Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 06/20/2005 Planning & Economic Development Committee Agenda KEN T Councilmembers: Ron Harmon-Bruce White-Tim Clark, Chair WASHINGTGN June 20, 2005 4:00 p.m. Item Description Action Speaker Time Page 1. Approval of the Minutes of 5/16/05 YES 5 min 1 2. King County Benchmark Reports - NO Chandler Felt 30 min 3 Land Use, Affordable Housing, King County Transportation 3. Buildable Lands 2004 NO Michael Hubner 30 min 47 Suburban Cities Unless otherwise noted, the Planning and Economic Development Committee meets the 3rd Monday of each month at 4:00 p.m. in Council Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220 4th Avenue South,Kent, 98032- 5895. For information on the above items, the City of Kent's Website can be accessed at http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/CitvCouncil/committees/planning.asp or contact Pamela Mottram or the respective project planner in Planning Services at(253) 856-5454. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at (253) 856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. PLANNING& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 16, 2005 Committee Members: Chair Tim Clark, Ron Harmon, Bruce White The meeting was called to order by Chair Clark at 4:00 P.M. Approval of Minutes Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED to approve the minutes of April 18, 2005. Motion PASSED 3-0. Manufactured Housing #ZCA-2004-1 Planning Manager Charlene Anderson explained that State Senate Bill #6593 precipitated this amendment. This Senate Bill allows manufactured housing in all residential zoning districts. Building Official, Bob Hutchinson discussed the criteria for building manufactured homes under Federal Standards and responded to questions raised concerning quality control issues. Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt clarified for the Committee that the city would not incur any additional legal liabilities with construction of manufactured homes. The Committee discussed their concerns with the permitting process, design review and community impacts. Member White MOVED and Member Clark SECONDED a Motion to recommend approval of #ZCA-2004-1 Manufactured Housing amending Chapter 15 of Kent City Code to allow designated manufactured homes in all residential zoning districts as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board. Motion PASSED 3-0. The Committee concurred with Ms. Anderson's request that this amendment be brought forward to the June 7, 2005 City Council meeting as an ordinance for the consent calendar. She stated that State Legislation takes effect July 1, 2005. King County Commercial Land Use Code Consistency Ms. Anderson stated that this item is in response to a request by the Committee to begin discussions with King County on the differences between their code and Kent's code; in general related to commercial land use and more specifically related to gambling establishments. Ms. Anderson stated that she spoke with King County staff and it appears that this discussion will be wrapped up in the discussion of Kent's Potential Annexation Area and it is unlikely there will be any zoning changes within King County outside of that discussion. Ms. Anderson described differences and similarities with King County's and Kent's commercial land use codes. She stated that King County incorporates gambling operations under their amusement and recreational service types of land use. Ms. Anderson stated that the County's and Kent's Codes are very similar; Kent would allow gambling establishments in the CC and GC zones as well. Ms. Anderson stated that Kent's Revenue Code overrules Kent's Zoning Code, thereby prohibiting social card games in Kent. Adiournment Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 4:30 pm Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary, Planning Services S:IPermillPlanWlanning Committee120051Minutesl051605niin.doc r King County's Key Land ' Use Policies are Working , • "The land use pattern for King County shall protect the ■ natural environment by reducing the consumption of land ii 1%. " and concentrating development..."(Countywide Planning ■IN Policy, FW 6) By the end of this year King County will have completed the first ten years of its comprehensive planning under the ll Washington State Growth ManagementAct(GMA). Although • jurisdiction-level data collection on development did not begin until 1996,we now have at least eight years of data about land Building these five townhomes on a redeveloped single-family home site makes efficient use of land, increases the urban housing supply, use change since the implementation of the GMA. In many cases, and helps preserve rural land from development. census data and other sources can help us compare progress • Total available farmland in the County is nearly 67,000 acres. • during the growth management period toeadiertrends. Of that, the total acreage currently being farmed is 42,000 The findings for these first ten years are very encouraging. acres-about 3%of County land area. This amount has changed r very little since1992. Particularly in the area of land use policy,the County is clearly ry moving in the direction of the goals articulated in the Countywide • Forest land is also being conserved. There has been no net r Planning Policies. While not every trend is positive,there is dear loss of forest land since 1996.The trend toward dramatic loss evidence that we are doing many things right. of forest coverthat occured between 1972 and 1996 has been r Preserving the Rural Area: reversed,and the quality of forest land is being protected. • Currently 96%of all residential growth is occuring within the Developing the Urban Centers urban growth area,compared to 92%in 1996. • King County's urban centers have attracted 21%of all housing • Between 1996 and 2002,the percent of residential growth units built over the last nine years-close to the target of 25%. r in the County that was located in the rural areas was cut in • However,in 2003,only about 10%of units permitted were in • half,from 8%tojust4%. During 2003 that lower rate of rural the urban centers,and they were all in Seattle, Bellevue,or development has held steady Redmond, • Employment in the rural area is about 1.6%of the County • The urban centers in some of the suburban cities are small. employment, slightly higher than in 1995,but still in keeping They have struggled to attract development during a period of with the rural character. weak economic growth. (continued on page 11) r t Indicator Flags • O There has been a long-term trend in a positive direction,or most recent data shows a marketimprovement O There has been a long-term negative trend,or the most recent data shows a significant downturn ■ There has been littlesignificant movement in this Indicator,or the trend has been mined A There is insufficient reliable data for this Indicator Table of Contents Page • Highlights: King County's Key Land Use Policies are Working The Land Use Indicators: ■ 30: New Housing Units in Urban and Rural Areas and in Urban Centers....................................................................................2 31: Employment in Urban and Rural Areas,in Urban Centers and in Mfg./Indust Centers...........................................................4 • 32: New Housing Units Built Through Redevelopment............................................................... 5 .................................... 33: Ratio of Land Consumption to Population Growth.............................................................................................................6 34: Ratio of Achieved Density to Planned Density of Residential Development......................................................................6 35: Ratio of Land Capacity to 20-Year Job and Household Targets.......................................... ...............8 ............................... Map of King County Jurisdictions,Sub-Regions and Urban Centers...............................................................................9 36. Amount of Land with Six Years of Infrastructure Capacity...................................... _.............10 ...................................... 37: Acres of Urban Parks and Open Space...........................................................................................................................11 38: Ratio of Jobs to Housing in Central Puget Sound and King County Sub-Regions..........................................................13 39: Acres in Forest and Farm Land.......................................... . 14 ...................................................................................... 