HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial 2005-01-13 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET0 0 U
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
e ent Steve Lancaster; Director
AGENDA
Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on Housing
Meeting Room A
Tukwila Community Center
Thursday January 13, 2005
A. Dinner Served 5:45
B. Introductions 6:00
C. Needs Assessment Summary 6:05
D. City Council/Planning Commission
Reactions/Questions 6:15
E. Discussion Topics 6:30
• Demonstration projects in neighborhoods
• Rental housing licensing
• Proactive code enforcement
• Housing Intervention Program
▪ Tax liens for relocation assistance
F. Meeting Summary 7:30
Attachments:
1. Housing Needs Assessment & Condition Survey
2. Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Housing Element - Technical amendments adopted
Noveniber 2004
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665
To:
From: Steve Lancaster
Date: 7 January 2005
Subject: Joint Council Commission Housing Meeting
Tukwila City Council, Tukwila Planning Commission
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Steve Lancaster; Director
This will be an opportunity for you to devote yourselves to one topic - the health of the
City's neighborhoods and their future. The City's Housing Consultant, Nikki Parrott, will
highlight the results of the Housing Needs Assessment and will be available to answer questions.
The Asessment provides a detailed survey of the types of households and housing within the
City, how the City compares with other South King County Cities and the County as whole, and
what changes have occurred over the last decade.
In addition,to help facilitate discussion, staff will prepare one page discussion papers on the
topics listed on your agenda, which they think are imminent issues that will demand the City's
attention within the coming year and are related to overall housing conditions and neighborhocd
health. These sheets will be distributed on Monday to give you an opportunity to read them prior
to the meeting.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665
Joint Meeting — January 13, 2005
George Malina
Allan Eckberg
Steve Mullett
Pamela Linder
Pam Carter
Joe Duffie
Jim Haggerton
Steve Lancaster
Jack Pace
Lucy Lauterbach
Rhonda Berry
Robbie Burns
Stacey Hansen
Derek Speck
Kathy Stetson
Vern Meryhew
Bill Arthur
Moira Bradshaw
Joan Hernandez
Dave Fenton
Dennis Robertson
Margaret Watcher
Lynn Peterson
Nikki Parrott
Residential and Multi -family by Year Built
City of Tukwila, Washington
King County Assesor's Data
1900-1910
1911 - 1920
1921 - 1930 N
1931 - 1940
1941 - 1950
1951 - 1960
1961 - 1970
1971 - 1980
MI 1981 - 1990
1991 - 2004
1 0 1 2 Miles
Figure 1
la 2004 indshield Survey
esidential Structures
111I11"e'Ir'_
Ii11IIlih!:;
Legend
Sound, Well Maintained
Basically Sound
Needs Maintenance
Deteriorated
Dilapidated
0
2 Miles
Data Source:. AND Research
Map Source: HuckellfWeinman Associates, Inc,
esults
Figure 3
Tukwila 1 to 3 Unit Residential Structures
Construction Quality
(King County Assessor's Data)
1
Legend
Best Construction
Just Above Average
Average
Low
Below Standard
0
2 Miles
Data Source: Department of Assessments, King County, 2004
Map Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.
Figure 5
is ulti-Family* Rental Housing
Construction uali
(King County sessor's Data)
:rill , il' Ih ■ -
1 �t l MI )>Ct>.._r =:1 `�llr�Er
�=C.1nn i111.1101 ihi,a- ," rt �
if► !1�11111".r !'!)111=an -tt■:. I ttttt�rrt tr■.
if 1il 11� i ia Hung •ig _11 mni t trij l r I t��. it•
I 11 him timinuti; Milo
Legend
Excellent
Good/Excellent
tole Good
Average/Good
Average
Low/Average
Law Cost
0
1
2 Miles
'4 or more units
Data Sourco: Department of Assessments, IOng County, 2004
Map Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.
Figure 6
u ila Condominium Structure
Construction Quality
(King County sessor's Data)
Legend
Excellent
Good/Excellent
Good
�.: Average/Good
Average
Low/Average
Low Cost
: Departmerri of Assessments, King County..2004
Map Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.
High rate of turnover in managers, difficult to maintain continuity
Investors buy in Tukwila because of property costs, appreciation in value in 3-5
years, and then sell. Don't need to perform costly renovations for appreciation to
occur.
When renovations do occur, rents increase, decreasing availability of affordable
housing for lower income residents. Pricing themselves out of tenant market?
CFMH training is available in Tukwila, SeaTac/Burien, Puyallup, Everett and few
owners & managers take advantage of the training
Many managers don't have the authority to implement changes suggested in
CFMH training —owners want a manager on -site to cEllect rent, accept
applications and maintain status quo.
High vacancy rates provide significant incentive to owners & managers to lower
tenant standards
Cultural diversity and numerous languages spoken present communications
challenges
Crime Free Multi -Housing Program is a 3 stage program resulting in "certification."
Phase 1 — Ten hour landlord training program sponsored by TPD. Resident
manager (if applicable), maintenance staff, owner are all encouraged to attend.
Phase 2 — Safety review of the property. Includes interior and exterior lighting,
marked fire lanes, cutting of bushes, trees & shrubbery, deadbolt locks with 3
screws into the door frame, addresses & building numbers clearly marked, fire
extinguishers, smoke alarms, consistent standards for applicant screening. This
review is free, non confrontational, educational and not frequently asked for by
apartment owners or managers.
Phase 3 — Safety social, or Block Watch meeting at least one time a year.
Experience has shown that less than 10 people come to these meetings, even when
incentives such as rent reduction, food, carpet cleaning and door prizes are provided
by the apartment management.
In past years, participation in the CFMH Program has been shown to help lower the
number of police calls for service to the property. In more recent years, vacancy
rates have increased and owners may feel compelled to lower tenancy standards in
order to rent units to pay the property mortgage. When faced with high vacancies
versus renting to someone with a criminal record but has cash, many owners are
choosing the latter.
When properties are certified in the CFMH program, they receive monthly mailings
regarding the number and types of police reports (not all calls for service) taken on
their property for the previous month. They are entitled to advertise their property as
a participant in the program; receive CFMH signs for their property to announce their
participation; and are invited to attend the Tukwila Apartment Managers Network
meetings.
Typically, 5-10 people attend the monthly managers meetings and over 40
invitations and reminders are sent out. Fewer properties are represented because
sometimes, more than 1 person from a property attends. Managers and owners
know they can contact the Community Oriented Policing Coordinator to have their
questions answered at any time.
Participation is free and support is available for all Tukwila properties. Interest in the
program and other City services seems diminished; possibly owners are more
interested in the day-to-day business of keeping units occupied rather than
programs designed to make their property safer and a more desirable place to live.
Other US cities have legislated participation into the CFMH program with limited
success. Many ordinances are being challenged in court. I suggest right now that
the best bang for our buck is to continue offering landlord training classes, provide
support for managers as needed, and track calls for service at all rental properties
for at least two years to establish a 'track recorddata base for rentals.
To:
ent of un
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
ent Steve Lancaste , Director
Tukwila City Council, Tukwila Planning Commission
From: Steve Lancaster
Date: 10 January 2005
Subject: Joint Council Commission Housing Meeting — Thursday January 13, 2005
There are a n umber o f o bjectives for the upcoming meeting. The n umber one objective is to
utilize the expertise of the housing consultant, Nikki Parrott, and ask her questions related to the
Housing Assessment and other general housing/neighborhood related issues.
In addition to providing the demographics, housing data and a condition survey, Ms. Parrott has
made recommendations related to the City's Housing Element goals and policies. (See page 31
of the Assessment.) A second objective for the meeting is to discuss the recommendations on
Page 31 of the assessment and develop a consensus of how and what next steps should be taken.
To augment the Recommendation section and to provide some background and further
infoi illation, staff prepared the attached discussion papers.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98 88 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665
Demonstration Projects
January 13, 2005
Problem: The City receives inquiries about building "cottage housing" and other types of
housing that are not allowed due to the City's Zoning Code and the lack of available land.
Existing Conditions: The dominant type of housing available in Tukwila is a detached
single family home in a typical neighborhood setting or larger apartment complexes of 40 or
more units.
Discussion: The housing construction market will innovate when there is a demand for a
different type of product. Demand for different types of housing is reflective of demographics
and the resultant change in households.
Should Tukwila consider other types of home ownership opportunities, such as cottage
housing, that allow more units per acre within single family neighborhoods?
The land available in Tukwila is primarily infill and redevelopment. Are three and four single
family homes on a private easement with a hammerhead turnaround model the preferred type
of residential neighborhood?
Advantages: Opportunity to broaden the type of housing available in the City. Potentially
improve the development model for single family homes in City neighborhoods.
Disadvantages: City staff and legislative time to analyze and address incoming
developments. Uncertain outcome.
Rental Housing Licensing
January 13, 2004
Problem: There is a perception that rental housing is the source of the majority of calls for
service and code violations in residential neighborhoods. Without accurate information this
assumption cannot be demonstrated.
Existing Condition: The City requires owners of rental property consisting of five or more
units to obtain an annual business license. Single family, duplex, triplex and fourplex units
are not asked to comply with the licensing requirement,
Discussion: The City has no way of knowing how many rental dwelling units or how many
accessory dwelling units may exist.
Is it desirable to require a business license for single family, duplex, triplex and fourplex
owners?
• City of SeaTac requires all rental properties to obtain a business license.
• City of Kent requires properties with three or more units to get a business
license;
• City of Burien requires properties with four or more units to get a rental housing
license (for a fee) and a "no -fee" business license. In Burien, the fees generated
are dedicated to crime prevention specifically related to rental housing.
Since residential rentals are generally "for profit" operations, it is reasonable for the City to
require a business license.
If a rental property is the subject of repeated code enforcement complaints (such as more
than two per year) would the City withold or revoke the business license until the violations
are resolved?
Advantages:
The City would have regularly updated contact information provided on the buiness license
application form.
Infoiniation provided on the business license form would be helful in establishing occupancy
limits (based upon the standards in the adopted International Property Maintenance Code)
and other code related items.
Having better data on the total number of dwelling units and the percentage of rentals may be
helpful in analyzing housing capacity in the City as well as ways to improve the City's
housing programs and services.
Disadvantages:
Staff workload to process the licenses.
Resistance from owners of small retal properties.
Difficulty of enforcement.
Proactive Code Enforcement
January 13, 2004
Problem: Code violations exist throughout the city that may not be addressed because no
citizen complaints are received.
Existing Condition: The City of Tukwila's Code Enforcement program currently works
on a complaint basis. We do not proactively enforce nuisance violations. Complaints
received from City employees are investigated, as are complaints received from citizens
at large, but we do not conduct emphasis patrols as a general rule.
Discussion: Proactive code enforcement of certain nuisance violations could improve the
appearance of neighborhoods and establish a higher standard overall for the City.
Potential proactive campaigns could be for junk vehicles, illegal vehicle parking in the
residential areas, trash and debris visible from the street, severe weed overgrowth or
obvious and severe structural deterioration.
City of SeaTac practices proactive code enforcement for certain violations. (See the
reverse side for examples of that City's Code Enforcement policies.)
1 Should these proactive investigations be primarily in the residential areas?
2. Should we designate a particular neighborhood for emphasis patrol (2005 is the year
of Cascade View, for instance)?
3 Or, should the City concentrate on a particular type of violation (junk vehicles or
vehicle parking, say) in all the residential areas?
Advantages: City wide and region wide perceptions of neighborhood standards will
slowly change due to the communication and enforcement effort that would be a
necessary part of any proactive enforcement.
Successful abatement of nuisances.
Disadvantages: Current staffing assignments would need to be reallocated in order to be
more proactive or more staff would be needed. Tukwila may gain a reputation for
interference in private matters.
Q:\nieb\ HOUSING \Proactive Code enforcement.doc
City of SeaTac
Code Enforcement Policies
Proactive
Reactive
Garbage
Work without Permits (Proactive by building inspectors)
Dangerous Buildings (Is there a definition for this?)
Minimum Housing Code
Attractive Nuisances (e.
Commercial Parking
Junk Vehicles
*Noise
Overgrown vegetation
*Minor Residential Parking (
Discarded items
*Fences
Graffiti
*Non -Domestic Animal
Major illegal Residential parking (more than two
vehicles parked improperly)
*Residential Rental Business License
Tent/Canopy Structures
• Newness
• More than one in front yard
• Tent Structure in front yard
• Access to structure
• Stand alone use
• Exceeds 15' in height
Metal Tent Structures
Commercial Cargo Containers
Residential Cargo containers placed on property before
or after ordinance 1999
Signs
Garage Sales
Commercial Business License
Illegal Duplex
*Wait for complaint — give verbal warning
Housing Intervention Program
January 13, 2005
Problem: How can the City refine how it currently works at improving housing conditions,
maintaining /providing affordability for the very low income households as well as reducing
crime associated with households and properties within the City?
Existing Conditions: There are a number of programs currently administered by the City:
• Community Oriented Policing/Crime Prevention: that administers several voluntary
programs: Crime Free Multi -Family Housing in conjunction with an Apartment
Managers/Hotel Network.
• Code Enforcement: that when alerted by tenants or neighbors of violations will enforce
minimum community standards
• Human Services: that coordinates funding for housing repair and temporary and pei inanent
housing for low income households.
Discussion: From a recalcitrant property owner's perspective there are multiple different people
and City Departments. This is confusing to most people and can be divisive as different City
officials approach at different times with different offers of assistance or enforcement.
Is there a way for the City to be more effective and efficient?
When a property is identified as a violator, then a designated staff person would approach the
property owner with two options:
• Maintain and manage it per City standard and programs;
• Fix it (offer funds if necessary through the Housing Repair Program), or
• Sell it (the City would have a list of potential buyers available.)
The carrots (in the form of assistance) and sticks (in the form of enforcement) would be bundled
into a package that would be laid out at to a property owner at one time.
Advantages: A formal standardized response, with a rehearsed and clear message, may be a
situation where the sum is greater than the individual parts. A formalized program becomes a
known commodity within the community that can be marketed.
Disadvantages: Initial organizational effort and interdepartmental coordination challenges.
