11 82 16 38%$519,000 $310,000 $321,000 9.0%5.5% BOTHELL 5,472 11,742 46.6%1,339 67 387 77 29%$710,000 $449,000 $335,000 7.9%8.7% BURIEN 12,813 20,456 62.6%1,050 53 292 58 28%$518,000 $288,000 $192,000 10.3%11.7% CARNATION 725 779 93.1%178 9 164 33 92%$820,000 $352,000 $350,000 15.1%9.9% CLYDE HILL 1,100 1,100 100.0%262 13 81 16 31%$2,525,000 $2,000,000 $3,130,000 4.0%-2.4% COVINGTON 6,195 6,870 90.2%1,880 94 262 52 14%$536,000 $323,000 $255,000 8.8%8.6% DES MOINES 7,770 13,218 58.8%685 34 224 45 33%$467,000 $297,000 $186,000 7.8%10.8% DUVALL 2,411 2,557 94.3%947 47 171 34 18%$687,000 $497,000 $320,000 5.5%8.9% ENUMCLAW 3,867 4,928 78.5%709 35 462 92 65%$542,000 $319,000 $277,000 9.2%7.7% FEDERAL WAY 20,058 36,149 55.5%1,814 91 250 50 14%$450,000 $275,000 $210,000 8.6%8.8% HUNTS POINT 181 181 100.0%41 2 2 0 5%$3,900,000 $1,450,000 $6,900,000 17.9%-6.1% ISSAQUAH 7,319 17,600 41.6%3,758 188 508 102 14%$810,000 $500,000 $455,000 8.4%6.6% KENMORE 6,725 9,153 73.5%1,767 88 430 86 24%$730,000 $506,000 $352,000 6.3%8.4% KENT 24,572 45,764 53.7%5,281 264 1,118 224 21%$493,000 $316,000 $214,000 7.7%9.7% KIRKLAND 22,231 40,736 54.6%3,955 198 1,230 246 31%$865,000 $530,000 $407,000 8.5%8.7% LAKE FOREST PARK 4,605 5,395 85.4%387 19 178 36 46%$803,000 $400,000 $395,000 12.3%8.2% MAPLE VALLEY 8,204 9,332 87.9%3,945 197 436 87 11%$575,000 $383,000 $290,000 7.0%7.9% MEDINA 1,147 1,148 99.9%250 13 47 9 19%$4,325,000 $2,884,000 $925,000 7.0%18.7% MERCER ISLAND 7,200 10,556 68.2%1,037 52 327 65 32%$1,550,000 $1,090,000 $986,000 6.0%5.2% MILTON 370 670 55.2%26 1 0 0 0%$460,000 $246,000 $139,000 11.0%14.2% NEWCASTLE 3,267 5,707 57.2%1,003 50 147 29 15%$968,000 $605,000 $465,000 8.1%8.5% NORMANDY PARK 2,279 2,864 79.6%152 8 44 9 29%$875,000 $555,000 $425,000 7.9%8.4% NORTH BEND 2,028 2,845 71.3%599 30 322 64 54%$850,000 $439,000 $364,000 11.6%9.9% PACIFIC 1,722 2,321 74.2%468 23 61 12 13%$415,000 $242,000 $217,000 9.4%7.5% REDMOND 11,947 31,587 37.8%3,089 154 738 148 24%$834,000 $570,000 $450,000 6.5%7.1% RENTON 23,217 40,576 57.2%7,141 357 847 169 12%$566,000 $350,000 $295,000 8.3%7.5% SAMMAMISH 18,960 21,989 86.2%5,746 287 1,285 257 22%$1,099,000 $699,000 $507,000 7.8%9.0% SeaTac 5,489 10,115 54.3%409 20 98 20 24%$440,000 $262,000 $188,000 9.0%9.9% SEATTLE 167,142 362,153 46.2%26,954 1,348 8,165 1,633 30%$745,000 $494,000 $368,000 7.1%8.2% SHORELINE 16,241 23,906 67.9%1,023 51 253 51 25%$650,000 $388,000 $287,000 9.0%9.5% SKYKOMISH 136 137 99.3%8 0 2 0 25%$455,000 $108,000 $155,000 27.1%12.7% SNOQUALMIE 3,804 4,748 80.1%3,030 152 274 55 9%$845,000 $462,000 $396,000 10.6%8.8% TUKWILA 3,677 8,298 44.3%619 31 156 31 25%$485,000 $303,000 $225,000 8.2%8.9% WOODINVILLE 2,945 6,208 47.4%780 39 253 51 32%$925,000 $517,000 $430,000 10.2%8.9% YARROW POINT 411 413 99.5%118 6 33 7 28%$3,765,000 $3,260,000 $1,438,000 2.4%11.3% January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Appendix A 36 Table A7. Market Data –Retail Product CITY total Product supply (sf) Total Deliveries 2000-2019 (SF) Average Annual Deliveries 2000- 2019 (SF) 5-yr Total Deliveries last (gross, sf) 5-Yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross, sf) 5-yr. Total Deliveries as a % of 20-year Total Deliveries (Gross) Current average rent, (Annual, $/SF) ALGONA 21,931 7,828 391 0 0 0.0%$22.84 AUBURN 4,059,789 963,901 48,195 58,083 11,617 1.2%$22.84 BEAUX ARTS 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$42.34 BELLEVUE 9,281,934 2,835,369 141,768 845,558 169,112 6.0%$0.00 BLACK DIAMOND 70,583 15,023 751 120 24 0.2%$25.09 BOTHELL 645,440 200,487 10,024 38,065 7,613 3.8%$25.99 BURIEN 2,123,997 284,126 14,206 38,718 7,744 2.7%$19.16 CARNATION 74,165 1,380 69 0 0 0.0%$25.09 CLYDE HILL 3,943 0 0 0 0 0.0%$33.53 COVINGTON 1,386,194 905,663 45,283 86,947 17,389 1.9%$25.09 DES MOINES 550,679 60,521 3,026 20,550 4,110 6.8%$19.16 DUVALL 221,123 124,243 6,212 0 0 0.0%$25.09 ENUMCLAW 692,328 113,886 5,694 42,129 8,426 7.4%$25.09 FEDERAL WAY 5,454,100 1,528,960 76,448 157,356 31,471 2.1%$22.84 HUNTS POINT 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$33.99 ISSAQUAH 2,915,049 953,438 47,672 26,190 5,238 0.5%$34.29 KENMORE 441,307 28,247 1,412 11,529 2,306 8.2%$25.99 KENT 4,748,839 1,130,023 56,501 66,941 13,388 1.2%$20.64 KIRKLAND 3,168,063 830,530 41,527 393,796 78,759 9.5%$33.99 LAKE FOREST PARK 262,736 0 0 0 0 0.0%$25.99 MAPLE VALLEY 819,030 466,204 23,310 31,127 6,225 1.3%$25.09 MEDINA 6,178 2,880 144 0 0 0.0%$33.53 MERCER ISLAND 399,368 85,899 4,295 10,665 2,133 2.5%$36.89 MILTON 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$22.84 NEWCASTLE 260,483 88,934 4,447 39,445 7,889 8.9%$34.29 NORMANDY PARK 168,528 87,463 4,373 4,561 912 1.0%$19.16 NORTH BEND 637,612 41,668 2,083 3,586 717 1.7%$25.09 PACIFIC 39,538 20,924 1,046 0 0 0.0%$22.84 REDMOND 3,281,259 858,590 42,930 257,075 51,415 6.0%$35.15 RENTON 4,957,839 1,653,643 82,682 134,623 26,925 1.6%$30.07 SAMMAMISH 563,210 90,901 4,545 82,688 16,538 18.2%$34.29 SeaTac 1,006,041 75,568 3,778 5,191 1,038 1.4%$19.16 SEATTLE 33,123,598 8,284,590 414,230 2,501,582 500,316 6.0%$0.00 SHORELINE 2,242,072 311,288 15,564 11,152 2,230 0.7%$26.31 SKYKOMISH 17,121 0 0 0 0 0.0%$25.09 SNOQUALMIE 381,417 224,072 11,204 65,807 13,161 5.9%$25.09 TUKWILA 5,036,808 486,846 24,342 25,332 5,066 1.0%$30.07 WOODINVILLE 1,337,946 273,574 13,679 41,217 8,243 3.0%$30.46 YARROW POINT 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$33.99 Note: all deliveries are gross and measured in square feet.Source: King County Assessor, Costar January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Appendix A 37 Table A8. Market Data –Office Product CITY total Product supply (sf) Total Deliveries 2000-2019 (SF) Average Annual Deliveries 2000-2019 (SF) 5-yr Total Deliveries last (gross, sf) 5-Yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross, sf) 5-yr. Total Deliveries as a % of 20-year Total Deliveries (Gross) Current average rent, (Annual, $/SF) Average Rent 2015, (Annual, $/SF) Average Rent 2010, (Annual, $/SF) ALGONA 60,226 10,832 542 0 0 0.0%$25.18 $20.57 $19.43 AUBURN 1,985,098 452,657 22,633 91,078 18,216 4.0%$25.29 $20.57 $19.43 BEAUX ARTS 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$39.35 $27.55 $24.16 BELLEVUE 26,545,988 9,727,048 486,352 2,577,743 515,549 5.3%$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 BLACK DIAMOND 41,815 6,017 301 0 0 0.0%$30.34 $21.92 $18.69 BOTHELL 2,023,327 843,248 42,162 25,872 5,174 0.6%$30.42 $23.94 $22.86 BURIEN 1,030,591 326,129 16,306 91,131 18,226 5.6%$26.10 $20.80 $19.44 CARNATION 33,053 17,291 865 15,866 3,173 18.4%$30.34 $21.92 $18.69 CLYDE HILL 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$38.53 $27.33 $23.03 COVINGTON 214,351 106,877 5,344 1,460 292 0.3%$30.34 $21.92 $18.69 DES MOINES 641,412 390,697 19,535 307,543 61,509 15.7%$26.10 $20.80 $19.44 DUVALL 108,583 52,756 2,638 0 0 0.0%$30.34 $21.92 $18.69 ENUMCLAW 377,153 52,076 2,604 0 0 0.0%$30.34 $21.92 $18.69 FEDERAL WAY 4,461,300 843,481 42,174 42,713 8,543 1.0%$25.29 $20.57 $19.43 HUNTS POINT 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$42.97 $30.26 $25.67 ISSAQUAH 3,298,093 1,359,752 67,988 53,402 10,680 0.8%$41.57 $29.23 $24.70 KENMORE 157,960 37,573 1,879 29,354 