40: Number and Average Size of Farms...............................................................................................................................15 DataSources and Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................................................16 Metropolitan King CountV Counlywide1 l gram Encourage a Greater Share of Growth in Urban Areas and Urban Centers; O Limit Growth in Rural/Resource Areas Indicator 30: Percent of New Housing Units in Urban Areas Rural Areas and Urban Centers Countywide Planning Policy Rationalei`I Fig.30.2 (I "The land use pattern for King County shall pro- ! tect the natural environment by reducing the con- sumption of land and concentrating development. Urban Growth Areas,Rural Areas,and resource land s shall be desig nated a nd th e necessa ry i mple- menting � I mentingregulationsadopted.....UrbanCentersare I expected to account for...one quarter of the house- Seattle 54,372 863 14 55,221 hold growth over the next 20 years." (CPP FW- First HdUCapitalHip 23.386 207 -6 23.587 \681102;AlsoFW9-10,LU-26,40,FW-66.) Downtown 15,699 356 -1 16,054 lndicator30 measures King County's progress inin- North ate 3,667 0 0 3,667 Universlt 7,053 164 -4 7,213 creasing the proportion of new housing that is built Uptown 4,567 136 3 4,700 within urban areas, and reducing the proportion in Auburn 900 0 01 900 ruralareas. /t also monitors residential development Bellevue 3,426 143 0 3,569 in the 14 designated Urban Centers of the County,two Federal Wa 846 0 0 846 Kent 572 0 -2 570 of which were designated in the past year. Please Kirkland/Totem see Indicator 38 for the ratio ofjobs to housing in the Lake 2,944 0 0 2,944 Urban Centers. Redmond 1,216 60 0 1,276 Key Trends Renton 1,049 0 -4 1,045 O SeaTac 4'086 0 -4 4,082 Rural vs. Urban Growth Tukwila 2 0 01 2 • 96%of King County's residential growth occurred a. " r • in the urban growth area,while just 4%occurred *The"existing"tote/includes all units in the center complatsdpdorto ordudng 2002plus In the rural area in 2003. units still in process of completion,but permitted in previous years. Corrections include withdrawn or expired permits or miscounts from previous years. • Between 1996 and 2002,the percent of residential ""Federal Way has an urban core with no residential units. N has 646 units in its"urban growth located in the rural areas was cut in half frame"which surrounds the urban core. -from 8%to 4%. In 2003 that lower rate of rural • In 2003,1042 net new units were built in three cities: 849 in four out of development has held steady. Seattle's five urban centers; 143 in Bellevue,and 60 in Redmond. There Fig.30.1 Urban Housing Unit Permits as a was a net loss of 10 units in other suburban centers. 120%1 Percent of All New Housing Unit Permits • Two new urban centers were designated in 2003: Totem Lake in Kirkland, and Downtown Auburn. They add 3,844 units to the total existing housing 100°� units in King County's urban centers. Burien is also seeking official 80% designation for its urban center. 60% • For the urban center strategy to be fully successful, concerted efforts 40% are needed to attract residential development to the smaller urban centers outside of Seattle,and to support that development with attractive public 20% transportation opportunities. (continued on page 3) o% Fig.30.3 1996- 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 A Urban Centers: 1998 0 25,000 T Cumulative New Units Permitted in Relation to Target' ■Urban Rural/Resource m r--q Cumulative Net New Growth in Urban Centers © 20,000 Units in Urban • `)`While the recent recession has slowed = 15,000 � �TargCentetforUrban development in the urban centers,over the last ; Centers nine years the urban centers have succeeded in z 10,000 attracting about 21%of all units built,close to the ° 5,000 } target percentage of 25%. E 0 • However,in 2003,new residential units permitted in urban centers accounted for only about 10%of Z .10 NO ^41 11100 ^�,9 rypa 1�p 1P e e e�' all new residential units permitted. This is well 'Target is 25%of the target for all new housing units. ft amounts to about 1795 below the target of 25%. units per year in the urban centers. The target w as adjusted in 2002. 2 AH911V2004 LAND USE Fig.30.4 Indicator30(continued) t t t I Cumulative Countywide Growth The original 20 year residential target ran from Net Now 2003 S 1993 to 2012. In 2002 that 20 year target was Units in �' * ��,y; evaluated,and a new target running from 2000 to S 4 �r�: 2022, was adopted. The line on Fig.30.2 shows " ; the original target through 2000,and the new target Lake Forest Park 9 11 8 28 638 5% from 2001 on. It assumes an equal distribution of Seattle" 3,82L463 3,261 2 554 9,639 51,510 19% growth in each year of the 22-year target period. Shoreline 63 104 135 302 2,651 11°h UKC-SS N.Hi hline 94 74 69 237 1.670 14% • Three years into the new planning period, TotalforSeaShore 3990 3,45D 2,766 10206 56369 180/_.___1 housing unit growth is proceeding at a rate Algona 16 41 28 85 �298 29% considerably higher than needed to meet the2022 Auburn 165 78 127 370 5,928 6% housing unit target. Black Diamond 7 4 12 23 1,099 2% Fig.30.5 Burien 17 27 37 81 1 552 5% Cumulative Net New Housing Units Covin ton 222 353 352 927 1.173 79% 120,000 T Permitted In Relation to Target DesMoines 26 8 29 63 1,576 4% Federal Way32 201 123 356 6,188 6% 100,000 Kent 457 347 241 1,045 4.284 24% Me Ie Valle 166 341 60,000OUA 381 888 300 296%° Milton 1 1 50 2% Normand Park 5 91 6 102 100 102% 60,000 Pacific 14 99 20 133 996 13% Renton 658 619 738 21015 6.198 33% 40,000 9WTac 20 35 186 241 4,478 5% zo,0oo -Tukwila 42 51 29 122 3,200 4% UKC-South 697 1,112 -.1.8861 3,6951 4,935 75% Total for South 2545 13,407 1 4,1951 10,1471 42.355 24% 93- 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 198 Beaux Arts 2 z 2 3 67% • The 22-yeartarget is for approximately 158,000 Bellevue t19 381 249 1,139 10,117 11% Bothell 121 13 160 1,751 gyo new housing units. After three years,(14%of Cl a Hill 1 1 21 5% the planning period),King County has permitted Hunts Point 1 2 - 1 1 100% 32,000 units,orjustover20%of the new target. Issa uah 499 200 466 1,1671 3,993 29% Kenmore 32 138 213 383 2,325 16% • Currently,population growth is proceeding more Kirkland 225 195 116 536 5,480 10% slowly than housing unit growth. As supply Medina 2 3 5 31 -16% begins to exceed demand,prices may ease,and Mercer Island 63 82 7 152 1.437 11% Newcastle 67 109 130 3061 863 35% household sizes maydecrease slightly. Redmond 694 466 446 1,605 9,083 18% • The sub-regions have met from 18%to 24%of Sammamish 465 528 495 1,466 3,842 39% Woodinville 51 134 29 2141 1.869 11% their respective targets for the 22-year period. Yarrow Point - - - P8 0y° Unincorporated King County has permitted about UKC-East 540 743 701 1,984 6,801 29% 38% of its 22-year target. Thus all the sub- for East 3170 3095 2,868 133 9, 47,645 19% regions are ahead of schedule in� Permitting new Carnation 0 1 0 1 246 0% units. Duvall 208 86 36 330 1,037 32% • There is wide variation among the cities in Enumclaw, 28 59 28 115 1,927 6% North Bend 7 -1 6 11 636 2% attracting new housing development. Maple Sk omish 0 0 0 20 0% Valley,Covington,and Renton in the South sub- Sno ualmie 136 291 307 T34 1,697 43% region; Issaquah,Newcastle,Sammamish in the UKC Rural City UGA's 7 11 18 East sub-region;and Duvall and Snoqualmie Total for Rural Cities 379 443 387 1209 5 563 22% among the Rural Cities sub-region all had high xftt !'g; e I Current Cities 8,753 8.459 7,549 24,761 138,526 18% growth in proportion to their targets in 2003. UrbanUnincorpKC 1,331 1,936 2,667 5,934 13,406 44°h What We Are Doing ` 10 218 r,�: • Rural KC"' 513 441 450 1,404 6,000 23% Encouraging redevelopment and higher density All Unincorp KC 1,884 2,377 3,117 7,378 19,406 38% development throughout the urban area. 10,666 • Allowing the development of cottage housing in 'The numbers in these columns are the numbers reported by the jurisdiction for buildable lands the unincorporated urban areas. These small data tracking. They may differ slightly from the sum of the numbers reported for the Annual detached units around a common green could Growth Report. **Seattle reports net permits finaled,rather than net permits issued. -There is no stated target for Rural King County. The number given is the difference between the be built at twice the underlying density up to a urban area target and the overall County target. maximum of 16 units per acre. 3 M0111`011110filan King COUWV Countywidei I gram Outcome: Encourage a Greater Share of Growth in Urban Areas and Urban Centers; Limit Growth in Rurai/Resource Areas Indicator 31: Employment in Urban Areas, Rural/ Resource Areas, Urban Centers, andManufacturin Industrial Centers Employment in Urban Centers Countywide Planning Policy Rationale Fig.31.2 'A fundamental component of the Countywide Total • • Urban planning strategy is the maintenance of the ! traditional character of the Rural Area....The , lands within the Urban Growth Areas shall be characterized by urban development...