Q:\mcb \HOUSING \HIPDiscussion paper.doc
Relocation Assistance
January 13, 2005
Problem: When landlords neglect their responsibilities for keeping rental units safe and healthy,
the City must take action to ensure the safety and habitability of those units. In some cases, a
tenant's unit may be determined to be uninhabitable, requiring the tenant's relocation, either
peimanently, or until the repairs are completed.
Existing conditions: The International Property Maintenance Code is the City's adopted standard
for determining if a structure is fit for human occupancy. When a structure or unit is abated for
health and safety reasons the tenants most likely will be required to move. The City's recently
adopted "Tax Lien Ordinance" provides a mechanism for the City to order repairs be made to
dangerous or substandard structures, or the City does the work and places a tax lien on the
property for reimbursement during the next tax cycle. This ordinance does not assist the affected
tenants, however. The Washington State Landlord Tenant Act requires landlords to maintain
their property in a habitable state and sets out the methods by which tenants can effect repairs to
their units. Although tenants in some cases can recoup costs, the process involves lawsuits and
can be intimidating and drawn -out and does not address the immediate housing needs.
Discussion: A tenant's lack of financial resources and/or housing options may produce a fear of
reporting unsafe conditions that could result in eviction or costs associated with moving. For
some, the alternative to living in substandard housing is homelessness.
• Should the City mandate that property owners provide assistance for displaced low income
tenants?
Under Washington State law (59.18.440 RCW,) cities are authorized to require property owners
to provide a portion of reasonable relocation assistance to low income tenants upon the
demolition, change of use of residential property, removal of use restrictions in an assisted
housing development, or substantial rehabilitation whether due to code enforcement or any other
reason.
• Should the City establish a process that would allow the City to advance relocation funds to
tenants who are displaced as a result of a landlord's failure to maintain their properties,
resulting in uninhabitable units?
If the landlord fails to complete payment of relocation assistance, the City could advance the
cost of the relocation assistance to eligible tenants.
The City may then attach a lien to the property, which is tied to annual property taxes, for the
amount of the relocation assistance, plus any interest and penalty fees. Another payback
option would be to attach a lien to the property that was only paid back when the unit or
complex was sold.
Advantages: Puts the financial burden on the landlord as opposed to the City. Avoids the "fire
alarm" approach taken by the City when these issues arise.
Disadvantages: Opposition by rental property owners. May result landlords maintaining
properties in marginally acceptable conditions.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
PURPOSE
This component of the Comprehensive Plan establishes land use and
development policies for Tukwila's residential neighborhoods. (Figure 10)
It will serve as the basis for zoning, and will play a key role in the
establishment of development standards, design guidelines, and display of
public capital improvement projects.
These goals and policies propose land use patterns and physical development
policies that protect arid enhance the sense of community in Tukwila's
residential neighborhoods. They give the highest priority to achieving the
image of neighborhood quality described in the Tukwila Tomorrow
Committee goals and strategies, while satisfying regional commitments and
providing emergency services.
ISSUES
Tukwila's residential neighborhoods are a mix of dense, small-town
residential areas and newer suburban areas. Its citizens are relatively active
in ad hoc neighborhood groups concerned about neighborhood quality.
These residential neighborhoods are distinct geographic areas within an
urban setting that is becoming increasingly crowded, with all the challenges
of urban living.
A strong sense of community is the key to maintaining neighborhood quality
as Tukwila grows. Without it, Tukwila's residential neighborhoods will lose
many of their most valued characteristics and the public investment will not
achieve its goals. Public and private development design can enhance or
inhibit this sense of community.
Standards to which public facilities such as schools, parks, and streets are
designed should support neighborhood quality, in addition to filling their
specific roles. Additional minor improvements are needed to weld the
community's facilities into a contiguous, recognizable system, with
anticipated system wide benefits far exceeding the relatively small
improvement costs.
Amendments to private development regulations are needed to better
support communication among neighbors, increase housing design options,
and ensure that housing size is consistent with smaller lot sizes as inffil
continues throughout the City. Changes in zoning densities and firm code
enforcement are needed in some neighborhoods to combat their increasing
Figure 1 0 —
Residential Neighborhoods
Dec 71
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
transient nature that causes the loss of the sense of community so vital to
maintaining the neighborhoods.
GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal 7.1 Neighborhood Quality
Urbanization and development that fosters a sense of community
and replaces lost vegetation and open spaces with improvements
of at least equal value to the community.
Policies
7.1.1 Maximize neighborhood quality through City actions that
help define the City and neighborhoods as specific "places."
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ High quality public facility and private development design
for neighborhood quality
+ Emphasis on public health and safety concerns
+ Provide infill assistance for short plats or smaller
developments
7.1.2 Improve the public infrastructure in all neighborhoods to an
equivalent level of quality.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
+ Create or modify regulations that allow neighborhood infill
to continue while infrastructure needs are being addressed by
the City.
7.1.3 Include human services as one of several bases for
evaluating capital and programmatic needs.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
Goal 7.2 Noise Abatement
Residential neighborhoods protected from undue noise impacts,
in order to ensure for all residents the continued use, enjoyment
and value of their homes, public facilities and recreation, and
the outdoors.
Policies
7.2.1 Prevent community and environmental degradation by
limiting noise levels.
7.2.2 Discourage noise levels which are incompatible with current
or planned land uses, and discourage the introduction of
new land uses into areas where existing noise levels are
incompatible with such land uses.
7.2.3 Require building contractors to limit their construction
activities to those hours of the day when nearby residents
will not be unreasonably disturbed.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
+ Noise regulations
7.2.4 Discourage noise levels incompatible with residential
neighborhoods.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Coordinate with the Washington Department of
Transportation
+ Noise reduction and buffering regulations
+ Berming, landscaping, setbacks, tree planting
+ Building construction and siting methods
+ Home occupations standards
7.2.5 Encourage the reduction of noise from Seattle -Tacoma
International Airport and King County Airport, by promoting
the development of new or the retrofit and modification of
existing aircraft engines which are quieter, and operational
procedures that help reduce aircraft noise emission levels.
7.2.6 Work with the Port of Seattle, King County Airport and
the Federal Aviation Administration to promote the
development and implementation of airport operational
73
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
procedures that will decrease the adverse noise effects of
airport operations on Tukwila and its residents.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Lobbying the Federal Aviation Administration to develop and
implement airport operational procedures to reduce noise
impacts.
+ Coordinate with other jurisdictions surrounding airports to
ensure common purpose and implementation strategies.
+ Work with King County International Airport/Boeing Field
to establish an appropriate noise monitoring system,
including better identification of noisy flight events,
counseling/education of pilots about quieter flying tech-
niques, flight patterns that avoid noise sensitive areas and
other strategies.
7.2.7 Ensure that urbanization and development do not negatively
impact current neighborhood noise levels or E.P.A.
standards.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ WSDOT coordination in advance of roadway improvements
+ City-wide study on current noise levels
+ Establish City program and standards
Goal 7.3 Overall Land Use Pattern
A land use pattern that encourages a strong sense of community
by grouping compatible and mutually supportive uses and
separating incompatible uses.
Policies
7.3.1 Maintain a comprehensive land use map that supports the
preservation and enhancement of single-family and stable
multi -family neighborhoods; eliminates incompatible land
uses; and clearly establishes applicable development
requirements through recognizable boundaries.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
+ Clear definition of Land Use Map zoning codes
74
Deeetn
1995-
B.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
7.3.2 Utilize appropriate zoning to combat increasing short-term
rentals that increase the transient nature of specific
neighborhoods.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
+ Zoning Map
Goal 7.4 Streetscape Development
Streetscapes that enhance neighborhood quality and a strong
sense of community.
Policies
7.4.1 Provide pedestrian and other nonmotorized travel facilities,
giving priority to sidewalk improvements that connect public
places, such as parks, the river, open spaces, and
neighborhood gathering spots.
7.4.2 Emphasize a network of residential local access through -
streets, minimizing cul-de-sacs.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ A street network that serves growth
+ Acquisition of needed right-of-way
7.4.3 Provide standards and guidelines for front yards, structures,
and public areas that encourage conversation among
neighbors (as illustrated in Figure I 1).
7.4.4 Design residential local access streets to provide the min-
imum capacity for emergency access and for slow traffic.
Figure 11 — Residential neighborhoods streetscape
75
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Require sidewalk arid landscape planter for both sides of
residential streets
+ Street design criteria
+ Traffic calming program
+ Require sidewalk and landscape planter in front of all multi-
family developments
+ Priority for neighborhood quality design features (e.g,
removal of one lane or parking before removal of sidewalk)
when reducing street facilities
+ Rights -of -way incorporating desired design features
+ Encourage sidewalks and planters where appropriate on 2-
lane street improvements
+ Emergency vehicle purchasing criteria that accommodate
street design standards
+ Alternatives to circular cul-de-sacs to minimize paved area
+ Sidewalks can be included within the required emergency
vehicle turning radius
+ Sidewalks which include handicap cutouts for handicap
access
7.4.5 Design collector arterials for slow but steady speeds.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Use a two travel lane, local access road design as the basic
collector arterial design to encourage safe speeds
+ New minor and principal arterials routed around residential
neighborhoods
+ Traffic calming program
7.4.6 Incorporate proportionately greater neighborhood -enhancing
elements in collector, minor, and principle arterial design.
These elements include collector lanes, wider sidewalks,
separated sidewalks, and curbline trees.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
7.4.7 Underground utility distribution lines as each street is
improved or constructed, in accordance with rates and
tariffs' applicable to the serving utility.
Goal 7.5 Neighborhood Gathering Spots
Neighborhood gathering spots that provide a social focal point
for supporting and enhancing neighborhood communication and
quality.
Policies
7.5.1 Neighborhood gathering spots shall reflect neighborhood
height, bulk, and scale and a small-town residential style of
architecture.
7.5.2 Link neighborhood gathering spots with an enhanced
nonmotorized trail and sidewalk system before providing
linkages with the neighborhoods.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ "Parks and Open Space" site -specific recommendations
+ Trails visible from the roadway, as appropriate
7.5.3 Reflect the highest standard of design quality in public
developments to enhance neighborhood quality and set a
high design standard for other development.
7.5.4 Within one -quarter -mile of residential areas, provide a
recreational facility or enhanced trail linkage to a
neighborhood park. Provide a neighborhood park within one-
half -mile of residential areas.
7.5.5 Maintain a minimum of 400 square feet of neighborhood
recreational facilities per household.
1995 77
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Require a minimum of 400-square-foot-per-household
recreational area requirement
+ Provide recreational space through on -site locations in new
multi -family developments.
7.5.6 Acquire and design parks and recreational facilities to
maximize responsiveness to changing community needs.
Goal 7.6 Private Sector Development
Residential neighborhoods with a high -quality, small-town,
pedestrian character.
General Policies
7.6.1 Encourage resident identification with the neighborhood
through physical improvements and programs including
neighborhood gathering spots, landmark designation and
improvement, and streetscape improvements.
7.6.2 Ensure that residential development reflects high design
quality in harmony with identified, valued natural features
and with a small-town orientation.
7.6.3 Allow Planned Residential Developments (PRD's) for multi -
and single-family use on properties with wetlands or
watercourses, or within the Tukwila South Master Plan Area
in conjunction with the City Council's approval of a master
plan.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
+ Design criteria, standards and guidelines for PRD's that assure
adequate mitigation of the potential impacts of such projects
Single -Family Residential Development Policies
7.6.4 Support single-family residential in -fill housing that is in
harmony with the existing neighborhood as a means of
achieving adequate, affordable, and/or diverse housing.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Standard minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet
+ Maximum 0.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (not to include
basement in calculating FAR)
+ Accessory dwelling units with special standards
+ Allow expansion or replacement of existing manufactured
and mobile homes
7.6.5 Encourage single-family residence design to foster a sense
of safety and security.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
+ Site design providing transition between public and private
places
7.6.6 Develop singlefamily regulations that encourage compat-
ibility with the existing scale of residential structures in the
neighborhood, provide an appropriate relationship of lot area,
building scale, and building siting, and maintain a sense of
community (e.g. mature trees, pedestrian scale, sensitive
transition between public and private spaces).
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Minimum 20-foot lot width at street access point with an
average lot width not less than 50 feet
+ Minimize building setbacks to facilitate neighborhood
communication, and friendly transition areas between street,
sidewalks, and dwellings
+ Encourage off-street parking and garage and carport standards
that reduce auto dominance
+ Encourage pitched roofs
rnber4-71995" 79
Arove 67)?
00411
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
7.6.7 Support a residential rehabilitation program that provides
assistance and inducements for residents to upgrade and
maintain safe, attractive homes and yards.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Survey of specific assistance needs
+ City assistance program to address maintenance needs,
regulatory revisions and provide technical experience and
financial assistance
+ Funding and technical assistance for neighborhood tree
planting
+ Financial assistance generally limited to low-income
households
Improvements and additions shall meet current codes;
minimize the necessity to bring entire building up to code
+ Code enforcement
7.6.8 Allow home occupations as accessory uses if they have a
level ofactivity compatible with single-family structures and
residential neighborhood goals.
Multi -Family Residential Development Policy
7.6.9 Support a multifamily residential rehabilitation program that
provides assistance and inducements to owners to upgrade
and maintain safe, clean and attractive facilities.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Survey of specific assistance needs
+ City assistance program to address maintenance needs,
regulatory revisions, and provide technical experience and
financial assistance as appropriate
+ Financial assistance generally limited to low-income
households or buildings serving low-income households
+ Improvements and additions shall meet current codes;
minimize the necessity of bringing entire building up to code
+ Code enforcement
80
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
7.6.10 Ensure that all multi -family residential developments
contribute to a strong sense of community through site
planning focused on neighborhood design integration;
building design architecturally linked with the surrounding
neighborhood and style; streetscapes that encourage
pedestrian use and safe transition to private spaces,
with trees reducing the effects of large paved areas; with
recreational spaces and facilities on site; creative project
design that provides a diversity of housing types within
adopted design criteria, standards, and guidelines; and
operational and management policies that ensure safe,
stable living environments.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Multi -family design criteria, standards and guidelines
+ Tukwila crime -free multi -family housing program
Commercial Area Development Policies
7.6.1 1 Link commercial areas to residential areas within
approximately one quarter mile with high quality
nonmotorized access facilities.
