HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2020-11-12 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCHAIR HEIDI WATTERS; VICE-CHAIR LOUSIE STRANDER; COMMISSIONERS DENNIS
MARTINEZ, SHARON MANN, KAREN SIMMONS, DIXIE STARK AND ANDREA REAY
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
AND
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING
VIRTUAL MEETING VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS
NOVEMBER 12, 2020 - 6:30 PM
To Participate in the Virtual Meeting at 6:30 pm:
By Phone: Dial +1 253-292-9750, Access Code 586521939 #
Online: To join the meeting online click here Join Microsoft Teams Meeting
FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT DURING THE MEETING YOU MAY CALL 1-206-433-7155.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ATTENDANCE
III. CASE NUMBER: L20-0106
PURPOSE: Public Hearing to consider updates to subdivision procedures in Tukwila
Municipal Code Title 17 (Subdivisions and Plats) and
Title 18 (Zoning).
LOCATION: City-wide.
IV. CASE NUMBER: L20-0108
PURPOSE: Briefing on the status of the Transit Oriented Development
Housing Action Plan.
LOCATION: Transit Oriented Development area around Tukwila International
Boulevard Station.
V. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
VI. ADJOURN
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared November 3, 2020
FILE NUMBERS: L20‐0106
REQUEST: Amend Title 17 and Title 18
PUBLIC HEARING: A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Seattle Times on October 29,
2020.
SEPA: This project is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act under WAC 197‐
11‐800 (19), Procedural actions.
STAFF: Jaimie Reavis, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: A. TMC 17.14.030, C: Criteria for Final Plat Approval and TMC 17.14.040 Phasing
ISSUE/SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION
Staff is proposing changes to Title 17 and Title 18 that are intended to address approval process issues
for subdivisions identified by City staff, Segale Properties, and other applicants. Included are revising the
approval process for modifying a subdivision which has received preliminary approval (including
Boundary Line Adjustments, Lot Consolidations, Short Subdivisions, and Subdivisions), changing the
decision maker for final approval of subdivision applications which involve 10 or more lots, and
modifying the length of time for phases in a subdivision to be submitted for final subdivision approval.
BACKGROUND
Title 17 Subdivisions and Plats of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) contains the regulations and criteria
for approval of subdividing land in the City of Tukwila. Title 18 of the TMC (Zoning) has additional
regulations for subdividing land, specifying the decision maker, appeal body, appeal type (open record
or closed record), and the procedures required for each type of application.
The different processes for the subdivision of land include short plats, boundary line adjustments, lot
consolidations, binding site improvement plans, and subdivisions. Except for the first issue, the focus of
this memo is on subdivisions of 10 or more lots (called plats).
1
2
Subdivision Process – Current
Table 1 summarizes who the decision maker is at various stages of review for a subdivision plat,
subdivision phasing, and modification of a preliminary plat. Also included are the public notification and
public hearing processes, time limits for expiration of the Preliminary Approval, and information on
proposed changes.
The current process all applications for subdivision go through include the following workflow:
Staff review‐‐> Preliminary Approval‐‐>Installation of Infrastructure (utilities, access)‐‐>Final Approval
1. Staff review: Initial review by Fire, Public Works, Planning, and Building – results in correction
letter or recommendation for Preliminary Approval.
2. Preliminary Approval: for the decision on a subdivision involving 10 or more lots ‐ the
recommendations are referred to the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission (when there is
an associated Design Review application). After mailed and posted public notice is provided to
tenants and property owners within 500 feet, a public hearing is held on the application prior to
a decision on approval by either the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission.
3. Installation of infrastructure and changes to survey document: Conditions of Preliminary
Approval include required changes to the survey and easement documents (for all types of
subdivision applications), and construction of infrastructure improvements in the case of a Short
Plat, some Binding Site Improvement Plans, and Subdivision Plats.
4. Final Approval:
a. The applicant makes changes to the survey and other applicable documents in response
to the conditions of Preliminary Approval and resubmits materials for City review. If
conditions of approval are met, then Final Approval is recommended and approval
granted by the DCD Director’s signature on the survey.
b. Subdivision plats are forwarded to the City Council for a quasi‐judicial public hearing and
decision.
DISCUSSION
Four main areas of revisions to Titles 17 and 18 of the TMC have been identified to improve subdivision
procedures. The options to consider are included in Table 1 below:
1. Add a process for an applicant to request modifications to Preliminary Approval of any type of
subdivision (i.e., Boundary Line Adjustment, Lot Consolidation, Binding Site Improvement Plan,
Short Plat, Subdivision). There is currently no guidance in the code and addition of a process
would add clarity for applicants and staff.
2. Revise the process for Final Approval of a subdivision with 10 or more lots (called a Final Plat) to
allow Director approval. Currently, the final plat is approved by the City Council as a quasi‐
judicial decision. State law was changed in 2017 to allow the City Council to delegate the review
and decision of a Final Plat to “an established planning commission or agency, or to such other
administrative personnel in accordance with state law or local charter.” Other jurisdictions have
adopted ordinances which allow Final Plat approval by the Planning Director, Hearing Examiner,
or Planning Commission.
2
3
3. Revise the phasing approval process to accommodate phasing during and after the Preliminary
Plat Approval stage.
4. Revise the extension approval process and language in TMC 17.14.050 to allow the DCD Director
to approve extensions, and allow for the expiration of a preliminary approval for a phased
subdivision to be extended for longer than the existing one‐year time period. Housekeeping
cleanup of the existing language is also proposed.
3
4
4
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
R
e
co
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
(
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
i
n
b
l
u
e
)
*Ty
p
e
1
=
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
(
p
u
b
l
i
c
n
o
t
i
c
e
n
o
t
r
e
qu
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
T
y
p
e
1
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
,
a
p
pe
a
l
i
s
c
l
o
s
e
d
‐
r
e
c
o
r
d
a
p
p
e
al
t
o
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
)
,
Ty
p
e
2
=
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
(
a
p
p
e
a
l
i
s
o
p
e
n
r
ecord appeal to the Hearing
Ex
a
m
i
n
e
r
o
r
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
A
rc
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
)
;
Ty
p
e
3
=
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
;
Ty
p
e
4
=P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
/
B
A
R
;
Ty
p
e
5
=
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Na
m
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
F
i
n
a
l
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
Ty
p
e
*
Expiration – Preliminary Approval
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
(T
y
p
e
*
)
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
No
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
F
i
n
a
l
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
(T
y
p
e
*
)
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
(
1
0
+
Lo
t
s
)
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
(T
y
p
e
3
)
OR
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
f
de
s
i
g
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
is
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
(T
y
p
e
4
)
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
h
e
l
d
fo
r
b
o
t
h
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
f
i
n
a
l
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
t
a
g
e
.
He
a
r
i
n
g
a
t
f
i
n
a
l
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
t
a
g
e
n
o
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
s
t
a
t
e
la
w
.
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
(T
y
p
e
5
)
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
(
T
y
p
e
2
)
OR
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
(
T
y
p
e
3
)
o
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
(
T
y
p
e
4
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
:
5
y
e
a
r
s
(p
l
u
s
1
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
y
e
a
r
u
p
o
n
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
re
q
u
e
s
t
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
:
N
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
Ph
a
s
i
n
g
o
f
a
su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ex
a
m
i
n
e
r
(
T
y
p
e
3)
OR
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
f
de
s
i
g
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
is
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
(T
y
p
e
4
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
n
o
t
i
c
e
i
s
d
o
n
e
as
p
a
r
t
o
f
n
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
n
o
t
i
c
e
w
o
u
l
d
be
p
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
n
o
t
i
c
e
fo
r
T
y
p
e
2
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
(T
M
C
1
8
.
1
0
4
)
.
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
(T
y
p
e
5
)
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
(
T
y
p
e
3)
/
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
(
T
y
p
e
4
)
at
t
i
m
e
o
f
P
r
e
l
i
m
in
a
r
y
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
If
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
o
r
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
a
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Pl
a
t
(
s
e
e
b
e
l
o
w
)
.
(
T
y
p
e
2
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
:
A
l
l
p
h
a
s
e
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
re
c
o
r
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
5
‐
y
e
a
r
t
i
m
e
li
m
i
t
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Pl
a
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
:
F
i
r
s
t
p
h
a
s
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
re
c
o
r
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
5
y
e
a
r
s
;
su
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
p
h
a
s
e
s
c
a
n
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
a
n
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
u
p
t
o
3
y
e
a
r
s
.
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
/
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
(M
i
n
o
r
)
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
(T
y
p
e
2
)
.
Pe
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
n
o
t
i
c
e
f
o
r
Ty
p
e
2
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
(
T
M
C
18
.
1
0
4
)
N/
A
N/
A
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
:
R
e
t
a
i
n
s
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
e
x
p
i
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
/
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
(M
a
j
o
r
)
Re
q
u
i
r
e
s
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
of
a
n
e
w
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
5
6
5
1. Addition of a Process to allow a Modification of Preliminary Approval/Preliminary Plat
The Department of Community Development has received requests by subdivision applicants to modify an application in
between the Preliminary Approval and Final Approval stages. This process is not currently addressed in the code,
requiring an applicant to withdraw an existing application and submit a new one to obtain Preliminary Approval for their
revised plan. Other cities have adopted a process under which changes can be made to an existing Preliminary Approval
before the application for Final Approval is submitted.
Many other cities have adopted an application process which involves the Director deciding as to whether the request
for a modification to a Preliminary Approval constitutes a “minor” or “major” modification. If the modification is deemed
to be Minor by the Director, then the modification can be approved administratively by the Director, and additional
conditions that must be addressed prior to Final Approval can be added. If the modification is deemed to be “Major”,
then a new application for Preliminary Approval must be submitted and the previous application is required to be
withdrawn. A minor modification does not change the vesting or expiration date associated with a Preliminary Approval
decision.
Staff Recommendation: Staff’s recommendation is to create a new application process for a minor and major
modification, according to the following processes:
Minor modifications proposed by an applicant after Preliminary Approval may be approved by the DCD Director as
an administrative Type 2 decision. The DCD Director may include conditions as part of an approval of a minor
modification to ensure conformance with the criteria below.
Minor modifications are those which:
(1) do not increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved;
(2) do not decrease the aggregate area of open space, or the design or location of stormwater systems or
roadways in the subdivision by ten percent (10%) or more;
(3) may realign internal roadways and lot lines, but do not relocate any roadway access point to an exterior
street from the plat;
(4) do no alter the exterior boundaries of the subdivision;
(5) which are consistent with applicable development standards and will not cause the subdivision to violate any
applicable City policy or regulation;
(6) are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval.
Major modifications are those which, as determined by the DCD Director, are not minor modifications as defined in
this code, and either add property or lots or substantially change the basic design, density, open space, or other
substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant proposes to make one or more major changes, the revised
plan(s) must be processed as a new application.
2. Final Plat Approval Process
Currently, the decision on a final plat is made by the City Council following a public hearing. The Council decision on the
final plat is quasi‐judicial, meaning the City Council is required to make the decision on a project that will impact a
specific project site and applicant or property owner. As the legislative body of the City, the Council most often reviews
issues and makes decisions that apply City‐wide.
The following are reasons to consider changing the Decision Maker on a Final Plat Approval:
State law only requires a public hearing during the review of the Preliminary Plat application. Tukwila currently
complies with this requirement per TMC 18.104.010. A change in the decision maker or approval process will not
change this.
The City of Tukwila also currently requires a public hearing at the Final Plat Approval stage of a subdivision, as
required for Type 5 decisions (as well as Type 3 and Type 4 decisions). However, as noted above, state law only
7
6
requires a public hearing on a subdivision during review of the Preliminary Plat application when there is the most
opportunity to consider public comments.
State law requires Final Plat to be processed within 30 days of filing unless an extension is requested. It is difficult to
meet the deadline when a public hearing by the City Council is required for Final Plat approval. A code change to
allow administrative review by the Director of a Final Plat as a Type 2 or Type 1 decision would remove the
requirement to hold a public hearing for final plat approval, allowing for a faster and more efficient processing of
Final Plat applications.
A Final Plat is approved if it meets established criteria of approval for the preliminary plat. The Final Plat approval
process is non‐discretionary, subject to the criteria in TMC 17.14.030, C (see Attachment A).
The Washington Cities Insurance Authority strongly encourages councils to remove themselves as much as possible
from having to make quasi‐judicial decisions.
The City Council is the legislative body of the City of Tukwila. Most of the items reviewed by the City Council are
legislative in nature, involving setting City‐wide policies. The decision on a final plat is quasi‐judicial, meaning the
Council is required to make the decision on a project that will impact a specific project site and applicant or property
owner. This is different from a legislative process, as Councilmembers are not allowed to discuss the matter with
community members beforehand (ex parte communication).
Proposed options:
a. Administrative approval by the DCD Director.
b. Approval issued by the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation: Option a. Administrative approval by the DCD Director.
3. Phasing of Final Approval
Phasing of a plat is currently approved by the City Council during the Final Plat approval, according to the criteria of TMC
17.14.040 (see Attachment A).
Staff Recommendation: At the time of Preliminary Approval, review and approval of project phasing is done by the
Hearing Examiner (Type 3)/Planning Commission (Type 4). If phasing is proposed after Preliminary Approval, or if a
modification to the phasing is proposed, then an application for a modification to the Preliminary Approval shall be
submitted for review by the DCD Director.
4. Subdivision Preliminary Plat Expiration
Currently, a subdivision preliminary plat and all associated phases must be recorded within five years of the date of
preliminary plat approval. Per TMC 17.14.050, B, “the hearing body of the preliminary approval may approve one
extension not to exceed one year.” Phased subdivisions are often done on larger plats to allow the developer to
sequentially receive final approval and begin selling or building on lots in one area of a plat while still completing
infrastructure installation in other specified phases.
The length of time a preliminary plat approval is in effect is significant because a preliminary plat vests the developer
with the right to both divide the property and to develop it in the manner disclosed in the application in accordance
with the land use and zoning laws in effect on the date of submittal. As land use and zoning laws are adopted, it is
the City’s intent to have new development consistent with current laws. It is also important for developers to have
assurance regarding the land use and zoning laws applicable to their proposals when they are planning new
developments.
8
7
The options below allow for the DCD Director to issue extensions on subdivision preliminary plats which have received
phasing approval.
Proposed options:
Staff is recommending the following criteria be used in review of any request for extension of a subdivision
preliminary plat approval that has received phasing approval.
1. A written request for extension is filed at least 30 days before the expiration of the preliminary plat; and
2. Unforeseen circumstances or conditions which are not the result of voluntary actions of the applicant
necessitate the extension of the preliminary plat: and
3. Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have not changed substantially since the
preliminary plat was first approved; and
4. An extension of the preliminary plat will not cause substantial detriment to existing uses in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property or to the community as a whole; and
5. The applicant has demonstrated reasonable diligence in attempting to meet the time limit imposed; and
6. The preliminary plat substantially complies with applicable City Code provisions in effect on the date that
the application for extension was made.
The two options for extending the time allowed for a Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval that has received phasing
approval including the following:
a. The DCD Director may extend a preliminary plat for a project that has received phasing approval, but not
including the initial phase, for up to three additional years beyond the period provided in TMC 17.14.050, A. In
no case shall the total time period between the date of Preliminary Approval and the date of recording of the
final phase of a phased development exceed 8 years.
b. Final plat approval of any phase of the subdivision preliminary plat will constitute an automatic one‐year
extension for the filing of the final plat for the next phases of the subdivision.
Staff Recommendation: Option A, along with adoption of the above criteria for use in review of requests for an
extension.
Additionally, staff is recommending the following language cleanup to TMC 17.14.050, A, since there are not currently
any Preliminary Plats in Tukwila which have not received Final Plat Approval:
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the proposed changes on November 12, 2020,
review each proposed change, and forward recommendations to the Council for a public hearing on December 14, 2020.
9
10
7. King County Assessor’s maps which shows the
location of each property within 500 feet of the subdivision; two
sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants
(residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subdivision.
8. Maintenance agreements, easements and other
documents ready for recording.
9. Signatures on the following certificates on the face
of the plat (when appropriate) from the surveyor that prepared
the plat, the King County Treasurer, Seattle-King County Health
Department, City of Tukwila Finance Director, Owner’s affidavit
and certificate of dedication as identified in TMC 17.04.060(I).
B. FINAL PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES: Applications
for final plat approval shall be processed as Type 5 decision
subject to the provisions of TMC 18.108.050.
1. Referral to Other Departments and Agencies - The
Department of Community Development shall distribute the final
plat to all departments and agencies receiving the preliminary
plat, and to any other departments, special purpose districts and
other governmental agencies deemed necessary.
2. Departmental Approval - The Public Works
Department and other interested departments and agencies
shall review the final plat and submit to the Department of
Community Development written comments with respect to the
final plat decision criteria. If the final plat is in order, the Public
Works Director shall sign the appropriate certificates on the
mylar original.
3. Filing Final Plat -
a. Before the final plat is submitted to the City
Council, it shall be signed by the City Treasurer (Finance
Director), Director of Public Works, and the Director of the
Department of Community Development. Upon approval by the
City Council, it shall be signed by the Mayor and attested by the
City Clerk.
b. The applicant shall file the final plat with the
Department of Records and Elections. The plat will be
considered complete when a copy of the recorded documents is
returned to the Department of Community Development.
C. CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL: In
approving the final plat, the City Council shall find:
1. That the proposed final plat bears the required
certificates and statements of approval.
2. That a title insurance report furnished by the
subdivider confirms the title of the land, and the proposed
subdivision is vested in the name of the owner(s) whose
signature(s) appears on the plat certificate.
3. That the facilities and improvements required to
be provided by the subdivider have been completed or,
alternatively, that the subdivider has submitted with the
proposed final plat a performance bond or other security in
conformance with TMC 17.24.030.
4. That the plat is certified as accurate by the land
surveyor responsible for the plat.
5. That the plat is in conformance with the approved
preliminary plat.
6. That the plat meets the requirements of Chapter
58.17 RCW and other applicable state and local laws which
were in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval.
(Ord. 1833 §1(part), 1998)
17.14.040 Phasing
The subdivider may develop and record the subdivision in
phases. Any phasing proposal shall be submitted for City
Council review at the time at which a final plat for the first phase
is submitted. Approval of the phasing plan shall be based upon
making the following findings:
1. The phasing plan includes all land contained
within the approved preliminary plat, including areas where off-
site improvements are being made.
2. The sequence and timing of development is
identified on a map.
3. Each phase shall consist of a contiguous group of
lots that meets all pertinent development standards on its own.
The phase cannot rely on future phases for meeting any City
codes.
4. Each phase provides adequate circulation and
utilities. Public Works has determined that all street and other
public improvements, including but not limited to drainage and
erosion control improvements, are assured. Deferment of
improvements may be allowed pursuant to TMC Chapter 17.24.
5. All phases shall be recorded within the five-year
life of the preliminary plat, unless an extension is granted.
(Ord. 1833 §1(part), 1998)
17.14.050 Expiration
A. The preliminary plat approval for subdivision shall
expire unless a complete application for final plat meeting all
requirements of this chapter is submitted to the Tukwila City
Council for approval within seven years from the date of
preliminary plat approval if the date of preliminary plat approval
is on or before December 31, 2014, and within five years of the
date of preliminary plat approval if the date of preliminary plat
approval is on or after January 1, 2015; provided that final plat
meeting all requirements of this chapter shall be submitted to
the Tukwila City Council for approval within ten years from the
date of the preliminary plat approval if the project is not subject
to requirements adopted under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the
date of the preliminary plat approval is on or before December
31, 2007.
B. The hearing body of the preliminary approval may
approve one extension not to exceed one year.
(Ord. 2499 §1, 2016; Ord. 2124 §2, 2006;
Ord. 1833 §1 (part), 1998)
11
12
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE NOVEMBER 12, 2020
FILE NUMBER: L20-0108 Housing Action Plan
REQUEST: Provide a briefing to Planning Commission on the status of the Transit
Oriented Development Housing Action Plan.