[andj Auburn" See note below 3,102 na Bellevue 23,088 31,221 27,914 4,826 shall accommodate the 20-year projection of I Federal Way 318 3 870 3,886 700 household and employment growth...Urban I Kent 3,inn 3,085 3,302 202 Centers are expected to account for up to one- KiWand/TotemLake* See note below 12,634 na half of employment growth...each Center shall Redmond" ,025 10,417 12,845 8,820 have planned land uses to accommodate...a Renton 14,006 16 452 14,327 321 SeaTac 7 064 8 589 8,631 1,567 minimumoflS,000jobswAhin one-half mileofa Seattle 226,913 271.674 254,016 27,103 transit center...(jP FW-9,L U-26&40;1102. 1stHilUCa .Hi11 32,028 36,096 38,619 6, I\ SeealsoLU-59&LU68) Downtown 139,954 17,4028 156 591 ,473 1, 19 North ate 9467 11,063 10,638 1,171 Indicator 31 looks at the proportion of our new Seattle Center/Lower employmentthat is locatedin the urban area rather Queen Anne 16,726 16,890 15,536 -1,190 than the rural area, and at the proportion of new Univ.District 28,738 33,597 32,750 4,012 employment that is located in urban centers and Tukwila 17 047 20 366 18 590 1 543 manufacturing/industrial centers. ota o s an ota 298 429 365 45,082 ,674 343,511 New Jobs in Urban Theintentisiofosteremploymentgrowthintheurban Percentof New JobsCreated from 1995-2002that areas,particularly the centers,rather than having it are in Urban Centers 1 29% widely dispersed in more remote suburban and Rural `Auburn Downtown and Totem Lake-Kirkland were designated as Urban Centers during the past areas. This provides for a more effective public year.Au bum had a baseline of approximately 3,200 jobs at the end of 2002,while Totem Lake transportation system and better roximit of. had approximately 12,600. Burien expects to have a designated Urban Center by the end of p Y 1 2004."A major employment center moved into Redmond Urban Center between 1995 and to population centers. Residential growth in these 2000. same urban centers also brings people,jobs and • 29%of all jobs created in King County from 1995 through 2002 were in Urban commercial life closer together. Please see Centers. Another 12%were in Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. Indicator 38 for the ratio of jobs to housing in the • The Countywide Planning Policies specify that urban centers should Urban Centers. accommodate up to 50%of new employment. Urban and manufacturing Key Trends centers together have accommodated about 41%ofjobgrowthduringthe Employment in Urban vs. Rural Areas past seven years. • About 1.6%of County employment is located in • Some of the urban centers do not yet have the optimum number of jobs or the rural and resource areas. residents-around 15,000 within a half-mile radius of public transportation • The number and proportion of jobs in the rural hub- to support high levels of transit service. areas has increased slightly from 1995,but the Fig.31.3 (continued on page 5) amount is still in keeping with the rural character. Fig.31.1 Total Employment ° Centers Percent of Total Employment in 3.0°k� Rural/Resource Areas ' a r�r 2 0% Kent 13,924 16,203 14,576 652 Redmond: Overlake 10,308 20,144 29,310 19,002 1.0% S yo 1,r/O 110/0 Seattle 72,864 83,952 75,653 2.789 100 Duwamish 58,700 69,601 60,814 2,114 lnferba /Ballard 14,164 14,351 i4,839 675 0.0% Tukwila 14,482 11,814 11,042 3,440 March March March March Total Jobs in 1995 2000 2001 2002 Manufacturing Centers 111,578 132,113 130'581 19,003 and Net Ch in Jobs -Difficulties with identifying employment location may make Percent of New Jobs Created from 1995-2002 that the 1995 data less reliable than more recent years,and thus, make the change appear more dramatic than it was. were in Manufacturing Centers 4 I1/ [AND USE Indicator31(continued) • Auburn, Federal Way,and Kent all have fewer than 4,000 jobs and • There has been only slightchange in the location of under 1,000 housing units. However,these three centers do act as local jobs between 1995 and 2002. In 1995,43.0%of all transportation hubs,especially since the opening of Sounder Commuter jobs in the Countywere in the urban and manufacturing Rail(which serves Auburn and Kent)in late 2000, Because of this they centers;now 43.3%are in those centers. are prime candidates forfuturejob and housing development. • Of the urban centers,only LowerQueenAnne(Seattle Fig.31.4 Center)lostjobs between 1995 and 2002. However, Location of Jobs in King County job growth was also minimal in Kent,Federal Way,and 1995 2002 Renton. The countywide recession from 2000 to 2002 ■Urban Area but accounts for much of this slow growth. Outside Centers • Among the manufacturing/industrial centers, only Tukwila showed negative job growth over the whole ■Rural Area 1995-2002 period.All these centers,except Redmond and Ballard/Interbay,experiencedjob loss from 2000 ■Urban Centers to 2002. • With a modest economic recovery occuring in 2003 4iotg MFg 1 Industrial lit and 2004,opportunities for growth in all the centers Centers should improve. Outcome: Make Efficient Use of Urban Land Indicator 32: Percent of New Residential Units Built Through Redevelopment O Countywide Planning Policy Rationale Fig.31.4 "Development within the Urban Growth Area will be phased to promote Percent of New Housing Units Built Through efficient use of land....growth should be directed as follows:a)first,to Redevelopment by Sub-Area Centers and urbanized areas with existing infrastructure capacity;b) second, to areas which are already urbanized...and c)last,to areas Seattle-Shoreline 71% 81°/a 77% 72% requiring major infrastructure improvements....All jurisdictions shall Greater East Side 20% 9% 440 28% South K develop neighborhood planning and design processes to encourage Rural CitlesCoun 30% 10% 38% 12% 0% 0/a 8/0 12h infill development and enhance the existing community character and Urban Total* 51% 46% 53% 44% mix of uses." (CPPM.C2,LU-28&69,see also FWl,Step8) Unincorp R7 I nal 29%1 2707 17% tp One way to achieve efficient use of urban land is to redevelop urban land For 2000 the Urban Total Includes lust the Cities,and Unincorp. that had a pre-existing use. Often the pre-existing use was less than KC refers to both urban and rural Unincorp.KC. For 2002 and optimal for the location-such as a large,underused warehouse in a bus 2003 the urban areas of Unincorporated King County are included Y in the urban sub-regions,and the Urban Area Total refers to both commercial area. In the residential context, the efficiency is gained by cities and unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Boundary. building at a higher density than the pre-existing use. Only the rural area is included in the Unincorp.KC category. •The 2002 King County Buildable Lands Report found that approximately This relatively high rate of development on previously- 57%of the residential land supply in King County is redevelopable land, used land is a positive sign that urban land is being rather than vacant land. Inevitably,the supply of vacant land within the used efficiently as vacant land becomes more scarce. urban area will continue to shrink. Indicator 32 monitors the percent of As would be expected the highest rate of redevel- ournew housing that is actually being built on redevelopable land rather opment is in the older and more densely-populated than vacant land. Sea-Shore subregion,while the Rural Cities have a Developers sometimes rind vacant land more attractive because there are relatively low redevelopment rate. no demolition costs associated with it,but redevelopable land can also be Fig 322 Percent of New Residential Units attractive because of a prime location,or because infrastructure is likely so%l Built Through Redevelopment in to be in place already. g • To% 72% 2003 by Sub-Region Key Trends ,g g fi0%1 • c a 50% In 2003,about 43%of all new residential units were permitted on land m W �% 37% aa% that had a pre-existing use. In the urban area,the proportion was about Z = ze% p o 30% 44%. Because it is not always easy to trace a pre-existing use on land, m Y zo% these figures should be considered a conservative estimate. a ; 30% tz% • The proportion of redevelopment was lower than the 2002 estimate of o% I,ot] 52%,but in line with estimates from 2000 and 2001. sea- Eastside south Rural urban Shore County Cities Total' 5 MelroPolillan King COU11111Y Climn1wide1 l gram Outcome: Make Efficient Use of Urban Land Indicator 33: Ratio of Land Consumption to Population Growth Countywide Planning Policy Rationale Platted actuallypreserves sensitive areas and open space,this measure is The land use pattern for the County shall protectI morelikelytooverestimatethanunderestimatetheamountofnewVdieveloped the natural environment by reducing the Fig.33.1 consumption of land and concentrating Residential Land Development and Population Growth development."