5,871 15.6%$30.42 $23.94 $22.86 KENT 3,870,644 812,971 40,649 282,178 56,436 6.9%$25.91 $20.84 $19.60 KIRKLAND 5,255,033 1,862,111 93,106 755,506 151,101 8.1%$42.97 $30.26 $25.67 LAKE FOREST PARK 84,164 7,846 392 0 0 0.0%$30.42 $23.94 $22.86 MAPLE VALLEY 181,647 131,502 6,575 0 0 0.0%$30.34 $21.92 $18.69 MEDINA 11,591 4,929 246 0 0 0.0%$38.53 $27.33 $23.03 MERCER ISLAND 672,897 34,015 1,701 0 0 0.0%$41.23 $29.10 $24.47 MILTON 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$25.29 $20.57 $19.43 NEWCASTLE 49,454 40,326 2,016 0 0 0.0%$41.57 $29.23 $24.70 NORMANDY PARK 51,969 6,871 344 0 0 0.0%$26.10 $20.80 $19.44 NORTH BEND 178,109 55,174 2,759 21,878 4,376 7.9%$30.34 $21.92 $18.69 PACIFIC 4,860 0 0 0 0 0.0%$25.29 $20.57 $19.43 REDMOND 14,449,452 5,801,050 290,053 367,880 73,576 1.3%$35.01 $24.27 $20.58 RENTON 9,430,789 2,250,356 112,518 1,515,142 303,028 13.5%$30.13 $23.05 $21.03 SAMMAMISH 137,965 56,892 2,845 30,815 6,163 10.8%$41.57 $29.23 $24.70 SeaTac 3,459,825 1,016,197 50,810 184,812 36,962 3.6%$26.10 $20.80 $19.44 SEATTLE 104,433,911 37,805,345 1,890,267 14,785,999 2,957,200 7.8%$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 SHORELINE 998,897 249,497 12,475 18,179 3,636 1.5%$27.53 $21.73 $20.77 SKYKOMISH 672 0 0 0 0 0.0%$30.34 $21.92 $18.69 SNOQUALMIE 480,283 290,705 14,535 10,601 2,120 0.7%$30.34 $21.92 $18.69 TUKWILA 5,065,670 504,792 25,240 25,482 5,096 1.0%$30.13 $23.05 $21.03 WOODINVILLE 354,211 81,414 4,071 15,305 3,061 3.8%$28.62 $22.82 $21.90 YARROW POINT 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$42.97 $30.26 $25.67 Note: all deliveries are gross and measured in square feet.Source: King County Assessor, Costar January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Appendix A 38 Table A9. Market Data –Industrial Product CITY Total Product supply (sf) Total Deliveries 2000-2019 (SF) Average Annual Deliveries 2000-2019 (SF) 5-yr Total Deliveries last (gross, sf) 5-Yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross, sf) 5-yr. Total Deliveries as a % of 20-year Total Deliveries (Gross) Current average rent, (Annual, $/SF) ALGONA 2,436,435 329,838 16,492 0 0 0.0%$8.86 AUBURN 23,959,569 8,559,752 427,988 921,067 184,213 2.2%$8.86 BEAUX ARTS 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$18.44 BELLEVUE 4,853,067 520,591 26,030 163,698 32,740 6.3%$16.64 BLACK DIAMOND 71,790 30,703 1,535 17,602 3,520 11.5%$14.13 BOTHELL 1,891,744 462,999 23,150 129,880 25,976 5.6%$17.98 BURIEN 1,811,122 749,988 37,499 705,698 141,140 18.8%$12.28 CARNATION 161,286 69,076 3,454 0 0 0.0%$14.13 CLYDE HILL 2,430 0 0 0 0 0.0%$16.64 COVINGTON 350,018 202,591 10,130 201,646 40,329 19.9%$14.13 DES MOINES 1,892,369 1,666,085 83,304 1,555,277 311,055 18.7%$12.28 DUVALL 164,303 89,407 4,470 89,407 17,881 20.0%$14.13 ENUMCLAW 1,028,576 235,590 11,780 78,418 15,684 6.7%$14.13 FEDERAL WAY 2,732,946 752,173 37,609 443,868 88,774 11.8%$12.52 HUNTS POINT 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$14.13 ISSAQUAH 1,421,025 317,409 15,870 88,604 17,721 5.6%$18.44 KENMORE 536,730 32,696 1,635 14,400 2,880 8.8%$17.98 KENT 46,653,264 6,702,321 335,116 2,461,588 492,318 7.3%$8.79 KIRKLAND 3,759,313 347,474 17,374 87,975 17,595 5.1%$15.13 LAKE FOREST PARK 14,757 1,120 56 0 0 0.0%$17.98 MAPLE VALLEY 321,719 122,379 6,119 0 0 0.0%$14.13 MEDINA 16,283 9,600 480 0 0 0.0%$16.64 MERCER ISLAND 96,230 63,910 3,196 0 0 0.0%$18.44 MILTON 1,300 0 0 0 0 0.0%$8.38 NEWCASTLE 227,320 3,890 195 0 0 0.0%$18.44 NORMANDY PARK 47,284 0 0 0 0 0.0%$12.28 NORTH BEND 852,090 368,109 18,405 0 0 0.0%$14.13 PACIFIC 254,978 21,038 1,052 0 0 0.0%$8.86 REDMOND 10,139,556 794,471 39,724 95,833 19,167 2.4%$15.60 RENTON 13,611,660 2,705,502 135,275 877,590 175,518 6.5%$10.42 SAMMAMISH 163,595 50,545 2,527 0 0 0.0%$15.60 SeaTac 4,256,960 1,257,196 62,860 457,299 91,460 7.3%$12.28 SEATTLE 48,484,934 4,498,050 224,903 2,322,848 464,570 10.3%$0.00 SHORELINE 1,447,694 590,900 29,545 382,122 76,424 12.9%$13.35 SKYKOMISH 12,385 0 0 0 0 0.0%$10.93 SNOQUALMIE 1,083,332 637,305 31,865 34,912 6,982 1.1%$14.13 TUKWILA 14,963,571 1,015,066 50,753 174,726 34,945 3.4%$11.95 WOODINVILLE 5,868,390 644,681 32,234 254,252 50,850 7.9%$12.57 YARROW POINT 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%$15.13 Note: all deliveries are gross and measured in square feet.Source: King County Assessor, Costar January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Appendix A 39 Source: Buildable Lands Guidelines, Department of Commerce, 2018. Table A10. Mark Factor –Past Assumptions January 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B 4.Appendix B – City of Seattle Guidance January 2021 40 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance City of Seattle –Modified Market Factor Guidance Framework January 2021 41 Intro and Purpose The City of Seattle stands as the employment and population center of the Puget Sound region and largest City in the State of Washington as well as the Pacific Northwest. It also serves an important role in accommodating population and employment growth in King County now and into the future. Seattle is unique in its geographic and economic diversity. The City is home to distinct neighborhoods and commercial districts at a scale not seen elsewhere in the County. As such, Market Factor guidance specific to the City of Seattle has been developed to account for the size, scale and regional importance of the City. The guidance and recommendations in this section follow the same methodology and framework used for all jurisdictions in King County, but at a neighborhood level rather than at a citywide scale. This allows for a more granular view of historic and projected growth within the City, by Product-type. This also provides the City with a framework allowing for greater flexibility when applying Market Factor assumptions across disparate neighborhoods within the City. Contents Following guidance reflects the same guidance framework used across King County, the following pages provide a step-by-step overview of Market Factor recommendations for the City of Seattle followed by supporting data found in Tables B3-B7. Data Sources •King County Assessor Data •City of Seattle Draft Capacity Data •Costar Market Data •Redfin Residential Sales Data Sub-geographies The City of Seattle is designated as a metropolitan regional Geography. The City was further divided into seven general areas based upon the Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) boundaries. These are the following HNA boundaries and are indicated on the map to the right. •North •North Central •West Central •East Central •Downtown •Southwest •Southeast HNA Geographic Boundaries DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance –City of Seattle January 2021 42 Step Step 4. Adjustments Step 3. Select from Market Factor Ranges Step 2. Identify Market Factor Alignment for the Seattle Sub-Geographies Step 1. Identify Zoning by Predominant Product- Type Guidance Framework Modified – The following diagram outlines key changes made to the overall Market Factor Guidance Framework to establish Market Factor for the City of Seattle. The following changes represent modifications to the Market Factor Guidance Framework set