7.6.1 2 In neighborhood commercial developments, harmoniously
reflect the scale and architectural details of surrounding
residential structures, and encourage nonmotorized access.
(Figure 12)
Figure 12 — Residential Commercial Center architectural character
1.:2e9ember-4, I
Na M
81
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
7.6. 3 Encourage neighborhood commercial structures to
incorporate residential units at medium densities.
(Figure 13)
• •
Figure 13 - Residential Commercial Center mixed use
Goal 7.7 Residential Commercial Center
Residential Commercial Centers that bring small commercial
concentrations into existing residential neighborhoods to
improve existing residential areas while providing products and
services to nearby residents.
Policies
7.Z 1 Allow a diverse mix of uses, including above -street
residential, retail, service, office and recreational and
community facilities.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
+ Zoning Code
7.7.2 Through public and private project design and regulation,
create a recognizable, compact, pedestrian Residential
Commercial Center.
7.7.3 Encourage new construction rather than the conversion o
existing residential structures to commercial uses.
Z Z4 Combine parking placement and build -to standards to
achieve compactness and pedestrian orientation, creating a
focal point emphasis in the Residential Commercial Center.
82
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Neighborhoods
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
+ Parking along the street front, behind or beside buildings
7.7.5 Achieve pedestrian transition between buildings, streets and
adjacent properties.
7.7.6 Allow up to three -stay buildings within the Residential
Commercial Center to emphasize its importance and
desired activity level, limiting commercial uses to the lower
two stories.
7.7.7 Ensure appropriate structural transitions between
commercial and residential zones.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Multi -family and commercial design guidelines
+ Maximum 0.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (not to include
basement in calculating FAR)
7.7.8 Require developments to incorporate small-scale pedestrian
amenities such as benches and canopies in order to convey
the impression of a residential center and community focal
point.
7.7.9 Employ appropriate design elements to blend in with the
character of the residential neighborhood.
Goal 7.8 Neighborhood Vitality
Continuing enhancement and revitalization of residential
neighborhoods.
Policy
7.8.1 Utilize both City and non -City funding to directly promote
revitalization of residential neighborhoods.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Emphasis on existing land use patterns
+ Investment in public works and infrastructure improvements
+ Infrastructure fund support for residential area buffering
improvements
+ Subdivision and replatting of large residential lots
44995— 83
CITY OF TUKWILA
HOUSING NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
CONDITION SURVEY
Prepared By
Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.
AND Research
June, 2004
INTRODUCTION
This housing needs assessment was prepared based on a variety of information related
to the housing supply and demand in Tukwila. The primary purpose of the assessment
is to provide current information for use in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Housing
Element Background Report. But it is also intended to access a range of information to
describe current conditions in the housing market, to identify recent trends, and to
provide recommendations related to implementation of the goals of the Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Secondary data sources, such as the Census and State and King County reports,
provide the bulk of the information analyzed in the assessment. (See Attachment A for
a complete listing of data and information sources.) In addition to data specific to
Tukwila, where possible and relevant, data for King County and other South King
County cities provides comparisons and illustrates aspects of the regional housing
market.
Primary research was conducted on housing condition. A windshield housing condition
survey examined the exterior conditions of 18 percent of single family units and 18
percent of multi -family structures (24 percent of multi -family units).
The needs assessment is organized as follows:
Summary of Significant Trends and Market Conditions
Community Profile (Population and Household Characteristics)
The Housing Stock & Development Trends
Housing Condition
Housing Affordability
Recommendations
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT TRENDS AND MARKET CONDITIONS
• A substantial portion of the population is young to middle-aged adults.
• Racial and ethnic diversity have increased significantly since 1990.
• Tukwila is home to a large foreign -born population made up of immigrants from
Asia, Latin America, Europe, and Africa.
More than half of the population living in the City in 1999 had moved there since
1995.
• One quarter of Tukwila households make less than 50 percent of the median
income and are considered very low-income by HUD standards, and almost two-
thirds of children enrolled in the Tukwila School District receive financial
assistance through the free and reduced lunch program.
• There are more multi -family than single family units in Tukwila and more renters
than homeowners.
• Almost 20 percent of the single family housing stock is renter -occupied and 12
percent of units in multi -family properties are owner -occupied.
• Since 1998, the only housing building permits issued were for single family homes
(284 units.)
• The housing stock is in overall relatively good condition. There are some areas in
north, north central and west Tukwila where housing condition is relatively
poorer. Areas served with curbs and sidewalks tend to have better conditions.
Rental housing overall is in poorer condition than owner -occupied units.
• The housing stock is relatively small measured both by square footage and
number of bedrooms.
A large number of housing units are overcrowded, having more than one person
per room. Overcrowding is significantly higher in Tukwila than in King County
and surrounding South King County cities.
• Households generally need about 70 percent of the median income to afford the
average -priced existing single family home and about 40 percent to 50 percent of
the median income to afford the average -priced existing condominium.
• Single family sales activity was strong in 2003.
Almost 40 percent of renters pay more than they can afford for housing.
• Households with incomes of 40 percent, or less of the median income cannot find
affordable housing.
While average rents in Tukwila have risen modestly since 2000, rents in
surrounding communities are typically higher.
2
Nearly 800 renters living in Zip Codes 98166 and 98188 receive assistance
through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program and nearly 800 more are
on the waiting list for either Section 8 assistance or a public housing unit.
COMMUNITY PROFILE
The characteristics of Tukwila's population and households (e.g. the size of the
population, recent and projected population growth rates, age, ethnic characteristics,
tenure, household make-up, household size, income) provide the basis for
understanding housing demand. This first section of the needs assessment looks at key
population and household characteristics that are relevant to a discussion of housing
needs.
Population Growth and Age
The estimated population of Tukwila, as of April 2003, was 17,230. It increased by
5,306 people (44.7 percent) between 1990 and 2000. However, over half (52 percent)
of the increase resulted from annexation of new areas into the City. This is significant
because households in the annexed areas were already housed, and therefore they did
not create additional housing demand. Excluding annexation, Tukwila's population
grew by a more modest 2,542 people (21.4 percent), or about 2.1 percent each year.
Figure 1 compares the City's overall rate of population growth with that of other South
King County cities and with King County. The growth experienced by Kent and Des
Moines over the last decade also was due, in large part, to annexation.
120%
100%
80 %
60%
40%
20%
0 %
Figure 1
POPULATION CHANGE OF SELECTED SOUTH KING COUNTY CITIES
1990-2000
Federal
Auburn Des Moines
Way
1.1°/0 Growth 30 0% 52 0°/. 23 7%
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
Kent
Renton , Tukwila King County!
109.5% 20.1% 44.7°/0 ' 15.2%
Compared with other South King County communities, and with the County overall,
Tukwila's has a relatively smaller proportion of children and elderly residents. The
majority of the population is young to middle-aged adults.
Table 1
AGE DISTRIBUTION IN TUKWILA & SELECTED SOUTH KING COUNTY CITIES
Under 17 years 26.0% 20.7% 20.1% 27.0% 24.6% 22.2% 21.6% 19.0% 22.6%
18 tO 24 years 10.4°/0 9.4% 10.2% 11.0% 13.7% 11.1% 10.0°/0 12.5% 10.0%
25 to 54 years 44.1°/0 45.1°/0 45.1`)/0 49.3% 48.9°/0 49.0% 48.0% 51.7% 48.7%
55 to 64 years 7.9% 9.7% 7,3% 6.5°/0 6.3c/0 7.2% 9.4% 8.2% 7.6%
64 to 84 years 10.4% 13.8% 13.1% 5.7% 6.1% 9.6% 10.2% 8.2% 10.0°/0
85 years + 1.2 °/0 1 .2 c1/0 4 .1 % O. 5% 0 . 5% 1.0% 0 7`)/0 O. 5`)/0 1 .1%
Source: US Census, 2000
Nearly 50 percent of Tukwila's households are headed by a person between the ages of
35 and 54. An additional 23.2 percent are headed by a person 55 years of age or older.
Racial and Ethnic Diversity
Racially and ethnically, Tukwila's population is quite diverse. Table 2 provides a
breakdown of the population by race and Hispanic origin for the City and comparative
information for King County and other nearby communities.
4
Table 2
POPULATION BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN'
Race
Auburn
Buren
Des
Moines
Federal
Way',
Kent
Renton
SeaTac
Tukwila
King
County
Caucasian
African -
82.8%
75.7%
74.2%
68.8%
70.8%
68.1%
62.9%
58.6%
75.7%
American
American Indian,
Eskimo, or Aleut
2.4%
2.5%
5.1%
1.3%
7.2%
1.0%
7.9%
0.9%
8.2%
1.0%
8.5%
0.7%
9.2%
1.5%
12.8%
1.3%
5.4%
.9%
Asian
Native Hawaiian,
or Pacific
3.5%
7.0%
8.3%
12.3%
9.4%
13.4%
11.1 %
10.9%
10.8%
Islander
0.5%
1.2%
1.3%
1.0%
0.8%
0.5%
2.7%
1.8%
.5%
Other race
Two or more
races
Hispanic origin
(any race)
3.7%
4.6%
7.5%
5.4%0
4.3%0
10.7%
3.3%
4.8%
6.6%
3.7%
5.3%
7.5%0
4.4%
5.4%
8.1%0
4.2%
4.6%
7.6%
6.4%
6.4%
13.0%
8.1%
6.5%
13.6%
2.6%
4.1%
5.5%
Source: US Census 2000
The City has become significantly more racially and ethnically diverse over the last
decade. While the white population grew by only 10.3 percent, all minority populations
more than doubled. (Table 3.)
i The Census does not consider "Hispanic" as a racial category. Persons of Hispanic origin are those who classify
themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the Census questionnaire "Mexican,"
'Puerto Rican,' or "Cuban" -as well as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino." Origin is
viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the persons parents or
ancestors before their arrival in the United States: People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino
may be of any race.
5
Table 3
CHANGE IN POPULATION DIVERSITY
Race/Hispanic Origin
% Change 1990-2000
White
10.3%
Black
233,8%
Native American
143.2°./0
Asian
158.9%
Other Race
104.6%
Hispanic Origin
328.0°/0
Source: US Census 1990 & 2000
Reflective of a national trend, Tukwila and South King County also experienced a
significant increase in the number of foreign-born2 residents. The Joint Center for
Housing Studies of Harvard University notes in their publication, The State of the
Nation's. Housing, 2004:
"Overall, more than one in ten households is now headed by a person
born outside the United States. The shares among younger households
are even higher. Furthermore, of the 12 million foreign -born
householders in the US in 2000, 3.4 million (28 percent) arrived in this
country during the 1990's alone. As a result, the foreign -born contributed
more than a third of household growth over the decade and will likely
account for an even larger share of growth in the years ahead."
Rapid growth in foreign -born households has added significantly to
housing demand. ... With their relatively low homeownership rates,
immigrants played an even more vital role in rental markets -accounting
for fully 17 percent of all renters in 2000."
More than one quarter (26.2 percent) of Tukwila's population in 2000 was foreign -born
and the majority of those residents (62.0 percent) entered the United State between
1990 and 2000. Most immigrants came from Asia (34.0 percent), Latin America (30.0
percent), Europe (21.4 percent) and Africa (10.0 percent). Figure 2 compares Tukwila's
percentage of foreign -born residents with that of other jurisdictions and illustrates the
degree to which the immigrant population has grown in Tukwila.
2 Foreign -born residents are included by race and origin in the previous data.
6
Figure 2
FOREIGN -BORN RESIDENTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE
POPULATION
30,0%-Z
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
King Co. S. King Tukwila Auburn
Co.
y
Burien
Des
Moines Way
Federal Renton Sea-Tac
Source: US Census 2000
Mobility
Tukwila and South King County residents have been very mobile, moving often both
within and between communities. The Census provides two sets of information that
allows for an analysis of population movement. One set of data represents the number
of people who were living in a different city in 1995 than in 1999, and the second tracks
those living in a different house3 than the one in which they lived in 1995. Table 4 and
Figure 3 show that the population of South King County, and Tukwila in particular, has
been highly mobile.
Table 4
POPULATION LIVING IN A DIFFERENT CITY IN 1995
Tukwila
Auburn
Burien
Des Moines
Federal Way
Kent
Renton
SeaTac
54.1%
46.0%
42.6°/0
43.2%
43.7/0
49.4%
46.7°/0
51.0%
Source: US Census 2000
3 This data represents the total of those who moved into a City and those who relocated to a different
house within a City.
7
Figure 3
POPULATION LIVING IN A DIFFERENT HOUSE, 1995 & 1999
70%
60% RN',
,,,...,
50%:.e.1
4'...,„
.,4 •
%•
40,:*rPti
p:Ii
30°/0
!: Ri 1 '..Z11 k
NYV tt4
1 0 %
!?:* Ill
SN
ri'.4
:., A
c+44" 41....,,k,
20% .....,
0% ,:e...:4.1 L...Z..11
'',A
King . Des Federal
Tukwila 1 Auburn Burien Kent Renton SeaTac
County Moines Way
1_ 1
' =Same House 47.6% 38.5% 39.0% 52.3% 49.2% 42.4% 36.9% 41.8% 44,2%
, _1
Different House 52.4% 61.5`)/0 60.1%, 47.7% 50.8% 57.6% 63.1%
*T4
Source: US Census 2000
58.2% 55.8%
Data also shows a high degree of mobility related to work patterns. The majority (82.6
percent) of Tukwila residents work outside of the City, even though the number of jobs
in the City is significantly larger than the population (44,288 jobs compared with a
population of 17,230). The City's central location in the region, about half way between
Seattle and Tacoma, and proximity to multiple major transportation routes, provides
residents with convenient access to many other regional job centers.
Households and Income
Tukwila's 7,186 households are made up of 55.0 percent families and the balance non -
family households (i.e. single person households and unrelated individuals living
together). Of family households, nearly 20 percent are headed by a single parent, a
higher percentage than in King County (12.2 percent), South King County (17.0
percent) and all other nearby south King County cities with the exception of Auburn
that has a comparable percentage.