(CPP FW-6) in Urban King County: 1996-2003 10.0% 8.9% lndicator33 compares the rate of population growth to the consumption ofnew land for development during a 8.0% given period.It is intended to answer the question of 6.0% 4 Ue�u whether the remaining undeveloped urban landis being 4.0% developed at a rate that is less than,or greater than, 2 0% ourrate of population growth. Since the goal is to use urban land efficiently,a rate of land consumption lower 0.0% Percent of Urban Land That Percent Urban Pop.Growth than the rateofpopulationgrowthisdesireb/e. Was Newly-Developed Measurement ofpopulation growth is straightforward. This graph shows a lower percentage development of urban land and of urban population than Determining the rate of land consumption is more msshomlastyear.This isdueto revised figures far both land development and population data,as well as to an additional years data.See introductorynotes on methodology. problematic for two reasons: 1)itis not easy to define what constitutes consumption"of land(if a large wetland Key Trends is preserved as part of a new plat, is that acreage 0 During the eight years from 1996 through 2003,King County's urban "consumed"or preserved"from development?); 2) population has grown 8.9%,averaging about 1.1%per year. The growth there is not one unequivocal measure ofwhetherland was rapid during the late 1990s, but slowed considerably from 2001- that is being developed is truly newly-developed"(or 2003. vacant)land,or if it is at least partially"redeveloped" ' In this same period,about 4%of urban land was newly-developed(or The best surrogate measure fornewly-developedland "consumed"). This amounts to about 0.5%per year. is the net acreage of land that is formally-platted during 0 Thus,the ratio of land consumption to population growth was appoximately a given period. Some multi-family and commercial- 1:2. Land was consumed at less than half the rate that the population Indust»al development also takes place on vacant land, grew. without a formal platting process. Much multi-family 0 While this trend meets the policy goal of using urban land more efficiently, and commercial development occurs on redeveloped even greater efficiencies will be needed in the long run,as the available land. We have included 50%of the acres ofmuldfamily supply of vacant land in King County continues to diminish. development and 50% of the acres of commercial- a King County had about 50,100 gross acres of urban residential land industrial development,in addition to100%of the gross availablein2000. Approximately 21,500 acres of that land is considered acreage of all new plats in the estimation of newly- vacant. Urban land is being developed at an average rate of about 1,400 developed land.This combination should approximate acres per year. the actual consumption of new land during the period • As the supply of vacant land is reduced,it is likely that a greater proportion studied. Since much of the gross acreage that is of development will take place on redevelopable land or at higher densities. Outcome: Make Efficient Use of Urban Land O Indicator 34: Trend in Achieved Density of Residential Development Countywide Planning Policy Rationale Another way to monitor the efficient use of urban land is to measure how well we are achieving the densities in residential zones that our plans call for. All jurisdictions shall make the decisions required I Comparing achieved to planned densities is very useful at the jurisdictional to implement the Countywide Planning Policies and level. However, lanneddensitiesva P rygreatly from zone tozone,and from their respective comprehensive plans through city to city. At the sub-regional and County level it is more useful to compare development regulations."(CPP FW-1,Step 3) "In average densities achieved currently to those achieved in the recent past. order to ensure efficient use of the land within the Urban Growth Area...each jurisdiction shall... While building more densely does use land more efficiently, high density establish a minimum density(not including critical neighborhoods, especially in and around urban centers, have a number of . areas)for new construction in each residential other advantages. They support more frequent public transportation, and zone."(CPP LU-66) i more local stores and shops;they encourage pedestrian activity to and from local establishments;and they create lively(and sometimes safer)street life. 6 (continued on page 7) AMYM2904 Indicator34(continued) Key Trends Plat Densities • • Permitdensities increased in every sub-region In 2003,new lots for single-family homes were created at the overall rate of 6.6 lots per acre throughout the urban area of the County. This is a higher rate from 1996-2000 levels. The South sub-region than in 2002,and a much higher rate than the 4.6 lots per acre created during showed a very slight decline from its high of 5.8 the 1996-2000 period. DU/acre in 2002. • This improvement in densities achieved on 2003 plats was true in three out of • In 2003,nearly 1,400 new single family units four sub-regions of the County. The only exception was SeaShore,which were created in zones allowing 8 or more DU/ only had 3 plats with a total of26lots created in 2003. acre. These zones contribute significantly to • The most dramatic improvement in plat densities since the 1996-2000 period the overall higher single-family densities. These units are often townhome or cottage-style was in the East sub-region which went from an average plat density of 3.9 lots housing. per acre in 1996-2000 to 6.7 lots per acre in 2003. The rural cities also improved significantly in 2003,compared to both 1996-2000 and to 2002. • Once subdivisions are created it is more difficult to increase single family density in existing Six dwelling units per acre is considered a benchmark of urban density for residential areas. However, rezones, short single family lots. Densities achieved in new subdivisions are a good predictor plats,and infill development can significantly of the trend in single-family densities because the number and size of lots improve the density determines how many units per acre will eventually be built. p ty in older neighborhoods. • Densities achieved in multifamily zones in 2003 Fig.34.1 are higher in every sub-region than they were Change in Achieved Densities on Plats: in the 1996-2000 period. 1996-2000*, 2002, and 2003 0 8 0 In comparison to 2002, overall multifamily 7 0 ] 6•p6.3 5 6.7 6.4 6.6 6 0 g,6 densities fell from 38.3 to 30.9.All of that decline e 6.0 5. 6.0 was in SeaShore which had an unusually high m 5.0 4'9 3 4 3 4.. average multifamily density of 77.7 DU/acre in z 4.0 2002. IL 3.0 a 2.0 � ' The unusually high 2002 density in SeaShore 1.0 was most likely the result of very high density 0.0 high-rise residential buildings that were SEA- EAST SOUTH RURAL URBAN permitted in Seattle that year. SHORE** COUNTY COUNTY CITIES AREA Avg.Rat 1996-2000 Av Rat Dens' 2002OTAL • While thetrendtodensedowntowndevelopment Density: ■ g. Density: ■Avg.Rat Density:2003 continues,the 2003 density of 58.5 DU/acre is 'Blue columns represent average densities achieved over the five-year period from 1996- probably more representative of long-term 2000."SeaShore had lust 3 plats in 2003,on a total of 5.36 acres.26 new lots were created. trends In SeaShore. Permit Densities • For the whole urban area,densities achieved by new permits in single family Fig.34.3 zones have increased from 3.8 dwelling units(DU)per acre in the 1996-2000 Change in Achieved Densities in period to 5.6 DU in 2003. Multifamily Zones: Fig.34.2 Change in Achieved Densities for Permits in Single 80 j TT'T 1996-2000,2002,and 2003 Family Zones: 1996-2000,2002,and 2003 70 7 8.6 7.0 a 60- 59.s 2.2 a 6 3. 4 5.7 5.8 5.5 4.7 5.1 5.3 5.6 m 5B 1 ji 5 4. • 4 3. 