LOCATION: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) area around the Tukwila
International Boulevard Station
STAFF: Meredith Sampson, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Sub-Regional Framework Housing Context Assessment
Attachment B: Housing Strategies Framework
Attachment C: Sub-Regional Framework Fact Packets for Tukwila
Attachment D: Sub-Regional Framework Housing Policy Assessment
Attachment E: Public Involvement Plan
BACKGROUND
In the summer of 2019, the State legislature passed HB 1923 providing grants to increase
residential building capacity in Washington communities. Staff applied for the grant at the end
of September 2019 after receiving approval to move forward by the Commu nity Development
and Neighborhoods (CDN) Committee, and the City was awarded the full $100,000.
The work funded by the grant is divided into two distinct products. The first product was the
development of a Sub-Regional Housing Action Framework and is a collaborative effort with
Auburn, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila. T he second product is the
development of a Tukwila-specific Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Housing Action Plan
which builds upon the results from the sub-regional framework. The Sub-Regional Framework
has been substantially completed, and work on the Tukwila Specific portion of the plan has
begun. ECONorthwest was the consultant selected to prepare both the joint portion and the
Tukwila specific portion of this plan.
13
L20-0108 Housing Action Plan
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Sub-Regional Framework
The announcement of House Bill 1923 brought six south King County cities --Auburn, Burien,
Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila--together to begin their efforts on their housing action
plans as a collaboration. Each of the six cities contributed approximately $20,000 to this effort.
By combining resources, cities were able to arrive at a robust data set for the sub -region,
which looks different than King County as a whole.
The joint portion of the plan with Auburn, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton and Tukwila
involved four main components:
1. Housing Context Assessment
2. Housing Strategies Framework
3. Fact Packets for each individual City and the sub-region
4. Housing Policy Assessment
All of these documents can be found at www.tukwilawa.gov/housingaction. Included as
attachments to this item are the Housing Context Assessment, the Housing Strategies
Framework, Tukwila’s Fact Packet, and the Housing Policy Assessment.
Highlights for South King County include:
• Since 2010, only 75 new homes were built for every 10 new households formed in South
King County which has resulted in an under-production of over 19,000 housing units.
South King County needs over 63,000 new homes to be built before 2040 to
compensate for the existing housing deficit.
• Current production rates for the sub-region fall short of the anticipated annual demand by
approximately 1,000 homes per year.
• Approximately 20% of all households, or over 54,000 families in the sub -region are cost-
burdened by rent or mortgage.
Highlights for Tukwila include:
• As of 2018, there were 8,445 housing units in Tukwila.
• Tukwila needs 4,224 new housing units by 2040 when its population is expected to reach
29,000 people.
o To reach this goal, Tukwila needs to produce about 211 housing units per year,
which is more than two times the average annual production between 2011 and
2019 of 77 housing units.
• Of the 4,224 new units needed by 2040, almost 1,100 of them should be affordable to
households earning 0-50% of the Area Median Income (AMI), which is currently
$51,700 for King County.
• Tukwila’s median income for a family of four is $57,215 per year, while the AMI for the
Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area as a whole is $103,400 per year for a family of
four.
• Between 2012 and 2016, 84% of renters and 60% of homeowners in Tukwila earning less
than 50% of AMI were cost burdened (spending more than 30% of their income on
housing).
• Between 2013 and 2020 Tukwila’s average 2-bedroom rents increased the least of any
city in the sub-region, but its home prices increased the most.
14
L20-0108 Housing Action Plan
Page 3
Tukwila’s Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Housing Action Plan
The direction of this plan is to focus on the TOD area around the Tukwila International
Boulevard (TIB) LINK light rail station to increase residential building capacity while minimizing
displacement of existing residents. The creation of this plan is supported by both the Housing
Element and the TIB District Element of Tukwila’s Comprehensive Plan. The TIB District is a
local center where existing and future land use and infrastructure capacity will be used to
accommodate some of the City’s designated future growth, consistent with the Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC )Vision 2040 goals and policies and the King County Countywide
Planning Policies. The first step is to create a Public En gagement Plan to outline outreach
tactics throughout the process.
Public Engagement Plan
Work on the Tukwila-specific portion of the plan is underway, beginning with the development
of a Public Engagement Plan. Public engagement is a joint effort between the consultant and
the City staff, and will be conducted through stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and an
online open house/forum.
The Public Engagement Plan has an equity focus communicating the idea that safe and
affordable places to live are connected to the other essential conditions for wellbeing –
inclusive schools, access to vital services (such as transportation and open space to reduce
health disparities),and living-wage jobs.
The list of stakeholders includes people from key groups: Tukwila residents and people with
lived experiences in the TOD area, faith-based organizations, city staff, housing developers
with experience in Tukwila, cultural organizations, landlords, and children/youth.
Stakeholders chosen for one on one interviews have been contacted and interviews are
underway. Questions to be asked include:
1. To start, can you tell me a bit about you/your organization and how you’re involved with
housing in Tukwila?
2. How would you describe the perception of housing availability and the quality of housing
stock in Tukwila?
a. Is there a sufficient mix of housing for residents to own and rent (single -family,
townhomes, condos, and apartments)?
b. Are the options available affordable and accessible to residents?
c. Does everybody who wants to live in Tukwila able to do so?
d. How can we improve/ increase long term residency in Tukwila?
3. Have you/anybody you know experienced difficulty finding/keeping housing in Tukwila?
a. Renting or owning?
4. What are the greatest unfilled housing needs in Tukwila?
5. How can the City of Tukwila think more creatively about housing for all?
15
L20-0108 Housing Action Plan
Page 4
6. Thinking about the area around the light rail station, do you feel that this should be an
area of focus for housing Tukwila?
a. Why or why not?
7. Do you feel that Tukwila is inviting for new businesses to locate along TIB?
a. What are some things that could improve Tukwila’s support of businesses?
b. What are some barriers or inhibitors for existing and new businesses to locate
along TIB?
8. 10 years from now, what should housing look like in Tukwila? What’s your vision?
9. Is there anything I haven’t asked that I should have? Do you have any questions for
me?
The outreach occurring now is in addition to a formal public hearing which will be scheduled in
the Spring of 2020.
Future Housing Action Plan Items
The Transit Oriented Development Housing Action Plan will include an Assessment and
Housing Policy Framework as well as an Opportunities, Barriers, and Displacement Mitigation
Report.
Key actions for the Assessment and Housing Policy Framework will include:
• Review and evaluate available data, goals and policies on the TIB area.
• Review and evaluate existing and proposed zoning, development standards, and design
standards.
• Review and evaluate existing development incentives.
• Review the existing planning policies impacting housing and evaluate their successes at
achieving their goals.
Key actions for the Opportunities, Barriers, and Displacement Mitigation Report will include:
• Identifying opportunities to:
o Build off public sector transit and infrastructure investments of the TIB LINK light
rail station and the future I-405 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station.
o Encourage higher density residential development in Tukwila’s TOD area.
o Support and compliment City development standards.
o Identify opportunities to increase rates of homeownership, e.g. co -housing,
townhomes, condominiums.
• Identifying strategies to minimize displacement and support community stability in the
station area, such as:
o Small business development and entrepreneurship supports for future mixed -use
and commercial development along Tukwila International Boulevard.
o Incentives and resources property owners can use to rehabilitate and maintain
properties while preserving affordability of housing.
o Tools and strategies to preservation of existing affordable housing and the
development of new rent-regulated affordable housing.
16
L20-0108 Housing Action Plan
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
The Housing Action Plan has to be approved by City Council by June 2021. Staff is working on
the plan, and we will come back to Planning Commission with a recommendation. No decision
is needed tonight.
17
18
ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Boise | econw.com
DATE: Summer 2020
TO: South King County Regional HAP Team Members
FROM: ECONorthwest
SUBJECT: SOUTH KING COUNTY SUBREGIONAL HOUSING ACTION FRAMEWORK – TASK 2 HOUSING
CONTEXT ASSESSMENT METHODS MEMO
Background and Purpose
Six cities in South King County, Washington—Auburn, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and
Tukwila—submitted applications for funding through HB 1923 with portions of each funding
identified for a collaborative effort to develop a subregional housing action framework. This
subregional housing action framework will include a housing context assessment, public
engagement, an evaluation of existing housing policies, and recommendations for future
housing strategies to increase residential building capacity plan for growth in the South King
County Region and participating cities.
Figure 1. South King County Subregion
Source: ECONorthwest
The housing context assessment (Task 2
of the Framework) provides an analysis
of the housing supply, demand, and
needs in each city and throughout South
King County. It forms the basis for
evaluating strategies for each
jurisdiction and the subregion to
incentivize future housing production to
meet population forecasts through 2040.
The results of the housing context
assessment were shared with each city
via a “fact packet” containing data and
analysis surrounding their existing
housing stock and future housing needs.
This memorandum accompanies the
city-specific results to provide additional
information on data sources and analysis
methods (page 2), a summary of trends
for the South King County Subregion as
a whole (page 7), and a detailed
summary of the regulated affordable
housing inventory (page 14).
19
ECONorthwest
Defining the South King County Subregion
While this Housing Action Framework focuses on the six jurisdictional partners of Auburn,
Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila, it is also critical to understand the broader
context of the full South King County subregional housing market. As part of this work,
ECONorthwest has also identified and evaluated a broader South King County subregional
housing market that functions distinctly from Seattle, North King County, and East King
County. The South King County subregion is composed of the six jurisdiction partners as well
as the cities of SeaTac, Des Moines, Normandy Park and the unincorporated areas of Lakeland
South and Lakeland North.
Data Sources
To conduct this housing context assessment we primarily relied on 2019 data from the
Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) to evaluate housing and demographic
trends. Where OFM data was unavailable we relied on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Use
Micro Sample (PUMS) data from 2012 through 2018 and the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012-2016
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data. To supplement OFM data on
housing trends and existing housing types by size, we supplemented this analysis with King
County Assessor data. For housing market data on rents and sales prices we relied on data from
the King County Assessor, CoStar, and Zillow. For the housing demand analysis we relied on
Puget Sound Regional Council VISION 2040 population forecast by city for the 2040 forecast
year.
Two Approaches Based on City Size
We used the best available data sources to assess the housing inventory and future needs,
analyze employment trends, and analyze demographic trends in each city. Data varies
according to each jurisdiction’s size. In general, jurisdictions with populations larger than 60,000
people—including Auburn, Federal Way, Kent, and Renton—are surveyed by the U.S. Census
each year and have data in 1-year samples as recent as 2018. Cities with populations less than
60,000 people—including Burien and Tukwila—are surveyed every five years and thus have
data in 5-year samples, spanning 2014-2018.
To work around data availability issues, we devised two approaches: one for the big cities of
Auburn, Federal Way, Kent, and Renton and the South King County subregion as a whole, and
a second approach for the small cities of Burien and Tukwila.
Analysis Methods
Total Housing Units Needed
We calculated future housing needs as the current underproduction of housing plus the future
needs based on projections from the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) 2040 household
projections. Without accounting for past and current underproduction, development targets
20
ECONorthwest
focused solely on future housing needs will continue to underproduce relative to the actual
need.
Figure 2. Total Needed Housing Units in South King County Subregion by 2040
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of PSRC and OMF data
Current Underproduction
We first calculate the current underproduction of units in each city’s existing housing inventory.
This underproduction is estimated based on the ratio of housing units produced and new
households formed in King County over time. As of 2019, King County as a whole had 1.06
housing units for every household. If a city has ratio of housing units to households less than
the King County ratio of 1.06, then there is current underproduction in that city. Conversely, if a
city has a ratio of housing units to households more than 1.06, that means the city is producing
more housing than King County as a whole. The steps for calculating current underproduction
include:
1. Calculate the count of housing units and population in each city from Washington Office
of Financial Management (OFM) 2018 data.
2. We then convert population to households by using average household size for each city
in the South King County Subregion from the 2018 PUMS dataset.
3. We then compare each city’s ratio of total housing units to households to that of the
county (1.06 units per household) as the target ratio.
4. If a city’s ratio is lower than 1.06, we calculate the underproduction as the number of
units it would have needed to produce over the timeframe, to reach a ratio of 1.06.
Because Washington State does not have a regional approach to planning for housing
production, our consideration of underproduction implies that every city in South King County
should be producing housing at a rate to be consistent with the King County ratio of housing
units to households of 1.06. As a point of comparison, the ratio of housing units to households
in Pierce County is 1.07.
This approach to underproduction is simple and intuitive while using the best available data
that is both local and the most recent. This analysis does not differentiate between renter and
owner households and relies on average household size to convert population counts to
household counts. The relationships between average household size, number of households,
and current housing units interact in ways that impact underproduction findings for cities
within the subregion differently. This approach to identifying current underproduction does
Current
Under-
production:
19,723
Future
Need:
43,367
Total Units:
63,090
21
ECONorthwest
not account for local or regional housing preferences by type or tenure. Housing affordability
considerations are taken into account in the next step, in determining future housing needs.
Future Housing Needs
We estimate a city’s future housing needs based on the forecasted household growth through
2040 from PSRC. PSRC does not forecast housing units, but instead forecasts the estimated
number of households for each city. To calculate each city’s future housing need, we use a
target ratio of developing 1.14 housing units per new household. This ratio is the national
average of housing units to households in 2019. It is important to use a ratio greater than 1:1
since healthy housing markets allow for vacancy, demolition, second/vacation homes, and
broad absorption trends. Use of the national ratio is a reasonable target, particularly for larger
areas and regions. Using this ratio suggests that at a minimum, jurisdiction should be hitting
the national average and is preferred as the existing regional ratio may capture existing issues
in the housing market (such as existing housing shortages).
Total Units Needed by Income
Once we arrive at the total number of units needed by 2040, the next step is to allocate the units
by income level. We first look at the most recent distribution of households by income level
(using PUMS to determine area median income or “AMI”) in each city and the South King
County subregion. This distribution is displayed for the South King County subregion and King
County as a whole in Figure 3 below. We then account for current and future household sizes at
the city level to better understand nuances of how housing need by income can shift over time
as household sizes change and subsequent changes to housing affordability.
Because forecasting incomes at the household level over time can be challenging at best, and
misleading at worst, this data evaluates housing need using current income distributions
forecast forward. The forecast housing need by income category at both the city level and at the
subregion is likely to vary depending on policy choices made over the next 20 years. That is to
say that if cities choose to take less action on increasing housing production and affordability
worsens due to demand outpacing supply, the forecast need for lower income households is
likely to be less because those low income households that are most at risk from housing price
changes are more likely to be displaced from the subregion. The ultimate income distribution in
2040 will be the result of regional housing trends and policy decisions made at the local level.
Figure 3. Household Income Distribution in South King County Subregion and King County
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of 2018 Census 1-year PUMS data
AMI Level South King County King County
0-30% AMI 18% 18%
31-50% AMI 16% 15%
51-80% AMI 23% 16%
81-100% AMI 12% 11%
100%+ AMI 31% 40%
22
ECONorthwest
Figure 4. Household Income Distribution in South King County Subregion and King County
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of 2018 Census 1-year PUMS data
We then apply each distribution of households by income (middle column) to the total units
needed to get the share of new units needed by income level.
Figure 5. Total Units Needed by 2040 by Area Median Income Distribution in South King County
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of 2018 Census 1-year PUMS data
AMI Level South King County Total Units Needed by 2040
0-30% AMI 18% 11,207
31-50% AMI 16% 10,288
51-80% AMI 23% 14,552
81-100% AMI 12% 7,603
100%+ AMI 31% 19,440
TOTAL 63,090
Employment Analysis
This employment analysis was conducted for two reasons. First, employment analysis and
trends in job growth by industry is a requirement for local housing action plans. Secondly,
findings from access to employment analysis were used to inform the Housing Strategy
Framework, specifically for city level recommendations for changes to development standards
and zoning allowances in TOD areas and urban centers.
We developed city-level employment estimates by 2-digit NAICS codes using a combination of
the U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-
Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data, and Puget Sound Regional Council’s Covered
23
ECONorthwest
Employment Estimates. For each city, the employment estimates show the total number of
residents working in each 2-digit NAICS sector in that city, the change in employment in that
sector in that city since 2008, and the 2018 median wages for the residents in that city in that
sector.
Access to Employment
We measured access to employment for both transit and auto use, using a preset limit of 45
minutes to generate isochrones (travel sheds). We used ESRI Services to create drive-time
isochrones, simulating traffic conditions typical of 8:00AM, Wednesday. We created transit
isochrones using OpenTripPlanner and the consolidated Puget Sound General Transit Feed
Specification (GTFS) database that is created and maintained by Sound Transit. This GFTS
database allows users to model possible transfers between the region’s multiple transit agencies.
For each city and each 2-digit NAICS industry, the Fact Packets summarize the share of jobs for
across the four-county region that are accessible within a 45-minute transit or auto commute.
Transit Isochrones
For each of the six jurisdictions in the study area, we created isochrones originating from every
transit stop within the jurisdiction. Each transit stop was also weighted by the population
within a half-mile distance (straight-line). These isochrones were then joined to LODES job
points at the Census Block Level, and the total number of jobs by NAICS industry was
calculated for each isochrone. For each jurisdiction, the total number of jobs reachable by transit
(and walking) within 45 minutes was calculated as the weighted mean number of jobs within
the isochrones, using the transit-stop population as weights.
Auto Isochrones
For drive-time isochrones, we used a similar method as the transit isochrones. Instead of transit
stops, however, we used block group centroids as the isochrone origin points, and the
associated block group population estimates provided the weights with which we calculated
the average number of jobs reachable by the “average resident.”
Share of Jobs Accessible
Once we calculated the total number of jobs available by 45-minute transit or auto travel from
each city, we calculated the share of total jobs in that industry in the four-county region (King,
Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap County). For example, there are roughly 87,000 manufacturing
jobs available by 45-minute car trip from the City of Kent which represents 49% of all jobs in
that industry in the four-county region.
Jobs Within Jurisdictions
We derived the number of jobs by industry within each jurisdiction from Puget Sound Regional
Council’s (PSRC) Covered Employment Estimates for 2018 and 2008. PSRC provides job totals
by city and NAICS 2-digit industry categories, but will censor an estimate if that number
represents fewer than three reporting firms, or when a single employer accounts for more than
80 percent of jobs in an industry within a jurisdiction. In these instances, we have provided an
24
ECONorthwest
internally calculated estimate of employment in that industry based on the uncensored totals
for each city and industry. Average wages by industry were calculated using the 2018 5-yr ACS
estimates at the city level.
Caveats
The auto isochrones may be overly optimistic in terms of traffic congestion - especially with
regards to the timing of water taxi/ferry access to Kitsap County. Since we are limited in terms
of other tools that even claim to model travel sheds with traffic congestion, there are few
alternative options.
Wage estimates by industry from ACS are not available for every industry, usually due to low
numbers of survey samples. Many of these estimates, especially for industries with low
numbers of workers, show relatively high margins of error and should be treated as rough
approximations.
South King County Subregion Housing Trends
South King County jurisdictions have several housing related challenges, including the need for
a variety of housing types and the need, as in the rest of King County, for more housing
affordable to low-income households. Based on population forecasts, the South King County
region and the six jurisdictions in this study will need approximately 63,090 new housing units
through 2040, or about 3,150 units per year for the next 20 years, of all types and price points.
Over the 2010-2019 time period, the six cities in the study area produced about 19,340 new
housing units (net of demolitions, excluding growth through annexations), or about 2,150 units
per year. Thus, to collectively reach the needed 63,090 new units by 2040, cities in South King
County need to increase their annual production by an additional 1,000 units per year.