The average household size in Tukwila is 2.38 persons. Households of one and two
persons make up about two-thirds of all households. Households of three, four, and
five or more people represent 14.2 percent, 10.9 percent, and 9.7 percent of
households respectively.
The majority of Tukwila households (57.6 percent) are renters. Tukwila is the only
South King County community in which there are more renters than owners. (Figure
4.)
8
70% "
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% r
io%
0%
Figure 4
Owners and Renters
King Tukwila Auburn Burien Des Federal Kent Renton SeaTac
County
Source: US Census 2000
Moines Way
DOwner •Renter
The median household income for Tukwila is S40,718. This compares with $53,157 for
King County, $41,202 for SeaTac, s41,577 for Burien, s45,820 for Renton, and $46,046
for Kent. Among nearby south King County cities, only Auburn's household median
income of S38,208 is lower.
The poverty level is one measure of income that is reported through the Census. It is a
federal standard that is the same for all parts of the country (i.e. it is not adjusted for
local variations in wages or cost of living) and is determined for households of various
sizes.
HUD also establishes household income guidelines, using Census and other information,
that are used to determine the eligibility of households for assistance through a variety
of housing and community development assistance programs (e.g. Community
Development Block Grant). HUD income guidelines do take into consideration the
economic differences between regions of the Country. In the case of Tukwila, the HUD
income guidelines that apply are those established for King County.
The HUD income guidelines define various income categories based on percentages of
the area median income. Extremely low-income households make 30 percent or less of
the area median income, very low-income households make 50 percent or less, and
low-income households make 80 percent or less.
Table 5 compares poverty level with the 2004 HUD income guidelines for households of
various sizes.
9
Table 5
2004 POVERTY AND INCOME GUIDELINES
Household Size Povert
1 $9,310
2 $12,490
3 $15,670
4 $18,850
5 $22,030
6 $25,210
7 $28,390
8 $31,570
HUD HUD HUD
30% Median 50% Median 80% Median
$16,350
$18,700
$21,050
$23, 350
$25,250
$27,100
$29,000
$30,850
$27,250
$31,150
$35,050
$38,950
$42,050
$45,200
$48,300
$51,400
$40,250
$46,000
$51,750
$57,500
$62,100
$66,700
$71,300
$75,900
Source: U.S. Census 2000, and Department of Housing and Urban Development
According to the Census, 12.7 percent of Tukwila's population lives below poverty and
just under one half of those people live below 50 percent of the poverty level.
Compared to King County, South King County, and nearby cities, Tukwila has some of
the highest percentages of individuals and families impacted by poverty (Table 6).
Table 6
People Living Below Poverty
Population
Children Families
King County
S King Co.
Tukwila
Auburn
Burien
Des Moines
Kent
Federal Way
Renton
SeaTac
8.4%
9,6°/0
12.7%
12.8%
9.4%
7.6%
11.6%
9.3%
9.7%
11.5%
9.4%
12.6%
18.0%
15.3%
13.1%
9.6%
12.5%
16.7/0
13.5%
15.5%
5.3%
7.1°/0
8.8%
10.2%
6.9%
5.6°/0
6.9%
8.7%
7.0°/0
9.8%
7.4%
7.3%
7.7%
8.8%
6.1%
2.8%
6.5%
9.3%
8.4°/0
8.1%
Source: US Census 2000
10
King County uses Census data to estimate the number of households in the various
HUD income categories. Based on the County's analysis twenty-eight (28) percent of
Tukwila's households are very low-income. Twenty-four (24) percent are low-income.
Of the balance, 20 percent earn between 80 percent and 120 percent of the median
income and 28 percent make more than 120 percent of the median income.
Another income measure is the number of children receiving either free or reduced
lunch through the school district. Eligibility for assistance is based on the poverty
guidelines discussed above. In the Tukwila School District in 2003, 51.2 percent of
enrolled students were provided with free lunch and another 11.2 percent purchased
lunch at a reduced cost. Relative to King County overall and to the surrounding school
districts, the Tukwila School District provides financial assistance for a significantly
higher proportion of students.
Figure 5
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS RECEIVING FREE OR REDUCED
LUNCH
(by School District)
60.0`)/0
40.0°/0
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0°/0
King County
Tukwila
Auburn Federal Way Highline
% Free E3% Reduced
Kent
Source: Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
THE HOUSING STOCK AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Growth and Composition
From 1990 to 2000 the number of housing units in Tukwila grew from 5,972 to 7,817,
an increase of 30.9 percent. As with the increase in population, a significant number of
the units were the result of annexation. Of the 1,845 additional units, 1,331 (72.1
percent) were added through annexation. Since 2000, the City has issued building
permits for 254 units, all of which were for single family residences.
11
Even though the recent trend has been toward single family housing development,
Tukwila's housing stock is predominately multi -family. Nearly 60 percent of all housing
units are in multi -family structures of 2 or more units, with almost 40 percent in
structures of 10 or more units. Most multi -family units are in structures of 20 to 49
units, and 50, or more units (Table 7).
Table 7
UNITS BY STRUCTURE TYPE
Structure Type
1, detached
1, attached
2
3 or 4
5 to 9
10 to 19
20 to 49
50 or more
Mobile home or trailer
Other
Total
2,781
324
90
449
510
697
1,224
853
237
36
38.6%
4.5%
1.2%
6.2%
7.1%
9.7°/0
17.0%
11.8%
3.3%
0.5%
7,201 100.0°/0
Source: US Census 2000
12
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
1O%
0%
Figure 6
COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSING STOCK FOR SELECTED JURISDICTIONS
• ro': • • ,t4. • • ,
. • .0, Apz
•—• A.:4R
a IN
id
Auburn Burien Des Moines Federal Kent Renton SeaTac Tukwila King County
Way
al, detached 1, attached 02 03or4 a 5 to 9 C110 to 19 '" 20 to 49 El 50 or more 0 Mobile home
Source: 2000 US Census
The composition of Tukwila's housing stock is unique among south King County
communities in that it has fewer single family structures and more large multi -family
properties (Figure 6).
Some multi -family units are owner -occupied and the rental stock includes single family
homes (Table 8). It is significant that nearly 20 percent of the City's single family
housing stock is renter -occupied. Compared with King County and other South King
County cities, Tukwila's percentage of renter -occupied single family homes is high
(Figure 7).
While representing a small number of units, townhomes (one unit, attached) are
predominately owner -occupied. Ownership in properties with larger numbers of units
likely represents the condominiums in the City's housing stock. The other major
category of ownership is among mobile home owners.
1 3
Table 8
UNITS BY STRUCTURE TYPE AND TENURE
Structure Type
1, detached
1, attached
2
3 or 4
5 to 9
10 to 19
20 to 49
50 or more
Mobile home or trailer
Other
Total
% Owner- %ocRceunpied
Units pied
# Occupied ter- Total
2,781
324
90
449
510
697
1,224
853
237
36
7,201
80.2%
77.2%
189%
11.8%
26.9%
75%
4.6%
61%
78.5c/o
77.8%
19.8%
22.8%
81.1%
88.2°/0
73.1%
92.5%
95.4%
93.9%
21.5%
22.2%
100.0%
100.0°/o
100.0%
100.0%
100.0°/0
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: US Census 2000
Figure 7
SINGLE FAMILY UNITS THAT ARE RENTER -OCCUPIED
20 0%
15.0% -
5.0%
-i
0.0% T
King Des !Federal
Tukwila Auburn Bunen Kent Renton
County 1 Moines 1 Way
, , !
0% SF Units 13.20/0 19.8% 131 13.3% 11.0% 10.8°/0 1 13.5% 151%
Source: US Census 2000
SeaTac
189%
14
Size and Age
Overall, the housing stock is relatively small. The average owner -occupied home is
1,513 square feet and the average rental home is 1,292 square feet. Over one quarter
of all single family homes have less than 1,000 square feet. (New homes average
about 25 percent larger.)
40%
35% -- --
30%
25% 1--
20%
15% 1--
10%
5% --
0%
Figure 8
Auburn Burien
UNITS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
Des Federal Kent Renton SeaTac Tukwila King
Moines Way
00 01 1112 .3 04 05+
Source: US Census 2000
County
The City's housing stock is made up primarily of two bedroom and smaller units (70.4
percent). Again, Tukwila is unique in this regard. The City leads other jurisdictions in
the overall percentages of studio, one- and two -bedroom units.
The majority of the housing is between 40 and 50 years old. Less than 10 percent of
housing was built within the last 10 years and just over a quarter was built within the
last 20 years. Figure 9 on the following page maps the year of construction for Tukwila
housing built since 1900. It provides a picture of neighborhood age as well as a picture
of the development of housing over time within the City.
15
Condition
A windshield survey of housing condition and maintenance was conducted in Tukwila
between February 15 and March 15, 2004.
The purpose of the survey was to:
• Evaluate overall physical housing conditions and maintenance in Tukwila,
• Determine differences in housing condition by specific areas (census tracts),
• Compare condition and maintenance by owner -occupied and renter -occupied
housing, and
• Provide a base line for looking at changes in housing condition in future years.
Information from the King County Assessor's records on building construction quality
was also analyzed and correlated with the field observations of the survey.
The full survey is presented in a separate report, included here as Attachment C. But
briefly summarized, it found that housing in Tukwila is overall in relatively good
condition. There are only limited pockets of somewhat blighted units. On average,
single family housing in the north and north central parts of Tukwila tends to be in
poorer condition. Poorer condition multifamily housing is found on the west side of the
city. Neighborhoods served with sidewalks and curbs tended to have better housing
conditions.
Rental housing is in worse condition than owner -occupied housing. Rental housing also
tends to be of a poorer building construction grade. In the housing surveyed, 31
percent of the rental housing was of below standard construction according to the King
County Assessor's office. Sixteen (16) percent of the owner -occupied housing fell
below standard construction based on the Assessor's criteria.
Overcrowding
Overcrowded housing is defined by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Units with more than one person per room are considered overcrowded.
Overcrowding typically results from 1) individuals or families sharing housing in order to
make it affordable or 2) large families who cannot find, or cannot afford, an
appropriately sized unit. Census data includes information on the number of people per
room. According to the 2000 Census, 13.1 percent of housing units in Tukwila are
overcrowded. This is significant, particularly compared with King County, where only
4.9 percent of housing units are overcrowded. Other south King County jurisdictions
are also less impacted by overcrowded housing (Figure 10).
17
Figure 10
OVERCROWDED HOUSING
King Des Federal
Tukwila Auburn Burien Kent Renton SeaTac
County Moines Way
Ei% Total Units 4.9°/0 ' 13.1% 5;9% I 6.1% 5.9°A, TS% 8.1% 6.7% 11.4%
Source: US Census 2000
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
The discussion of housing affordability relies on Census data, as well as data from the
Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report, King County, the King County
Housing Authority, and HUD.
One limitation of the data is worth noting. King County tracks affordability of units for
the annual Benchmarks Report that measures progress against the Countywide
Planning Policies. HUD provides information on household incomes and housing
affordability for CDBG entitlement jurisdictions to use in their Consolidated Plans. Both
the HUD and the County methodologies are attempting to describe housing affordability
in local housing markets. But, because they use different data sources, the outcomes
of the analysis are somewhat different.
HUD's analysis includes the number of households by income category and the number
of affordable housing units by those same categories. Table 9 shows HUD's estimate of
the number of households in Tukwila by income category, as well as the number of
housing units affordable to households with those incomes and the resulting excess or
deficit of affordable units.4
4 In HUD's analysis, housing is considered affordable when renters pay no more than 30 percent of their
income for rent and utilities and owners pay no more than 30 percent of their income for mortgage
payments, taxes, insurance and utilities.
18
Table 9
UNITS AFFORDABLE TO ALL HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY
Irtcollie/Affordability Range <30°,/0 MFt
# Households
# Affordable Units
#Units Excess or (Deficit)
840
313
(527)
1,030
1,836
806
1,653
3,714
2,061
3,394
1,593
(1,801)**
Source: State of the Cities Data Systems, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (derived from 2000
Census data)
** Households in this income category appear to experience a deficit only because the number of more costly units
is smaller than the number of more affluent households. However, since these households can afford the units in all
of the other categories, they are not likely to have difficulty finding an affordable unit.
King County's methodology is also Census -based, but also incorporates more current
local data on the numbers of housing units and rent and sales costs. Based on King
County's analysis, in 2003 2.2 percent of the City's housing (172 units) was affordable
to households with less than 30 percent of the median income, 45.5 percent (3,563
units) was affordable at between 30 percent and 50 percent of median income, and
40.2 percent (3,148 units) was affordable between 50 percent and 80 percent of the
median income. The balance of 12.1 percent (948 units) would only be affordable to
those making more than 80 percent of the median income.
By either methodology, households with incomes of less than 30 percent of the median
income are least likely to find affordable housing in Tukwila. By HUD's analysis, the
deficit in affordable housing means that more than half of these households pay in
excess 30 percent of their income for housing. Households in the other income
categories are more likely to be able to find an affordable unit, subject to household
preferences and unit availability.
According to the King County Benchmarks Reports for recent years, housing in the City
is becoming increasingly more affordable. The County tracks rental housing affordable
to those with less than 50 percent of area median income and ownership units
affordable to those with less than 80 percent of the median income. In 1999, the
County reported that 54 percent of all housing was affordable. By 2000, the proportion
was up to 60 percent, and by 2001 it had risen to 79.5 percent. In the 2003 report,
total affordable units represent 87.9 percent of all units. This latest report stresses
that, in the County as a whole, housing affordability is the most severe for households
with 40 percent, or less, of the area median income.
19
Affordability of Homeownership
Based on either the HUD or King County data, some homeownership units in Tukwila
(11 percent -HUD and 17 percent -King County) are affordable to owners with incomes of
less than 50 percent of the area median. Using HUD data, 51 percent of ownership
units are affordable to owners with less than 80 percent of median income. King
County considers that 73 percent of ownership units fall into this same category.
The Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report includes information on home
sales (single family and condominium) for King County communities. The most recent
information is for the 3rd quarter of 2003. (Information is provided by ZIP code for
properties located in that portion of a ZIP code that is within a city's limits. For
reference, Attachment D is a Zip Code Map and is on colored paper.) In the 3rd quarter
of 2003, 511 existing (not newly constructed) single family homes sold in Tukwila.