3. � 40 39.3 E 28.59 � 3 30� h7A22 C 2 1. ° 20 20 0 10 SEA- EAST SOUTH RURAL URBAN 0 � SHORE COUNTY COUNTY CITIES AREA SEA- EAST SOUTH RURAL URBAN Avg. Permit Density in SF Zones: 1996-2000 TOTAL SHORE COUNTY COUNTY CITIES AREA ■Avg. Permit Density in SF Zones:2002 Avg.Permit Density in WZones: 1996-2000 TOTAL is ■Avg.Permit Density in SF Zones:2003 ■Avg.Fermt Density in NFZones:2002 ■Avg.F9rmt Density in KF Zones:2003 7 Melropoloan King COURIV Comillilwideli Outcome: Accommodate Residential and Job Growth in Urban Areas Indicator 35: Comparison of Remaining Land Capacity to Household and Job Targets O r-- Key Trends Countywide Planning Policy Residential Capacity Rationale "The Urban Growth Area shall provide I King County continues to experience rapid housing unit growth,despite the fact that population increase has slowed.This could be due to the housing enough land to accommodate future urban industry catching up to the rapid population growth of the late 1990s. development. Policies to phase the provision of urban services and to ensure ' In 2000,King County had the capacity to build atleast 263,280 new units,based efficient use of the growth capacity within on current zoning and land supply. the Urban Growth Area shall be • Given population estimates for the year 2022,the County has seta target of instituted....The Urban Growth Area shall 151,932 new units to be built in its urban area by that year. After three years, accommodate the 20-year projection of we have permitted 30,695 units,or20%of the total target. household and employment growth. (�CPP • 121,267 more units are needed by 2022 to meet the Countywide target. After Fw-12&LU-26) 1 building 30,655 units,there is still capacity for 232,615 units in the urban area. The concern of Indicator 35 is whether King Fig.35.1 County has sufficient remaining land capacity Residential Capacity , , Target to accommodate the residential and job growth r that is projected to occuroverthe next 20 years. q� For the 2QQ2 King County R ildahle Land f.; Report jurisdictions studied their remaining � W land supply and calculated the number of , ✓ a �. housing units and jobs that could be � _� i accommodated on that land. SEA-SHORE 10,206 46,163 112.134 1 41% EAST COUNTY 9.103 38,542 53,668 72% Discounts were applied forsensitive areas and SOUTH COUNTY 10,147 32,208 58,844 55% for other land constraints,including a market RURAL CITIES 11209 4,354 7,969 55% factor. Urban Area Total 30,665 121 267 232,615 52% New targets for housing and jobs were97, established to extend from 2000 to 2022, a 'Residential capacity as of the end of 2000 was calculated by each city for the 2002 Buildable Lands Report. The estimated remaining capacity is arrived at by subtracting the new units twenty-two yearplanning period. These targets permitted during 2001 to 2003 from the capacity reported at the end of 2000. Zoning changes supplant the original targets for 1993-2012. and other events may affect the actual capacity of each jurisdiction as time goes on. The 'remaining capacity"will necessarily be an estimate until a new study of capacity is undertaken. We have now completed the first three years • Currently the pace of creation of new units is ahead of schedule. Once the of the new 22 year planning horizon. Fig.35.1 2022 target is met,there will still be a surplus capacity of over 111,000 units in shows 1) the number of housing units built King County. Just 52%of the countywide existing residential capacity is needed during these three years,2)the remaining target to meet the 2022 target. for 2022. It also shows 3) the estimated • Information about increased densities(see Indicator 34)suggests that actual remaining residential capacity as of the end of capacity will be greater than was calculated in the 2002 Buildable Lands Report. 2003,and 4)the percent of the current capacity • As more housing units have become available to the current needed to meet the remaining 2022 target. INS population,vacancy rates have increased and rents have declined. (continued on page 10) likely that more capacity will become available between 2012ard2022,but thatis not included Fig.35.2 Remaining Housing Unit Target in Relation to in this measure. Remaining Capacity of Residential Land: 2003' 120,000 , Fig. 35.2 shows the target in relation to •� Est.Remaining Residential Capacityatend of2022 remaining capacity,in graphic form. �100,000 Target Still to be Ach ieved by 2022 c •� 80,000 'Full heightofcolumn indicates total Fig.35.3 Shows the new employment targets c remaining capacity at end of 2003. established for the 2022 planning horizon,by w sa,000 •-• o ; sub-region. It also shows the job capacity by `m ao,00a � sub-region, as determined for the 2002 E Buildable Lands Report. There has been a net Z 20,000 1 loss of jobs in King County from 2000-2003, E so overall Capacity has increased. SEA-SHORE EASTCOUNTY SOUTHCOUNTY RURALCITIES 8 AH9YSt2804 LAND USE ke res Pethell Skykomish Shoreline a ville enmo e N G edryQnd lG land Yarro Poi Ca Kn Me in a Bellevue Seattle a Sammamish Mr rV Ian ssaq a ewcas QP Sno ri n Rento , King County North Be T kwila Q Urban Growth Line Urban Centers Water Bodies Norma d a Jurisdictions Par Sub-Regions EAST Kent e RURAL CITY RURAL Des i ! SEA-SHORE SOUTH Covi ton Maple all Newly-designated a Urban Centers ederal Way Aub n Black iamon Alg n bbp by Rose C rran mC c V25/03 Revised6/23/04 D./Gisdata/Cdies_su tr_Ctrs.apr 9 MetropolitanIProgram Indicator 35(continued) Fig.35.4 Employment Capacity r�� r • Employment(or job)capacity refers to the 22 Job Capacity in Relation to Target number of new jobs that can be accom- - modated on available commercial and industrial land in King County. It is a measure of potential, k CA notactual,jobs. ' • Since there was a net job loss from 2000- SE4-SH0i E 330,125 525,585 500,829 (24,758) 4.7°/u 95,850 354,881 2002,the current(2002)job capacity is the EAST � 136,989 289,201 284,763 (4,438) -1.5% 98,527 141,427 sum of the job capacity in 2000 and of jobs that were lost from 2000-2002. Thus,it is SO 124,748 306,303 281,101 (25,202) -8.2% 89,500 149,950 higher than the job capacity in 2000. ' The 2022job target isthe NET numberof new c4riES 11,200 8460 10,042 1,582 18.7% 5,250 9,618 jobs that are expected by 2022. To meet that UrbanWI 603,062 1,129,549 1,076,735 (52,814) 4.70/6 289,127 655,876 target,subareas will need to regain lostjobs AND add the target numberof newjobs. • King County's job target for 2022 is to add 289,000 jobs to the 2000 Fig.35.3 Sub-Regional Job Capacity baseline. It lost nearly 53,000 jobs in the first two years of the planning 400,000 - In Relation to Job Target: 2002 Status period. It needs to regain those 53,000 lost jobs as well as add 289,000 350,000 - 354,881 newjobs to meet its target. • Less than 50%of King County's job capacity will be needed to meet the 300,0011 ■2608-26z2 rob Target 2022 employment target. Jobs that are lost ordinarily leave commercial/ 250,000 Job Capacity In 2002 industrial"space"behind,adding to currentjob capacity(available space 200,000 for new jobs). 141,427 149,950 150,000 - • The Sea-Shore subregion has three to four times as much employment 5,850 98,521r=,; 89,5506�_;. capacity as its 2022 target. The other P ty 9 regions also have ample capacity 40%to 80%more than is needed to meet their 2022 targets. 50,000 .t 5,2509,616 • The rural cities were the only sub-region with a net job gain. South County SEA- EAST SOUTH RURAL lost the highest proportion of jobs of the four sub-regions. SHORE COUNTY COUNTY CITIES Outcome: Accommodate Residential and Job Growth in Urban Areas A Indicator 36: Land With Six Years of Infrastructure Capacity Countywide Planning Policy Rationale infrastructure capacity can mean a varietyof public facilities,including sewer, "All jurisdictions shall develop growth phasing water,parks or schools,as well as transportation infrastructure. However,the plans consistent with...adequate public focus of discussion has usually been on transportation, and specifically, on facilities and services to meet at least the six- whetheran acceptable level of service(LOS)can be maintained on local roads year intermediate household and employment i when new development takes place. Cities are expected to incorporate level of target ranges."(CPP LU-29) "Jurisdictions I service standards for transportation facilities as part of their comprehensive shall adopt regulations to and commit to fund planning. infrastructure sufficient to achieve the [20- If traffic impacts of new development are such that the current infrastructure is year]target number."(f PPP LU-66, see also inadequate,then the city can: 1)plan forfhe financial resources to improve the LU-28 and LU 67-68). current transportation facilities;2)encourage new development in areas where A meaningful measurement of land with adequate plentyof transportation capacityis alreadyin piece,,3)adapt the LOS standard to infrastructure is not currently feasible. Different ways a lower level in areas where growth is desirable,while pursuing ways to mitigate of approaching this issue are being explored. travel demand and expand public transit opportunities. Indicator 36 arises from the "concurrency" What We Are Doing requirement of the Washington State Growth Proposed (2004)updates to the King County Code include: Management Act, which requires that jurisdictions • Changing to a new transportation concurrency methodology that uses a provide adequate infrastructure facilities to serve travel time measure ratherthan a volume-to-capacity measure. new development. It stipulates that any needed • Modifies the level of service standards for the urban area and rural towns infrastructure improvements orprograms be in place (Level E)and maintains the rural area LOS(at Level 13). Specifies that certain • at the time of development,or that there be a financial types of development may be subject to less restrictive LOS standards. commitment to complete the improvement or • Requires all new development,whenever feasible,to be served by an existing strategies within six years. public water system rather than wells. 