South King County, like the rest of King County, has been significantly underproducing
housing over most of the past decade, producing only 75 new units for every 100 new
households formed over the 2010-2019 timeframe. This lack of supply combined with strong
economic growth and rising demand for housing has created an imbalance in the supply and
demand for housing. Additionally, cities within South King County have produced new
housing units relative to new households at different rates. This has had major implications for
each city looking to improve the quality of life for existing residents and mitigate displacement
pressures from housing price escalations. Cities with a higher rate of recent underproduction
can oftentimes face broader market challenges to support new development but also generally
have a mismatch between market feasible vacant and redevelopment capacity relative to
demand.
Congestion has worsened, home prices and rents have risen, and in 2018, more than 28,000
renter households across the South King County subarea were cost burdened (spending more
than 30% of their incomes on housing) and another 26,000 were severely cost burdened
(spending more than 50% of their income on housing) bringing the total number of cost
burdened households to over 54,000.
25
ECONorthwest
As a result of rising rents and cost burdening rates, displacement has already been occurring.
Between 2012 and 2018 South King County saw a sharp reduction in the number of households
with incomes under 30% of the area median family income (about $31,000 in 2018 for a family of
four), as depicted in Figure 6 below.
This trend was particularly acute for renter households – the region had about 8,500 fewer
renter households in 2018 compared to 2012, while the number of owner households in this
income range only declined by about 400. A four-person household earning below 30% of AMI
would need to find housing (either rent or a mortgage) that was less than $775 per month to
avoid cost burdening.
Figure 6. South King County Households by Income Range, 2012 and 2018
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of U.S. Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1-year survey data
Income and Affordability Limits
Each year, HUD calculates affordability and income limits for metro areas and counties across
the country.1 The South King County region falls within the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro
Area and is subject to the same income and affordability limits as the rest of the cities in King
County and Snohomish County. Properties located in Burien, Tukwila, or Federal Way will use
1 For the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area, HUD has deviated from its typical use of Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) area definitions. In this case, the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area
income limit program parameters include King County and Snohomish County.
53,707
38,477
49,641
20,858
62,415
44,116 39,795
56,073
29,244
75,122
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI 81-100% AMI 100%+ AMI
2012 2018
26
ECONorthwest
the same affordability limit as properties in Bellevue or Kirkland, because both cities are part of
the same HUD metro area.
In 2018, the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area Median Income (AMI) was $103,400 for a
family of four. HUD adjusts the income limits up or down based on family size and provides
income limits for 30% of AMI, 50% of AMI, and 80% of AMI (see Figure 7 below).
Figure 7. HUD 2018 Income Limits for Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area
Source: HUD (see https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html and select the year and metro area from the list).
Afford-
ability
Level
Family Size (Number of People)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
30% $22,500 $25,700 $28,900 $32,100 $34,700 $37,250 $39,850 $42,400
50% $37,450 $42,800 $48,150 $53,500 $57,800 $62,100 $66,350 $70,650
80% $56,200 $64,200 $72,250 $80,250 $86,700 $93,100 $99,550 $105,950
100% $103,400
Additional income limits (such as 60% or 120%) can be scaled off the 100% limit to get an
approximation of other affordability thresholds. However, these approximations—and HUD’s
official limits—may not be exact scalars to the 100% median income (in Figure 7 the official 50%
income limit for a family of four is slightly higher than half of the 100% income limit).
Median Household Income
Because the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area is so large, it does not account for
differences within the geography. As noted, a property with a 50% AMI affordability limit in
South King County would have the same restrictions as a property in Bellevue or East King
County, despite underlying differences in the incomes of these areas. In an attempt to capture a
more granular income metric, we calculated the median household income (MHI) for the South
King County region using Census PUMS data. In 2018, the South King County region’s MHI
was $71,442, somewhat lower than the MHI of $88,868 for King County as a whole.
It is important to note that this MHI is not directly comparable to HUD’s AMI. HUD’s AMI
calculation relies on underlying Census data related to family incomes, and the 100% median is
set for families of four. This MHI is for all households – not just families – and households can
have a wide range of compositions (e.g., roommates) compared to families. An area’s MHI is
typically lower than its AMI.
Race and Ethnicity
The population in South King County is very racially and ethnically diverse. Figure 8 below
shows the share of households by race and ethnicity, grouping together Hispanic households of
any race, and non-Hispanic households by different races. Only 55 percent of households
identify as non-Hispanic white and 5 percent identify as non-Hispanic of two or more races. 12
percent of households identify as Hispanic of any race and 11 percent of households identify as
non-Hispanic Black or African-American.
27
ECONorthwest
Figure 8. South King County Households by Race and Ethnicity, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of U.S. Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1-year survey data
Figure 8 below demonstrates income as a share of the King County and the South King County
subregion income as share of area median income (AMI) by race and ethnicity. Broadly,
variations in AMI by race and ethnicity in South King County compared to King County show
similar trends to income comparison across all households. South King County has a higher
share of middle income households in the 50-80% AMI range and a lower share of higher
income households over 80% AMI across most race and ethnicity categories than King County.
Figure 9. South King County and King County Household Income as Percent of Area Median Income
by Race and Ethnicity, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of U.S. Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1-year survey data
0.1%
0.9%
1.4%
5.1%
11.2%
11.9%
14.2%
55.1%
0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%
Non-Hispanic, Other Race
Non-Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native
Non-Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Non-Hispanic, Two or more Races
Non-Hispanic, Black or African American
Hispanic of Any Race
Non-Hispanic, Asian
Non-Hispanic, White
28
ECONorthwest
Figure 10. Median Monthly Housing Costs as a Share of Household Income for South King County
Households by Race and Ethnicity, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of U.S. Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1-year survey data
Figure 9 shows the share of household income that goes towards housing costs by race and
ethnicity. This data indicates that households of color disproportionally spend more of their
monthly income on housing costs than non-Hispanic white households in South King County.
This data indicates that communities of color are more likely to be cost burdened and subject to
displacement pressures from housing price increases overtime. On average, American Indian or
Alaskan Native and Black or African American households spend more than 30 percent of their
monthly income on housing costs.
Multifamily Condominiums and Conversions
Based on data from the PUMS data, there are 10,345 condominium units in the subregion,
which represents less than 5 percent of all housing stock in the subregion. 23 percent of the
multifamily units (2+ units) built since 2010 were condos. A large share of recently built condo
units are age restricted senior housing in development such as the Reserve at Renton and the
Reserve at SeaTac. When examining housing market trends in this study area, it does not
appear that many condominium conversions have occurred in the past two development cycles
(the 2000s asset bubble and the post-2008 recession cycle). Large amounts of condo conversion
are not likely to occur because housing that is built specifically for rentals are usually not built
with the finishes or amenities that are expected of an ownership unit. Most condos are lower
density multi-family housing types, such as attached single-family homes or townhomes.
Figure 11 Multifamily Units Built Since 2010 by Tenure
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of King and Pierce County assessor data
City Apartments Condominiums % Apartments % Condo
Auburn 846 631 57% 43%
Burien 602 0 100% 0%
23%
24%
25%
26%
28%
29%
31%
33%
0%10%20%30%40%
Non-Hispanic, White
Non-Hispanic, Two or more Races
Non-Hispanic, Asian
Non-Hispanic, Other Race
Hispanic of Any Race
Non-Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Non-Hispanic, Black or African American
Non-Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native
29
ECONorthwest
Federal Way 958 300 76% 24%
Kent 1,328 66 95% 5%
Renton 865 392 69% 31%
Tukwila 629 193 77% 23%
South King County Subregion 6,410 1,911 77% 23%
Unit Size
Across the whole South King County region study area, 60 percent of the housing inventory
consists of 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units, as shown in Figure 12 below. Studio and 5+
bedroom units represent the smallest share of unit types across the subregion. Renton, Kent,
Federal Way, and Burien all pretty much follow the same distribution of units as the subregion.
Tukwila’s inventory skews smaller with a larger share of 1-bedroom units and 2-bedroom units,
and a smaller share of 3-bedroom units. Auburn’s units skew larger, with more 3 and 4-
bedroom units. Compared to the rest of King County, the subregion has far fewer studios, and
more 2 and 3-bedroom units.
Figure 12. South King County Study Area Housing Inventory by Bedroom Size
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of U.S. Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1-year survey data
Region Studios 1-BR Units 2-BR Units 3-BR Units 4-BR Units 5+ BR Units
Auburn 1,397 5,377 10,106 17,177 10,799 1,793
Burien 456 3,435 5,764 6,217 3,210 904
Federal Way 2,004 6,513 16,652 16,684 8,155 2,560
Kent 1,683 5,249 12,647 16,561 8,934 2,523
Renton 1,301 7,890 17,745 16,779 11,508 2,667
Tukwila 292 1,606 2,990 1,201 875 421
South King County 8,069 33,977 72,033 83,247 47,569 12,360
King County 62,289 160,775 233,344 258,218 180,586 57,385
3%
2%
4%
4%
2%
4%
3%
7%
12%
17%
12%
11%
14%
22%
13%
17%
22%
29%
32%
27%
31%
40%
28%
24%
37%
31%
32%
35%
29%
16%
32%
27%
23%
16%
16%
19%
20%
12%
18%
19%
4%
5%
5%
5%
5%
6%
5%
6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Auburn
Burien
Federal Way
Kent
Renton
Tukwila
South King County
King County
Studios 1-BR Units 2-BR Units 3-BR Units 4-BR Units 5+ BR Units
30
ECONorthwest
Unit Condition
In addition, CoStar has information relating to the quality of multifamily housing, consisting of
star-ratings on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being the highest. These ratings consider design, amenities,
certification, and landscaping, among other factors and are assessed by CoStar.2
Figure 13. CoStar Property Ratings Matrix
Source: CoStar
A 5-Star building represents the luxury end of multi-family buildings defined by finishes,
amenities, the overall interior/exterior design and the highest level of specifications for its
style (garden, low-rise, mid-rise, or high-rise).
4-Star buildings are constructed with higher end finishes and specifications, providing
desirable amenities to residents and designed/built to competitive and contemporary
standards.
3-Star buildings are likely smaller and older with less energy-efficient and controllable
systems, have average quality finishes and or a layout conducive to compact lifestyle, and
have a few on-site shared facilities and spaces.
2-Star buildings have small, adequate windows, average aesthetics, purely functional
systems, and below-average finishes and use of space, with only one or no on-site shared
facilities.
1-star buildings are practically uncompetitive with respect to typical multi-family investors,
may require significant renovation, possibly functionally obsolete
Figure 14 below demonstrates the distribution of properties in CoStar’s database for the South
King County subregion and cities. Very few 1-star or 5-star properties exist in this region, or in
King County as a whole. CoStar does not have an assessment of every property, and its
inventory primarily consists of newer, professionally managed multifamily properties.3 This
data represents a sample of 865 multifamily properties across all six cities in the subregion. As
such, this analysis is likely omitting numerous smaller, “mom-and-pop” managed properties.
2 https://www.costar.com/docs/default-source/brs-lib/costar_buildingratingsystem-definition.pdf?sfvrsn=12a507a4_2
3 CoStar is a proprietary data source commonly used for market analysis in the real estate industry. While CoStar is
one of the best available sources of rent and vacancy data overall, the data has gaps and limitations that make it less
reliable in areas with few existing buildings. Newer buildings and those that are professionally managed are more
likely to have reliable rent and vacancy information, while smaller, older buildings may have incomplete data or be
missing from the system entirely. Recognizing those limitations, ECONorthwest typically supplements our data
analysis through interviews with brokers, developers, and other real estate professionals who can validate or help to
refine our findings through local knowledge and professional experience.
31
ECONorthwest
Figure 14. South King County Study Area Housing Inventory by CoStar Property Rating
Source: CoStar Multifamily Housing Inventory, accessed June 2020
Market Rate Affordable Housing
In addition to regulated affordable housing (see the next section), which is deed-restricted to
remain affordable at certain income levels over long periods of time, another critical component
of a jurisdiction’s housing stock is the unregulated/unrestricted housing that is affordable by
nature of its age, location, condition, or amenities. Throughout South King County, the largest
share of housing that is accessible to middle and low-income households is in the unregulated
affordable housing stock. Unregulated affordable housing is often called “naturally occurring
affordable housing” (NOAHs) or “low cost market rentals” but the important characteristic they
share is that they are unregulated/unrestricted.
These housing units can be at risk of redevelopment in tight housing markets where prices are
rising due to an imbalance of supply and demand because the incomes they serve and the rents
they charge are not restricted by government funding or oversight. Owners of these housing
units – particularly non-institutional “mom and pop” landlords – may be enticed by rising
prices and sell the property. Because the new buyer is most often financing the purchase with
debt, they need higher rents to pay for the debt and any physical improvements made to the
property. This necessitates higher rents to pay for both debt and repairs. And this repositioning
and redevelopment pressure puts existing low-income tenants at risk of displacement if the new
rent is more than they can afford.
32
ECONorthwest
Using observed market rate multifamily rent data from CoStar we can estimate the prevalence
and scale of NOAH units by size and affordability level in each City. This data can provide a
high-level picture of affordability in each city. This data is not intended to provide an inventory
of all unregulated affordable housing across cities and the subregion and does not represent all
housing that is affordable at these income levels.
NOAH properties can be defined several ways – based on the affordability level considered to
be a “low-income” property. The following tables show the number of NOAH units of each size
in each city, at various affordability levels.
Figure 15. NOAH Units by Size and Affordability in Each City and in South King County
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of CoStar data
AMI City Studios 1-BR Units 2-BR Units 3-BR Units 4-BR Units Total
80%
or
less
Auburn 230 2,477 3,139 471 104 6,421
Burien 121 1,581 1,568 179 3 3,452
Federal
Way
165 4,443 5,276 1,624 146 11,654
Kent 443 5,374 7,435 1,852 92 15,196
Renton 688 4,718 5,127 950 69 11,552
Tukwila 146 1,272 1,471 42 4 2,935
TOTAL 1,793 19,865 24,016 5,118 418 51,210
AMI City Studios 1-BR Units 2-BR Units 3-BR Units 4-BR Units Total
50%
or
Less
Auburn 87 1,029 952 103 12 2,183
Burien 85 337 255 1 1 679
Federal
Way
39 1,037 697 88 8 1,869
Kent 26 1,210 1,277 272 17 2,802
Renton 336 713 532 95 16 1,692
Tukwila 4 374 444 5 4 831
TOTAL 577 4,700 4,157 564 58 10,056
It is important to note that there will be meaningful overlap between these units and those
profiled in Figure 14, because the unit condition largely informs the rent that a landlord can
charge.
Regulated Affordable Housing Analysis Methodology
A critically important component of any housing stock is the regulated affordable housing that
serves the lowest income households. This type of housing is rent- or income-restricted so that it
is affordable to households making below a certain income level, depending on the type of
program. Incomes are generally restricted to 30, 50, 60, or 80% of the area median family income
(between $31,020 and $82,720 in King County). This does not include “naturally occurring”
affordable housing, where rents are unrestricted, but low enough to be considered affordable to
incomes below 100% AMI due to market conditions or other factors.
Affordable Rental Housing
We combined and deduplicated several data sources to create an affordable housing inventory
for the South King County region and each city. These sources include:
33
ECONorthwest
§ The Washington State Housing Finance Commission,
§ HUD’s Multifamily Housing Portfolio,
§ The USDA Rural Development Multifamily Housing Program,
§ The King County Housing Authority,
§ The Renton Housing Authority,
§ The City of Burien’s MFTE portfolio and
§ The City of Renton’s MFTE portfolio.
We deduplicated properties that appeared in multiple databases by looking at property names,
total units, and addresses. This analysis omits market-rate units to focus solely on regulated
affordable units and does not include homeless shelters or transitional housing that is not
income or rent restricted. Where information about market rate units was not provided, we
assumed the property was 100% affordable. Where properties did not provide specific
breakdowns of units by income level, we put all units in the highest income level provided (e.g.,
if a property had 10 units and the data said “affordable under 60% AMI,” we listed 10 units at
60% MFI, potentially overestimating the true affordability level). We did not gather information
on affordable homeownership properties, nor information on any housing vouchers. This
information includes a few properties under construction.
While we cannot guarantee that the data is complete, it likely captures a robust share of the total
rent-restricted affordable housing across South King County. It should be noted that these units
are captured in the rest of the inventory describing the housing stock by size, rent price, age,
tenure, and vacancy status.
Regulated Affordable Rental Housing Inventory
The regulated affordable rental housing stock in South King County is a critical component of
the region’s housing inventory and offers residents with lower incomes options to avoid severe
cost burdening. However, affordable housing is in scarce supply, accounting for only 18 percent
of the region’s total number of multifamily apartments. Figure 16 below shows the affordable
rental housing inventory by city. Data on bedroom information was very poor quality, thus we
are unable to show the affordable rental housing inventory by the number of bedrooms per
unit.
Figure 16. 2019 South King County Regulated Affordable Housing Properties and Units
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of data from Washington State Housing Finance Commission, the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development, King County Housing Authority, Renton Housing Authority, and U.S. Census Bureau PUMS
2018 1-year survey data
City Total
Properties
Total
Units*
Avg. Units
per
Property
AH Units
Share of
Subregion
Total
City's Total
Apartment
Stock
AH Units as
Share of
City's
Apartments
Auburn 32 2,818 88 19.8% 11,546 24.4%
Burien 13 996 77 7.0% 6,607 15.1%
Federal Way 29 3,393 117 23.9% 19,730 17.2%
34
ECONorthwest
Kent 25 3,086 123 21.7% 14,204 21.7%
Renton 34 2,705 80 19.0% 18,986 14.2%
Tukwila 10 1,209 121 8.5% 3,419 35.4%
Subregion Total 143 14,207 606 100.0% 74,492 19.1%
*includes units under construction
In addition, as Figure 17 shows, most of the regulated affordable rental housing (for which
income data was available) is restricted to be affordable for higher income households – such as
those earning 60% of the area median income. Higher-income restricted housing is easier to
build as it requires less subsidy per unit, but as demonstrated, households in the subregion
earning under 30% of the area median income have a very difficult time finding housing.
Figure 17. 2019 Selective South King County Regulated Affordable Housing Units by Income
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of data from Washington State Housing Finance Commission, the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development, King County Housing Authority, and Renton Housing Authority
Notes: Data on income levels was limited. Only 70% of all units had income limit information, but this varied by city: 74% of units in
Auburn had income information, 26% in Burien, 73% in Federal Way, 79% in Kent, 65% in Renton, and 73% in Tukwila.
Figure 18 below demonstrates that most of the region’s regulated affordable housing was built
before 2010. Very little was built in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 recession, with zero units
delivered in 2011 and 2013, and only 18 units delivered in 2014. Building picked back up in 2015
through 2020.
LIH 30%LIH 35%LIH 40%LIH 50%LIH 60%
Tukwila 0 6 25 25 728
Renton 133 18 0 243 1,186
Kent 47 24 315 582 1,457
Federal Way 113 0 80 432 1,714
Burien 0 0 0 30 229
Auburn 30 0 43 450 1,530
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
35
ECONorthwest
Figure 18. 2019 South King County Regulated Affordable Rental Housing Units by Year Built
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of data from Washington State Housing Finance Commission, the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development, King County Housing Authority, and Renton Housing Authority
Notes: Data on the year built was limited. Only 76% of all the units had year built information, but this varied by
city: 73% of the units in Auburn had this information, 29% in Burien, 86% in Federal Way, 79% in Kent, 83% in
Renton, and 77% in Tukwila.
Pre-
2000
2000-
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Tukwila 113 481 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 0 142
Renton 722 342 0 8 0 18 294 0 0 330 47 271 0
Kent 295 1,304 0 372 0 0 0 0 258 196 0 0 0
Federal Way 284 1,037 0 0 0 0 475 443 296 0 0 0 198
Burien 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 160 0
Auburn 450 481 0 58 0 0 0 0 125 879 0 0 34
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
36
ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Boise | econw.com
DATE: July 19, 2020
TO: South King County Regional HAP Team Members
FROM: ECONorthwest
SUBJECT: SOUTH KING COUNTY REGIONAL HOUSING ACTION PLAN – TASK 3.2 HOUSING
STRATEGIES FRAMEWORK
Background and Purpose
Six cities in South King County, Washington—Auburn, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and
Tukwila— submitted applications for funding through HB 1923 with portions of each funding
identified for a collaborative effort to develop a Subregional Housing Action Framework. This
plan will include a housing context assessment, public engagement, an evaluation of existing
housing policies, and recommendations for future housing strategies to incentivize
development in the South King County Region and participating cities.