During the same time period, 65 existing condominiums changed hands. There was
very little sales activity of newly constructed properties-2 homes and no
condominiums.
Based on average sales prices, single family homes located in the north of the City (ZIP
code 98168), sold for 14 percent to 22 percent less than those in areas to the east and
south (Table 10).
Table 10
SALES ACTIVITY IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, RESALE SALES
2001
Quarter
2003
Quarter
98168 Zip Code
# Sales
Average Price
98178 Zip Code
# Sales
Average Price
98188 Zip Code
# Sales
Average Price
94
$173,438
58
$212,189
35
$182,663
206
$173,962
210
$212,237
95
$197,517
Source: Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report
Conversely, the average -priced condominium in the northern part of the City sold for 43
percent more than those in other areas (Table 11).
20
Table 11
SALES ACTIVITY IN CONDOMINIUMS, RESALE SALES
98168 Zip Code
# Sales
Average Price
98178 Zip Code
# Sales
Average Price
98188 Zip Code
# Sales
Average Price
2001
Quarter
4
$118,625
3
$83,783
18
$92,906
2003
Quarter
25
$155,591
10
$107,954
30
$108,522
Source: Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report
Table 12, on the following page, illustrates the affordability5 of home purchase in
Tukwila, based on average sales prices. Comparing 2003 average sales prices and the
2003 HUD income guidelines, two -person, three -person, and four -person households all
needed at lease 60 percent, or more, of the median income to afford an existing single
family home in Tukwila. Three -person and four -person households with incomes of less
than 80 percent of the area median could afford the average -priced home,
Using the same comparison, two -person, three -person and four -person households
generally needed between 40 percent and 55 percent of median income to afford the
existing average -priced condominium.
5 Tables 1, 2,and 3 in Attachment B show what households of various sizes and incomes can afford for
home purchase.
21
Table 12
AFFORDABILITY** OF HOME PURCHASE IN TUKWILA, 2003
2 Person HH
98168
98178
98188
3 Person HH
98168
98178
98188
Income Required for Average- Income Required for Averaged -
Priced Single Family Home Priced Condominium
(Resale) (Resale)
77% Median Income
93% Median Income
87% Median Income
68% Median Income
83% Median Income
77% Median Income
68% Median Income
47% Median Income
48% Median Income
61% Median Income
42% Median Income
42% Median Income
4 Person HH
98168 61 % Median Income 55% Median Income
98178 75% Median Income 38% Median Income
98188 69% Median Income 38% Median Income
Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc., 2004
** Assumes a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage at 6 percent interest. Households with 50 percent to 80 percent
make a 5 percent down payment. Household with more than 80 percent of median income make a 20
percent down payment.
In the third quarter of 2003, a significantly higher percent of existing single family
housing units sold in Tukwila compared with other near by communities-15 percent in
Tukwila compared with 3 percent to 5 percent in other areas.
Figure 11
PERCENTAGE OF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS SOLD
3RD QUARTER 2003
16%
14% <
10% Kr-
8 °/0
-
6%'
4% t,
2%
0%
Auburn Burien
Des Federal Kent Renton Tukwila
Moines Way
Source: Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report and State of Washington Office of Financial
Management
22
Rental Housing Affordability
According to the 2000 Census, nearly 60 percent of Tukwila renters have found
affordable housing, paying no more than 30 percent of their income for rent and
utilities. However, 38 percent of renters still struggle with housing costs. Sixteen
percent are severely rent burdened in that they pay 50 percent, or more, of their
incomes for housing costs. This is a very similar renter profile to that of other South
King County cities (Figures 11 and 12).
Figure 12
HOUSEHOLDS (HH) BY RENT AS A % OF INCOME
HHs Paying
> 50% of - -
Income for Rent
HHs Paying
30% - 49°/0 of
Income for Rent
Source: US Census 2000
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Not computed
HHs Paying
29% of Income
for Rent
Figure 13
GROSS RENT AS A % OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME
KING COUNTY AND SOUTH KING COUNTY CITIES
King Auburn Burien Des Federal Kent Renton SeaTac Tukwila
County Moines Way
BLess than 29% E330°X, - 49% 1150c/0 or more El Not computed
Source: US Census 2000
23
HUD has also analyzed affordability for renters in Tukwila (Table 13). By this analysis,
a significant number of extremely low-income renters are likely paying more for their
housing than they can afford.
Table 13
UNITS AFFORDABLE TO RENTERS BY INCOME CATEGORY
30
<30% Median Median-5O%80Median5l-%>80% Median
Income/Affordability Range Income Income Income Income
# Affordable Units
# Households
# Units Excess or (Deficit)
313 1,514 2,509 126
626 773 1,142 1,449
(313) 741 1,367 1,323
Source: State of the Cities Data Systems, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (derived from 2000
Census data)
HUD has also analyzed what is referred to as the "affordability mismatch." The
information makes an important point about the housing market. Households will seek
to minimize their housing costs. In other words, a household may actually be renting a
unit that costs less than 30 percent of their income. For example, based on HUD's data
for Tukwila, only 39.6 percent of the housing units affordable to those with less than 30
percent of the median income are occupied by households in that income range. For
units affordable at 30 percent to 50 percent of the median income, only 43.4 percent
are occupied by households in that income category.
This mismatch further exacerbates the search for affordable housing by low-income
households. If these unavailable units are considered part of the affordable unit deficit,
then 502 extremely low-income households cannot find affordable housing and 194
very low-income households also pay more than they can afford.
Another measure of affordability is a comparison of current rents with affordable rents
(what households in the various income categories can pay based on a 30 percent of
income standard). Twice each year, Dupre + Scott provides information on current
average rents in areas throughout King County in their Apartment Vacancy Reports.
Information is based on a survey of over 195,000 housing units in the Puget Sound
region. (The survey does not include any publicly subsidized housing.)
Table 14 on the following page illustrates the affordability gap for households of various
sizes and incomes. Regardless of household size, those with incomes of less than 30
percent of the median income could not afford the average rent for any size unit.
Households with 50 percent of the median income were able to afford one -bedroom
units, but fell short of being able to afford most units of two bedrooms or larger. The
24
gap was smaller when units were located in properties of 20 or more units. At 80
percent of the median income, all households were easily able to afford average rents,
regardless of unit size.
Table 14
AFFORDABILITY OF TUKWILA'S 2003 AVERAGE RENTS
AT 30%, 50%, AND 80% OF MEDIAN INCOME
A1:fordabi
Rent (80°I
-19 Units
1 BR
(1 person)
1 BR
(2 people)
2 BR
(2 people)
2 BR
(3 people)
3 BR
(4 people)
3 BR
(5 people)
4 BR
(7 people)
4 BR
(8 people)
$576
$408 ($168)
$681
$105
$1,006
$430
$576 $467 ($109) $778 $202 $1,150 $574
$820 $467 ($353) $778 ($42) $1,150 $330
$820 $526 ($294) $876 $56 $1,294 $474
$1,151 $583 ($568) $973 ($178) $1,438 $287
$1,151 $631 ($520) $1,051 ($100) $1,553 $402
$1,361 $725 ($636) $1,207 ($154) $1,783 $422
$1,361 $771 ($590) $1,285 ($76) $1,898
$537
20+ Unit
1 BR
(lperson)
1 BR
(2 people)
2 BR
(2 people)
$678 $408 ($270)
$678 $467 ($211) $778 $100
$879 $467 ($412) $778 ($101) $1,150 $271
$681
$3
006
150
$328
$472
2 BR $879 $526 ($353) $876 ($3) $1;294 $415
(3 people)
3 BR $1,059 $583 ($476) $973 ($86) $1,438 $379
(4 people)
3 BR $1,059 $631 ($428) $1,051 ($8) $1,553 $494
(5 people)
Source: Dupre + Scott, Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.
25
Also according to the Apartment Vacancy Reports, average rents for units in all types of
structures have increased somewhat between 2000 and 2003.6 Single family rents have
increased the most (23.3 percent), followed by rents in small properties of 2-4 units
(15.3 percent). About a quarter of the City's renter -occupied units are in these types of
properties. Rents in large properties (20+ units, about half of all renter -occupied units)
are up by 12 percent, while rents in 5-19 unit structures (about one quarter of all
renter -occupied units) have been more modest, increasing only 3.3 percent in the
three-year period (Table 15).
Table 15
CHANGES IN RENTS IN THE TUKWILA/RIVERTON AREA, 2000-2003
Single Family
2-4 Units
5-19 Units
20 + units
_ 2000 2002
Average Average 2°Change000.gag2
Rent Rent
$883 $1,068 21.0%
$633 $622 -1.7%
$543 $606 11.6%
$640 $712 11.3%
2003 % Change
Average 2000-2003
Rent
$1,089 23.3%
$730 15.3%
$561 3.3%
$717 12.0°/0
Average
Annual
Change
Source: Dupre + Scott, Huckell/Weinman Associates
Comparable 2003 rents in nearby communities, and for King County, are consistently
higher. Average rents for single family homes in Renton, Burien, and King County
range from 13 percent to 23 percent higher than in Tukwila. Average rents for units in
5-19 unit structures in Renton, Burien, SeaTac, and King County range from 14 percent
to 36 percent higher. For units in large properties of 20 or more units, rents in SeaTac
and Burien are comparable, but similar units in Renton and King County command rents
of 15 percent to 19 percent more than in Tukwila (Table 16).
6 The Dupre+Scott report website acknowledges that the average rent understates the degree to which
rents may have remained flat or declined in recent years due to the economy and soft rental market.
They attribute that to several factors including 1) the market keeps adding new units that generally have
higher rents than existing units, 2) some properties had below market rents a few years ago and have
actually maintained or increased rents, 3) some renovations have resulted in rent increases, and 4) rent
incentives mask the impact of rent increases.
26
Table 16
2003 AVERAGE RENTS BY AREA AND UNIT TYPE
Single family
2-4 Units
5-19 Units
20+ Units
Rivertoril Renton SeaTac
Tukwila
$1,089
$730
$561
$717
$1,228
$743
$640
$828
$1,140
$804
$733
$682
Burien King County
$1,226 $1,336
$792 $885
$654 $764
$728 $854
Source: Dupre + Scott, Huckell/Weinman Associates
The availability of rental housing in a community is indicated by the housing vacancy
rate. A vacancy rate of 5 percent is indicative of a balanced market. Lower rates
indicate a tight housing market where renters are likely to have difficultly finding a unit,
and demand for units is such that landlords can raise rents. Higher vacancy rates
indicate a "renter's market," where rents are flat, or declining, and property owners are
likely offering rent incentives (i.e. one month's free rent, etc.)
The regional rental market has seen relatively high vacancy rates, flat rents and or
modest increases, and the addition of rent incentives during the past several years.
Vacancy rates in Tukwila have been also been on the rise. In 2003, the vacancy rate
for units in 1-19 unit structures was 8.0 percent, up from 3.5 percent in 2000. For units
in larger properties, the 2003 vacancy rate was 8.3 percent up from 3.2 percent in
2000.
Vacancy rates differed by size of unit (number of bedrooms). For example, studio units
experienced a 13.2 percent vacancy rate and 2 and 3 bedroom units in 1-19 unit
properties each had vacancy rates of 10 percent.
Rental housing in nearby communities experienced similar rates of vacancy.
Table 17
COMPARATIVE VACANCY RATES 2003
1-19 Units
20+ Units
Riverton/ Renton SeaTac
Tukwila
8.0% 5.2%
7.1% 8.0%
8.0°/0
Burien King County
6.6%
8. TY°
6.6%
7.5%
Source: Dupre + Scott, Huckell/Weinman Associates
27
Housing Assistance
Assistance for Homeowners
Since 1998, $283,572 of Tukwila Community Development Block Grant Funds have
been spent on single family home repair for low- and moderate income homeowners.
The Housing Repair Program, which is administered and operated by King County,
provides no interest loans (up to s20,000) or emergency grants (up to $3,000) for
home repair. Tukwila residents have received loans for repairs such as new roofs,
heating systems, plumbing, electrical, foundations, sewage disposal, removal of lead -
based paint and utility connections, such as sanitary sewer hook-ups. In 2004,
s134,162 is available and there are seven homeowners with pending applications.
In addition, the City has also contributed $18,000 to assist income -eligible homeowners
with minor home repair needs. Minor home repair jobs include plumbing, carpentry,
electrical and retrofitting for handicapped accessibility.
Finally, beginning in 2001, the City has provided Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds to HomeSight, a nonprofit organization that assists low -and moderate -
income, first-time homebuyers. Assistance is provided in the form of 1) homeownership
counseling, 2) grants to assist with down payment and closing costs, and 3) low- or no -
interest second mortgages that reduce the amount for which the buyer has to qualify
with a private first mortgage lender. The City has contributed $45,000 in CDBG funds
that leveraged additional resources from a King County challenge grant. In total,
$122,460 in public funds have assisted five first-time buyers. The buyer profile is
summarized below in Table 18.
Table 18
BUYER PROFILE, HOMESIGHT HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Household Al Median Employe
Size Income Location
2
5
40%
60°/0
50%
79%
45%
Seattle
Seattle
Seattle
Seattle
Seattle
Household Type
Female Single Parent
Couple with Children
Adult Only
Adult Only
Female Single Parent
Source: HomeSight
28
During this same period HomeSight has assisted four households that moved from
Tukwila and purchased homes in Renton, Kent, Des Moines, and Federal Way.
Assistance for Renters
While not specifically funded by the City, owners of rental properties in Tukwila have
access to the King County Rental Rehabilitation Program. This program provides no
interest loans to property owners for preserving affordable rental properties. In the
past five years, 11 owners of Tukwila properties received loans creating/preserving 61
units of affordable housing.
In addition to these units, there are three publicly subsidized housing projects in the
City. They are the Riverton Terrace, the Hampton Heights, and the Mountain View
Apartments. Table 19 includes specific information on each property.