10 AnguSI2004 (continued from page one) • Asa result of these efficiencies,only about 4% • The urban centers and the manufacturing centers taken together have of urban King County was newly developed from accommodated about 41%of all newjobs generated between 1995 and 1996-2003,while the population grew by 8.9%. 2002. This is approaching the Countywide Planning goal that 50%of all • There is still nearly twice as much residential new jobs will be in the centers. land capacity in the urban area as will be needed • Several of the centers do not yet have enough job and resident density to to meet the 2022 housing target. support high levels of transit service. Good transit planning for these Bringing Jobs and Housing Together areas may help stimulate economic and residential growth. • With about 1.4jobs per household,King County Providing for Growth in the Cities remains thejob centerforthe four-county region. • Housing unit growth in the County's urban area is proceeding at a rate • However, the 2001 - 2003 slowdown in job above what is needed to house the population growth expected by 2022. growth has not slowed residential growth. This • While there is wide variation among individual cities in attracting new means a more adequate supply of housing for housing development,all four of the County's sub-regions are ahead of the current demand. schedule in permitting new units. • There are now morejobs per housing unit in the • 98.4%of employment is located in the urban area. Eastside than in Seattle. It is likely that more Using Urban Land with Greater Efficiency. Eastsiders than in the past,work on the same • Over43%of all new residential units are being built on land that had a pre- side of the lake as they live. existing use. Ensuring Adequate Parks and Open Space • Average densities in single family zones throughout the urban area have The acres of urban parks and open space per increased from 3.8dwelling units(DUs)peracre in the 1996-2000 period thousand residents has continued to climb, to 5.6 DUs per acre in 2003,creating more concentrated development in reaching 15.0 in 2003. This is the highest it has the urban area,and reducing the need to develop new land. been during the GMA period. The total acreage in parks has grown by 11%in 8 years. Outcome: Encourage Livable, Diverse Communities O Indicator 37: Acres of Urban Parks and Open Space Fig.37.2 Countywide Planning Policy Rationale Acres of Urban Park and Open "AJIjurisdictions shall work cooperatively to ensure parks and open spaces Space Per Thousand Residents \ are provided as development and redevelopment occur."(CPP CC-11) 16 w The parks and open space indicatormeasures the change in parks acreage over time. It also measures whether we are increasing ourparks and open space in s4 F proportion to the growth in our population. The National Recreation and Park Association(NRPA)recommends a ratio of 6-10 acres per thousand residents 13 x for"close to home"park space, and a ratio of 15.2 acres per thousand for � "regional space". p 12 Key Trendsd • King County has over24,500 acres of urban parks and open space,compared to 22,000 in 1996. This is an increase of about 11%in eight years. 10 • During this same period,the urban population has grown byjust 7.3%,resulting 'lop 1 114P le p� in a net gain of park space per resident. G Fig.37.1 Total Acres of Urban Parksand Open Space • There are now about 15.0 acres of parks and g 25,000 open space per one thousand urban residents. '$ • The rapid increase in population during the late c 24,000 1990s caused a temporary decline in the number pm 23,000 of acres per thousand residents,but as popu- lation growth has leveled off,the urban region Y 22,000 has regained a healthy ratio of parks to residents. a 21,000 • King County transferred ownership of nearly 400 Is acres of parks and pool sites to cities and other 20,000 agencies in 2003. Parks have remained open and available to residents despite the change in Q 19,000 ownership and management. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (continued on page 13) 11 Metropolitan King County Countwideli ram Indicator 37(continued) Fig.37.3 transferredNew acres Acres Total Corrected created, Acres Total Parks Reported at Total for acquired or from King removed from and Open • of 112002' annexedin County in par usage in Space at end 2003 2003" 2003 of 2003 SEASHORE Lake Forest Park 33.9 32.9 1.8 Seattle 6,073.1 6,079.1 18.0 47.0 5.1 6,139.0 Shoreline 345.3 345.3 345.3 EAST Beaux Arts 0.0 0.0 Bellevue 2,250.8 2,250.8 69.9 - 2,320.7 Bothell 188.9 195.9 4.7 - 200.6 Clyde Hill 0.9 0.9 _ - 0.9 Hunts Point 10.0 10.0 - - 10.0 Issaquah 1,171.0 1,171.0 187.4 0.03 1,358.4 Kenmore 112.2 112.2 - 112.2 Kirkland 508.5 508.5 0.5 509.0 Medina 26.7 26.7 - 26.7 Mercer Island 355.3 355.3 355.3 Newcastle 351.8 351.8 0.03 351.8 Redmond 1,273.8 1,270.2 11.7 1.8 1,283.7 Sammamish 291.5 291.5 3.8 79.2 374.5 Woodinville 65.5 65.5 0.7 - 66.2 Yarrow Point 19.9 19.9 - i 19.9 SOUTH Algona 4.3 3.6 3.6 Auburn 648.9 648.9 8.7 38.7 696.3 Black Diamond 51.0 51.0 - - 51.0 Burien 315.6 293.9 9.2 - 303.1 Covington 52.3 37.4 20.6 22.2 80.2 Des Moines 128.5 128.5 - 2.1 130.6 Federal Way 846.0 846.0 7.5 1.6 855.1 Kent 1,353.2 1,343.3 0.1 6.1 5.9 1,343.6 Maple Valley 23.8 23.8 - 115.7 139.6 Milton 5.0 5.0 5.0 Normandy Park 99.4 99.4 - - 99.4 Pacific 44.2 44.2 44,2 Renton 1,135.4 1,135.4 - 1,135.4 SeaTac 311.0 311.0 - - 311.0 Tukwila 135.8 145.9 55.5 201.3 RURAL Carnation 105.7 105.7 105.7 Duvall 47.4 268.8 268.8 Enumclaw 114.9 114.9 1.0 115.9 North Bend 227.5 227.5 - 13.6 241.1 Sk komish 7.0 7.0 7.0 Snoqualmie 541.7 544.6 5.5 1 - 550.2 Total Cltfes 19,277.T 19,A73.2 350.0 3E4.3 11.0 20,197 Urban Uninc.KC 4,663.9 4,841.2 2.7 -384.3 -87.0 4,372.E 'Total parks acreage in 2002,as reported in 2003,was confirmed or corrected by the jurisdictions for this report. "King County transferred a number of parks and pool sites in 2003. These included 23 acres to Covington, 79.2 acres (Beaver Lake Park)to Sammamish, 115 acres(Lake Wilderness Park)to Maple Valley,and a number of smaller sites. Numbers in blue italics indicate data supplied by the County rather than by the city. In some cases the cities did include the transferred acreage. This table distinguishes transferred acreage from parks acreage acquired in other ways. 12 AugUV2004 Indicator 37'continued, Fig.37.4 Acres of Parks and Open Space Per • The sub-regions differ considerably in the amount of parks Thousand Residents In 2002: by Subregion of King County and open space per resident. 50 45.7 • The rural cities have an abundance of park land per resident. Some of these are regional parks(formerly owned or managed 30 40 by King County)that serve residents from the urban sub- 20.4 19.9 regions,as well as local residents. 20 102 12.9 15.0 • The Eastside and unincorporated urban areas also have 10- generous amounts of parkland. Seashore and South County 0 have considerably less acreage in parks and open space than Sea- fast South Rural Urban Total the East and Rural areas. Shore Side County Cities Uninc. Urban Outcome: Balance Jobs and Household Growth O Indicator 38: Ratio of Jobs to Housing in King and Surrounding Counties �- Countywide Planning Policy Rationale Fig.38.1 Number of Jobs Per Housing Unit in the Four-County Region: 1.990,2000,and 2003 "Growth management involves planning foreconomic and 1'8 � t.s population growth, determining where new jobs and 1.6 a t.5 1A housing should go... in accordance with the ability to 1'4 12 13 12 a 1.2 provide infrastructure and services....All jurisdictions shall ii c indicate planned employment capacity and targeted o' 10 060 0• OJie'9p'9 0.8020.8 increases in employment for 20 years inside and outside Urban Centers."