forth earlier in the report (page 17) . •This step remains largely unchanged for the city of Seattle, with the exception that attached single family units are addressed as their own product type (defined on following page). Reference Product-type definitions provided on page 19 (see Table 1A) for all other Product-types. •Instead of using PSRC Regional Geographies to compare and classify Market Factor Indicators, the City of Seattle is broken down into sub-geographies (HNA boundaries, page 41). These sub-geographies are then compared against each other to inform a Market Factor Alignment. •The Market Factor Alignment Table has been updated to reflect these new geographies and their alignments. •The market factor ranges have been updated to reflect the City of Seattle sub- geographies and the market metrics informing the range of Market Factors by Product-type. •The table has been updated to reflect the changes to the ranges and the additional Product-types. •This step remains unchanged, and the City of Seattle is encouraged to adjust the Market Factor guidance based on the City’s perception and knowledge of each Product-type in each sub-geography. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance –City of Seattle January 2021 43 Seattle Market Factor Alignments The Market Factor Alignments (high/medium/low) identified in this step are applied in step 3 when selecting the appropriate Market Factor Ranges. Each of the City’s sub-geography market conditions have been evaluated and Market Factor Alignment has been assigned by Product-type. Use Table B1 (below) as a reference in selecting appropriate Market Factor Ranges by product-type in Step 3. To review the Market Factor Indicators for the sub- geographies within the City of Seattle, refer to Tables B3-B5 found later in this section. Methodology Recap: The Market Factor Alignments for the sub-geographies in the City of Seattle are informed by the Market Factor Indicators calculated for each sub-geography and Product-type. Seattle Sub- geography Product-Type Market Factor Indicator City Multifamily/MU Single Family Attached Single Family Detached Commercial (Office /Retail/Mixed-use)Industrial East Central Medium Low Medium High NA Greater Downtown Low Medium Low Low Low North High Medium High High NA North Central Low Low High High High Southeast High High High High High Southwest High High High High Medium West Central Low Low Medium Medium Low Table B1 –Market Factor Alignments for City of Seattle Sub-Geographies See additional Product-Type classification for the City of Seattle below Product Type Description/Application Illustrative Examples Residential Single Family Attached* This category has been added for the City of Seattle to account for all attached single family dwelling units sharing walls separately. These include townhouse plats, duplex, triplex and fourplex buildings. *Note: for the City of Seattle, the single family attached Product-type, is accounted for separate of traditional single family detached product. Step 2 –Identify Market Alignment Step 1 –Identify Zoning By Predominant Product Type DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance –City of Seattle January 2021 44 Market Factor Range For each of the City’s sub-geographies and Product- types, identify the Market Factor Range in the table below (Table B2) by using the Market Factor Alignments (low/medium/high) identified in Step 2. Note: these informed ranges are intended to serve as initial guidance. It is expected that City of Seattle refines or departs from this range to arrive at the most appropriate market factor deduction. Methodology Recap A Market Factor Indicator from a test-fit sub- geography within the City of Seattle is selected to inform the market factor ranges. Market price data is leveraged as the key metric to derive a range from the market factor indicator in the test fit geography. The range of prices among all the City of Seattle’s sub-geographies (see Tables B6- B7) for each product type inform the magnitude of the market Factor Range for that product-type. Step 3 -Select from Market Factor Ranges Residential Multifamily/ Mixed-Res Single Family Attached Single Family Detached Commercial (Office/Retail/Mixed)Industrial City of Seattle Low 4% -11%0% -13%0% -9%5% -24%3% -14% Medium 12% -20%14% -38%10% -26%25% -35%15% -21% High 21% -29%39% -50%27% -43%36% -50%22% -27% Table B2 –Market Factor Ranges by Product Type DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance –City of Seattle January 2021 45 Residential Uses Neighborhood (HNA boundaries) Regional Geography Market Factor Alignment Total Supply (Units) 5-yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross Units, 2015-2019) Assumed Capacity Estimates from Cities (Gross, Units) Market Factor Indicator Single Family East Central Seattle Sub-type Low 11,705 48 1,026 7% Single Family Greater Downtown Seattle Sub-type Medium 595 3 73 23% Single Family North Seattle Sub-type Medium 26,440 91 2,224 18% Single Family North Central Seattle Sub-type Low 34,628 150 769 0% Single Family Southeast Seattle Sub-type High 26,581 109 8,369 74% Single Family Southwest Seattle Sub-type High 21,135 84 3,105 46% Single Family West Central Seattle Sub-type Low 10,782 52 511 0% Single Family City of Seattle Metropolitan 131,866 537 16,077 33% Single Family Attached East Central Seattle Sub-type Medium 5,658 205 5,575 26% Single Family Attached Greater Downtown Seattle Sub-type Low 1,336 37 462 0% Single Family Attached North Seattle Sub-type High 4,910 94 6,171 70% Single Family Attached North Central Seattle Sub-type High 10,421 319 12,871 50% Single Family Attached Southeast Seattle Sub-type High 4,935 194 12,238 68% Single Family Attached Southwest Seattle Sub-type High 4,606 152 7,188 58% Single Family Attached West Central Seattle Sub-type Medium 3,408 94 3,255 42% Single Family Attached City of Seattle Metropolitan 35,274 1,096 47,760 54% Mixed- use/MF/Condos East Central Seattle Sub-type Medium 15,595 529 15,669 32% Mixed- use/MF/Condos Greater Downtown Seattle Sub-type Low 74,008 3,669 44,242 0% Mixed- use/MF/Condos North Seattle Sub-type High 20,285 352 55,225 87% Mixed- use/MF/Condos North Central Seattle Sub-type Low 35,335 1,442 31,237 8% Mixed- use/MF/Condos Southeast Seattle Sub-type High 11,607 414 34,660 76% Mixed- use/MF/Condos Southwest Seattle Sub-type High 12,399 256 13,040 61% Mixed- use/MF/Condos West Central Seattle Sub-type Low 14,041 492 7,246 0% Mixed- use/MF/Condos City of Seattle Metropolitan 183,270 7,155 201,319 29% Table B3. Supply, Deliveries, & Capacity Table: Residential –Single family, Single Family Attached, Multi-family and Residential Mixed-use DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance –City of Seattle January 2021 46 Table B4. Supply, Deliveries, & Capacity Table: Non-Residential –Industrial Non-Residential Uses Neighborhood (HNA boundaries) Market Factor Alignment Total Supply (SF) 5-yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross SF,2015- 2019) Assumed Capacity Estimates from Cities (Gross SF) Market Factor Indicator Industrial East Central NA 1,071,715 39,800 0 No Capacity Industrial Greater Downtown Low 2,498,938 25,934 