Table 19
PUBLICLY ASSISTED RENTAL HOUSING
Riverton Heights 1 12 3 3 2 50 Public Housing
Hampton Heights 67 45 0 0 1 113 Tax Credit
Mountain View Apartments 32 18 0 0 0 50 Tax Credit
Total 100 75 3 3 3 213
Source: Washington State Housing Finance Commission, King County Housing Authority, and Huckell/Weinman
Associates
Another source of assistance for low- and moderate -income renters is the Section 8
Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by the King County Housing Authority
(KCHA). A Housing Choice Voucher (voucher) allows the voucher holder to rent a unit
in the private rental market and pay no more than 30 percent of their income for rent
(including utilities). The balance is paid directly to the landlord by KCHA from an
allocation of HUD funding.
KCHA maintains information on the location of residences rented by voucher -holders by
ZIP Code. For this analysis, information for Zip Codes 98168 and 98188 was used.
Those Zip Codes also take in parts of Burien and SeaTac, as well as Tukwila, with
Tukwila representing about one third of the area.
29
As of February 2004, there were 793 vouchers in use in the two ZIP Codes. Families
were receiving rental assistance through nearly 60 percent of those vouchers. Disabled
households represented 31.4 percent of voucher holders, and the elderly were utilizing
9.3 percent of the vouchers. Almost a third of the voucher holders were foreign -born
residents.
The vast majority (63.3 percent) of voucher holders rented apartment units, but about
30 percent rented single family homes. Just over half of the renters needed one and
two bedroom units, but more than a quarter needed units of four, or more bedrooms.
Minorities made up two-thirds of households receiving assistance.
One indicator of housing need is the Section 8 waiting list. There are currently 5,313
households on the waiting list, and it has been closed to new applicants since June
2002. KCHA estimates that the list would need to be reduced by about 4,800
households before it would be reopened. There are currently 2,467 households on the
waiting list who live in South King County and 417 in the two Zip Codes referenced
above. Assuming that about one third of those households live in Tukwila, 139
households (3.3 percent of all renters) are on the waiting list for rental assistance.
The vast majority of households currently served by the Section 8 program and on the
waiting list are families and disabled households.
It should be noted, recent changes in the Section 8 Program at the federal level are
likely to impact the amount of assistance available through the Program in the future.
The likely result is that the waiting list will be closed for longer than might otherwise
have occurred and that some current recipients could lose their assistance.
Housing Needs of the Homeless and People with Special Needs
The housing needs of the homeless and various special needs population (i.e. frail
elderly, disabled, mentally -ill, persons with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence,
immigrants) are mainly funded through regional (countywide) programs. Tukwila
contributes both CDBG and general funds from the human services budget to these
efforts. Some of the funded activities include housing stability programs aimed at
preventing homelessness and housing projects, that though not located within the City,
address the shelter needs of homeless and special needs groups. The City also funds
vouchers used by homeless families and individuals for emergency housing in motels
and leases three units on City -owned property for family emergency shelter.
30
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS
Goal 3.2: Continue to provide the City's fair share of affordable housing.
While the housing stock is largely affordable, households with less than 40 percent of
the median income are still paying more than they can afford for housing. Explore
opportunities to support developers of affordable housing to address the needs of this
income group. Strategies could include attempting to attract investment by nonprofit
developers of affordable housing to purchase and rehabilitate existing rental units that
are in poor condition, thus both improving the quality of the housing stock, removing
conditions of blight in a neighborhood, and providing affordable housing for the income
group most in need.
Both Habitat for Humanity, and to a certain extent HomeSight, can provide
homeownership opportunities for households in this income group. Explore potential
projects for the development of new homeownership opportunities with these
developers.
Goal 3.3: An improved housing stock in support of enhanced
neighborhood quality.
Continue to allocate CDBG funds to the King County Housing Repair Program and
market the program to Tukwila homeowners. Consider supporting a potential King
County plan to increase the loan limit for home repair loans and emergency grants in
order to increase the extent of possible repairs on a per home basis.
Revisit with the County the idea of adding funds to the Housing Repair Program for
exterior repairs that cannot always be funded within available loan limits and repair
priorities. This would both improve the condition of the housing stock and improve
overall neighborhood appearance.
Work through the Community Oriented Policing Coordinator and the Crime -Free Multi -
Family Housing Program to market the availability of funding through the King County
Rental Rehabilitation Program to rental property owners.
Research and consider changes to the City's Code Enforcement Program to allow for
inspections based on a criteria other than a complaint that would allow for timely
intervention with the owners of properties in need of repair.
Consider the use of CDBG funds to make infrastructure improvements in income eligible
neighborhoods as an incentive for private investment in housing iMprovements. The
housing condition survey documented the fact that neighborhoods with sidewalks, curbs
and gutters also tended to have better housing condition than those areas without such
31
infrastructure. Similarly, funds could be used, where appropriate, to plant street trees
to improve pedestrian areas and neighborhood appearance.
Goal 3.5: Improved neighborhood quality by reducing the transient nature
of neighborhoods
Increase homeownership opportunities in Tukwila neighborhoods. (This
recommendation could also be addressed through the City's support of affordable
homeownership developers such as Habitat for Humanity and HomeSight.)
The Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County conducted an
Assessment of the Development Environment in King County in December of 2002.
That assessment identified the types of potential homebuyers in the South King County
market. Those wishing to locate near jobs, transit, entertainment and services are
typically singles, elderly, empty nesters, and immigrant families. That in large part is
also a description of much of Tukwila's population. These buyers are looking for new
condominiums, townhomes, and small lot detached housing and existing (rather than
newly constructed) condominiums and single family homes.
Tukwila already allows 6,500 square foot lots for new single family construction to infill
existing neighborhoods; a strategy also aimed at improving affordability of new units.
In addition, the City is completing an Urban Center Plan that will guide the development
of a mixed -use neighborhood around South Center. This new development will provide
a range of homeownership opportunities.
Reach out to immigrant populations and help them become established.
Newly arriving immigrants need a variety of social services to support them as they
learn the language and stabilize their lives. The City supports some of these services
through human service program funding and the school district also provides outreach
and support. Many immigrant households will eventually purchase homes and could be
encouraged to do so in Tukwila. As noted in the State of the Nation's Housing 2000,
"among households 25 to 34, the homeownership rate of foreign -born citizens is on a
par with that of the native-born."
Consider using CDBG an/or general funds to provide a "small and simple" matching
grant program that could be used by neighborhood groups to make modest
neighborhood improvements.
Seattle has such a program that could serve a model. The program could serve as a
catalyst both for achieving small, but visible improvements in neighborhoods, as well as
bringing neighborhood residents together to plan and carry out projects.
32
LIST OF SOURCES
US Census (2000, 1990, 1980, and 1970)
State Office of Financial Management Population Trends (1991, 2000, 2003)
Puget Sound Regional Council Small Area Forecasts
King County Benchmarks Report(s)
HUD State of the Cities Data Systems
Dupre + Scott Real Estate Advisors
Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report
Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County's Assessment of
the Development Environment in King County
Interviews with local elected officials, developers, and city staff
Attach ment-A
33
Table 1
AFFORDABILITY OF HOME PURCHASE, 2-PERSON HOUSEHOLD
120% Median = $74,750
100% Median = $62,300
80% Median = $49,850
60% Median = $37,380
50% Median = $31,150
$1,557
$1,298
$1,039
$779
$649
$259,695
$216,496
$173,296
$129,931
$108,248
6.00°/0
6.00%
6.00%
6.00°/0
6.00°/0
$311,633
$259,795
$181,961
$136,427
$113,660
Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates
Assumes a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage at 6% interest. Households with 100% & 120% of median income make a 2 0 % down
payment. Households with 5 0°/o , 6 0 % and 8 0 % make a 5% down payment.
Table 2
AFFORDABILITY OF HOME PURCHASE, 3-PERSON HOUSEHOLD
120% Median = $84,100
100% Median = $70,100
80% Median = $56,100
60% Median = $42,060
50% Median = $35,050
$1,752
$1,460
$1,169
$876
$730
$292,233
$243,585
$194,938
$146,151
$121,793
6.00%
6.00%
6A)0`)/0
6.00%
6.00%
$350,679
$292,302
$204,685
$153,459
$127,882
Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates
Assumes a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage at 6% interest. Households with 100% & 12 0 % of median income make a 2 0 % down
payment. Households with 5 0 %, 60% and 8 0 % make a 5% down payment.
Table 3
AFFORDABILITY OF HOME PURCHASE, 4-PERSON HOUSEHOLD
120% Median = $93,500
100% Median = $77,900
80% Median = $62,300
60% Median = $46,740
50% Median = $38,950
$1,948
$1,623
$1,298
$974
$811
$324,896
$270,689
$216,482
$162,413
$135,344
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
$389,875
$324,827
$227,306
$170,534
$142,112
Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates
Assumes a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage at 6% interest. Households with 100% & 1 20 % of median income make a 2 0 % down
payment. Households with 5 0 %, 6 0 % and 80% make a 5% down payment.
Attachment B
34
City of Tukwila
Housing Condition Survey
Prepared by
AND Research
March 2004
ATTACHMENT C
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Average Housing Condition by Census Tract
Housing Condition and Neighborhood Infrastructure
Housing Condition and Occupancy Status City-wide
Average Size of Home by Housing Condition Rating
Building Construction Quality by Occupancy Status
Average Condition Score by Building Construction Quality and Occupancy •
Status
Housing Condition for Multi -family buildings Surveyed
Comparing Census Tract Locations of All Multifamily buildings to surveyed
Buildings
Average Multi -family Housing Condition by Census Tract
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Tukwila 2004 Windshield Survey Results Residential Structures
Housing Condition and Occupancy Status by cluster Surveyed
Tukwila Residential Structures (1-3 units) Construction Quality (King County
Assessor's Data)
Single Family Housing condition by Building Construction Quality
Tukwila Multi -Family Rental Housing Construction Quality (King County
Assessor's Data)
Tukwila Condominium Structure Construction Quality (King County Assessor's
Data)
Multi -Family Housing Condition by Building Construction Quality
Attachment C
Introduction
A windshield survey of housing condition and maintenance
February 15 and March 15, 2004.
as conducted in Tukwila between
The purpose of the survey was to:
• Evaluate overall physical housing conditions and maintenance in Tukwila,
• Determine differences in housing condition by specific areas (census tracts),
• Compare condition and maintenance by owner -occupied and renter -occupied housing,
and
• Provide a base line for looking at changes in housing condition in future years.
Survey Design
The survey looked at five hundred sixty three (563) single family buildings in Tukwila.
According to the 2000 Census this is approximately 18% of the single family housing stock. The
single family homes were rated in groups or clusters of approximately 10 each in order to get a
better sense of the conditions in each block or area. Grouping the homes also allowed comparison
between owner -occupied and renter -occupied housing in the same area. There were 57 survey
clusters in all.
Twenty-six (26) multi -family complexes, representing approximately 18% of multi -family
buildings, were also surveyed. The surveyed buildings contained approximately 24% of the
multifamily units in Tukwila.I
Both multi -family and single family housing were randomly selected for the survey by parcel ID.2
The selected parcels were mapped and then adjustments were made to accomplish dispersion and
coverage of all parts of the city.
The housing condition survey assessed the exterior condition of housing from the street. The
drive -by rating focused on roofs, eaves, gutters, siding, doors, windows, porches, visible
structural elements, chimneys, and paint deterioration. The primary focus was on the living unit
itself. However, as an auxiliary measure of condition, the state of the grounds, fencing and
outbuildings was also evaluated. Only conditions apparent on the outside of the housing were
evaluated. The assessment was based on exterior house and yard maintenance issues without
reference to the property value.
The Rating System
The rating system uses five categories and scores condition on a scale of 1 to 5. A description of
each category and the related score follow.
2000 Census and King County Assessor Data,
2 57 single family "lead" homes were selected randomly from a King County Tax Assessor list. These lead homes are
the nucleus to each housing cluster. The rest of the homes in the cluster are adjacent and nearby homes (including
homes across the street). The multi -family housing was randomly selected from the Tukwila Surface Water Utility fees
billing list.
Score: 1
Sound, well maintained. The house/apartment building is without visible deterioration or
observable failings beyond 1 or 2 minor cosmetic defects. For instance, the house may have a
spot of chipped paint or a dented downspout. In this category, grounds are mown, weeded
and otherwise maintained with no accumulated debris in evidence. Fencing, parking areas
and outbuildings are also well maintained.
Score: 2
Basically sound. The house/apartment building shows easily corrected wear that is within the
range of ordinary maintenance. Defects might include a small amount of roof mossing or the
need for repainting. Likewise, grounds are basically well maintained, needing only mowing
or minor weeding, with no accumulated debris. Fencing, parking and outbuildings look sound
and clean.
Score: 3
Needs maintenance/repair. The house/apartment building is basically sound, but has defects
reflecting significant levels of deferred maintenance. For instance, the need for repainting has
gotten to the point of widespread pealing or blistering paint. Another defect might be a
serviceable, but aging, roof. Grounds maintenance issues might include overgrown yards
and/or some debris. Fencing, parking areas and outbuildings may also need repainting or
repair.
Score: 4
Deteriorated. A deteriorated house/apartment building shows major defects that compromise
the safety or weather tightness of the structure. The structure requires replacement of
materials and/or repair beyond the ordinary, such as a roof that definitely needs replacing.
Grounds maintenance issues might include dilapidated fencing and/or outbuildings, potholed
pavement in parking area, unkempt yards, or old appliances sitting outside.
Score: 5
Dilapidated. The structure does not provide safe and adequate shelter. It has several critical
deficiencies, particularly in structural components, to the extent that correction would require
such substantial rebuilding that rehabilitation may not be financially feasible.
Survey Results
Figure 1 maps the areas surveyed and summarizes the results for both single family and multi-
family structures.
2
Attachment C
Single Family Housing
The overall condition and maintenance of Tukwila's single family housing stock is good. The
city-wide average score of 2.04 reflects that more than three-quarters of the single family housing
stock is maintained in a sound condition. Overall:
• 21% of the houses were sound and well maintained ("1"),
• 57.5% were basically sound ("2"),
• 18.7% showed evidence of deferred maintenance ("3"), and
• 2.8% were unsound, deteriorated or dilapidated ("4" and "5").