(CPP IB&LU 68. See also LU 66-67.) J IL 0.60.4 Y This indicatormonitors the balance between employmentgrowth 0.2 :> c; .;. and housing growth in the four-county region. This year data is also included on the jobs-housing balance in the King County 1990 2000 2003 sub-regions, and in the Urban Centers of King County. The =King -..Kitsap MPierce (♦Snohomish M Total for Region Note: The County-level ratios in Fig. 38.1 are based on "Non- four-county comparison uses `non-agricultural employment" agricultural Employment" data which is available for 2003, but not figures which are available at the County level for 2003. The at the sub-regional level. The ratios for the sub-regions in Fig. data internalto King County uses"covered employment"figures 38.2 are based on"Covered Employment"for 2002.The total King County jobs-housing ratio is slightly different depending on which which are available forlocal geographic units for 2002. source is used. There is no benchmark target for the right"ratio of jobs to Sub-Regions of King County housing. For the U.S.,the average in 2002 was about 1.3 jobs Fig.38.2 Ratio of Jobs to Housing Units in the per housing unit. An acceleration in either housing growth or Sub-County Areas employment growth in a particular area could signal that the Rural Cities&Rural Subarea ■South King County current balance is changing,and should be closely monitored. Greater Eastside ■Seattle-Shoreline A goal ofgrowth management is to encourage the development 2.0 ■Total King County of housing in proximity to job growth. The strategy 1 Sf.T 1.7 g p 'ty � g gyofbalancing m 19 1.T 1.6 housing and job growth is intended to reduce the need forlong L 1.6 1.4 1. t.5 1.4,= 1.4 a 13 commutes,and to keep living and working communities easily q 1.2 accessible to each other. However,when job growth occurs it o' often takes several years for sufficient housing to be built in the 0.8 growing area. • 0.4 04 0A Key Trends °'4 4" i Four County Region o.0 • King County has historically been the job center for the 1990 2000 2002 four-county region,and it continues in that role. It currently • There have been some significant shifts in the ratio of jobs to has just over 1.4 jobs per housing unit. housing among the four King County sub-regions. The Eastside • A net loss ofjobs in the region since 2000 means a lower ratio has gained the highest proportion of jobs since 1990,raising its of jobs to housing overall. However,the balance in each ratio from 1.3 jobs per housing unit in 1990 to 1.7 jobs per county has changed only slightly since 1990. Pierce County's housing unit in 2002. jobs-housing ratio remained the same as in 1990,while the • At 1.7jobs per housing unit the Eastside now has a higher ratio other counties'ratios have dropped by small amounts. than the 1.6 jobs per housing unit in Sea-Shore sub-region. (continued on page 14) 13 Metropolitan King Couniv CountVWideIProgram Indicator 38(continued) • More local residents are likely to improve the commercial vitality of the centers, Sea-Shore's ratio rose just slightly-from 1.5 and to provide sufficient density for good public transportation. jobs per housing unit in 1990 to 1.6 jobs per Fig.38.3 housing unit in 2002. Jobs-Housing Ratio in Urban • Recent layoffs have led to a slightly lowerjobs- housing ratio in the South County in 2002 compared to 1990. t ° Urban Centers Auburn" 900 3102 34 Bellevue 3,569 27,91 7.8 • In most cases, the ratio of jobs to housing is Federal Way' 846 3 886 4.6 much higher in the urban centers than in the County Kent 570 3302 5.8 overall. Since the Urban Centers are intended to Kirklandrrotem Lake" 2,944 12,634 4.3 be centers of commercial activity and employment, Redmond 1276 12845 13.1 Renton 1 045 14,32 1 .7 this is not unexpected. SeaTac 4,082 8,631 2.1 • Urban Centers are also meant to have a significant Seattle 55221 254016 4.6 residential component in order to house local First Hill/Ca ita/Hill 23,587 38,619 1.6 Downtown 16,054 156473 9.7 workers,and workers who commute by public North ate 3,667 10 638 2.9 transportation to other areas. Seattle CentedLower 4,700 15,536 3.3 • Urban Centers with relatively high ratios ofjobs Queen Anne to housing may need to encourage more University 7,2131 3Z 7501 4.5 Tukwila 1 21 18,5901 9,295.0 residential growth to house local workers,and Total 70,455 343,511 4.9 to fulfill the purpose of the centers. Outcome: Maintain the Quality and Quantity of Natural Resource Lands Indicator 39: Acres in Forest Land Countywide Planning Policy Rationale • The acreage changes between private and industrial are due to changes in the way non-public forest land is categorized(e.g."industrial"now includes "Agricultural and forest lands are protected primarily rail and mining companies,as well as forest product companies.) for their long-term productive resource value. • However, these lands also provide secondary Overall,it appears that there has been some increase in government owner- benefits such as open space,scenic views and ship due to transfer of ownership from private and industrial. wildlife habitat." (CPPLU-1) Fig.39.1 (continued on page15) Acres of Forest Land in Various Categories Measuring the numberof acres in forest and farmland is a wayto monitoranychange in ournatural resource landsovertime. There are technical and definitional Federal Ownership 337,000 336,000 351,000 352,400 State Ownership 83,000 89 000 90 400 92 200 challenges in counting forest acreage that may cause Municipal and County minor differences in acreage from year to year. ownership 9a,000 118,000 117,000 117,400 Despite these minor discrepancies,Indicator39 will Industrial Ownership(Private) 310,000 281,000 236,000 236,400 detect if there are any major declines in forest land NIPF* Ownership 21 c200 1's•6 that would be cause for concern. other(water bodies, rights of way,etc.) -s,201;i, 10,600 It is not only the amount offend that is at stake,but the maintenance of its quality as a significant resource. FPO Total 824,000 824,000 824,600 824,600 Forest production is an important economic resource ''£ `"') Federal Owners'lip 70 70 of the County, while the preservation of forest land state Ownership 4,800 4 740 provides many other benefits. It provides continuous Municipal and County 7,400 8,440 habitat formany species of wildlife,itprotects stream ownership Industrial Ownership 4,800 8,670 quality for salmon habitat,itimprovesairquality,and (Private) it provides aesthetic and recreational opportunities. NIPF*ownership 33,800 29,4801 Key Trends Other(Water bodies, 1,430 1,500 • King County has maintained its forest land with rights of way,etc.) very little change in the total acreage of forest RFFA Total** 1 45,0001 53,000 52,300 52,900 since 1995. Changes in the total are mainlydue to more accurate measurement. • This is a reversal of the trend set between 1972 and 1996 when King County forest cover decreased by 33%. �' rr ` 14 AugHS12904 LAND USE Indicator 39(continued)What We Are Doing • Purchasing development rights through the Working to retain forestland for its environmental,social,and economic Transfer of Development Rights Program, to benefits through the King County Forestry Program. prevent the conversion of forest to residential estates. • Working to prevent the parcelization of large industrial forests. • Offering financial incentives that can benefit • Encouraging forest stewardship by residential forest landowners. Providing forest landowners, such as the Current Use forest stewardship workshops in cooperation with other agencies. Taxation Program. Outcome: Maintain the Quality and Quantity of Natural Resource Lands Indicator 40: Acres in Farmland and Number and Average Size of Farms Countywide Planning Policy Rationale • The proportion of the total County land area that "A fundamental component of the Countywide planning strategy is the is being farmed has remained at about 3%since maintenance of the traditional character of the Rural Area with its mix of 1992-the same proportion that was being farmed forests,farms,high-quality natural environment....Commercial and non- in 1977. commercial farming...shall be encouraged to continue and to expand as There are over 66,000 acres of farmland in the ossibIs."