Figure 1. South King County Subregion
Source: ECONorthwest
Building off the data from the housing
context assessment, input from public
engagement, and the evaluation of past
housing policies, this memorandum
provides a strategic framework for the
six cities to consider as they work on
incentivizing additional housing
production to meet their housing unit
growth targets through 2040.
Action Sheets
The four major strategies considered are
evaluated via “action sheets” that
describe the strategy, its goals relating to
housing production and affordability,
the market conditions needed to
implement the strategy and when, the
scalability (whether the strategy works at
the market, neighborhood, or property
level), and its impact on affordability
(whether they have a large, medium, or
small impact on overall housing
affordability).
In addition, these action sheets include
various strategy elements that can be
37
ECONorthwest
implemented by each city as appropriate. Not all the strategy elements would be needed to
achieve the desired affordability goal, but they each work toward the overall theme of the
strategy and can be implemented depending on political will, funding, staffing, and numerous
other considerations. These strategies and the goals they achieve are summarized in Figure 2
below. The goals identified in Figure 2 are consistent with Housing Action Plan (RCW
36.70A.600) requirements and draft guidance recommendations for housing strategy
development and strategies to minimize displacement.
Figure 2. South King County Housing Strategies, Goals, and Potential Impact
Goal Achieved Potential Impact
Strategy
Preserve
Affordability
Create
Affordable &
Workforce
Housing
Increase
Housing
Options &
Supply
Scalability
Impact on
Affordability
Preservation & Anti-
Displacement
Market level Low impact
Affordable Housing
and Production
Property level High impact
Middle Housing
Market or
Neighborhood
level
Moderate
impact
TOD & Urban Centers
Market or
Neighborhood
level
Moderate
impact
Additionally, a market conditions and timing matrix on page 13 lists the strategies, their various
elements, and includes considerations on the urgency and applicability for the South King
County region and for each city. This table considers findings from each city’s market
conditions and demographic makeup, to determine whether staff should consider the strategy
element now (indicated in green), in the medium-term (2-3 years or as market conditions
change, indicated in yellow), or whether it would be a lower priority for implementation
(indicated in red).
38
ECONorthwest
1 Preservation & Anti-Displacement Strategies
Primary Goal Housing Barriers Overcome
Preserve affordability in existing units Preserves aging or expiring restricted units,
preserves unregulated affordable properties,
minimizes displacement.
Scalability
Impact
Preservation and anti-
displacement efforts work at the
neighborhood or market level.
These strategies have a moderate
impact on affordability.
Market
Conditions
and Timing
These strategies are applicable in
“hot” housing markets facing high
price and rent growth,
gentrification and displacement
pressures, and redevelopment.
Description
Housing preservation and anti-displacement strategies can expand housing affordability and
availability in various ways. Many of the housing markets in South King County have aging housing
stock that could be at risk of investment purchases (where they are bought, renovated, and rented at
higher prices). Even regulated affordable housing properties can be at risk if their affordability periods
are nearing expiration and the funders are unable to recapitalize (which is often dependent on limited
public funding). A review of the South King County Regulated Affordable Housing Inventory compiled
for this project indicates that there are 1,339 income restricted units in 10 buildings that will have
expiring affordable housing agreements by 2030 and 2,507 income restricted units in 18 buildings
that will have expiring affordable housing agreements by 2040. These expiring tax credit funded
affordable housing agreements represent 28% of the total 13,562 income restricted that exist in
South King County today.
The following strategy elements could help preserve both regulated and unregulated affordable units
and prevent the displacement of low-income communities while new development occurs.
Strategy Elements
1A) Regional Revolving Loan Fund. Cities should consider joining forces to create a regional affordable
housing revolving loan fund for preservation opportunities. An affordable housing revolving loan fund is
a pool of money that offers low-interest loans to eligible recipients for the development or preservation
of affordable housing. Revolving loan funds can aid the feasibility of (re)development by offering
below- market interest rates and generous loan terms compared to market loans, and can be used to
fill funding gaps in a development deal (a major hurdle for creating new affordable housing). A fund is
seeded by numerous investors: public funders, philanthropic funders, banks, financial institutions, or
other investors. An entity like the South King Housing and Homeless Partner (SKHHP) network would
be a strong lead for this type of regional effort. This could be modeled off the City of Seattle’s REDI
Fund.
1B) Monitor Expiring Regulated Properties. Cities could establish programs and mechanisms to
monitor regulated affordable housing properties that are nearing their affordability expiration dates,
and work with the property owners to recapitalize and rehabilitate the property with new funding.
Create a database and mapping system to monitor and plan for upcoming expirations.
1C) Monitor Unregulated Affordable Properties. Cities could establish a process to monitor unregulated
affordable rental properties and mobile home parks that might be at risk of selling to private investors
and seeing rents/leases increase. Establish criteria to flag properties at risk, such as: low-rents,
deferred maintenance, small (under 20 units), non-institutional owners (e.g., - “mom and pop”
owners), located in amenity rich areas, near recent redevelopments, or on high cost land.
§ This strategy would be more valuable if paired with a revolving loan fund that could offer grants or
low-interest loans to purchase properties and maintain affordability and habitability for a defined
duration.
§ This strategy could also be paired with a requirement of notice of intent to sell for properties that
are identified in an unregulated affordable housing inventory.
39
ECONorthwest
1D) Empowering Community and Partnering with Community Organizations. Cities could evaluate their
communities and neighborhoods to identify who may be especially vulnerable to displacement as
housing markets continue to see increasing affordability pressures. This work should prioritize building
capacity for historically marginalized communities like communities of color, immigrants, or non-
English speaking communities. This work should focus on equity and social justice outcomes and
empower the community by providing leadership training in advocacy for equitable development,
enhancing culturally and linguistically specific services, and gaining more direct, community informed
guidance on future development
1E) Tenant Protections. Cities could establish, update, or strengthen tenant protections and resources,
such as policies relating to just-cause evictions, low-barrier application screening, and fair-housing or
anti-discrimination policies. Tenant education and tenants’ rights programs like RentWell or RentSmart
can help tenants with difficult rental histories set themselves up for success. Tenant protections such
as those listed here are most effective at mitigating displacement risk for households that are most at
risk in the housing market.
1F) Manufactured Home Preservation. Manufactured home parks can face incredible displacement
and redevelopment pressure if they are sited on valuable land with close proximity to strong housing
markets, regional employment centers, and concentrations of amenities. Cities could establish
procedures or guidelines to help the residents at these properties to establish a co-operative
ownership structure or support non-profit housing providers to acquire and manage manufactured
home pars. These guidelines should also provide clear criteria around housing quality and
environmental health and life safety standards for housing in manufactured home parks to identify
when it is appropriate for public or non-profit acquisition to support long term healthy housing for
households. Preservation can be a highly effective model for preventing mobile home parks from being
purchased and redeveloped.
§ Additionally, there are zoning strategies that cities could implement to preserve mobile home
parks and their critical affordable housing stock. A 2018 city ordinance in Portland Oregon created
a new Manufactured Dwelling Park zone to regulate land use at 56 parks in the city. This
preservation strategy requires a review process and City Council vote if a developer proposes
closing a park for redevelopment.
1G) Rental Licensing and Inspection Programs. Cities could consider establishing strong rental
licensing and inspection programs to track, monitor, and inspect a portion of all rental housing in their
jurisdiction. This preservation strategy helps eradicate slumlords, creates a database of all multifamily
housing, and prevents landlord retaliation from habitability complaints. If the license fee is set
appropriately, this type of funding can be revenue positive (or at least revenue neutral) to pay for the
costs of inspections and overhead.
Currently, Auburn, Burien, Kent, and Tukwila all have these programs in place. Renton’s program does
not require an inspection, except when a violation has occurred. Without being a random inspection, a
landlord could retaliate against a tenant when an inspection occurs. Federal Way is currently
considering a program, and should look to the successes and failures of its neighboring cities to
design the program and set the fee.
40
ECONorthwest
2 Affordable Housing and Production Strategies
Primary Goal Housing Barriers Overcome
Create More Affordable & Workforce Housing;
Preserve Affordability
Lack of funding for affordable housing
developments, reduces cost of development for
affordable housing.
Scalability
Impact
Affordable housing production
works on a property-by-property
basis, but have a high impact on
affordability.
Market
Conditions
and Timing
With scarce resources, affordable
housing resources can go further
in markets with lower land prices.
In areas with high land prices and
high housing costs, affordable
housing can be more expensive
to produce but create lasting
mixed-income communities
Description
Various options exist to boost affordable housing production. These range from funding tools to land
use and zoning tools, and can be directed toward market rate developers or nonprofit developers. The
Washington State legislature is very focused on housing affordability and may add more options in the
near term. According to the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC), the following local taxing
measures for affordable housing could be considered.
The following strategy elements could be considered to boost affordable housing production and
preserve affordable housing as new development occurs.
Strategy Elements
2A) Regional Revolving Loan Fund. Similar to the revolving loan fund mentioned in the preservation
strategies, a revolving loan fund could be used to fill development gaps for regulated affordable
housing. The South King County Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP) has identified the
creation of affordable housing fund in the organization’s work plan. SKHHP is well positioned to
administer a South King County affordable housing loan fund.
2B) Other Funding Mechanisms include:
§ A property tax levy (RCW 84.52.105) which allows cities to place an additional tax up to $0.50 per
thousand dollars assessed for up to ten years. Funds must go toward financing affordable housing
for households earning below 50% MFI.
§ A sales tax levy (RCW 82.14.530) which allows jurisdictions to place a sales tax up to 0.1%. At
least 60% of funds must go toward constructing affordable housing, mental/behavioral health-
related facilities, or funding the operations and maintenance costs of affordable housing and
facilities where housing-related programs are provided. At least 40% of funds must go toward
mental / behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing-related services.
§ A real estate excise tax (REET) (RCW 82.46.035) which allows a portion of city REET funds to be
used for affordable housing projects and the planning, acquisition, rehabilitation, repair,
replacement, construction, or improvement of facilities for people experiencing homelessness.
These projects must be listed in city’s the capital facilities plan.
2C) MFTE Expansion. Federal Way is the only city not currently offering an MFTE bonus so it should
consider the program when market conditions are right. This financial incentive program can be
implemented in certain areas where the city wants to see new development, such as along major
arterials, in station areas, or urban centers. This program can encourage higher-density development
than the market would otherwise deliver.
The cities already utilizing MFTE should ensure that they are calibrated with their market conditions –
ensuring that that exemptions are valuable enough for a developer to want to use them, but not too
valuable to erode public benefit. Cities should also consider expanding MFTE zones to encourage
density in larger areas. Or when market conditions are strong enough, cities should consider utilizing
41
ECONorthwest
the affordable housing component of the MFTE program to capture public benefit (affordable housing)
in private development.
2D) Fee Waivers. Many cities currently have, or have had in the past, fee waivers to support the
development of affordable housing. Cities should evaluate the structure of their fee waivers to as an
additional tool that can be layered with MFTE, density bonuses, and other financial resources to help
support affordable housing.
2D) Additional Land Use Tools. These land use tools were evaluated and identified for further
implementation consideration in the Housing Policy Analysis in Task 3.1.
§ Reduced Parking Requirements. Parking can be an expensive part of project development (when
structured) or can consume large amounts of land, reducing the amount of development that can
fit on a site. To the extent that code requires more parking than a developer would otherwise want
to provide, the cost of meeting these requirements creates financial burden. Cities should adjust
parking requirements for targeted housing types and for affordable housing projects. Excessive
parking requirements can have deep impacts to project feasibility for both middle housing and
larger scale multi-family development. Parking requirements vary widely by city and across
different zoning designations in South King County. Cities should evaluate minimum parking
requirements for middle housing and multi-family development and consider parking ratios of less
than two spaces per unit to support additional housing development. Cities could also explore
options to allow parking requirements to be met through on-street parking or in shared parking
facilities in TOD areas and Urban Centers.
§ Create and Calibrate Density Bonuses. The Task 3.1 Housing Policy Memo has identified
underutilized density bonus programs in several cities (such as Federal Way and Tukwila). Federal
Way and Tukwila should ensure that these programs are calibrated with their market conditions –
ensuring that the bonuses are valuable enough for a developer to want to use them, but not too
valuable to erode public benefit. While this is dependent on market conditions, which fluctuate,
the cities should have ongoing discussions with developers to understand the barriers to the types
of development these programs aim to encourage, and then align the bonus to help overcome
those barriers. Renton’s program has been the most utilized of all South King County cities.
Auburn, Burien, and Kent do not have density bonuses outside of the MFTE program but should
consider density and height bonuses along with the full range of tools evaluated to support
housing production.
42
ECONorthwest
3 Middle Housing Strategies
Primary Goal Housing Barriers Overcome
Create More Affordable & Workforce Housing;
Increase Housing Supply
Overcome zoning barriers (illegality) of diverse and
dense housing types, increase development
feasibility via reduced costs
Scalability
Impact
These strategies can be scaled
and implemented at the
neighborhood level.
These strategies have a
moderate impact on
housing affordability.
Market
Conditions
and Timing
These are strategies that should
be considered in all markets
throughout the subregion. Cities
with a high share of demand for
80-100%+ MFI households
should prioritize these strategies
to meet demand for market rate
ownership opportunities.
Description
Encouraging certain types of moderately-dense housing, such as cottage clusters, internal division of
larger homes, duplexes, and accessory dwelling units, can help to increase housing supply and choice
in appropriate neighborhoods. In theory, these units can be more affordable than other units because
they are smaller. This would not guarantee affordability, but would expand opportunities for
unregulated housing types that may be lower cost than single family detached housing and help create
supply over the twenty year planning period to help with affordability over the long-term.
Strategy Elements
Step 3A) Enable middle housing. Planning for this type of housing often starts with a review of zoning
codes and development standards, and adjusting them to legalize this type of housing where
appropriate. In many cities, these types of moderately-dense housing are illegal in urban areas zoned
for single-family dwellings.
§ It is important to carefully identify the zones that would be changed, the types of units allowed,
and the size, scale, and development standards of those units.
§ A capacity analysis might be needed, and would include likely development costs, the number of
units that could be expected to be developed, the likely potential rents, and the locations where
rents make development feasible.
§ A public engagement plan to reduce fears about neighborhood change, up zoning, and density
would be helpful to reduce political or neighborhood opposition. This should include conversations
on how added density can be designed to blend into communities.
§ HB1923 sets out example zoning changes, parameters, goals, and also protection from legal
appeals for communities that change zoning designation in favor of higher density housing.
Step 3B) Remove Other Barriers. Beyond legalizing this type of housing, jurisdictions may also need to
remove barriers that effectively prevent them from being developed (even if legal) in high-opportunity
areas. These changes could include any the following concepts, implemented in combination or
separately. This is not an exhaustive list, but is meant as a starting point for incremental changes:
§ Lower impact fee and utility hookup charges for internal conversions if no net-new square footage
is added to a property.
§ Allowing property owners to finance impact fees and utility hookup charges, thereby spreading the
upfront costs over time.
§ Reduce or waive off-street parking requirements for middle housing, particularly for internal
conversions if no net-new square footage is added to a property.
§ Having pre-approved designs for ADUs or middle housing types that homeowners can choose from
reduces the complexity, time, and cost for development. Consider by-right development standards
for ADUs in areas that are already medium density, walkable, and desirable communities.
§ Evaluate land division code requirements to facilitate fee simple development to better meet
home ownership demand.
§ Review of code for compatibility with prefabricated homes, design standards, or other innovative
home production techniques.
43
ECONorthwest
Step 3C) Incentivize. Beyond removing barriers, jurisdictions can actively encourage this type of
housing development via zoning and financial incentives. These may include:
§ Density bonuses for new construction of a middle property type.
§ Streamlined or prioritized permit and design review for middle housing development in high-
opportunity areas.
§ Parking requirements have a large impact on middle housing development on smaller infill lots.
Parking standards for single family development applied to middle housing can create both
physical development and feasibility challenges to producing middle housing.
44
ECONorthwest
4 Transit-Oriented Development & Urban Centers
Strategies
Primary Goal Housing Barriers Overcome
Develop additional housing in urban centers and
transit-served areas
Improves development feasibility in high
opportunity areas. Creates location efficient
housing options.
Scalability
Impact
These strategies can be
implemented at the neighborhood
level.
They have a moderate
impact on affordability.
Market
Conditions
and Timing
TOD and Urban Centers
Strategies need strong market
conditions where rents are high
enough to support new, dense,
mixed-use market rate
development.
Description
Cities in South King County have a unique opportunity to leverage large scale investments through the
Tacoma Dome Link Extension and I-405 BRT to advance housing production, increase affordability, and
support community goals. Targeting housing growth in urban centers and transit-oriented development
(TOD) areas allows jurisdictions, planners, developers, and the public to understand where growth will
occur, and places needed housing close to transit and amenities.
Understanding that much of the South King County region is already built out – there is little
undeveloped land and a lot of single family zoned land. Thus, the production of new housing needed to
meet population and housing growth targets will need to occur in higher densities. The following
strategy elements can be helpful for cities to consider as they look to place needed housing in their
communities, with strong access to opportunity, transit, and amenities.
Strategy Elements
Building higher density housing near transit allows for transit agencies to increase ridership, reduces
cars on the roads, improves congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, and can create amenity-rich
areas with mixed commercial, residential, and retail development. Building higher density housing in
urban centers can create vibrant neighborhoods with a mix of housing, retail, and commercial
development along with plazas and public spaces.
4A) Encourage Higher Density Housing. Cities can encourage higher-density TOD by offering allowances
that help improve development feasibility thereby increasing the number of units that can be built near
station areas. Many cities have opportunities to identify barriers to development feasibility that exist in
development standards and design standards in TOD areas and Urban Centers.
§ Increase Allowances. Increase height and floor area ratio (FAR) allowances in existing TOD areas
and urban center zones can help developers get the number of units (and rent revenues) needed
for a TOD project to be feasible. Consider expanding development allowances for medium density
development beyond traditional ¼ mile station area planning boundaries.
§ Reduced Parking Requirements. For similar reasons as discussed in the affordable housing
strategy, reduced parking requirements in TOD areas reduces costs and encourages residents to
use transit instead of automobiles, thereby increasing ridership and generating revenue for transit
agencies. Lower parking requirements in TOD areas can meaningfully improve project feasibility.
§ Review Development And Design Standards. There are a number of well-intended development and
design standards that negatively impact development feasibility in cities that have market
constraints where the revenues of new development cannot clear the hurdle of development costs.
Examples of development and design standards that could be reviewed to support more near term
development include building step-back requirements, open space and recreation area
requirements, ground floor commercial requirements, and use of rooftop area to meet some
requirements.
45
ECONorthwest
4B) Expand TOD Areas. By expanding TOD overlays further from existing transit stations cities could
expand the higher density zoning and development allowances to generate more housing. Transit
supportive zoning can sometimes be limited to narrow bands of parcels along commercial corridors
adjacent to stations areas. Expanding transit supportive land uses more broadly through mixed-use and
medium-density zoning can help support TOD outcomes.
4C) Evaluate TOD Market Readiness. Analyze the local real estate market and feasibility criteria for various
development relative to development standards in and around station areas. This will help set realistic
expectations of level of change for development in station areas over time and as real estate markets
shift.
4D) Evaluate Capital Improvement Plans. Evaluate capital improvement plans to prioritize near term
infrastructure projects that support transit stations areas and transit-oriented development.
4E) Prioritize Location-Efficient Affordable Housing. Prioritize affordable housing resources in TOD areas and
Urban Centers to create more location-efficient and reduce household transportation costs through better
access to regional transit.