184,384 0% Industrial North NA 2,513,041 72,104 0 No Capacity Industrial North Central High 5,481,941 46,781 2,489,843 62% Industrial Southeast High 28,970,357 178,780 10,666,880 66% Industrial Southwest Medium 3,041,201 22,790 685,437 34% Industrial West Central Low 4,907,741 78,381 1,716,513 9% Industrial City of Seattle 48,484,934 464,570 15,743,057 41% Non-Residential Uses Neighborhood (HNA boundaries) Market Factor Alignment Total Supply (SF) 5-yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross SF,2015-2019) Assumed Capacity Estimates from Cities (Gross SF) Market Factor Indicator Commercial East Central High 7,082,265 99,488 6,418,782 69% Commercial Greater Downtown Low 82,200,368 2,632,501 24,041,513 0% Commercial North High 7,780,108 19,480 40,181,095 99% Commercial North Central High 13,670,239 287,330 20,299,610 72% Commercial Southeast High 17,654,728 192,707 34,852,416 89% Commercial Southwest High 3,500,611 44,465 9,158,698 90% Commercial West Central Medium 5,669,190 181,545 5,561,376 35% Commercial City of Seattle 137,557,509 3,457,516 140,513,490 51% Table B5. Supply, Deliveries, & Capacity Table: Non-Residential –Commercial (Office/Retail/Mixed-use) DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance –City of Seattle 47 Table B6. Market Data –Residential Note: all deliveries are gross and measured in square units.Source: King County Assessor, Costar, Redfin January 2021 Residential –Multifamily Residential –Single Family Seattle Sub- Geography Total Product Supply Total Deliveries 2000-2019 Average Annual Deliveries 2000-2019 Total Deliveries 2015-2019 5-yr Average Annual Deliveries (2015-2019) 5-yr. Total Deliveries over 20-year Total Deliveries (%) Current average rent, (Monthly $/SF ) Average Rent 2015, (Monthly $/SF ) Average Rent 2010, (Monthly $/SF ) East Central 15,595 4,860 243 2,645 529 54%$2.58 $2.32 $2.01 Greater Downtown 74,008 38,654 1,933 18,346 3,669 47%$3.09 $2.77 $2.38 North 20,285 4,983 249 1,759 352 35%$2.03 $1.82 $1.53 North Central 35,335 15,365 768 7,211 1,442 47%$2.64 $2.35 $2.03 Southeast 11,607 4,965 248 2,071 414 42%$1.94 $1.71 $1.53 Southwest 12,399 4,100 205 1,281 256 31%$2.29 $1.99 $1.70 West Central 14,041 5,042 252 2,462 492 49%$2.71 $2.39 $2.08 City of Seattle 183,270 77,969 3,898 35,775 7,155 46% Seattle Sub- Geography Total Product Supply Total Unit Deliveries 2000-2019 Average Annual Deliveries 2000-2019 (Units) Total Deliveries last 5 years (gross, units) Average Annual Deliveries last 5 years (Gross, Units) 5-yr. Total Deliveries as a % of 20-year Total Deliveries (Gross) Median Sale Price 2020 Median Sale Price 2015 Median Sale Price 2012 6-year CAGR 9-year CAGR East Central 11,705 923 46 239 48 26%$905,000 $638,000 $502,000 6.0%4.0% Greater Downtown 595 41 2 14 3 34%$575,500 $407,500 $305,000 5.9%3.9% North 26,440 1,750 88 457 91 26%$650,000 $477,500 $333,000 5.3%3.5% North Central 34,628 2,067 103 749 150 36%$816,500 $625,000 $450,000 4.6%3.0% Southeast 26,581 2,663 133 546 109 21%$661,000 $453,000 $284,000 6.5%4.3% Southwest 21,135 1,686 84 421 84 25%$642,000 $450,000 $340,000 6.1%4.0% West Central 10,782 867 43 259 52 30%$823,500 $586,000 $483,000 5.8%3.9% City of Seattle 131,866 9,997 500 2,685 537 27%$679,000 $494,000 $368,000 5.4%3.6% DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B King County Urban Growth Capacity Report –Market Factor Guidance Market Factor Guidance –City of Seattle 48 Table B7. Market Data –Non-Residential Note: all deliveries are gross and measured in square feet.Source: King County Assessor, Costar January 2021 Non-Residential –Retail Non-Residential –Office Non-Residential –Industrial Seattle Sub- Geography total Product supply (sf) Total Deliveries 2000-2019 (SF) Average Annual Deliveries 2000-2019 (SF) 5-yr Total Deliveries last (gross, sf) 5-Yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross, sf) 5-yr. Total Deliveries as a % of 20- year Total Deliveries (Gross) Current average rent, (Annual, $/SF) Average Rent 2015, (Annual, $/SF) Average Rent 2010, (Annual, $/SF) East Central 1,071,715 342,132 17,107 199,001 39,800 58%$15.00 $10.20 $6.58 Greater Downtown 2,498,938 232,009 11,600 129,670 25,934 56%$22.88 $13.00 $10.61 North 2,513,041 576,139 28,807 360,521 72,104 63%$16.03 $8.73 $9.22 North Central 5,481,941 572,175 28,609 233,903 46,781 41%$17.70 $22.30 $8.50 Southeast 28,970,357 1,999,207 99,960 893,898 178,780 45%$12.41 $8.56 $7.17 Southwest 3,041,201 218,811 10,941 113,949 22,790 52%$14.13 $9.27 $9.15 West Central 4,907,741 557,577 27,879 391,906 78,381 70%$13.10 $10.67 $9.09 City of Seattle 48,484,934 4,498,050 224,903 2,322,848 464,570 52% Seattle Sub- Geography Total Product supply (sf) Total Deliveries 2000-2019 (SF) Average Annual Deliveries 2000-2019 (SF) 5-yr Total Deliveries 2015-2019 (gross, sf) 5-Yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross, sf) 5-yr. Total Deliveries as a % of 20- year Total Deliveries (Gross) Current average rent, (Annual, $/SF) Average Rent 2015, (Annual, $/SF) Average Rent 2010, (Annual, $/SF) East Central 5,542,044 1,991,909 99,595 277,914 55,583 14%$39.03 $26.07 $26.72 Greater Downtown 69,906,518 27,176,902 1,358,845 12,159,927 2,431,985 45%$29.01 $29.05 $22.83 North 2,643,527 410,387 20,519 71,318 14,264 17%$30.43 $22.86 $20.90 North Central 7,184,334 2,778,142 138,907 918,762 183,752 33%$30.00 $25.52 $20.58 Southeast 13,407,609 3,195,823 159,791 493,755 98,751 15%$27.67 $25.05 $18.70 Southwest 1,490,647 329,756 16,488 71,968 14,394 22%$25.26 $23.67 $20.31 West Central 4,259,232 1,922,426 96,121 792,355 158,471 41%$33.09 $28.77 $19.12 City of Seattle 104,433,911 37,805,345 1,890,267 14,785,999 2,957,200 39% Seattle Sub- Geography Total Product supply (sf) Total Deliveries 2000-2019 (SF) Average Annual Deliveries 2000-2019 (SF) 5-yr Total Deliveries last (gross, sf) 5-Yr Average Annual Deliveries (Gross, sf) 5-yr. Total Deliveries as a % of 20-year Total Deliveries (Gross) Current average rent, (Annual, $/SF) Average Rent 2015, (Annual, $/SF) Average Rent 2010, (Annual, $/SF) East Central 1,540,221 459,411 22,971 219,528 43,906 48%$30.55 $23.57 $21.02 Greater Downtown 12,293,850 2,920,458 146,023 1,002,576 200,515 34%$29.01 $29.05 $22.83 North 5,136,581 1,148,079 57,404 26,080 5,216 2%$22.85 $19.18 $18.11 North Central 6,485,905 1,423,998 71,200 517,888 103,578 36%$25.94 $25.88 $19.32 Southeast 4,247,119 1,356,028 67,801 469,782 93,956 35%$25.63 $16.26 $14.96 Southwest 2,009,964 631,893 31,595 150,359 30,072 24%$32.85 $19.95 $21.13 West Central 1,409,958 344,723 17,236 115,369 23,074 33%$34.17 $30.55 $24.02 City of Seattle 33,123,598 8,284,590 414,230 2,501,582 500,316 30% DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B Technical Appendices King County Urban Growth Capacity Report | June 2021 Appendix F: Employment Density Guidance DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 1 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report Employment Density Guidance INTRODUCTION This document provides guidance on developing assumptions for converting non-residential building area expressed in gross square feet to expected capacity for employment in buildable lands calculations. This is the final step in