Although there were geographic differences in the condition and maintenance of the single family
housing stock, all 57 clusters included at least some housing in the sound to basically sound
range. Only 5 clusters had scores between 2.5 to 3.0, a range that indicates a somewhat blighted
area.
Summarizing Condition by Census Tract
Housing condition and maintenance vary by location in the city. Housing condition was best in
census tracts 262, 271, 273 and 283, and worst in tract 263. Table 1 compares housing condition
by census tract .3 For reference, a census tract map of Tukwila is included at the end of this report
on a colored sheet.
Table 1
Average Housing Condition by Census Tract
283 271 273 2 2
Area of the
City
Average 1.84 1.84
Score
S Central N Central
1.86 2.03
N
2.19 2.59
NOTE: A housing condition rating of "1" indicates the best condition homes, and "5" indicates the worst condition homes,
SOURCE: Housing Condition Survey (AND Research)
Geographically, housing in the eastern, western and southern parts of the city is maintained in
better condition than the housing in the central and northern areas.
Housing and Neighborhood Overview
Looking at a street map, Tukwila's street grid appears relatively regular. However, hills, two
interstate freeways, five state highways and a river make streets discontinuous. For these reasons,
negotiating the city's neighborhoods can be challenging. In addition, streets tend to be narrow
with few sidewalks. This limits on -street parking and off-street walkways. There is not enough
3 Tract 271 and 273 have been combined due to the low number of homes rated in CT 271 and the similarity of
condition in the 2 areas.
- 4 -
Attachment 0
space to accommodate vehicular traffic, separate walkways, and parking on both sides of the
street. In many areas, lot size is relatively small and garages are not common. Although
households have fewer cars than the King County average (1.6/ per household compared to 1.7/
household in the County),4 the shortage of on -street parking, lack of curbs and shortage of
garages contributes to the "house in a sea of cars" phenomenon, as residents park on their own
lots.
The streets in the 57 clusters surveyed included:
• 23 with curbs (of those 17 were curbed on both sides),
▪ 22 with some sidewalks (11 had sidewalks serving all homes in the cluster),
• And only 3 clusters with street trees.
Despite the lack of street trees, the residential neighborhoods are verdant. The hilly terrain and
greenbelts frequently offer a sense of privacy and spaciousness, and 40 of the 57 clusters had a
"good" or "great" rating for overall greenness.
Although the majority of all homes, including homes in sound/basically sound condition, occur in
areas without curbs and sidewalks, the presence of these street amenities correlates with better
condition homes. As shown in Table 2, 89% of the 112 homes in areas fully served by curbs and
sidewalks, were sound or basically sound, and none were deteriorated or dilapidated. For areas
without curbs and sidewalks, 73% of the units surveyed were sound or basically sound.
Table 2
Housing Condition and Neighborhood Infrastructure
Condition Curbs and Sidewalks
All Partial None
Sound or basically sound 89% 82% 73%
Needs maintenance 11% 14°/0 23%
Deteriorated or dilapidated 4% 3%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100%
Total Number of homes 112 130 321
SOURCE: Housing Condition Survey (AND Research)
Owner -occupied and Rental Housing
According to the 2000 Census, approximately 21.7% of the single family housing stock5 in
Tukwila are rentals. This compares to 15.7% in the County as a whole.
4 2000 U.S. Census data.
5 For the survey, single family housing stock includes detached single family homes, mobile homes sited on private
lots, and duplexes.
- 5 -
Attachment C
In this survey, the taxpayer address and the billing address for surface water utility fees were used
to identify properties that could be presumed to be renter or owner -occupied. Of the homes
surveyed, 22% were identified as being renter -occupied.
Table 3 compares how rental and owner -occupied housing scored. The overall score for rental
housing (2.3) was worse than for owner -occupied homes (1.96).
Table 3
Housing Condition and Occupancy Status City-wide
Renter- Owner -
Score Condition occupied occupied
Sound, well maintained 15.0% 22.7%
2 Basically sound 47.0% 60.6%
3 Needs maintenance 32.5% 14.6%
4 Deteriorated 4.0% 1.8%
5 Dilapidated 1.6% 0.2%
TOTAL (adjusted for rounding 100% 100%
error)
MEAN 2.30 1.96
SOURCE: Housing Condition Survey(AND Research), Tax Assessor Data and City of Tukwila Surface
Water Utility Billing Data
The difference in housing condition between owner -occupied and renter -occupied housing is, in
part, related to differences in age, size, and quality of construction. New single family housing is
not typically constructed for the rental market, so most of the newly constructed units are owner -
occupied. Even if new housing is not well maintained by an owner, it will take some time before
the lack of maintenance accumulates and becomes visible to a windshield survey. Also, as
discussed in more detail in following sections, rentals tend to be smaller homes and homes that
are more poorly constructed than owner -occupied housing.
Comparing homes within a cluster evens out some of these dissimilarities due to the tendency in
the housing market for homes to be similar in construction and type to their neighbors. As shown
in Figure 2, owner -occupied housing is frequently in better condition than neighboring rental
housing in the cluster. Of the clusters that had rental housing, the housing condition average for
rental housing was worse than owner -occupied 69% of the time.
Size
According to Tax Assessor records, size of single family housing units in Tukwila varies from
250 to 7,140 square feet. One -quarter of the houses had 1,000 square feet or less of living space.
The median size living space is 1,370 square feet.
6
Attachment C
Average Conditia
Figure 2
Housing Condition and Occupancy Status by Cluster Surveyed
Cluster Surveyed
.4...Avg Owned Rating
Avg Rental Rating
NOTE: A housing condition rating of "1" indicates the best condition homes, and "5" indicates the worst condition homes.
SOURCE: Housing Condition Survey (AND Research), Tax Assessor Data and City of Tukwila Smjace Water Utility Billing Data
As shown in Table 4, larger homes tended to be in better condition than the smaller homes.
Table 4
Average Size of Home by Housing Condition Rating
Survey Condition Avg Sq Ft Living
rating Space
1 Sound, well maintained 1,783
2 Basically sound 1,492
3 Needs maintenance 1,398
4 Deteriorated 1,056
5 Dilapidated 957
SOURCE: Housing Condition Survey (AND Research) and Tax Assessor Data
7
Attachment 0
Rentals are smaller on average than housing occupied by owners. The average rental square foot
living area is 1,292 square feet compared to 1,513 square feet in owner -occupied homes.
Building Construction Quality
The King County Tax Assessor's office categorizes housing by building construction quality6.
The construction quality categories are based on construction costs, workmanship, quality of
materials, design, floor plan, and square footage. This information is upgraded periodically.
Figure 3 shows building construction quality of residential parcels with 1-3 units of housing.
The following discussion considers the relationship of the housing condition scores from the
windshield survey to the Assessor's building construction qualitycategories. In Tukwila:
• 18.8% of the housing is assessed as having below standard construction (housing that
does not meet building code),
• 34.1% are in the lowest construction quality currently meeting building codes (low
quality materials, simple designs),
a 40.2% are of average construction,
▪ 5.3% are just above average, and
• 1.6% are of better architectural design (with better quality features, finish work, design
quality, and better materials).
The housing condition survey, as noted previously, only evaluated exterior house and yard
maintenance without regard to property value or underlying construction. However, there is some
relationship between underlying construction and exterior condition. For example, a sagging
roofline would lower the condition rating. Also, to the extent that poorly constructed homes are
likely to deteriorate more quickly, they would tend to have a lower condition rating.
However, it is also possible that a structure of poor quality can be extremely well maintained. A
poorly constructed, but well maintained house could get the highest condition rating from this
windshield survey. Figure 4 shows that some homes with the sound and basically sound condition
rating were of low and below standard building construction quality. Nevertheless, it is also clear
from the table that all homes in the survey of above average building construction quality are
rated sound or basically sound. Likewise, all the deteriorated and dilapidated homes are of low or
below standard construction.
Rental housing tends to be of poorer building construction quality. As shown in Table 5, a greater
proportion of renters live in housing of low and below standard construction than owners who
occupy their own homes.
6 The King County Assessor also evaluates and ranks housing condition. However, in comparing the Assessor's
condition and building quality rankings with the condition scores of the windshield survey, we found the building
quality rankings correlated most closely with the field ovservations of the survey. Therefore, building quality rankings
were relied upon as an indicator of housing condition citywide (i.e. areas not covered by the windshield survey.)
- 9 -
Attachment C
Number of Homes
250
200
Figure 4
Single Family Housing Condition by Building Construction Quality
150
100
50
Deteriorated/Dilapidated
0 Needs mrd
1[3 Basically sound
0 Sound, well maintained
171
Best Construction Just Above Avg
Grade
Avg
Construction Grade
SOURCE: Housing Condition Survey (AND Research) and Tax Assessor Data
Low
Below Stnd
Table 5
Building Construction Quality by Occupancy Status
Building Construction Rental Owner -occupied
quality
Best Construction 1.6% 4.2%
Just Above Avg 3.2% 5.5%
Avg 25.4% 39.7%
Low 38.9% 34.6%
Below Stnd 31.0% 15.9%
Total (adjusted for rounding error) 100.0% 100.0%
SOURCE: Housing Condition Survey (AND Research) and Tax Assessor Data
- 10 -
Attachment 0
Part of the reason rental housing is in poorer condition than owner -occupied housing relates to its
original construction quality. However, when comparing homes of similar grade construction, the
windshield survey found that renter -occupied housing is still of somewhat poorer condition and is
less well -maintained. (See Table 6.)
Table 6
Average Condition Score by Building Construction Quality and Occupancy Status
Building Construction Rental Condition Owner -occupied
quality Avg Condition Avg
Best Construction 1.0 1.2
Just Above Avg 1.8 1.6
Avg 2.1 1.9
Low 2.3 2.0
Below Stnd 2.6 2.4
NOTE: Only 2 rentals were of best construction grade. A housing condition rating of "1" indicates the best
condition homes, and "5 '' indicates the worst condition homes.
SOURCE: Housing Condition Surrey. (AND Research) and Tax Assessor Data
Multi Family Units
Table 7 shows the number of multi -family buildings surveyed by housing condition.
Table 7
Housing Condition for Multi -Family Buildings Surveyed
Number Number of
Score Condition of Bldgs Units
1 Sound, well maintained 2 91
2 Basically sound 13 642
3 Needs maintenance 11 330
TOTAL 26 1,063
SOURCE: Tukwila Housing Condition Survey and Tax Assessor Data
Of the multi -family buildings surveyed, none were found to be unsound. However, 42% showed
evidence of significant levels of deferred maintenance. The city-wide average score of 2.35 for
multifamily indicates that this housing stock is not in as good a shape as single family housing
(2.04).
Attachment C
• 7.7% of the buildings were sound and well maintained ("1"),
• 50.0% of the buildings were basically sound ("2"),
• 42.3`)/0 showed evidence of significant levels of deferred maintenance ("3-), and
• 0% was unsound, deteriorated or dilapidated ("4" or "5").
The 26 buildings contained 1,063 units. Looking at the housing condition scores by number of
units:
• 8.6% of the units were in buildings that were sound and well maintained ("1"),
• 60.4% of the units were in basically sound buildings ("2"), and
• 31.0% of the units were in buildings with evidence of significant levels of deferred
maintenance ("3").
Summarizing Condition by Census Tract
Multi -family housing is concentrated near major arterials. Ninety-two percent (92%) of the city's
multifamily housing is found in three census tracts (CT 262, 273, and 282). In an effort to achieve
the broadest coverage of the city, only 85% of the surveyed buildings were in these census tracts.
Table 8 compares the distribution of the multi -family housing by census tract to the surveyed
multifamily buildings.
Table 8
Comparing Census Tract Locations of
All Multifamily Buildings to Surveyed Bldgs
262 38 28.1% 8 30.8%
263 3 2.2% 1 3.8%
271 2 1.5% 1 3.8%
272 5 3.7% 2 7.7%
273 29 21.5% 5 19.2%
281 1 0.7% 0 0.0%
282 57 42.2% 9 34.6%
283 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
135 100.0% 26 100.0%
SOURCE: Tukwila Suelace Water Utility Billing Address and Housing Condition Survey
- 12
Attachment C
Table 9 compares how conditions varied by census tract. Geographically, multifamily housing on
the north and north central portions of the city is in better condition and those on the west side of
town are in the worst condition. This contrasts with single family housing where the worst
conditions are found in the north and north central areas and the west, east and south had the best
quality.
Table 9
Average Multi -Family Housing Condition by Census Tract
Census 272
Tract
Area of
the City Central
N
Central
Average 2.0 2.0 2.25 2.33 2.6 3.0
Score
NOTE: A housing condition rating of I" indicates the best condition homes, and "5" indicates the worst condition homes,
SOURCE: Tukwila Housing Condition Survey
Owner -occupied and Rental Property
A small portion of the multifamily housing stock is owner -occupied: condos, townhouses, and
small buildings in which the owner lives in one unit. Tax assessor and surface water utility fee
billing addresses were compared to the site address of the 26 buildings surveyed. Five (5)
appeared to be owner -occupied (that is the billing address and the site address was the same). The
average condition (2.0) of the buildings that appeared to be owner -occupied was better than the
non -owner -occupied buildings (2.4).
Size
The number of units did not correlate with differences in housing condition. However, 3-storied
buildings did slightly better (2.2) than 2-storied (2.3). There were only 2 buildings surveyed that
were 1 story and they had the worst average score (3.0).
Buildings with larger units tend to be in better condition.
• Buildings with the best rating of "1" had an average unit size of 1,199 square feet,
• Buildings with a rating of "2" had units with an average of 845 square feet, and
• Buildings with a rating of "3" had the smallest units, averaging 676 square feet.
Building Construction Quality
The tax assessor rates the quality of construction formulti-family buildings and for condos. (See
Figures 5 and 6.)
- 13 -
Attachment C
Residential and Multi -family by Year Built
City of Tukwila, Washington
King County Assesor's Data
Legend
1900 - 1910
1911 - 1920
1921 - 1930
1931 - 1940
941 - 1950
1951 - 1960
1961 - 1970
1971 -1980
981 - 1990
Ell 1991 - 2004
1 0
1
2 Miles
Figure 1
ila 2004 indshield Survey Results
Residential Structures
t • II aj,
golEitf
2r .rlrllf' ! IIL:I 1"•-. a17 0 M.amt
"woman.