4F) Explore Public-Private Partnerships. Cities can play an important role in coordinating development with
both non-profit and market rate developers. Public-private partnerships are most effective when cities
can contribute resources, land, or process improvements to facilitate TOD when broader market barriers
can exist.
Housing Strategy and Implementation Matrix
The housing strategy and implementation matrix summarizes information from all previous
work in this project. The strategies in the matrix are identified as near term, medium-term, or
long-term opportunities for each city in the subregion. In general, the assignment of these
strategies represents the market readiness and potential impact of each strategy for each city in
the subregion. Market readiness and potential impact were identified using data and
information gathered from the housing context assessment, policy assessment memo,
stakeholder engagement efforts, and the testing of policy options in the housing policy tool.
Some cities in South King County are currently evaluating and implementing strategies in this
matrix as part of their local Housing Action Plan implementation work. For example, Renton is
in the process of creating a TOD subarea plan and already has reduced parking requirements
for affordable housing. The consultant team heard clearly from both city staff and external
stakeholders in the engagement effort that while some cities might have implemented some of
these strategies in the past, these policies and programs should be evaluated on an on-going
basis and updated as needed to support desired outcomes. As such, we have still identified
those strategies that should be evaluated for cities where appropriate with the
acknowledgement that the housing market and housing needs shift and that improvements to
existing policies or programs should be considered.
46
ECONorthwest
Housing Context Assessment
The project team conducted a housing context assessment for each of the six cities and the South
King County Subregion. Thee housing context assessment provides an analysis of the housing
supply, demand, and needs in each city and throughout South King County and forms the basis
for evaluating strategies for each jurisdiction and the subregion to incentivize future housing
production to meet population forecasts through 2040. The results of the housing context
assessment were shared with each city via a “fact packet” containing data and analysis
surrounding their existing housing stock and future housing needs. The housing needs and
housing trends identified for each city is reflected in the strategy and implementation matrix.
Stakeholder Engagement
Key stakeholder interviews are important qualitative research tool that compliments
quantitative data analysis and allows people to authentically share their lived experiences. For
the purposes of this project, the consultant team conducted two series of interviews – one
process focused on developers, both nonprofit and private sector, and the other focused on
internal city staff and integrated feedback from engagement efforts into the strategies and
implementation matrix.
Developer Interviews
South King County project managers identified a list of stakeholders with experience working,
or proposing development, in the South King County community for interviews. The consultant
team convened two groups of focused conversations and conducted seven one-on-one
interviews. Participants included both nonprofit and private developers, and real estate
professionals who addresses questions of:
§ Their experience and/or perception of developing housing projects in South King
County.
§ Policy and code barriers to housing production that they encountered.
§ Ideas for increasing affordable housing options.
§ Challenges of working with City government, as well as opportunities for collaboration.
Developer Interview Key Themes
Key themes that emerged from developer interviews are listed below, with the complete results
of the interviews found in the Stakeholder Interview Summary
§ Development is constrained by a combination of perception and economics. Land prices
are high, but without the demand for density that exists in Seattle and other areas in East
King County.
§ All cities should consider the following to support the development of additional
housing:
§ Establish a clearly articulated vision of their approach to housing with buy-in at
every staff level.
47
ECONorthwest
§ Eliminate barriers to housing production by expanding incentives, eliminating
policy barriers, and increasing zoning capacity. These include:
- Remove some retail requirements in mixed-use zones.
- Revise or eliminate parking requirements.
- Evaluate impact fees and identify a fee waiver program to support housing
goals.
- Ease design guidelines for affordable housing.
- Allow more housing capacity around transit.
City Staff Interviews
The city project team collectively identified policies to be evaluated and a list of current
planning staff to be interviewed to provide qualitative context to supplement interviews for this
project. The Cities also provided permit data and fee information, which was examined for
trends. Six follow-up interviews were then conducted with ten staff representing five cities.
City Staff Interview Key Themes
Key themes that emerged from city staff interviews are listed below, with the complete results
of the interviews found in the Housing Policy Assessment.
§ Evaluate parking standards in zones that allow multifamily and mixed-use
development. Interviewees indicated and evaluation of parking minimums in station
areas and transit corridors should be prioritized for evaluation and code changes.
§ Evaluate and explore expanding additional residential density allowances around
transit corridors and stations areas and continue to advocate for transit service
improvements and high capacity transit infrastructure to serve target growth areas.
§ Evaluate infrastructure and utility needs to better support housing capacity increases in
lower-density areas and in unincorporated and/or potential annexation areas (PAAs)
immediately adjacent to city boundaries.
§ Explore creating new, or expanding existing, funding sources and opportunities for land
dedication to support affordable housing production. This was an opportunity
identified for South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHPP) to play an active
role in supporting sub regional affordable housing production.
Housing Policy Tool
Three strategies were evaluated quantitatively via a housing policy web-tool made available to
the South King County project management team. The three strategies evaluated in the housing
policy tool included; allowances for middle housing, expansion of TOD and Urban Center areas
to allow multi-family development more broadly around transit and regional growth centers,
and a naturally occurring affordable housing preservation strategy. The housing policy tool
used development proformas, construction costs, and quantitative market data to provide a
deeper evaluation of the strategies’ applicability and appropriateness across the South King
County region.
48
ECONorthwest
Strategy # Element
Market Conditions & Timing
Existing Near-term Medium-Term Long-Term
Regional
/ SKHHP
Auburn Burien Federal
Way
Kent Renton Tukwila
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
&
A
n
t
i
-
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
1A Revolving Loan Fund
1B Monitor Regulated Properties
1C NOAHs / aging housing stock
1D Culturally Specific Support
1E Tenant Protections
1F Mobile Home Park Preservation
1G Rental Licensing Program
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
&
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
2A Revolving Loan Fund
2B Other Funding Mechanisms
2C MFTE Expansion
2D Reduced Parking Requirements
2D Create and Calibrate Density Bonuses
Mi
d
d
l
e
H ou
s
i
n
g
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3A Middle Housing Zoning Code
3B Middle Housing Incentives
3C Refine ADU Standards and Incentives
TO
D
&
U
r
b
a
n
Ce
n
t
e
r
s
4A Encourage higher density housing
4B Expand TOD and urban center designations
4C Evaluate TOD Market Readiness
4D Evaluate Capital Improvement Plans
4E Explore Public-Private Partnerships
49
50
TUKWILA
SOUTH KING COUNTY SUB-REGIONAL
HOUSING ACTION PLAN FRAMEWORK
2020
51
2 City of Tukwila | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
This document provides trends in demographic,
employment, housing, and housing affordability
along with housing projections for the City of
Tukwila. Tukwila is a participant of the South
King County Sub-regional cities who are
coordinating a comprehensive Housing Action
Plan Framework for South King County which
includes the cities of:
• Auburn
• Burien
• Federal Way
• Kent
• Renton
• Tukwila
Given that the participating communities are
impacted by many common market trends and
demands, cooperation is necessary to address
these issues. Providing for the sub-regional
coordination of Housing Action Plans through a
common Framework will allow all the partners
to address housing issues holistically and
ensure housing-related burdens are not simply
shifted around between cities.
The sub-region differs from East King County
and Seattle, where housing markets and income
levels significantly skew the Area Median
Income as it relates to how affordability is
defined, and therefore how successful south
King County cities are in providing affordable
housing for their communities. A sub-regional
framework that captures broad factors
impacting housing choice, cost burden, and
existing conditions of housing stock in South
King County will set the stage to evaluate and
incorporate appropriate policies, tools and
incentives for increasing residential capacity.
This document and analyses were produced by:
52
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Tukwila 3
Executive Summary
› Tukwila needs 4,224 new housing units by
2040 when its population is expected to reach
more than 29,000 people (see page 7).
› Tukwila needs to produce almost 211 units
per year to reach this goal (pg. 7). This is more
than 2 times the average annual production (77
units per year) from 2011 to 2019 (pg. 4).
› In the 2010-2019 timeframe, Tukwila
produced 10.8 housing units for every 10 new
households that formed in the city (pg. 4). This
was the highest rate of production across the
entire South King County subregion.
› Tukwila’s average 2-bedroom rents increased
the least of any city in the subregion (31%
between 2013 and 2020), but its home prices
increased the most (126%) (pg. 6).
› As a result, affordable homeownership options
are very limited with fewer than 500 units
affordable to households earning less than 50%
of AMI (pg. 6). The King County HUD AMI is
$103,400 for a 4-person household, so 50% of
AMI is about $51,700.
› During the 2012-2016 period, 84% of renters
and 60% homeowners earning less than 50%
of AMI were cost burdened, along with 15%
of renters and 55% of homeowners earning
between 50% and 80% of AMI (pg. 6).
› Tukwila has just over 1,000 units of regulated
affordable housing for these low-income
households (pg. 6).
› Of the 4,224 new units needed by 2040,
almost 1,100 of them should be affordable to
households earning 0-50% of AMI, which will
help ease cost burdening in the city (pg. 7).
› Tukwila also has a need for nearly 1,700 new
units for households earning 100% or more of
AMI. These households may be renting less
expensive housing, thereby removing access
to less expensive housing for lower income
households (pg. 7).
53
4 City of Tukwila | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Housing Trends
Number of Units Built Per Year, 2011-2019
Source: OFM, 2019
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020
Housing Units Built by
Decade, 1960-2020
Decade % of Units
Before 1960’s 25%
1960’s 25%
1970’s 12%
1980’s 18%
1990’s 3%
2000’s 5%
2010’s 12%
8,445
Number of total housing
units in 2018
Source: OFM, 2019
690
Number of housing units
built since 2011
Source: OFM, 2019
77
New housing units built on
average every year since 2011
Source: OFM, 2019
10.8
New housing units per every
10 new households› Between 2010-2019
Source: OFM, 2019, ECONorthwest
calculations
Scale of Housing Built by Decade, 1960-2020
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020
54
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Tukwila 5
Household Type, 2014-2018
Income Distribution by AMI, 2012-2016
Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, 2012-2016
2010 2018
Population 19,107 20,930
2010 2018
Median
Income $44,271 $57,215
Demographics
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018)
Source: OFM, 2019; ACS (5 year 2014-2018)
Source: U.S Decennial Census 2010,
ACS (5 year 2014-2018)
Source: OFM, 2019
Source: CHAS (5 year 2012-2016)
Source: CHAS (5 year 2012-2016)
10%
Change in population › Between 2010 and 2018
637
Change in number of households› Between 2010 and 2019
29%
Change in median household
income› Between 2010 and 2018
Source: HUD, 2018
King County 2018 Area Median
Income (AMI) for a 4-person
Household
AMI South King
County
King
County
0-30%18%18%
30-50%16%15%
50-80%23%16%
80-100%12%11%
100%+31%40%
55
6 City of Tukwila | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened by
Tenure, 2012-2016
Housing Units Affordable by AMI and Tenure,
2012-2016
2013 2020
Average
Rent $1,047 $1,374
2013 2020
Median
Sales Price $182,500 $412,000
Source: CHAS (5 year 2012-2016)
Source: Costar
Source: Zillow
Source: CHAS (5 year 2012-2016)
31%
Change in average rent for
2-bedroom apartment› Between 2013 and 2020
126%
Change in median home
sales price› Between 2013 and 2020
Housing Affordability
1,067
Number of income restricted
units› Total units as of 2020
Cost Burdened› A household who pays more
than 30% of their income
on housing (inclusive of
households with severe cost
burdening).
Severely Cost Burdened› A household who pays more
than 50% of their income on
housing.
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of public
affordable housing data
56
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Tukwila 7
Housing Need Forecast
29,073
Projected population by
2040
418
Average annual population
growth projected through 2040
4,972
Projected number of units
needed by 2040
211
Average number of new
units needed per year
through 2040
174%
Increase in annual housing
production to reach 2040
housing need target
Housing Units Needed Through 2040
Housing Units Needed as a Share of Existing Stock
Housing Units Needed by AMI, 2040
Underproduction Future Need Housing Need
0 4,224 4,224
Existing Units Housing Need % of Existing Units
8,445 4,224 50%
AMI # of Units % of Units
0-30%591 14%
30-50%507 12%
50-80%1,014 24%
80-100%422 10%
100%+1,690 40%
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: PSRC, 2017
Source: PSRC, 2017, ECONorthwest
calculations
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017;
ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017;
ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017;
ECONorthwest Calculation
HUD Affordability Level by Housing Type, 2018
AMI Studio 1-bed 2-bed
30%$542 $582 $698
50%$904 $970 $1,164
80%$1,448 $1,552 $1,862
100%$1,810 $1,938 $2,326
Source: HUD, 2018
Underproduction › Housing units needed to satisfy existing households today.
Future Need › PSRC 2040 population forecast translated into housing units.
57
8 City of Tukwila | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Employment Profile
Source: PSRC, ECONorthwest
Tukwila Employment Numbers Regional Access to
Employment
Industry (2-digit NAICS Code)Employees
(2018)
# Change
(2008-2018)
% Change
(2008-2018)
Median Salary
(2018)
% Job by
Auto
% Jobs by
Transit
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting 22 22 2200%NA 44%2%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
Extraction 0 0 0%NA 41%6%
Utilities 0 0 0%$140,043 61%13%
Construction 3,153 698 28%$50,357 63%7%
Manufacturing 9,486 -1,817 -16%$42,079 55%12%
Wholesale Trade 3,614 -566 -14%$37,283 79%12%
Retail Trade 7,665 682 10%$29,289 71%10%
Transportation and Warehousing 1,845 -724 -28%$46,914 88%21%
Information 943 388 70%$54,667 63%3%
Finance and Insurance 1,451 363 33%$48,532 76%7%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing 1,026 -459 -31%$35,428 76%10%
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services 1,871 -5 0%$72,763 76%7%
Management of Companies and
Enterprises 861 -79 -8%NA 92%16%
Administrative and Support
and Waste Management and
Remediation services
1,423 -652 -31%$31,897 74%8%
Educational Services 598 46 8%$55,526 68%3%
Health Care and Social Assistance 3,296 578 21%$42,879 72%6%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation 1,419 567 67%$46,250 63%6%
Accommodation and Food
Services 4,989 1,146 30%$33,297 72%9%
Other Service 716 -260 -27%$41,528 73%7%
Public Administration 2,806 -486 -15%$62,857 67%8%
58
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Tukwila 9
Employment Profile
* Transit and drive time of 45 minutes, departing at 8:00 AM, midweek
Source: PSRC, ECONorthwest Access to Employment*
These city-level employment estimates by
2-digit NAICS codes were derived using a
combination of the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
(LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment
Statistics (LODES) data, and Puget Sound
Regional Council’s Covered Employment
Estimates. These employment estimates show
the total number of residents working in each
2-digit NAICS sector in that city, the change
in employment in that sector in that city since
2008, and the 2018 median wages for the
residents in that city in that sector.
Transit and auto access to regional employment
was derived using 45-minute travel sheds for
each mode. We calculated the number of jobs
available within these travel sheds in each
2-digit NAICS category for the four-county
region (King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap).
59
60
South King County Housing Action Plan
Housing Policy Assessment
61
South King County Housing Action Plan
Housing Policy Analysis
Prepared by:
Jae Hill, AICP, CFM
Evermost, LLC.
July 1, 2020
City Staff Team
Hayley Bonsteel, Project Manager, City of Kent
Anthony Avery, City of Auburn
Thara Johnson, City of Burien
Doc Hansen, City of Federal Way
Hannah Bahnmiller, City of Renton
Meredith Sampson, City of Tukwila
Additional City Contributors
City of Auburn – Thaniel Gouk and Dustin Lawrence
City of Kent –Matthew Gilbert and Erin George
City of Renton – Vanessa Dolbee and Mark Santos-Johnson
City of Tukwila – Maxwell Baker and Jaimie Reavis
ECONorthwest Team
Madeline Baron, Project Manager
Tyler Bump
Cover photo courtesy of Google Earth, 2020
62
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 1
Prepared by Jae Hill at Evermost
Date: 6/1/2020
BACKGROUND
Six cities in South King County, Washington—Auburn, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila—
submitted applications for funding through HB 1923 and the Washington State Department of Commerce,
with portions of each funding identified for a collaborative effort to develop a subregional housing action
framework. This subregional housing action framework includes demographic research, a housing needs
assessment, and this assessment of existing
policies. This work helps these cities better
understand their current housing inventories
and future housing needs as well as the
demographic and employment trends in the
region driving those housing needs. It also
includes strategies and evaluation of
different housing policies that can be
implemented to produce the types of housing
needed in the future.
HB1923 HOUSING GRANT
In 2019, the Washington State Legislature
passed House Bill 1923 with the stated intent
of “increasing residential capacity.”1 The bill
included $4 million in grants to 52 local
governments, administered by the
Department of Commerce, for various
studies and undertakings to help local
jurisdictions increase the number of housing
units produced. Some of the various methods
chosen by cities included subarea plans,
planned action environmental impact
statements, design standards for duplexes
and triplexes in existing single-family
residential neighborhoods, and more.2
HB 1923 included suggested content and
goals for housing action plans, including:
a) Quantify existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low-
income households, with documentation of housing and household characteristics, and cost-
burdened households;
b) Develop strategies to increase the supply of housing, and variety of housing types, needed to
serve the housing needs identified in (a) of this subsection;
c) Analyze population and employment trends, with documentation of projections;
1 https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1923&Year=2019&Initiative=false
2 http://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/gms-ah-grantees-2019.pdf
63
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 2
d) Consider strategies to minimize displacement of low-income residents resulting from
redevelopment;
e) Review and evaluate the current housing element adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070,
including an evaluation of success in attaining planned housing types and units, achievement of
goals and policies, and implementation of the schedule of programs and actions;
f) Provide for participation and input from community members, community groups, local builders,
local realtors, nonprofit housing, advocates, and local religious groups; and
g) Include a schedule of programs and actions to implement the recommendations of the housing
action plan.3
PURPOSE OF THIS ASSESSMENT
Evermost, as a part of a consultant team including ECONorthwest and Broadview Planning, was contracted
to conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of five separate policies currently being utilized by the six cities
to incentivize housing development, which include:
• Multifamily Tax Exemptions
• Accessory Dwelling Units
• Fee Waivers
• Density and Height Bonuses
• Planned Action Environmental Impact Statements
The information contained herein will be used to inform the strategic policy framework and housing policy
assessment tool, as well as the cities’ individual housing action plans.
METHODOLOGY FOR THIS ASSESSMENT
The six cities appointed representatives to a City Team to steer the planning efforts and to provide data.
This City Team collectively chose the five policies to evaluate, provided data on the housing units produced
for each policy over time, and a list of Current Planning staff to be interviewed to provide qualitative
context to the quantitative data. The Cities also provided permit data and fee information, which was
examined for trends. Six follow-up interviews were then conducted with ten staff representing five cities.
ASSUMPTIONS
For the purposes of this report, the following are assumed:
• Cost of construction per square foot is $233. This “hard cost” value for residential construction is
and average derived from ECONorthwest’s related housing research and does not include land
costs, developer fee, or parking-related costs. This value may vary regionally, sub-regionally, and
on a per-project basis.
• Building permit costs are based on the fee schedule for valuation found in the International Code
Council’s International Building Code, 2018 version.
• Other than large real estate investment trusts or pension programs with lower return-on-
investment (ROI) metrics based on long-term stability, most developers try to outperform the
3 http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1923-
S2.SL.pdf?q=20200616110225
64
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 3
stock market average. The S&P 500 stock index average return over the last 90 years is 9.8
percent. American developers, generally, strive for up to 20% margins to exceed that long-term
average plus a combination of 3% annual inflation, additional finance costs, and holding costs.
Some foreign investors, driven by safe-haven investing or citizenship programs like EB-5, are often
willing to invest at a much smaller return, sometimes even lower than 6%.