estimating total capacity for new employment growth in a jurisdiction. Current statutes and regulations (RCW 36.70A.215 and WAC 365.196.315) do not provide specific requirements for these calculations. Jurisdictions have discretion to develop assumptions that are consistent with local circumstances, provided they document the rationale. Therefore, this guidance also includes rationale to draw upon in the process of selecting appropriate assumptions. While there are various ways to convert land capacity to capacity for new employment, King County has selected to use an approach that converts non-residential development capacity measured in square feet of floor area to capacity for new employment. This conversion requires assumptions for the average number of built square feet of floor area for each job. The lower the square foot per job, the higher the density of use. The calculation is simply: Total job capacity = Gross square footage1 of floor area capacity / gross square footage per job Square footage per job can vary widely by building type or employment sector. For example, warehouses devote a great deal of square footage to storing inventory or other goods, and therefore they typically require considerably more square footage per job than office space. Therefore, average employment density assumptions should reflect the types of job growth that are expected in an area. Many jurisdictions select different employment density assumptions for commercial and industrial zones to reflect different expectations for the type of development and job growth that are expected in those zones. Some jurisdictions even vary employment density assumptions among different commercial zones. For example, a city may assume that average square footage per job is lower in a downtown zone than in other commercial zones further from the core. This decision could reflect expectations that a higher proportion of the downtown floor area capacity will be used as office space, compared to other commercial zones where lower density retail uses may be more common. Jurisdictions have the discretion to choose whether to customize employment density assumptions for each zone or select broad assumptions. There is no single correct approach. The choice can depend upon local conditions, staff or consultant capacity for conducting analysis, and access to relevant data. This guidance provides several options for jurisdictions to choose from. Some of these options are grounded in new analysis of current employment density in market areas across King County. For a more detailed description of those findings, see Appendix A. 1 Gross square footage simply refers to the total square footage of the building, including walls. Gross square footage capacity is calculated as the floor area ratio (FAR) * the parcel size in square feet. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 2 APPROACHES FOR DEVELOPING EMPLOYMENT DENSITY ASSUMPTIONS This section describes three main approaches for developing and selecting appropriate square feet per job assumptions for use in land capacity analysis calculations. A jurisdiction may choose only one option or a combination of options, depending on their needs and circumstances. The primary options draw upon analysis BERK Consulting conducted to estimate aggregate employment densities in five different market areas across King County. Those market areas are shown in Exhibit 1 for reference. Exhibit 1. King County Market Areas Source: BERK, 2020. 1. Select a single average employment density for all non-residential development The simplest option is to assume the average square feet per job will follow recent trends in your city or market area. To support this option, BERK Consulting calculated average square feet per job in both 2006 and 2019 for most cities and the five market areas. The results for market areas are shown in Exhibit 2.2 For most individual cities, see Exhibit 6 in Appendix A. Jurisdictions selecting this option can 2 Details on the calculation of these densities ar e provided in Appendix A. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 3 apply a single square feet per job assumption to all commercial and industrial zones. This option would be appropriate for jurisdictions that expect future job growth and non-residential development activity to be similar to the growth experienced in the past, or those that have limited non-residential zoning. It may also make sense in jurisdictions with very little diversity in the type of non-residential zoning available (for example: all commercial or all industrial). The main limitation of this approach is that it does not allow for differentiating employment density assumptions by zone. A single employment density assumption would likely overestimate capacity in industrial areas (which tend to have lower relative employment densities) and underestimating capacity in some commercial zones where employment densities may be higher. This could significantly impact the accuracy of employment capacity estimates by zone and by these two different categories. 2. Select separate commercial and industrial employment density assumptions Many cities select one assumed employment density for commercial zones and another for industrial zones. Others select unique employment density assumptions for each commercial and industrial zone. Either of these approaches is appropriate. BERK conducted an analysis of recent non-residential development and job growth by market area to develop the recommended ranges shown in Exhibit 2. Jurisdictions should typically choose value within these ranges. When selecting density values, consider the types of uses that are expected to be most common: ▪ Commercial and Mixed-Use: Small-format commercial retail and food services are likely to have lower values for square feet per employee, with commercial office space and services at the middle of the range and large-format retail at the higher end. ▪ Industrial: Certain light manufacturing and flex space are likely to be at the lower end of this range, with heavy manufacturing and logistics in the mid-range and warehousing at the high end. Note that mini-warehouse/self-storage facilities tend to be at the highest end of the range. Assumptions falling outside of the ranges shown in Exhibit 2 may be appropriate, but would require additional documentation of rationale to justify the variation. For context, Exhibit 2 also shows the average employment density across all zones in 2006 and 2019. This average is affected by the proportion of total development in commercial or industrial zones, as well as differences in typical employer types and economic conditions. BERK’s analysis in Appendix A indicates that employment density has increased somewhat in recent years in most market areas, primarily associated with redevelopment of lower-density commercial and industrial uses and shifts towards more intensive use of these spaces. A benefit of this approach compared to Option 1 is that it does not presume the same mix of commercial and industrial development observed in the past will continue into the future, or that regional mixes of employment types would be applicable to a local area. This approach also allows jurisdictions to use different assumptions for zones in the city where alternative densities are more likely: differentiating between downtown and neighborhood commercial zones, for example. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 4 Exhibit 2. Recommended Square Foot per Job Assumptions by King County Market Area Market Area Average 2006 Employment Density (all zones) Average 2019 Employment Density (all zones) Recommended Range for LCA: Commercial and Mixed-Use Zones Recommended Range for LCA: Industrial Zones Central 655 608 300–600 700–1,200 Eastside 398 386 200–400 500–800 Northwest 445 415 200–400 500–800 Outlying Cities 669 630 300–600 700–1,200 South 701 724 300–600 700–1,200 Notes: See Exhibit 3 in Appendix A for a map of jurisdictions included in the average density analysis for each market area. Sources: BERK, 2020 (See Appendix A for details) Appendix A includes an analysis that provides high-level city estimates for industrial and non-industrial uses using available real estate market data. Note that in this case, available real estate data for the entire county required aggregation of different non-industrial uses. These numbers can be helpful to see how a city compares to the market area as a whole and the ranges provided above. In addition to the values in Appendix A, there are other sources of information that jurisdictions can use to help inform the selection of appropriate employment density assumptions from within the ranges shown in Exhibit 2. See the section below on using additional sources of information for more details. 3. Select targeted employment density estimates for known pipeline development If a jurisdiction is aware of significant new growth within the development pipeline, such as through development agreements, master planned developments, or recent permit activity, consider applying targeted employment density assumptions for that portion of growth only. This may be particularly useful if this expected growth varies considerably from historic trends or other employment located within the market area. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 5 Additional Sources of Information to Inform Employment Density Assumptions The main approaches outlined above can be refined with other methods and sources of data. This can provide a more detailed estimate of the land required to accommodate future employment growth in a community. Although not every situation will require a more precise estimate, local trends may require some adjustments to these estimates. Examples of cases like this would include: ▪ Districts in a city dominated by the campus of a single employer or small number of large employers, where expected future employment growth could be linked to their expected expansion plans. ▪ Districts where the general types of employment within a category are expected to shift over time. This would include jurisdictions where industrial districts are expected to reflect a greater focus on warehousing and logistics over manufacturing uses. ▪ Districts where specific new uses are expected with densities different than citywide averages. A recent shift in the types of manufacturing businesses located in an industrial area towards activities requiring less space per employee may require adjustments of required floor area estimates. ▪ Other broad trends with space utilization may also be relevant: a greater focus of local businesses on online transactions versus physical sales or trends towards increasing employment density in offices may be changing the space needs for current and future businesses in the community, and should be reflected in estimates of future needs. To this end, this section provides additional sources which could be used for refining calculated densities from the general methods discussed above. Additionally, this section also describes a general framework for considering whether this refinement is necessary for a community, so as to understand when choices should be made to deviate from the broader estimates. Other Sources for Density Assumptions Reference published employment density estimates by land use type This guidance document only provides aggregate employment density estimates based on broad employment and land use categories. Other sources of information, such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, provide square feet per job estimates for a detailed list of land use types such as hospitals, schools, or airports. Jurisdictions looking to develop more targeted employment density assumptions may draw upon ITE or other resources to come up with estimated future densities of development. There are several situations where this approach may make sense: ▪ Referencing employment density by specific land use types may also be useful for jurisdictions adjusting regional estimates to better reflect the local mix of employment growth expected. ▪ Employment density assumptions by land use type can also be useful to cities developing separate square feet per job assumptions for different zones. For example, if there is a downtown zone where the vast majority of floor area is expected to be office space, it may be appropriate to use an assumed density that is consistent with the office land use type. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 6 Leverage space planning work by major employers Another source of information for use in determining employment density may be the programming coordinated by companies or other organizations with larger buildings or campuses and significant space needs. If these needs are identified through facilities planning or as part of subarea plans, the associated numbers could support assumptions about the development necessary to support expected employment growth. Calculate previous densities achieved in the community If the same type and format of development will likely continue to be sited in the community, cities could also rely on available data to calculate local employment density across meaningful categories. This can use a range of information sources: County assessor’s data, real estate listings websites, discussions with brokers, and other sources can all be used to identify the uptake of new space within a community, while surveys, business license data, and aggregate employment statistics can help to understand the new employment accompanying these uses. Average values for employment density may be aggregated or detailed as required. Identify potential future changes in densities The most detailed consideration of future space usage would refine the calculation of previous densities described in Appendix A to focus on expected changes in the future. This would limit the calculations of employment densities to more recent tenants expected to be typical of future employers in an area, and even highlight expected trends that would impact the future use of space, such as the increase in telework or open-format offices. Establishing values in this way needs detailed documentation, especially if the resulting employment density estimates would vary significantly from the figures that would result from other methods. Process for