IrIBE
..Illru�n: _ fl lH 11
�1• rr
—,11 Itwn �4'1 ���
1
Legend
Sound, Well Maintained
Basically Sound
ii Needs Maintenance
Deteriorated
Dilapidated
0
1
2 Miles
Data Source: AND Research
Map Source: HuckelllWeinman Associates, Inc,
Figure 3
Tukwila 1 to 3 Unit Residential Structures
Construction Quality
(King County Assessor's Data)
Legend
Best Construction
Just Above Average
Average
BE Low
Below Standard
1
0
1
2 Miles
Data Source: Department of Assessments, King County, 2004
Map Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.
Figure 5
i ulti-Family* Rental Housing
Construction Quality
(King County sessor's Data)
E,.
Nun `*. L ,,,,■ MIIIIIII1 rdlltnn .00
MIS q04
VE
:i11 II:1�.,,:111 11.1�
JIB*%:own:
iiJIII�WlE:111raE
1.4
;1 Mit1t111•Iti n
. _ . it
Legend
Excellent
Good/Excellent
Good
Average/Good
Average
Low/Average
ow Cost
0
1
2 Miles
'4 or more units
Data Source: Department of Assessments, King County, 2004
Map Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.
:ROM fil
rrtlll�;r Ik�
Of Law
EW MEW
ter.MUM
,PA11;1 IL' 1;
a�lll':�1"ii=
Legend
Excellent
Good/Excellent
Good
Average/Good
Average
Low/Average
Low Cost
0
1
2 Miles
Data Source: Department of Assessments, King County, 2004
Map Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.
Figure 6
u ila Condominium Structure
Construction Quality
(King County sessor's Data)
As shown in Figure 7, buildings with better building construction quality were more likely to be
in better condition with less deferred maintenance.
18
16
14
12
10
0
aY, 8
E
6
4
2
Figure 7
Multi -Family Housing Condition by Building Construction Quality
[ itat
Good Average/Good Average
Construction Quality
SOURCE: Tukwila Housing Condition Survey and Tax Assessor Data
Low Average
0 Needs mnt
0 Basically sound
o Sound, well maintained
Conclusion
Housing in Tukwila is overall in relatively good condition. There are only limited pockets of
somewhat blighted housing. On average, single family housing in the north and north central
parts of Tukwila tends to be in poorer condition. Poorer condition multifamily housing is found
on the west side of the city. However, neighborhoods served with sidewalks and curbs tended to
have better condition housing.
Rental housing is in worse condition than owner -occupied housing. Rental housing also tends to
be smaller and of a poorer building construction grade. In the housing surveyed, 31% of the rental
housing was of below standard construction according to the King County Tax Assessor's office.
Sixteen percent (16%) of the owner -occupied housing was below standard construction.
- 16 -
Attachment C
O
„r•A`
Cry
..AAA
A•-•"`
77
a)
Spokane St
98108
98168
101,1,74WiMANANI
.
. . . .
• 0 e .0 0 0
• 0 0 s r
Zip -codes
A
\/ City limits
/ Streets
a)
(-0
981781
Ar`
77
77
77
32nd Ave S
r_
a
Zip Codes Acres Tukwila 0/0 in Tukwila
98108 4870 505.4 10%
98168 6018.4 2481.4 41.2%
98178 3231.6 513 15.8%
98188 4869.9 2310.9 47.4%
98188
L.
ATTACHMENT D
Tukwila Census Tracts 2000
22 March 2004
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Housing
PURPOSE
The Housing Element describes how Tukwila's housing needs will be
satisfied through 2022.
Projected housing needs were determined by a joint committee of cities and
the County, as required by state law. These needs were refined through the
Vision Tukwila, Tukwila Tomorrow processes and the City Council
Residential Revitalization program. Tukwila's overall objective: identify
ways to distribute regional housing demand within the Urban Growth Area.
To achieve this, two assumptions and three goals were established:
ASSUMPTIONS:
• Assumption that the City has already planned to accommodate its
fair share of regional housing through 2022
• Assumption that the City has already achieved its fair share of
affordable housing through 2022
GOALS:
• An improved housing stock in support of enhanced neighborhood
quality
II A full range of opportunities for housing for persons in all stages
of life
• Improved neighborhood quality by reducing the transient nature
of neighborhoods
This element focuses on a detailed analysis of housing needs.
ISSUES
In developing the policies to meet these goals, the following overall 20-year
housing and household growth was forecast for Tukwila outside the
Tukwila Urban Center:
• There will be a moderate growth in the number of households.
MI Of this future housing growth, an equal amount will be in the
Tukwila Urban Center and single-family neighborhoods.
NOVEM
W 0
•
8, 2004
35
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Housing
Low- and moderate -income households will account for a small
percentage of the growth.
Overall Supply and Demand
Tukwila's existing housing stock consists of about 7,700 units, primarily
single-family dwellings and multi -unit apartment buildings; there are few
duplex, triplex, or fourplex units. This Plan provides for approximately
3,200 new units, which is the target allocated to Tukwila in the King
County Countywide Planning Policies (KCC December, 2003). A little more
than one-half of Tukwila's housing is over 40 years old, and ten percent is
less than 10 years old. A housing conditions survey that randomly sampled
18 percent of all Tukwila's single-family homes rated 18 percent of the
survey homes as "deferring needed maintenance", and two percent as
"deteriorated" or "dilapidated."
Housing Affordability
Tukwila is among the most affordable housing areas in the region, offering
possibly the best housing value in King County. It is one of very few cities
where the supply of low- and moderate -income housing units is greater than
the number of low- and moderate -income households.
GOALS AND POLICIES
These housing goals are Tukwila's approach to meeting the challenge of
revitalizing residential neighborhoods while maintaining affordable housing
and meeting the needs of low-income arid special households.
Goal 3.1
Continue to provide the City's fair share of regional housing.
Policies
3.1.1 Provide sufficient zoned housing potential to accommodate
future single- and multi -family households.
36
•
: •
18, 2004
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Housing
3.1.2 Establish 6.7 dwelling units per acre (6,500-square-foot lots)
as a maximum for single-family neighborhoods.
3.1.3 Provide zoning capacity within the Tukwila Urban Center
for housing units. (Figure 22 at page 111)
Goal 3.2
Continue to provide the City's fair share of affordable housing.
Policies
3.2.1 Support the regional fair -share funding of needed affordable
housing and the equitable distribution of these units.
3.2.2 Reinforce Tukwila's block grant assistance program through
coordination either of assistance with continued affordable
unit pricing, or of repayment upon sale with proceeds
applied to an affordable housing assistance fund.
3.2.3 Periodically review low-income housing requirements to
evaluate City compliance with regional standards and to
ensure that the City's affordable housing responsibilities are
being satisfied.
3.2.4 Continue providing Tukwila's fair share of future regional
low- and moderate -income housing.
NOVEMBER 18, 2004
37
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Housing
3.2.5 Avoid concentrating publicly subsidized low-income housing
in any one large complex or neighborhood by designing
programs that locate and blend the households into the
community.
3.2.6 Develop public and private partnerships in providing low -
and moderate -income housing.
3.2.7 Encourage a full range of housing opportunities for all
population segments by actions including, but not limited
to, revising the Tukwila development codes as appropriate
to provide a range of housing types.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Allow an accessory dwelling unit in single family zones on
lots with a minimum 7,200 square feet, integrated into the
primary structure size, not exceeding 33 percent of the
square footage in the primary residence, or 1,000 square
feet, whichever is less, with an owner occupant on site, and
satisfying various appearance and performance criteria
related to impacts on adjacent properties
+ Mixed -use developments with residences above the street
level in specified areas
+ Allow limited demonstration projects such as clustered or
cottage housing
3.2.8 Provide sufficient land for housing of all types, including
government -assisted housing, housing for low-income
families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and
group homes and foster care facilities, subject to conditions
which appropriately mitigate the various impacts which such
housing potentially creates.
3.2.9 Work with the owners and managers of Tukwila's existing
permanent or long-term low-income housing to maximize its
desirability.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
+ Crime -free multi -family housing program.
3.2.10 Review housing regulations and programs regularly to
ensure that housing opportunities for all income levels are
available. Include in regulatory evaluation the range of
housing choices, the densities, and include in the program
review the need for public and private financing to produce
housing for various households by income.
38
NOVEM
: *
18, 2004
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Goal 3.3
An improved housing stock in support of enhanced neighborhood
quality.
Policies
3.3.1 Support residential weatherization and rehabilitation
programs with advice from City staff.
3.3.2 Support the maintenance, weatherization, rehabilitation,
and long-term preservation of existing housing for citizens
of low and moderate income.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Publicly assisted housing repair program
+ Streamline codes to allow maintenance and upgrades with a
minimum of permits and regulations
+ Residential street programs
3.3.3 Continue to improve rental housing.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Enforce the International Property Maintenance Code
+ Rehabilitation and weatherization programs for rental units
Housing
NOVEMBER 18, 2004
39
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Housing
3.3.4 Ensure that residential neighborhood infill and
redevelopment is not hampered because of inadequate
water, sewer, storm water management, and streets.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Sewer policy and plan that prioritizes replacing septic tanks
with sewers without creating undue financial hardship.
+ Water policy and plan that ensures adequate water quality,
pressure and quantity is provided without forcing residents
out of their housing.
+ Stormwater water policy that places high priority on solving
existing residential areas problems.
+ Residential street program.
Goal 3.4
A full range of housing for persons in all stages of life.
Policies
3.4.1 Develop housing design standards for special populations
that reflect the different demands generated for their
different types of housing, such as increased inside -
recreation needs.
3.4.2 Assist in providing residents of the community with the
human services and transportation they need in order to
avail themselves of housing opportunities.
Goal 3.5
Improved neighborhood quality by reducing the transient nature
of neighborhoods.
Policy
3.5.1 Increase long-term residency in the City.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
+ Neighborhood focal points
+ Public spaces
+ Design guidelines
+ Crime -free multi -family housing program
40
•
EM
18, 2004
City of Tukwila
Date: July 17, 2006
To: Mayor Mullet
Copy: Economic Development Administrator
From: Mario Angelier, Mayor's Office Intern
Re: Single Family Rental Homes
I recently completed a research study to better understand some of the underlying themes in
the Tukwila housing market.
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Office of the Mayor
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
www.ci.tukvvila.wa.us
Tukwila has 2,971 single-family homes. Of them, 2,376 are owner occupied and 595 are
rentals. (Refer to Graph 1)
• Single-family residential rental homes are owned by people who predominately live in
the local area. 59% of the owners that rent a home live in either Tukwila or Seattle, while
14% live in nearby cities such as: Burien, Des Moines, Renton, SeaTac, and Kent. (Refer
to Graph 2)
• From this data one can see how many homes each owner is renting out; for example 94%
of rental units are being rented out by an owner that is renting only one unit and only four
people are renting 4 or more units. (Refer to Graph 3)
▪ According to this research study there are 812 condominiums in Tukwila and 26% (209
units) are rentals. (Refer to Graph 4)
▪ There are 23 units considered to be townhomes in Tukwila and of them, only 1 (4%) are
Rentals. (Refer to Graph 5)
▪ The following map shows that Tukwila does not have a dense area in which single-family
units have become rentals; instead it shows that rental units consistently appear
throughout the entire city. (Refer to Map)
Methodology
• The data has been gathered from the King County assessor database. The information
has been estimated by comparing a parcel's owner mailing address to the actual property
address for single-family residential units in Tukwila. To strengthen the validness and
provide a measurement of accuracy the data has been checked with the 2000 Census
results of Tukwila. The 2000 Census lists Tukwila as having 2,367 owner occupied
single-family residential units.
• In this research study the term single-family home is only referring to structures that fit
the definition: Homes that are intended for one family per -unit and are detached from
1
other structures. Multifamily structures such as condominiums, duplexes, and town -
homes would not be included in this term under this definition, however additional
research as been done to give a picture of some of these markets as well.
Please let me know if you have additional questions or would like further clarification: Mario
Angelier 206-433-1850 or mo-intern@ci.tukwila.wa.us
Graph 1
20% of Single -Family Homes are Rentals
20%
Rental
El Owner Occupied
Graph 2
30% of Rental Home Owners Live in
Tukwila
Burien
MI Des Moines
0 Kent
0 Renton
• SeaTac
Seattle
' Tukwila
0 Out of State
IN Other Cities
Single Family
Ownership/Rental
Homes
Comparison
Units
%
Rental
595 units
20%
Owner Occupied
2376 units
80%
Total
2971 units
100%
King County Assessor Data Spring 2006
Single Family Rental Homes
Location of Owners
Units
%
Burien
22
4%
Des Moines
13
2%
Kent
29
5%
Renton
27
5%
SeaTac
21
4%
Seattle
172
29%
Tukwila
176
30%
Out of State
21
4%
Other Cities
114
19%
Total
595
100%
King County Assessor Data Spring 2006
2
Rentals
m Owner Occupied
4%of Townho00es are Rentals
M
Owners byAmount mfRenting Units
�
#{fOwners
Renting 1 Unit
M#0Owners
Renting 2 Units
O#OfOwners
Renting 3 Units
0#OfOwners
Renting 4m
more Units
Owners b Amount of enting Units
[KOvvn8rS
Y6
#CfUnits
Renting Unit
518
9496
518
Renting 3Units
24
496
48
Renting 3Units
3
196
8
Renting 4+Units
4
196
20
Total
549
10096
595
King Co. Assessor Data Spring 2U0G
26%of Condominiums are Rented Out
0
Owner Occupied
N Rental
Condominiums Owners h i
Comparison
Units
%
Rentals
209
26%
Owner Occupied
603
74%
Total
812
100Y6
King County Assessor Data Spring 2OO8
Town home Ownership/Rental
Comparison
Units
%
Owner Occupied
22
0896
Rental
1
4%
Total
23
10096
King County Assessor Database Spring 2OOG
*There ioone complex inTukwila that the
Assessor categorizes ooaTnwnkoma:
The Hn||ycnestTownhouse
Located onS.1591^LN.
3