CONTEXT
The premise for HB 1923 is the rising costs of housing in Washington, specifically in the Puget Sound
Region. The economic success of the region primarily due to the technology sector has seen median
household incomes rise, but booming population without accompanying boom in housing production has
seen housing affordability levels plummet. There are now nearly 12,000 homeless individuals in King
County as of the 2019 point-in-time count. Housing values vary widely across the county—with median
home values in the City of Medina at $2,989,784 and the City of Enumclaw at $452,993, according to
Zillow.
SUBREGIONAL CONTEXT AND DEMOGRAPHICS
South King County is home to an incredibly diverse refugee and immigrant population, as well as both
long-time homeowners and those fleeing rising prices in the Seattle metropolitan area; poverty rates are
rising as the region’s housing becomes unaffordable.4 More demographic and population information is
in the fact packets provided as part of the subregional housing action framework.
Housing in South King County has historically been more affordable than other parts of the Seattle
metropolitan area such as the City of Seattle and areas to the east. Due to rising home prices in these
other areas, the South King County region has seen an influx of moderate and higher income households
while low-income households have been pushed out. Between 2012 and 2018 the region saw an increase
of 12,420 households earning more than 100% of the area median family income (or $103,400 for a family
of four), and a decrease of 8,838 households earning below 30% of the area median family income (or
$31,020 for a family of four).5 Of these 8,838 lower income households leaving the region, 8,450 were
renter households.
HOUSING UNIT PRODUCTION
During the period of 2012-2019, shown in the graph and table below, an upward trend in housing
production is visible on a year-over-year basis since the end of the Great Recession.
Annual Housing Unit Production
City 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Yr.
Avg.
Auburn 113 86 247 283 159 124 506 534 651 2,590 324
Federal
Way 24 25 63 70 126 672 514 147 172 1,789 224
Kent 175 325 226 222 369 176 332 410 524 2,584 323
Renton 842 583 418 240 282 708 417 216 234 3,098 387
4 https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/poverty-hits-home-in-local-suburbs-like-s-king-county/
5 ECONorthwest analysis of HUD 2018 MFI and Census 2012 and 2018 PUMS 1-year survey data.
65
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 4
Burien 46 46 42 87 177 57 51 416 55 931 116
Tukwila 7 7 7 21 18 20 34 36 576 719 90
S. King
County
Region
1,207 1,072 1,003 923 1,131 1,757 1,854 1,759 2,212 11,711 1,301
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of Washington Office of Financial Management Data 2011-2019
Note: data focuses on new unit production, is net of demolitions, and excludes annexations (of which there
were several during this timeframe).
When including annexations, the subregion saw an increase of 28,382 housing units between 2010 and
2019, while the number of households grew by 37,632. This means the region only produced 75 new
housing units for every 100 new households – creating intense demand for housing. Coupled with
underproduction elsewhere in the Puget Sound Region and the growth of higher income households in
South King County specifically, this underproduction put upward pressure on rents and home prices in the
region. More discussion on this can be found in the [narrative with the fact packets, ask eco what that is
called].
DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
There are a large number of interrelated variables to consider where affordable housing will be the most
profitable for developers; among these variables are:
• Base regulations – base density, height limits, lot coverage or floor-area ratios, etc.
• Incentives – fee waivers, density and height bonuses, direct financial contributions, etc.
• Inclusionary requirements – length of restrictions, setaside amounts, income levels, etc.
• Market conditions – base rents, area annual income growth, land costs, etc.
• Infrastructure – mobility (transit, roads, and trails), parks, stormwater, etc.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Annual Housing Units Constructed 2011-2019
Auburn Federal Way Kent Renton Burien Tukwila
66
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 5
• Internal metrics – developer internal rate of return, finance costs, etc.
The difficulty in balancing these variables is that since each site, each project, and each developer have
such widely varying characteristics, there is no single equation that results in the provision of affordable
housing; each party can only make decisions that affect their span of control:
• Developer: Choosing a region with anticipated profit, controlling for land costs, reducing the
quality of the units, or charging increased prices for the finished units; since the first is sometimes
fixed, and the last two are tied to market rates, controlling for land is often the overriding factor.
• Jurisdiction: Reducing regulatory burden—parking requirements, impact fees, permitting
timelines, cost of compliance, etc.—or increasing incentives.
• Outside of control of either party: Financial markets, regional economic growth/decline.
The problem with inclusionary zoning or affordable mandates arises when the associated incentives are
not priced such to mitigate the costs.
POLICY ANALYSIS
MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION (MFTE)
Washington state law, in RCW chapter 84.14, allows cities with a population greater than 15,000 to
establish a multifamily tax exemption program. This program exempts eligible new construction or
rehabilitated housing from paying property taxes for either an 8-year or 12-year period of time. (There
was previously an option for a 10-year contract as well.) Development seeking to take advantage of this
program must be within one of a city’s designated target areas; 8-year exemptions can be granted broadly,
but 12-year applications must include a minimum 20% of units affordable to low- and moderate-income
households6. By waiving taxes on improvements for a period of time, housing developments have lower
operating costs, which affects the project’s overall feasibility by making it easier to build new units.
Cities around Washington, and even within King County, use the program very differently. North King
County cities like Kirkland and Redmond require MFTE projects to provide affordable housing with
affordability covenants for the life of the project. In many of the South King County cities, the 8-year
programs have long been used to encourage redevelopment in target areas with no affordability
requirements—the goal was to redevelop older properties with newer, higher quality housing. Burien has
engaged 8-year, 10-year, and 12-year contracts, and thusly has different performance than the rest of the
South King County subregion.
According to discussions with various city staff, there’s an interest in expanding the MFTE programs—
possibly to even include affordability requirements in jurisdictions where there are none—but there’s also
the need to balance the competing interests of building more units and diluting focus away from the
target areas. The program has been very successful in Renton for market-rate projects, and has seen
recent success in Burien, but the rest of the jurisdictions didn’t report a large number of units created.
6 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.14.020
67
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 6
CITY YEAR
ADOPTED
MFTE
CONTRACTS
UNITS BUILT
8-yr 10-yr 12-yr
Auburn 2003 4 680
Burien 2004 3 115 124 228
Federal Way -- 0 0
Kent
(expired 2019) 2001 27 657
Renton 2003 13 1969
Tukwila
(expired) 2014 3 658
In much of South King County, relatively low land costs (compared to the region), lengthy commute
distances, and lack of high-capacity transit are prohibiting the types of dense developments which can
most benefit from an affordability-focused MFTE program. Except in very active urban markets like
Seattle or Bellevue—which can command higher profits—development incentives are generally required
in tandem with inclusionary affordability requirements to make projects financially attractive for the
private developers who are building these units8. If the requirements are not sufficiently mitigated by
incentives, the profit required by the developer will not be actualized. The level of incentive necessary
will vary greatly between jurisdictions within a region, and even vary within jurisdictions themselves
depending on “submarket” conditions present at a site. It’s important to thoroughly evaluate—and
constantly refine—the incentives to make sure that they are priced according to the market, or they will
not produce housing.
Example: At $233 per square foot of construction costs—again, ignoring land and parking costs--even a
600-square foot studio apartment would cost roughly $140,000. If a developer had to build two such units
in a ten-unit project to meet the 20% inclusionary requirement of the 12-year MFTE program, the developer
would then have to reallocate all or part of the $280,000 cost across the other eight units, as a function of
the reduced expected income from the two inclusionary units. The result of this algorithm is that in places
with the highest rental rates or sale prices, the developer return on the other units will more likely offset
the loss from the inclusionary units—this naturally selects higher rent areas for inclusionary MFTE projects.
In places where the profit margins from the market-rate units aren’t sufficient to cover the affordable
units, neither incentives nor mandates are profitable.
Some jurisdictions offer an additional bonus unit along with the required (or bonus) inclusionary unit, so
a ten-unit development that could previously construct eight market rate and two affordable units can
now construct ten market rate and two affordable units, spreading the cost of the affordable units across
more market-rate units; Redmond and Renton each offer a variant of this concept. Overall profitability
still depends generally, however, on market rate rents or sales of finished dwelling units.
It should also be noted that the state law differentiating the 8-year and 12-year programs is a minimum
standard. In Redmond, for example, the 12-year exemption still requires 20% of units be affordable, but
7 https://www.kentreporter.com/news/kent-city-leaders-approve-property-tax-break-for-apartment-developers/
8 https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Economics-of-Inclusionary-Zoning.pdf
68
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 7
the 8-year instead requires 10% affordable units9. Nothing in state law prohibits the granting of other
bonuses with the tax exemption, making the MFTE especially suited to pair with the other types of
programs and offerings evaluated in this paper.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Because the subregional context isn’t homogenous, the MFTE incentives and requirements can’t be
either. Assuming that the target areas for MFTE programs are distinct and compact, it should be possible
to conduct a detailed cost-of-construction analysis within each target area and tailor program
expectations accordingly. This would need to be on a case-by-case basis, but could be envisaged as a
multivariate program: perhaps one target area might be appropriate for certain incentives to make the
affordable portion of the development “pencil”, while another might be appropriate for different
incentives.
Another method would be to follow the “development agreement” approach, wherein a city identifies
general performance requirements and a developer chooses from a menu of corresponding incentives,
such as Lennar did in Redmond with their LMC Marymoor project10; although this wasn’t an MFTE project
specifically, the process obtained some exactions on behalf of the city (including larger unit sizes) and
gave bonuses to the developer. Burien uses a similar concept with their Public Benefit program in their
downtown, but doesn’t include affordable housing provision as a criteria.
With respect to 8-year MFTE programs, the current focus on high-quality (primarily market rate)
development or redevelopment in target areas should remain the emphasis until market conditions
change—such that the area rents or sales prices increase, financing costs decrease. Eventually, when it
starts getting more utilized, the 8-year program can have affordability components added.
And every jurisdiction should adopt a 12-year program—even if it’s not used for years—because there’s
no disincentive to having one already adopted when market conditions change and a developer wants to
take advantage of it. With recent changes in the condo indemnity laws, that change could be coming
sooner than later, assuming the economic fallout of the Coronavirus pandemic is short-lived.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) provide an additional dwelling unit—typically with its own sleeping,
bathing, and cooking facilities—on properties with existing single-family homes. These can typically be
constructed in a new detached structure, or even by renovation within an existing structure, such as
finishing a basement, attic, or garage. ADU policies attempt to increase housing density in ways that do
not change the character, look, and feel of existing neighborhoods, and put more housing in areas with
access to amenities such as jobs, schools, and retail centers. In theory, because they are smaller than
single-family homes, ADUs can be cheaper housing options – but this is not always the case.
Generally, most jurisdictions require that the ADUs be smaller than the primary dwelling unit, some
jurisdictions have size limitations, and others have limitations on whether units may be detached from, or
connected to, the primary residence;11 additional regulations may include the need for additional on-site
9 https://www.redmond.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11143/ORD2892AM-PDF
10 https://www.redmond.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9310/LMC-Marymoor-Draft-Development-Agreement-PDF
11 https://www.archhousing.org/current-residents/adu-design-considerations.html
69
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 8
parking, separately metered utilities, and even owner-occupancy of one of the units—these more
burdensome conditions can negatively impact ADU production12.
ADUs have numerous challenges as an effective housing policy tool —the primary obstacle being the need
for capital. With the cost of new construction in the subregion around $233 per square foot, even a
modest 800 square-foot ADU can cost nearly a $200,000 dollars, not including architecture (typically 8%
of construction costs), permitting, impact fees, utility connection charges, site improvements, and much
more13.
The construction cost of the previous example of a 800 square foot ADU ($250,000) could yield a rental
income in Kent, for example, of $142814, but will cost $1140 per month to construct and finance—
assuming a 3.625% interest rate and a 20%, or $60,000, down payment. This doesn’t include increased
property taxes or income taxes. Along with the costs and risks of operating as a landlord, the slim profit
margin may just not be worth the risk for many homeowners, if they can afford it at all. Some
homeowners may choose ADUs to provide multigenerational housing for at-home adult children or elderly
parents and may see other non-financial benefits in construction, but the low production numbers are
indicative of the nationwide lack of access to capital for ADUs coupled with the rising costs for
construction.
Due to the total costs, homeowners are generally required to take a loan, such as a second mortgage,
cash-out refinance, home improvement loan, or other financial vehicle to fund the project. Burien
suggests, in Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.11, that the additional income from an ADU can help buyers
purchase a home. Qualifying for financing can be difficult, however, when applying for conventional
funding sources without a documented income stream15. Applicants may have the most success with an
FHA 203k improvement/rehabilitation loan.16
Cities around the country have undertaken direct efforts to bring down the costs of an ADU. Many have
waived impact fees, saving several thousand dollars per unit. Many have also waived separate utility
metering requirements, saving tens of thousands of dollars per unit. Some communities, like Clovis,
California17 and San Diego County, California18, have created pre-approved ADU plans for use by their
residents: a plan which is designed by an architect and already approved by the planning and building
departments for construction. For a $250,000 project, the use of pre-approved plans alone eliminates
the cost of design ($20,000+) and plan check review fees ($2,000+).
While allowing ADUs in all single-family zones is a laudable way to encourage additional dwelling units,
jurisdictions will not see large numbers of ADUs actually being constructed until market rents reach a level
that makes development feasible or unless they also create a program to help homeowners lower their
costs and connect with financing.
12 https://www.planning.org/knowledgebase/accessorydwellings/
13 https://www.forbes.com/sites/aaronnorris/2020/12/30/2020-the-year-of-the-adu/#6fe51f396952
14 https://www.apartments.com/kent-wa/#guide
15 https://www.buildinganadu.com/cost-of-building-an-adu
16 https://accessorydwellings.org/2013/11/15/financing-your-adu-has-become-easier/
17 https://cityofclovis.com/planning-and-development/planning/cottage-home-program/
18 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/bldg/adu_plans.html
70
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 9
The South King County cities have a relatively small number of ADUs compared to their housing stock as
a whole.
• Auburn: only six recorded units during the 2005 to 2020 timeframe.
• Burien: 98 building permits issued for ADUs since 2005.
• Federal Way: 28 ADU permit applications were approved from 2005-2019.
• Kent: has issued 33 permits for ADUs since 2005.
• Renton: no tracking data provided, but they estimated that only 8 applications for ADUs had been
submitted since 2010.
• Tukwila: tracks approximately 30 ADUs constructed over the span of 1960 to 2020, but half of
those within the last five years. The City’s “amnesty” program in 2019 registered new and existing
ADUs with relaxed regulations.
Of the six cities, Renton by far has the most ambitious strategy towards building ADUs. Among the many
actions taken with their new ADU ordinance and new program actions, the City:
• Allows for offsite parking and shared parking for ADUs;
• Has funded 26 pre-approved designs for ADUs;
• Reduces 50% of city fees;
• Exempts owner occupancy requirements in exchange for 60% AMI affordability; and
• Conducts site-planning meetings with homeowner applicants to help design and facilitate
applications.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
The Cities could, individually or through a regional partner such as SKHHP, create an ADU assistance
program, similar to the assistance provided by Renton or by ARCH for residents in the East King County
cities. Such a program could include informational materials, advisory meetings, workshops, and
connections with lenders. An ideal program would also include—in the manner of Renton or San Diego
County—providing pre-approved ADU plans for homeowners and a waiver of some fees or a percent of
fees. Even providing an ADU guidebook, as Tacoma19 has done, helps take some of the uncertainty out of
the process for people who may not have experience with design, construction, or permitting.
Regulations should also strive to be as permissible as possible, including reducing on-site parking
requirements and eliminating the need for separate utility meters, when the costs of allowing such
waivers is accounted for and deemed reasonable.
FEE WAIVERS
The list of potential fees when entitling a new building often includes, but is not limited to, zoning
application fees, mitigation fees, building permit fees, plan check review fees, utility connection charges,
building inspection fees, and impact fees. Other jurisdictions may charge specialized fees for
environmental impacts—like stormwater fees—or require critical area determinations and additional
surveys.
19 https://tacomapermits.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-ADU-Design-Booklet.pdf
71
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 10
Building permit fees are often adopted when the new version of the International Building Code, which
contains a detailed fee schedule, is adopted. Plan check fees are almost always a function of this building
permit fee.
Impact fees, by state law, may only charge a proportional share of the cost of new fire, transportation,
parks, and schools capital facilities to a new development.20,21 School district capital plans identify the
facility needs for the specified time horizon, and detail student generation rates for new development to
ensure the proportionality test required by state law is met.
While these fees are important funding sources for their respective municipal departments and special
districts, they can add up and effectively discourage new housing development–particularly at lower price
points. New developments must then be priced high enough to overcome these fees and the costs of
construction, while still allowing the developer their return on investment.
A city might institute strategic fee waivers to encourage more development, or lower-cost development.
Fee waivers in the South King County cities seem to have only been used to lower the total development
costs—particularly of affordable housing projects, thereby allowing the construction of additional
incremental units.
However, there are trade-offs to fee waivers. In combination with MFTE and other tax abatement
programs, and if heavily utilized, the cost of fee waivers to a city and any other taxing authorities (school
district, water district, etc.) may deprive those entities of necessary funding, and may not necessarily be
offset by associated economic activity (construction, new resident spending, etc.).22
• Auburn: Fee Waivers for the Downtown Catalyst and Downtown Plan Areas implemented in 2001
are identified in City Code Section 19.04. The fee waivers were extended through Ordinance 6637
and sunsetted on December 31, 2017. These fee waivers have been utilized in conjunction with
MFTE.
• Burien: no fee waiver program identified.
• Federal Way: no fee waiver program identified.
• Kent: no fee waiver program identified.
• Renton: Renton, for example, listed eight projects totaling 247 units receiving fee waivers under
4-1-210 (miscellaneous) and 4-1-190 (transportation and school impact fees); Renton Housing
Authority has received waivers for four of those projects, totaling around 150 units. All projects
receiving fee waivers were located only in the Downtown and Sunset target areas, and produced
primarily affordable units. In Renton, fee waivers are offered for ownership projects over 10 units,
where at least 50% of the units are sold as affordable housing for those <80% AMI. Fees are
waived for rental projects, with affordability of 100% of units at <60% AMI (with a different unit
minimum by zone). The City of Renton is currently retooling its waiver program from 100% of fees
waived—which require general fund commitments of 20% of the total waived fees to offset
revenue losses, per state law23—to 80% of fees waived, which doesn’t require general fund
20 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.02.050
21 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=365-196-850
22 https://inclusionaryhousing.org/designing-a-policy/land-dedication-incentives/fee-waivers/
23 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.02&full=true
72
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 11
outlays; they also capped the unit count of eligible projects to limit the potential cost associated
with very large developments.
• Tukwila: TMC 16.04.260 applies to permit fees for construction of dwelling units including
building, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permits. Units with 2 or more bedrooms that meet
an 80% affordability target qualify for a 40% fee reduction, units that meet a 60% affordability
target qualify for a 60% fee reduction, and units of any size that meet a 50% affordability target
qualify for an 80% fee reduction. Projects within the Urban Center subarea also don’t have to pay
water and sewer connection charges.
The table below contains some sample projects from Kent and Tukwila to look at the total development
fees—including permitting, impact fees, and other city charges—for similarly sized developments. While
the total fee calculation for the entire project seems expensive, on a per-unit basis (assuming 1000sf per
unit) the cost appears much less significant.
SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT FEES PER UNIT
KENT TUKWILA
Dwell Platform Marvelle
Year 2014 2013 2017
Units 154 172 166
SEPA $0.00 $0.00 $644.70
Zoning permit $6,732.00 $5,114.00 $4,852.40
Plan Check Review $63,788.00 $50,832.00 $91,468.00
Civil Construciton $26,482.00 $29,279.00 $108.15
Building Permit $98,138.00 $88,440.00 $249,296.00
Water Connection $115,416.00 $162,658.00 $0.00
Sewer Connection $466.00 $441.00 $0.00
Traffic Impact $278,158.00 $338,294.00 $118,207.00
School Impact $587,796.00 $594,528.00 $0.00
Parks Impact $79,509.00 $53,492.00 $232,068.00
Fire Impact $240,028.21 $256,575.52 $199,200.00
Storm $46,030.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Fees $1,680,270.63 $1,726,743.28 $895,844.25
Inflation-adjusted 2020
Fees
$13,927.42 $13,380.42 $6,398.89
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Permitting fees provide much-needed revenue to operate these local departments but can be a barrier to
providing lower-cost housing. Right-sizing of municipal permitting fees should occur with input from the
development community to ensure that the exactions required by a jurisdiction do not exceed the profit-
margin of development. While school impact fees and other special purpose district assessments
sometimes appear to be among the largest fees, they are typically more regulated by state law and are
less easily altered.