Evaluating Density Assumptions When determining the best estimates for employment density in a community, a structured process can include some consideration of the three main methods previously reviewed, as well as the additional sources of information discussed in this section, to determine what assumptions would be best for future projections. Steps in the process can include the following: ▪ Select a starting estimate. Based on assumptions from previous Buildable Lands reporting and/or the estimates provided in this report, select an initial estimate to be used for employment density. This could be an overall estimate for all employment lands or could be divided on broader categories of use. ▪ Evaluate densities achieved from a selection of recent development, if possible. An effective way of determining whether the estimates used have been accurate is to test these assumptions on recent development data. Tax assessment data from the King County Assessor or building permit data on file can determine the effective square footage of new construction, and a survey of current businesses or data from third-party providers can be used to determine employee counts for a representative set of projects. If there are significant and consistent differences between these calculations and broader estimates, there may be a need to examine changes to employment density estimates. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 7 ▪ Assess the mix of land uses found in recent development and compare to previous expectations. Additionally, estimates may also be affected by changes in the types of development coming into a community. Significant differences in expected versus actual uses may have substantive impacts on achieved employment density. For example, a significant rise in self-storage facilities or warehouses, more development of larger- or smaller-format retail spaces than expected, a greater proportion of restaurant versus service uses in commercial spaces, and other differences can all impact actual versus expected employment densities, and may point to the need to adjust these assumptions. ▪ Identify potential new uses that could challenge employment density assumptions in the future. Together with generally evaluating the mix of uses in new development, there may also be a need to consider new uses that are starting to become more popular and may require more consideration in the future. An increase in cannabis production or mini warehouse uses in industrial areas, for example, could suggest trends that may change how many employees can be accommodated in these areas. Combined with evaluating the mix of uses in recent development, this should highlight potential changes that could happen with employment densities into the future. ▪ Review potential assumptions with other experts in the community. After identifying potential trends that could impact achieved employment densities, reviewing this information and the resulting revised assumptions with experts from the community can be very useful in testing these conclusions. Discussing changes in space needs with local commercial brokers, developers, large space users, other businesses, and other real estate professionals can be essential in determining if new assumptions reflect their experiences, and whether there are other trends they have identified that should also be considered in these results. Using some or all of the steps in this process can be useful in determining whether additional detail is required to adjust the starting assumptions to better reflect current and future projections. At minimum, generally establishing whether previous targets were reached and whether these trends will continue will be extremely useful in establishing whether previous assumptions can still be used. However, beyond the use of currently published figures, either in this report or from other resources, evaluating existing plans and information to calculate alternative local employment densities can be a very data-intensive task. It may also come under scrutiny if calculated employment densities differ significantly from regional averages, especially if these estimates suggest that far less land would be needed to support growth. Refinements to these methods are best considered only if there are specific local situations that could lead to differences in these values, and the results should be thoroughly documented and reviewed to confirm. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 8 NOTES ON CALCULATING EMPLOYMENT DENSITY If your jurisdiction is considering calculating achieved employment density in an area or specific building or campus, consider these tips for calculating square footage per job. Generally, the calculation of total gross employment density is calculated as: Total gross square footage per employee = (gross square footage for employment / number of employees) x (1 + expected vacancy) These calculations include the following variables: ▪ The total gross floor area for employment, calculated as the total amount of building area supporting employment uses, which includes common areas and walls. ▪ The number of employees, which is the total number of employees supported by this gross floor area. ▪ The expected vacancy rate, which is estimated as a target or long-term average vacancy rate in the local market. For some communities, this could be considered in aggregate across all employment lands. In other cases, however, these assessments can be created by land use categories: office, retail, industrial, warehouse/logistics, mini-warehouse, etc. Considerations with these calculations include the following: ▪ The amount of square footage per employee will change according to type. Previous research and existing guidance highlight that employment densities vary by use category. Generally, office uses would have different densities of employment than retail spaces or self-storage warehouses, but specifically, medical offices may have different densities than office uses on average. ▪ Not all building types are interchangeable. In addition to different employment densities, building types may be limited in the businesses that can be practically accommodated. Most office spaces are interchangeable, for example, but medical offices have distinct layouts and amenities that would require tenant improvement to be used for other office uses, and manufacturing or industrial uses may have specialized construction dedicated to specific functions. ▪ Businesses may not be using their full capacity with the space they occupy. Whether owner- occupied or leased space, commercial businesses and other organizations may own or lease space to accommodate expected future growth. Because of this, available statistics may include some slack capacity that is not currently occupied, but can be used by the occupying businesses in the future. ▪ Vacancies are necessary for the local real estate market to function. Vacancies are necessary to provide the slack capacity necessary for the space market in a local area to function. Over the long term, some businesses will start, expand, or relocate while others will shut down, downsize, or move out of an area. Even in a market without significant expected long-term growth, natural vacancy rates provide some capacity for the short-term space needs that move around this trend. ▪ Employment is not only included in commercial- and industrial-zoned lands. In addition to the employment found on commercial and industrial lands, there are other employment types that will need to be considered. Certain communities, primarily in rural areas, may need to consider DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 9 agricultural and resource uses in the community, such as with aggregate mining. Additionally, home occupation uses, including contractors and self-employed individuals working from home, will also contribute to local employment but will not occupy employment floor space in the community. Note that the PSRC covered employment estimates exclude the self-employed (as well as other types of employees, such as the military and railroad workers).3 3 See https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/emp_data_series.pdf for more details on the PSRC covered employment dataset, based on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) from the Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD). DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 10 APPENDIX A: EMPLOYMENT DENSITY ESTIMATES BY CITY AND MARKET AREA 2006-2019 To support jurisdictions in selecting employment density assumptions, BERK Consulting estimated the average aggregate square foot per job in individual jurisdictions and market areas across King County. The analysis included summarizing non-residential square footage (all commercial, industrial, and public sector buildings that could reasonably accommodate employment) based on King County Assessor data obtained for the years 2006 and 2019. For each jurisdiction with employment data available, BERK calculated the gross square footage per job4 in 2006 and 2019. The results were then aggregated by five separate market areas (shown in Exhibit 3) that group cities based on geography to reflect variation in local real estate market conditions. This analysis did not consider growth in unincorporated areas due to large variation in geographic context and lack of employment breakdowns for analysis by subarea. Exhibit 4 shows the total square feet per job in 2006 and 2019 for each of these market areas. While there was some variation between market areas, all areas except for South saw average square feet per job declines during this time period. In other words, employment density has been rising in most of King County. The different outcomes in the South appear to be due to strong gains in jobs associated with warehouse space, which typically require much more space per square foot. Exhibit 5 adjusts the calculated employment density values on the basis of vacancy rates to determine the actual occupied space in the market and consider that future markets would normally have an average vacancy rate of around 5%. In most market areas, these estimates of square footage per job are somewhat different from the total aggregate square footage per job estimates shown in Exhibit 4. This step is important in cases where vacancy rates in employment areas are significantly higher or lower than expected. Exhibit 6 provides gross employment density figures by jurisdiction, indicating the range of average densities found in communities across the region in 2006 and 2019. As noted previously, changes between 2006 and 2019 may be due to redevelopment as well as new development that supports employment uses at different densities than existing uses. For example, average densities may change with redevelopment of existing industrial areas for new office and retail uses, or development of new warehousing and distribution sites in communities that have not had these uses in the past. 4 This analysis excluded construction and resource jobs, many of which are not tied to specific buildings and therefore not as relevant to employment capacity calculations. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 11 Exhibit 3. Cities Included in the Employment Density Calculations by Market Area Note: Cities with suppressed job counts were not considered in this analysis and therefore not symbolized on this map. Additionally, the 2019 job counts for Enumclaw, North Bend, and Snoqualmie include their respective unincorporated UGAs. Source: BERK, 2020. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 12 Exhibit 4. Gross Floor Area Square Feet Per Job Calculations, 2006 and 2019 Market Area 2006 Gross Non- Residential Square Feet 2006 Jobs 2006 Gross Square Feet Per Job 2019 Gross Non- Residential Square Feet 2019 Jobs 2019 Gross Square Feet Per Job Gross Sq. Ft. per job % Change 2006-2019 Central 142,770,591 217,835 655 158,657,104 257,486 616 -6% Eastside 120,169,602 302,084 398 145,776,209 384,505 379 -5% Northwest 230,626,549 517,954 445 273,932,690 667,153 411 -8% Outlying Cities 7,889,576 9,735 669 9,041,389 14,947 605 -10% South 51,643,062 73,648 701 58,459,588 79,845 731 4% Notes: See Exhibit 3 for a map of jurisdictions included in the analysis for each market area. Job counts exclude resource and construction jobs, many of which are not tied to specific buildings and therefore less relevant to employment density assumptions. Gross non-residential square footage excludes agricultural uses. Sources: King County Assessor, 2006 & 2019; PSRC, 2006 & 2019; BERK, 2020. Exhibit 5. Adjusted Floor Area Per Job Estimates for Non-Residential Buildings in King County, 2006 & 2019 Market Area Vacancy Rate, 2006 Net Occupied Floor Area, 2006 (sf) 2006 Adjusted Gross sf/ Job Vacancy Rate, 2019 Net Occupied Floor Area, 2019 (sf) 2019 Adjusted Gross sf/job Adj. Gross sf per job % Change 2006-2019 Central 6.2% 133,925,953 647 6.3% 148,675,986 608 -6% Eastside 6.2% 112,769,558 393 3.4% 140,834,396 386 -2% Northwest 6.0% 216,680,562 440 4.1% 262,816,501 415 -6% Outlying Cities 8.2% 7,239,633 646 1.1% 8,943,923 630 -3% South 5.0% 49,080,533 701 6.0% 54,967,212 724 3% Notes: See Exhibit 3 for a map of jurisdictions included in each market area for calculation purposes. Occupied floor area calculations reflect total floor area exclusive of parking garages adjusted for commercial vacancy estimates from CoStar. This adjustment was made to account for variation in vacancy between 2006 and 2019. Job counts exclude resource and construction jobs, many of which are not tied to specific buildings and therefore less relevant to employmen t density assumptions. Gross non- residential square footage excludes agricultural uses. Sources: King County Assessor, 2006 & 2019; PSRC, 2006 & 2019; CoStar, 2020; BERK, 2020. DocuSign Envelope ID: F3E95A09-756C-4AF4-88C4-6008084A717B January 21, 2021 King County | Urban Growth Capacity Study 13 Exhibit 6. Gross Floor Area Square Feet Per Job Calculations by City, 2019. City Market Area Gross Square Feet Per Job, 2006 Gross Square Feet Per Job, 2019 Gross Sq. Ft. per job % Change 2006-2019 Algona South 1,349 1,061 -21% Auburn South 840 799 -5% Bellevue Eastside 374 398 7% Black Diamond South 484 762 57% Bothell Eastside 494 389 -21% Burien Central 536 651 21% Carnation Outlying Cities 479 *