73
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 12
Fee deferrals are a preferable alternative to waivers. The City can still receive its revenue, but will obtain
the fees from the developer later in the process using their permanent financing instead of the upfront,
higher-cost short-term construction financing24. In 2015, Washington State mandated an on-request
deferral system in SB 592325 that was codified in RCW 82.02.05026, so cities should already have this in
their toolkit.
DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND BONUSES
Most cities offer some manner of incentives or bonuses in exchange for additional exactions on the
developer; these incentives can often result in better design or substantially advancing public interest
while making the project more profitable for the developer. Policies are often put in place when a
jurisdiction wants to encourage a type of development that the market is not delivering (for a variety of
reasons), so the jurisdiction makes it easier, less costly, or more profitable to build the desired type of
project.
• Auburn: not evaluated.
• Burien: Municipal Code Section 19.15.025.1.J27 offers bonuses to floor area in exchange for
streetscape improvements, design elements, civic contributions, and uses. No data was provided
regarding the use of this program.
• Federal Way: Bonuses are now offered to cottage housing development which will be removed.
No other bonuses for affordable housing are now present. Only one cottage housing
development has occurred that has taken advantage of this incentive.
• Renton: Renton’s Density Bonus for Affordable Housing (RMC 4-9-065) has been utilized on 4
projects (102 total units) which included 11 affordable units and 11 bonus units. Renton’s code
also allows a Conditional Use Permit for height increases (RMC 4-2-110A and 4-2-120A) which are
designed to result larger square footage per units; 20 units have been completed using these
bonuses, but 582 are in the pipeline, including 48 townhomes and 534 multi-family units.
• Tukwila: Planners in Tukwila, however, reported that despite the presence of multiple bonuses
available to increase the height up to 115 feet, no projects had yet taken advantage of them. The
19-story Washington Place project was constructed by development agreement before these
standards were in place.
Regardless, the number of units created using these bonuses are small enough, as a proportion of total
units created over the same time, that they can be seen as having minimal effect on the provision of
housing on the whole. While there has been some utilization of bonuses or incentives, it seems that the
benefit is small (incremental unit production) when compared to a go/no-go decision for a market rate
project.
24 https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/act/housing-policy-library/reduced-or-waived-fees-for-qualifying-
projects-overview/reduced-or-waived-fees-for-qualifying-projects/
25 http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5923.SL.pdf
26 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=82.02.050
27 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Burien/html/Burien19/Burien1915.html
74
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 13
Tukwila planners reported that some projects were not utilizing their maximum allowable density because
of the need for frontage improvements, and that on-site recreation space requirements were likely
causing some development concepts to not proceed.
A discussion of the economic value of bonuses and incentives also occurred above in the MFTE section.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Discussions with staff from multiple cities stressed that while they strive to create a vibrant and high-
quality environment for multifamily neighborhoods, the cost of the exactions required to achieve those
design standards—in open space, frontage improvements, etc.—may exceed the development’s internal
return requirements, lowering profitability and stifling projects. Conversely, the bonuses provided by a
City may not be enough of an incentive for a developer to engage a project. Right-sizing the exactions in
relation to bonuses is critical to ensuring that they are viable.
Jurisdictions wanting to increase quantity of housing production could consider bonuses related to on-
site and off-site improvements. Perhaps, for example, instead of requiring highest-quality street frontage
by right, there could be a mandatory minimum standard with available density/massing bonuses for
completing higher-quality frontage improvements, similar to Burien’s use of their Public Benefit system.
This approach could assist in lowering the costs of affordable housing projects and make a wider variety
of market-rate products available.
PLANNED ACTION EIS
Under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), a planned action—such as rezoning,
development agreement, subarea plan, etc.—can pre-analyze the predicted impacts of a certain level of
development. For example, a downtown revitalization plan may result in a future maximum of new
residential units and additional vehicle trips per day, then as development occurs within the area covered
by the planned action ordinance (PAO), each new project may be able to claim coverage under the EIS for
the analyzed impacts. Jurisdictions may implement these policies to encourage development by allowing
projects to avoid costly SEPA analyses, by increasing certainty around mitigation requirements, and by
avoiding lengthy delays due to SEPA challenges.
The review fees can also be less expensive: in Tukwila, projects outside of planned action areas have to
complete a SEPA checklist and pay a $2,026.50 fee, whereas planned action coverage costs only $644.70.
INITIAL PLANNED ACTION COVERAGES IN THE SOUTH KING COUNTY SUBREGION
Res
(du)
Comm
(sf)
Retail
(sf)
Office
(sf)
Hotel
rooms
Manf.
(sf)
Peak
Trips
Other
AUBURN
GATEWAY
SUBAREA28
500 720,000 1,600,000
AUBURN
DOWNTOWN29
708
BURIEN
DOWNTOWN
460 24,000
28 https://auburn.municipal.codes/ACC/18.08
29 https://www.auburnwa.gov/city_hall/community_development/zoning__land_use/downtown_urban_center
75
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 14
FEDERAL WAY
CITY CENTER
SEIS30
2654 2,308,190 467,045 830
KENT
DOWNTOWN
SUBAREA31,32
2403 3800 2323
(jobs)
RENTON
LAKESHORE
LANDING
880 800,000
(non-residential sf)
RENTON
SOUTHPORT
543 750,000 38,000 220
(115,800sf)
112,020
RENTON
SUNSET
2506 476,299 745,302
TUKWILA
URBAN CENTER 600 71,760
(hotel) 319,934 200,000 370
All of the study area cities have some manner of planned action coverage. Interviews with the planning
staff in these jurisdictions, however, have reported that there are not often SEPA challenges to non-
coverage projects, making this tool useful for reducing cost of analysis but not necessarily reducing delays.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
An important component of the planned action coverage concept is accurate tracking against the analyzed
impacts to facilitate development. Many of the jurisdictions don’t have readily available tracking systems
to identify which previous projects utilized coverages and which coverages remained available, making it
difficult to have pre-development discussions with developers and ascertain planned action eligibility.
Renton’s Solera project SEIS included a tracking table, an excerpt of which is contained below as an
example of what jurisdictions should endeavor to create and update.
SUMMARY
The six cities involved in the South King County Regional Housing Action Plan sought to evaluate five policy
tools and gauge their effectiveness, as well as their suitability for implementation by other South King
30 https://www.cityoffederalway.com/content/city-center-redevelopment
31 https://www.kentwa.gov/home/showdocument?id=4854
32 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Kent/?Kent11/Kent1103.html&?f
RENTON SUNSET PA TRACKING 2011-2030
Planned
Action Claimed Remaining
Residential (dwelling units) 2,506 1,352 1,154
Schools (sq. ft.) 57,010 21,763 35,247
Office/Service (sq. ft.) 776,805 31,503 745,302
Retail (sq. ft.) 476,299 22,179 454,120
76
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 15
County jurisdictions. This summary of effectiveness ranks the policies from those seen as most effective
at encouraging new housing development, to those seen as least effective.
• MFTE – based on the received from the jurisdictions this seems to be useful in creating market-
rate units, but has been less-effective at creating affordable housing in the South King County
subregion.
o Until land costs rise or market rents increase accordingly, this program should continue
to be used to encourage high-quality redevelopment, instead of re-tooling the 8-year
programs to achieve affordability targets.
o Every jurisdiction could easily adopt an inclusionary 12-year program along with their 8-
year program; there’s no harm in having it available if market forces change and suddenly
its an attractive option for a potential developer.
• Accessory Dwelling Units – ADU regulations have resulted in less than 200 total units being
permitted, but with little or no direct financial cost to the jurisdictions.
o Development of formal ADU programs within the cities—informational materials,
connecting owners with lenders, pre-approved building plans, etc.—could lead to
additional numbers of units being constructed.
o Better ADU tracking systems are needed to monitor the numbers of units constructed and
operated within cities. While this won’t, in itself, create any new units, it can be used to
gauge the efficacy of programs and serve as an important metric for possible future grant
funding. This could be done on a subregional level, but causal relationships might only be
determinable at the city level, given the differences in regulations.
• Development Incentives – This is an attractive and low-cost option for cities to incent developers
to construct to the City’s desired outcomes. There’s not a significant enough sample set to
determine if any incentives were a deciding go/no-go factor in pursuing the development,
however—Renton has seen just 10 bonus units constructed out of projects totaling 109 units.
o Cities should examine ways to amend their by-right standards to simply produce a higher
quantity of units, while offering substantial allowances in exchange for the highest-quality
or most-affordable developments.
• Fee Waivers – this policy has created a few dozen units in the region, generally constructed by
affordable housing developers, but it has limitations: primarily that of reducing municipal revenue
by up to 80%.
o Waivers should be used tactically for the most affordable projects by non-profit
developers and on as much of a case-by-case basis as the code can allow. From
Anacortes33 to San Francisco34, removal of development fees has helped build low-income
housing, but the waived fees have little impact on the go/no-go decision by a developer
who has likely already solidified the financials before acquiring the site or applying for
permits.
o Fee deferrals may instead be useful to for-profit developers for incentivizing stalled
market-rate growth, or for incentivizing inclusionary affordable units. The developers
33 https://www.goskagit.com/anacortes/news/impact-fee-waiver-to-help-affordable-housing-project-move-
forward/article_a69e7c94-588a-11e8-9fcd-1378211830bb.html/
34 https://journal.firsttuesday.us/san-francisco-cuts-fees-to-spur-affordable-housing-production/68755/
77
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 16
then must obtain less short-term, high-cost construction financing…and the city still
collects the fees at occupancy (or other determined point in the future.)
• Planned Action EIS—this particular tool is in use in all jurisdictions in the study area. Planned
action coverage is, in theory, an effective way to lower the cost of development and accelerate
timelines, but there’s not enough data to show that this is resulting directly in the production of
any units other than in Renton’s Landing and Sunset areas.
o To be more useful, the cities should be actively tracking projects and coverages within
planned action areas, have ready access to the amounts of available coverages remaining,
and have a procedure for developers to quickly and easily be able to claim coverage.
o Future planned action ordinances and environmental impact statements should very
clearly identify, in a prominent location (such as an executive summary), the precise types
of actions and development metrics evaluated. In most of these documents, the actions
evaluated and available for coverage are unclear or difficult to locate, or the reader is
directed to multiple documents to piece together the answer.
FUTURE STUDY
Analysis of the data provided, and the subsequent interviews with staff, have demonstrated that the
following policies could make larger impacts in the provision of market-rate and affordable housing in the
South King County subregion.
Parking Standards
While the concept of fee waivers seems to be the one aspect that the city has most control over, and
therefore the quickest way to lower costs for the developer, the sum total of all permitting and impact
fees per unit is likely less than $30,000, and then the jurisdiction has to make up the shortfall in whatever
funding those waived fees were obligated to. A single parking space in a structured garage, however, can
range widely in cost from $25,000 to over $118,00035. Planners interviewed in Tukwila, for example,
remarked that two parking spaces per dwelling unit are required in multifamily developments even within
TOD corridors along the Link Light Rail alignment or along Tukwila International Boulevard. The act of
reducing the need for a single parking space per unit would have the likely effect of offsetting as much
financial burden to the applicant as all of the city’s fees combined, without impacting municipal finances.
Cities should endeavor to right-size their parking requirements, especially in transit corridors and station
areas; Kent and Auburn have done so, and Renton has modified parking standards for affordable housing.
Transit Accessibility
Housing projects located along transit lines quality for additional funding through federal and state
sources36, as well as occasionally transit agency funding. Such projects also have lower total and per-unit
construction costs because they don’t have to provide as much parking on site.
Renton is seeing extensive multifamily housing growth (relative to other South King County cities) due to
its location along the I-405 corridor with relatively rapid commutes to jobs in Seattle and Bellevue, and to
a lesser extent, its RapidRide F line connection. Auburn, much further south, is seeing substantial
35 https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/100000-per-parking-space-costs-soar-for-sound-
transits-kent-park-and-ride-garage/
36 https://www.huduser.gov/Publications/pdf/better_coordination.pdf
78
South King County Regional Housing Action Plan Housing Policy Analysis | 17
growth—386 units and retail—around its Sounder commuter rail station. Similarly, Tukwila is planning for
growth and development around the Tukwila International Boulevard LINK station area.
Though it may seem like basic planning knowledge, all cities should endeavor to locate high-capacity
transit facilities within their jurisdictions, and to continue to advocate for the placement of such facilities
specifically within their targeted growth areas. The transit infrastructure supports higher density and
lowers parking needs, which improves attractiveness (income) and lowers costs, which in turn helps cover
the costs of building inclusionary affordable housing.
Infrastructure Needs
Discussions with the Auburn planning staff illustrated a need for extensions of water and sewer
infrastructure into the lower-density areas within their jurisdictions. All of the cities also have
unincorporated and/or potential annexation areas (PAAs) immediately adjacent to their boundaries—
some of which may be suitable for higher intensity of development.
Without adequate utilities, desired densities can’t be achieved, therefore cities (and water & sewer
districts) should endeavor to extend services as appropriate. This may require bonds, utility local
improvement districts (ULIDs), or other financing methods.
Funding and Land Contributions
One topic of discussion mentioned by a few city staff was the direct participation of cities through
providing funding or land to affordable housing developments. The City of Tukwila directly participated
by giving land to SHAG’s project at Tukwila Village, and Renton Housing Authority donated land to the
Willowcrest Townhomes project. The City of Renton has a Housing Trust Fund and has previously
allocated grants to affordable housing projects.
South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) may eventually be able to end Seattle and ARCH’s
near-monopoly on housing grant and fund awards by creating funding pools in the south county with
which to leverage cash against grant funds, raising project competitiveness.
79
80
Public Engagement Plan
FOR THE
City of Tukwila’s
Housing Action Plan
SEPTEMBER 2020
PREPARED BY BROADVIEW PLANNING
81
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Tukwila is working in partnership with the community to create a Housing Action Plan (HAP). This HAP will
provide data and strategies for implementing the Community Strategic Plan/Housing Choices, and provide a foundation
for improving the city’s Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The HAP is funded by a Washington State Department of
Commerce E2SHB 1923 Grant.
The dual top priorities for this work are:
1. To assess Tukwila’s housing needs in the context of social equity, demographic changes,
and market dynamics; and
2. Develop a suite of strategies that respond to the unique opportunities and challenges of the Tukwila
and its residents.
The process for developing the HAP is as important as the HAP itself – it aims to connect residents, workers, businesses,
nonprofit organizations, service providers, and other key stakeholders to discover qualitative data and stakeholder
stories to support HAP data. A Public Outreach Plan (Plan), as described below, outlines the strategies and approaches
for gathering feedback and input on perceptions of housing issues and choices, policy recommendations, and barriers
to housing affordability and availability. This outreach targets a broad and diverse range of stakeholders, including
historically marginalized communities and those typically left out of public processes.
Public outreach will be a joint effort between Broadview Planning (BVP), ECONorthwest (ECONW), and the City of
Tukwila, and will be conducted through three iterative, reinforcing approaches: stakeholder interviews, focus groups,
and an online open house/forum. Throughout the process, outreach efforts will include current, relevant, and resonant
updates to websites, social media, and other materials. This Plan should be considered a living document, evaluated on a
regular basis, and improved over time.
OUTREACH APPROACH
A public outreach plan is an essential tool for sound project management. Its core purpose is to identify strategies and
methods to inform stakeholders of program goals, timelines, and outcomes. The results of this process will present a
current snapshot of the issues, stakeholder perspectives, opportunities, and a future outlook for housing.
Equity Focus
To advance equity in our communities, we must communicate the idea that safe and affordable places to live
are connected to the other essential conditions for wellbeing – inclusive schools, access to vital services (such as
transportation and open space to reduce health disparities) and living-wage jobs. Our work to advance equity and
social justice through housing will ensure that communities are designed and developed to allow fuller participation in
economic, social, and political life, particularly for frontline communities. To that end, we have synthesized a Frameworks
Institute playbook with practical recommendations on communications. This analysis encourages housing advocates
and policymakers to move away from a narrow “affordability frame” toward a “fairness frame.” Accomplishing this shift
involves adopting a set of framing guidelines, including:
1. Build messaging around the values of Fairness Across Places and Regional Interdependence.
2. Avoid consumerist language, and describe how non-economic outcomes (civic, social, health) are influenced
by reasonably priced places to live.
3. Move from the individual to the collective, “our region’s economy affects all of us.”
4. Explain how policies affect equity— without condemning the entire public and private sectors.
5. Take the time needed to introduce race in the most productive way.
6. Position community development organizations as helping to “solve the puzzle” of varying concerns, expertise,
and resources.
7. Highlight possibilities for wide-scale improvement—not wide-scale disaster. Encourage everyone to be part of a solution.
See Appendix A for a fuller synthesis and example messages that have been tested with the public.
82
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
Outreach Goals
A successful and inclusive outreach campaign is one that engages the community in meaningful conversation, has
established and measurable goals, and has demonstrable influence determined by public voice. To ensure that we
capture a representative response from the Tukwila community, we will commit to communicating with a broad range
of people, with specific attention to include historically underserved or marginalized populations. Our interactions will
be informed by the following mandates so that the information we receive from the community are intentional and
useful for the implementation of the project design:
1. Conduct community engagement based on clear and reasonable expectations for stakeholder participation.
— This includes timely and advance notice and paying for participation (if possible given funding
guidelines).
2. Tailor stakeholder outreach to help inform housing strategies that are anti-displacement and focused on transit-oriented development.
3. Authentically engage a broad range of people that reflect the cultural and demographic diversity of Tukwila
and translating that qualitative data into actionable housing strategies.
4. Maintain flexibility and focus given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
5. Use community engagement to inform elected officials and decision makers.
6. Demonstrate the significance of public participation and how community engagement influences housing policy solutions.
Demographics
Derived from the Chinook word for “hazelnut”, Tukwila is an indigenous home to Duwamish people, who originally
settled along the Black and Duwamish Rivers. Bordering the city limits of Seattle to the north, Tukwila is east of Burien
and west of Renton, following along the Duwamish Waterway through the Green River tributary before reaching its
southern border with Kent.
Tukwila is economically distinguished by King County International Airport, Boeing, and Westfield Southcenter Mall.
Tukwila is notable for The Museum of Flight, the Rainier Symphony, and Highline SeaTac Botanical Gardens.
Demographically, Tukwila has notably higher diversity compared with the Washington metro area; 17% of the population
identifies as Black and 25% as Asian. Half of the adults indicated English was the primary language spoken at home, with
the other primary languages spoken at home including Spanish (9%), Indo-European (11%), Asian/Islander (19%), and
Other (10%). Another strong indicator of the diversity in Tukwila is 41.2% of the population identify as foreign-born,
with just over half (52%) indicating Asia as their location of birth. These metrics indicate the need for multiple language
translation and interpretation options available in order to capture representation of these populations.
Table 1 – Tukwila Demographics (Census 2018)
Demographics TUKWILA Washington Average
Population 20,198 N/A
Median Age 34.9 37.6
Race & Ethnicity White: 34%
Black: 17%
Native: 1%
Asian: 25%
Islander: 2%
Other: 1%
Two or More: 8%
Hispanic: 13%
White: 69%
Black: 4%
Native: 1%
Asian: 8%
Islander: 1%
Other: 0%
Two or More: 5%
Hispanic: 13%
Per Capita Income $30,996 $36,888
Median Household Income $57,215 $70,116
Persons Below Poverty Line 19.1%11.5%
Children (Under 18) Below Poverty Line 33%15%
Persons Per Household 2.9 2.6
83
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
Demographics TUKWILA Washington Average
Occupancy Owner: 40%
Renter: 60%
Owner: 63%
Renter: 37%
Types of Residency Structure Single Unit: 42%
Multi Unit: 54%
Mobile Home: 4%
Single Unit: 67%
Multi Unit: 26%
Mobile Home: 6%
High School Grad or Higher 79.9%91.1%
Bachelor’s or Higher 23.9%35.3%
Language at Home (Children)English Only: 50%
Spanish: 15%
Indo-European: 3%
Asian/Islander: 19%
Other: 12%
English Only: 78%
Spanish: 13%
Indo-European: 4%
Asian/Islander: 4%
Other: 1%
Language at Home (Adults)English Only: 51%
Spanish: 9%
Indo-European: 11%
Asian/Islander: 19%
Other: 10%
English Only: 81%
Spanish: 7%
Indo-European: 4%
Asian/Islander: 6%
Other: 1%
Foreign-Born 41.2%14%
Place of Birth for Foreign-Born Population Europe: 9%
Asia: 52%
Africa: 22%
Oceana: 1%
Latin America: 17%
North America: 0%
Europe: 15%
Asia: 43%
Africa: 6%
Oceana: 2%
Latin America: 30%
North America: 4%
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Learning from experience and capturing ideas for change are keys to a successful public involvement project. As a living
document, this plan should be evaluated on a regular basis to ensure goals are met, there are adequate staff and budget
resources, timelines are accurate, and messaging continues to resonate with stakeholders.
An adaptive management approach for this project includes:
n Open communication and collaboration between Tukwila staff and all consultants is imperative to
ensuring this plan continues to meet needs and the project is successful.
n Maintaining a flexible approach to decisions and outcomes, including checking in regularly to discuss
what’s working and what’s not.
n Working together to identify tactics that are not working and taking actions to correct or change tactics
if needed.
n Thinking creatively and experimenting with strategies to find new and underserved communities.
Risks + Opportunities
As with all public involvement projects, success is based on public participation and clear communication with
stakeholders. All communication efforts involve risk. By highlighting and preparing for potential issues at the outset, we
can minimize the likelihood, or impact, of threats to the success of this outreach process.
Like the rest of this public outreach plan, this section will evolve as the issues, threats, and risks the program faces will
change as it grows and develops. Brainstorming strategies and solutions for being prepared with the internal team will be
critical to the program’s success and a cornerstone of adaptive management. We’ve identified several risks, including:
84
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
n Conducting outreach during the COVID-19 pandemic challenges our ability to connect with stakeholders, will
present technical challenges, and may restrict meaningful public participation on longer-term issues like housing
in the midst of more emergent issues.
n Difficulty reaching underserved communities – non-English speaking, people experiencing homelessness, and low-income populations.
n Remembering to create a feedback loop for sharing information back to participating stakeholders.
STAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPATION
Key stakeholders consist of individuals who have interests, expertise, and/or influence in the project. These are the
residents that will be communicated within a variety of channels and with a myriad of messages throughout the lifetime
of the outreach process. BVP will conduct stakeholder interviews and Tukwila staff will assist with contact information,
scheduling meetings, and developing an initial stakeholder list that will be updated as necessary.
Key stakeholder groups identified early in the planning process include:
n Residents and people with lived experiences
n Faith-based organizations
n Business owners
n City staff
n Developers (non-profit + private)
n Service providers
n Cultural organizations
n Non-native English speaking residents (Spanish, Vietnamese, East African)
n Children/Youth
n Tukwila Planning Commission
n Tukwila Equity and Social Justice Commission
n Tukwila City Council
Examples of Potential Stakeholders
• Rainier Symphony
• Tukwila Arts Commission
• Tukwila Equity and Social Justice Commission
• Tukwila Historical Society
• Ukrainian Community Center
• Somali Youth & Family Club
• Eloi Ministries
• East African Community Services
• Mother Africa
• Beit HaShofar Messianic Synagogue
• Cowlitz Tribal Health Services
• Vietnamese Martyrs Parish
• Foster-Tukwila Presbyterian
• Somali Health Board
• Abubakr Islamic Center of WA
• Tabor
Stakeholders (Businesses)
• Juba Restaurant & Cafe
• DieCutStickers.com
• Arashi Ramen
• Seattle Southside Regional Tourism Authority
• Virtual Sports
• Segale Properties
• Spectra Contract Flooring
• Anna’s Honey
• Gallian’s Cucina
• Hi Def Cuts
• Blockhead Machine
• Sahara Cafe Somali Cuisine
• Salama Restaurant and Cafe
• Madina Childcare
• Southern Grill
• Crystal Soda Blast
• RJW Guitar Repair
• Randy’s Restaurant
• Yen Family Dental
85
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
Stakeholders (Services)
• USCIS Application Support Center
• Sound - PATH Program
• Tukwila Pantry Food Bank
• Partner in Employment
• Church by The Side of The Road
• SNAP Office
• Refugee Women’s Alliance
• Lutheran Community Services
• ResCare - Residential Services
• Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission
• Families First
• Global to Local
• Northwest ABA
• Tukwila Weekend SnackPack
• Tukwila School District Social Workers
• International Rescue Committee
• Teens for Tukwila
• City of Tukwila’s Human Service Department
Ethic / Culturally Specific Media
• Tukwila Blog
• Runta News
• Plataforma Latina Networks
• The Seattle Medium
• Northwest Asian Weekly
• AAT TV
• Chinese Radio Seattle
• Washington African Media Assoc.
• Radio Punjab
• La Raza del Noroeste
• KXPA Multicultural Radio
• NW Vietnamese
After internal conversations, the Outreach Steering Committee will identify specific individuals and organizations for
interviews and focus groups. Appendix B contains a complete list of participants.
OUTREACH PROCESS + TIMELINE
1. Stakeholder Interviews + Analysis
Objective: 10-12 stakeholder interviews.
During this phase of outreach, we will identify and interview key stakeholders to inform HAP outcomes, generate
awareness of the project, and build support for future outreach opportunities, and recruit participants for focus groups.
Additional benefits of stakeholder interviews include:
n Connecting with people who have been historically left out of and/or not engaged in an authentic, meaningful way.
n Connecting with individuals who aren’t comfortable providing input in large group formats.
n Building initial support among partners to help spread the word and build momentum for the project.
n Discovering new stakeholders and potential outreach partners for focus groups.
n Identifying opportunities to tailor future public involvement strategies to meet the needs of diverse groups throughout the project so that they represent an appropriate snapshot of Tukwila’s communities.
n Informing elected officials of the project and that they are aware, and supportive, of the project and the public
involvement process.
n Developing a deeper understanding of different perceptions of housing issues and addresses a variety of approaches to messaging with stakeholders.
n Gaining a greater understanding of contextual opportunities, constraints, and sensitivities.
n Presenting the size and scope of the outreach project and sets appropriate expectations.
Next Steps: Finalize stakeholder list, review and approve draft questions, and schedule interviews. Create introduction
for staff to use to connect to community members. Update/create the project website prior to beginning interviews.
86
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
2. Focused Conversations
Outreach objective: 3-5 stakeholder focused conversations with representative groups.
This phase of outreach will focus on assessing housing opportunities and constraints with key stakeholder groups actively
involved in Tukwila housing issues. Given the technical nature of this phase of outreach, the consultant team will target
stakeholders with specific expertise and insight, such as affordable housing providers, and faith-based organizations.
These participants will discuss options and vet potential policy recommendations. There will also be cultural/
language focus groups of residents, who will tell their own housing stories, rather than speaking through the lens of
a representative organization. Focus groups will likely be held through online formats,
Next steps: Finalize stakeholder list and create focus groups. This phase will start after stakeholder scan interviews are
complete, or nearly complete, and after some of the initial data is available.
3. Online public meeting/housing forum/collaborative open house
Outreach objective: an online meeting to receive broad community feedback on draft housing strategies and actions.
Planning for this phase will begin after stakeholder interviews are complete.
Ongoing Outreach Tools
Social Media
Social media are key communication channels to accompany public outreach strategies. When used effectively, they
allow for information and messages to spread quickly across multiple communities. Through social media, we can
create connections with diverse communities, establish a greater online presence, and post regular updates for project
information and meeting locations.
Content will be posted to Tukwila’s social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, NextDoor) at the discretion of City staff.
Tukwila staff will moderate both accounts, respond to any messages, and will provide documentation of any comments/
messages. Council members and Commissioners may be asked to serve as “communications ambassadors” and use their
constituencies and community relationships to promote the project, and more specifically the community surveys.
Ethnic + Culturally Specific Media
Given the diversity of Tukwila’s population, some audiences may be best reached through newspapers, radio, and TV
that target specific cultural communities and in priority languages. In order to avoid outreach fatigue and perceptions
of tokenization, the consultant team will work with Tukwila staff to identify appropriate stakeholders to interview and
participate in focus groups. Potential sources include:
1. Tukwila Blog
2. Runta News
3. Plataforma Latina Networks
4. The Seattle Medium
5. Northwest Asian Weekly
6. AAT TV
Communication Materials
Each outreach phase will include materials to promote the project, community meetings, and research findings.
Materials will use clear, consistent, succinct messaging, graphics where possible, and use culturally relevant images
that reflect Tukwila’s diversity. With the assistance of staff, BVP will develop communication materials, including:
n Agendas for focus group meetings
n Written content for website updates, press releases, blog articles, and other forms of written communication.
n Translated materials into priority languages
7. Chinese Radio Seattle
8. Washington African Media Assoc.
9. Radio Punjab
10. La Raza del Noroeste
11. KXPA Multicultural Radio
12. NW Vietnamese News
87
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
Tukwila will be responsible for printing all communication materials including maps, agendas, boards, fact sheets,
and any payment for online advertising.
Communication Protocols + Coordination
Internal coordination
n Bi-weekly check-ins with Outreach Steering Team (Andrea Petzel, Niesha Fort-Brooks, Meredith Sampson, Minnie Dhaliwal) during the active engagement process to discuss the themes, what’s working, and challenges.
n The Steering Team will focus on the process of refining approach based on early results to inform and guide
future efforts.
n Review process: Steering Committee will provide initial approval, and brief Deputy Administrator Rachel Bianchi
for review. Minnie/Meredith for will provide final approval for all public-facing communication materials.
n Meredith will send to Scott Kirby to post/distribute electronically after the final review and approval.
Communicating with the public
n Communication and information will be housed on the project’s website: www.TukwilaWA.gov/HousingAction
n Project email address: housingactionplan@tukwilawa.gov.
n We will collect and maintain a project listserv through the project website.
n Social media handles:@CityofTukwila (Facebook, Twitter).
n Tukwila staff will compile and track any correspondence that comes in through the website/email.
Next Steps: BVP will create draft website content, Tukwila staff will set up project website, email, listserv.
Roles/Responsibilities + Timeline
Stakeholder
Interviews
Focus
Groups
Large
meeting
Briefings/
Presentations
Online/Social Media
Purpose Identify issues,
engage key
stakeholders,
build awareness +
project support
Identify issues,
vet ideas with
subject matter
experts
Provide a forum
for providing
feedback on
draft housing
strategies
Update decision makers,
receive guidance and
feedback. Includes City
Council, Equity + Social
Justice Commission, and
Planning Commission.
Update project progress,
provide community
resources and
information,
announce events
Lead BVP BVP Tukwila Staff TBD BVP to draft
Support Tukwila staff Tukwila staff BVP/ECONW TBD Tukwila to post
Materials Interview
questions, web
page
Interview
questions, web
page, FAQ
TBD TBD Social media updates/
announcements, website
content
Timeline Sept-Oct Oct-Nov Feb 2021 Oct Joint ESJ/PC Ongoing
Deliverable Summary of key
themes
Summary
memo
Summary memo Briefings as necessary Social media content,
website updates
A final report-out and PowerPoint presentation will tie together all elements of community engagement, including
lessons learned and how public involvement will influence the work to create effective housing policy solutions.
88
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
Messaging
Coordinated messaging is critical to ensuring the audience understands the reason for their participation and how this
will benefit their communities. Messages should have the ability to be changed when required in order to serve different
audiences and scenarios. At the outset of this process the project team identified the following key messages:
Housing Action Plan
n Washington State Department of Commerce awarded Tukwila a grant to develop a Housing Action Plan.
The grant encourages all cities planning under the GMA to adopt actions to increase and diversify housing
options in Tukwila.
n The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires local housing plans to identify a range of different housing types
that match community needs and provide housing options for people of all income levels. (RCW 36.70A.070)
n Tukwila’s Housing Action Plan will focus on strategies to improve transit-oriented development near the light
rail station and along Tukwila International Boulevard.
n Outreach efforts and housing policies will address displacement concerns and anti-displacement strategies.
Equity as a City Priority
n Government can play a role in breaking down barriers to equitable access to housing opportunities.
n Tukwila benefits from a rich diversity of cultures, people, businesses, and lived experiences.
n Community outreach and engagement is relevant, intentional, inclusive, consistent, and ongoing.
n The City is committed to equity in the decision-making process. Both process and context are transparent.
89
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
Appendix A
HOUSING & EQUITY COMMUNICATIONS
The Frameworks Institute and Enterprise Community Partners engaged in an extensive study to determine which
frames resonated best with the public (2018). They found that using an “affordability frame” was too narrow
to engage and activate the public; moving toward a “fairness frame” allowed people to envision housing and
community development as forces that make places vibrant and dynamic. They begin to see how housing is an
inextricable piece of that, understand solutions to housing challenges, and recognize the role of public policy in
addressing injustice and advancing fairness.
The Frameworks Institute encourages seven framing guidelines to effectively marry housing and equity through a
“fairness frame.” They are enumerated with examples below:
1. Build messaging around the values of Fairness Across Places and Regional Interdependence: Fairness
Across Places focuses attention on how amenities and problems vary by location, which then creates
unequal advantages and disadvantages. The uneven distribution of resources allows people to recognize
that outcomes are not due to individual decisions. Regional Interdependence further collectivizes the
issues of affordable housing and reminds people that when housing costs are too high, everyone should
be concerned.
Example: Our zip codes—the places where we live—shouldn’t determine the trajectory of our lives. The ideal
of justice for all means that people should have an equal opportunity to make the most of their potential, no
matter where they come from. To live up to this core principle, we must insist that our leaders and decision-
makers pay attention to fairness across places. When all our communities have good homes, good schools,
dependable public transportation, and strong businesses, it provides all of us with a fair shot at success, no
matter where we live.
2. Avoid consumerist language: Explain how a host of non-economic outcomes — civic, social, and/or health-
related — are influenced by the availability of reasonably priced places to live. Make the case that there is
a shared, public stake in tempering and managing the costs of apartments and homes. Work to replace the
language of exchange (buyers, sellers, landlords, renters) with the lexicon of the commons (people who live
and work here, homes and apartments, neighbors and neighborhoods). Give examples of how places, not
just prices, affect the wellbeing of people and communities.
90
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
Example:
3. Move from the individual to the collective: Unless advocates and policymakers explain the collective
benefits of improving housing affordability and reducing housing scarcity, these problems will be viewed by
the public as personal troubles, not public issues. This assumption is a major impediment to building public
demand for meaningful solutions to problems that affect most communities across the nation.
Example: As our region’s economy has grown, rents and mortgages have grown, too—but wages for most
jobs have not. As a result, a large portion of our city’s workforce has been priced out of nearby residences and
must commute from the outer suburbs. This unravels our civic and social fabric by taking up time—pulling
people away from participating in communities and fraying family life. To mend the situation, we must insist
on more inclusive housing policies that temper rising costs and make it possible for people at different income
levels to work and live here.
91
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
4. Explain how policies affect equity – without condemning the entire public and private sectors:
Explanatory chains help non-specialists benefit from the perspective of issue insiders, inviting them to
follow a new chain of logic rather than sticking to the cognitive short cuts that people usually rely on to
simplify complex issues.
Example:
92
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
5. Take the time needed to introduce race in the most productive way: Conversations about housing —
and housing equity — are also conversations about race, racial segregation, and structural racism, both
past and present. To move from a narrow affordability frame to a broader fairness frame, advocates and
policymakers must be prepared to discuss race in their communications and outreach.
Example: Across the United States today, people of color and whites tend to live in different neighborhoods.
This is the result of legal and social discrimination against people of color.
For example, Black applicants are more likely to receive subprime loans than whites, even if they have the
same financial background. These loans have higher interest rates and bigger payments.
Subprime loans make it harder for borrowers to build up their savings and to pay down loans. Together,
these factors make loan default and foreclosure more likely. When communities have a lot of foreclosed
homes, property values fall, which reduces residents’ wealth and makes it difficult for them to sell their
homes or move. This is one way that today’s practices perpetuate racial segregation, and we shouldn’t
permit it.
Our community development plan calls for mortgage lenders to commit to fair lending practices and
to publish data so that people in all communities are confident that lenders use the same standards to
evaluate loan applications from whites and people of color
6. Position community development organizations as solving the puzzle of varying concerns, expertise,
and resources: Affordable housing issues are complex. The significant public investment needed to make
affordable housing projects feasible poses major challenges for advocates. Given this, the public holds the
government responsible for housing policy and community design but, at the same time, is skeptical about
government’s ability to get things done. FrameWorks recommends that advocates and policymakers adopt
the Solving the Puzzle metaphor, which compares responsible community development to a puzzle with
many pieces. This metaphor positions housing as a central piece of the puzzle and community development
organizations as having the unique skill set to solve the puzzle.
93
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
Example:
94
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
7. Highlight possibilities for wide-scale improvement – not wide-scale disaster: Members of the public
are primed to be fatalistic about the possibility of reining in high housing costs. They are aware there is a
problem, and they find it concerning, but being aware of a social problem does not necessarily lead the
public to support or demand policy changes. A sense of efficacy — the belief that changes are feasible and
would improve matters — is also required. To reframe the public conversation, advocates and policymakers
should emphasize the benefits of creating more affordable housing and stop relying on messages that only
highlight the costs of inaction. At every opportunity, communicators should lay out a positive vision of the
benefits that will come when communities proactively address affordability issues.
Example: The places where we live shape our lives, including—and especially—our health and safety.
Sometimes health impacts are easy to understand: it’s not hard to connect housing to health when lead’s
in the water, mold’s in the air, or crumbling staircases cause injuries. It can be less obvious how the cost of
housing affects health, but it makes sense. When housing is expensive, it’s harder to pay doctor bills, join
sports leagues, or eat well, which opens the door to chronic disease and other health problems.
Right now, our policies are causing the cost of homes and apartments to rise steadily, while, at the same
time, dampening wage growth and income levels. To fix the affordability problem, we need to put the pieces
of responsible community development together. It’s a complex puzzle, but we can complete it if we work
together. The good news is that the pieces of a healthier approach are at hand. We can arrange communities
so that homes are near parks and stores and bike paths, making physical activity easier. We can make sure
that every neighborhood has access to grocery stores, where fresh and nutritious food is available, putting
healthy diets within everyone’s reach. We can make affordability measures a priority in our local, state, and
federal housing budgets.
To make this happen, we need community development organizations—nonprofit organizations that
work with communities to ensure that their concerns are understood by policymakers and their needs are
addressed by for-profit developers. By holding the process accountable to the community and thinking
about how housing affects health and wellbeing, we can turn the problem with housing affordability into an
opportunity to create more vibrant, healthful neighborhoods.
Citation: O’Neil, M., and Sweetland, J. (2018). Piecing it together: A framing playbook for affordable housing advocates. Washington,
DC: FrameWorks Institute. Accessed on July 7, 2020, from https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/publication/piecing-it-together-a-
communications-playbook-for-affordable-housing-advocates/.
95
Tukwila HAP
Public Engagement Plan
Appendix B
TBD
96