(CPPFW-9. See also LU 22-23) Agricultural Production Districts(APDs),in other agricultural-zoned land,and in active farms in Indicator40 monitors how well we are maintaining our agricultural resource the rural areas.Most,but not all,preserved agri- land,in the same way that Indicator 39 monitors forest land. Fig.40.3looks cultural land in King County is currently farmed. at whether there has been any significant change in the total amount of Fig.40.3 agricultural land. Note that the minor changes in acreage are due to measurement differences ratherthan genuine change in the amount offarmland Acres of Farm Land in Various Categories MONK As with forest land,it is the quality of the land use that is at stake as well as the Agiculturad production quantity. When farmland is subdivided, or farms shrink in size from other District(A,pD) 41000 41,210 40,560 causes, it becomes difficult to sustain agriculture on them, and they are Agricultural Zoned land 647 740 vulnerable to development fornon-agricultural purposes. outside of PPDs Acres Famed in Rural 9,200 fUng County's Agriculture Program aims to support sustainable farming,as Arty(outscle APM or 8,675 25,352 well as to preserve and protect our remaining agricultural land. lother Aq.Zones Key Trends Totall Farm Land 5111,200 SM532 I 6&&M • The number of acres in farms in King County has not changed appreciably since 1997.Although farms and farm acreage were higher during the 1980s, the current amountof farmed land is only slightly lowerthanin1977. `r Fig.40.1 Z Acres of Land in Farms in King County: 1977-2002 • Farms in King County are relatively small.About 80,000 40%of them are under 10 acres,while another 60,000 46%are between 10 and 50 acres. Fig.40.4 40,000 600 Distribution of Farms by Size(1997) 20,000 -Acres of Land in Farms 500 N —�--� € 400 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 Fig.40.2 a aoo Total Number and Average Size of Farms in King County 'E 200 = 100 Acres in Farms 43,116 59,813 54,172 42,290 41,653 41,769 0 Number of 0-9 to- 50- 180. Soo- 1000+ Farms 1,187 1,719 1,498 1,221 1,091 1,548 49 179 499 999 Average Farm Size of Farm in Acres Size,in Acres 36 35 36 35 38 27 What We Are Doing �.E t, , , • preserving farm land and the viability of farms by allowing the development of small-scale OWN W processing and storage that would facilitate There is a U S Dept.of Agriculture Census taken every 5 years One was completed in creation of farm cooperatives (e.g., shared 2002,but the methodology was changed from previous years. The higher number of farms with smaller average size is consistent with a King County survey completed in 2004. commercial kitchens). (continuted on page 16) 15 Metropolitan King CountyI Policies Benchmark Program Data Sources for Land Use Indicators Indicator 40"What We Are Doing"(continued) • Expanding the size and scale of farmers markets. Indicator 30: New Housing units in urban and Rural Areas and Urban Centers • Allowing farm machinery repair as an accessory use in Agriculture and Data Source: King County Jurisdictions, Buildable Rural Zones. Lands data collection for 1996 - 2000 and 2001 - • Preserving farmland by purchasing the right to develop it. About 13,000 2003. Puget Sound Regional Council. Indicator 31: Employment in Urban and acres are now permanently conserved for farmland. Rural Areas and Urban Centers. • Partnering with retailers, including Safeway, PCC, Larry's Markets, Data Source:Washington State Employment Security Haggen's/Top Foods,and Metropolitan Market,who support local agri- Department, reported by the Puget Sound Regional culture by buying and offering locally grown products to their customers. Council. • Through FarmLink,working to ensure that farms remain in agricultural Indicator 32: Redevelopment production and to facilitate the transition of farms to the next generation. Data Source: King County Jurisdictions. • Connecting retiring farmers to new farmers,and matching landowners Indicator 33: Ratio of Land Consumption to Population Growth with underutilized land with those interested in farming. Data Source: King County Buildable Land Report, • working with farmers to help make agriculture both viable and King County Jurisdictions, U.S Census 2000, the environmentallyfriendly. Washington State Office of Financial Management. Indicator 34: Trend in Achieved Density of Residentia Development Data Sources: King County Buildable Lands Report (2002), King County Jurisdictions, and the Suburban Cities Association. Indicator 35: Land Capacity as a Percent of Twenty-Year Household anclJob Targets Data Source: 2002 King County Buildable Lands Report, King County Jurisdictions and the Suburban Cities Association, Indicator 36: Land with Six Years of Infrastructure Capacity Data Source: No consistent data available. Puget Sound Regional Council is studying this issue, and Over 13,000 acres in King County are now permanently preserved as farmland. their reports are available at www.psrc.org/projects/ growth/concur/concurrency.htm The King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program is a Indicator 37: Acres of Urban Parks and Open I program of the Metropolitan King County Growth Management Planning Space Council. Reports on the 45 Benchmark Indicators are published annually by the King County Office of Budget. The annual reporting is accomplished Data Source: King County Jurisdictions,King County through five bi-monthly publications, of which the Land Use Report is the Parks and Recreation; National Park and Recreation first. It will be followed by reports on Economic, Housing, Transportation Association; the Washington State Office of Financial and Environmental Indicators. A companion to these reports is the Kin Management. i County Annual Growth Report. All reports are available on the Internet at Indicator 38: Ratio of Jobs to Housing in King http:// www metrokc gov/budget/. For information about the Benchmark and Surrounding Counties. Program, please contact Rose Curran, Program Manager (206) 205-0715, Data Source:Washington State Employment Security FAX (206) 296-3462; e-mail: rose.curran@metrokc.gov. The Benchmark Department; Puget Sound Regional Council; Program address is King County Office of Budget, Room 420, King County Washington State Office of Financial Management. Courthouse, Seattle, WA 98104. U.S. Census 1980, 1990 and 2000. King County Office of Budget: Steve Call, Director Indicator 39: Acres in Forest Land Chandler Felt, Demographer/ Growth Information Team Lead Data Sources: King County Department of Natural Rose Curran, Benchmark Program Coordinator, Lead Analyst Resources. Nanette M. Lowe, Growth Information Team, G.I.S. Analyst Indicator 40: Acres in Farmland, and Number Acknowledgments: Many thanks to the planning staff of the 40 King County and Average Size of Farms jurisdictions who supply city data for the Benchmark Program each year. Data Sources: U.S. Census of Agriculture, King j Special thanks for this issue to Michael Hubner, Suburban Cities; Kristen County Department of Natural Resources, Office of Koch, PSRC; Michael Jacobson, Eric K. Nelson, Todd Klinka, and Patrick Rural and Resources Programs Farm Survey(2004). Jankanish(KCGIS Center) KC Dept.of Natural Resources 8,Parks. King County Growth Management GMPC Members Planning Council Members Terri Briere, Councilmember,City of Renton Alternate Members Chair Mary-Alyce Burleigh, Mayor, City of Kirkland Marlene Ciraulo,Commissioner,KC Ron Sims, King County Executive Tim Clark,Councilmember, City of Kent Fire District#10;Don DeHan, Executive Committee Bob Edwards,Commissioner,Port of Seattle Councilmember,SeaTac;Jane Eric Faison, Councilmember,City of Federal Way Hague,Councilmember,King Richard Conlin, Councilmember, City of Seattle David Irons, Councilmember, King County; County; Bob Hensel, Grant Degginger,Councilmember,City of Greg Nickels, Mayor, City of Seattle Councilmember,Kenmore;Lucy Bellevue Julia Patterson,Councilmember,King County Krakowiak,Councilmember,Burien; Dow Constantine,Councilmember, King County Larry Phillips,Councilmember, King County Kathy Lambert, Councilmember, Jean Garber,Councilmember, City of Newcastle John Resha,Councilmember,City of Redmond King County; Phil Noble, Deputy Walt Canter,Commissioner,Cedar River Water Pete von Reichbauer,Councilmember, King County Mayor, Bellevue; Nancy Whitten, and Sewer District Peter Steinbrueck,Councilmember,Seattle Councilmember, Sammamish. 16 { i. i Irl / /11 r1i IN Housing Markets in King County Table of Contents Reflect Unusual Economic Conditions Page ' f Housing Markets in King County Reflect Unusual Conditions....1 In 2004 the median home price in King County was$293,000-a rise of The Rental Market and Table of H.U.D.Income Levels.................2 n Indicator 21:Supply and Demand for Rental Housing.................3 9.3%from 2003.1 Yet rents have fallen by over 4/o in the past two Indicator 22:Percent of Income Paid for Housing.......................4 years.This discrepancy in the two markets warrants some explaining. Indicator23:Homelessness...................................................................5 Indicator 24:Home Purchase Affordability Gap.............................6 Some aspects of housing affordability are fairly predictable from year Indicator 25:Homeownership Rates.................................................7 • to year. When employment falls in times of recession it is normal for Map:Rental HousingAffordability by City..........................................8 Map:Home Sale Affordability by City..................................................9 demand to fall and housing costs(both home prices and rents)to Indicator 26:Apartment vacancy Rate..................... .......10 ................ stabilize or decrease. Ordinarily,this results in a gradual slowing of Indicator 27:Trend of Housing Costs vs.Income........................10 new residential building starts,and a moderation of supply. When the Indicator28: Public Dollars Spent for Lowincome Housing...11 • Indicator29:HousingAffordability by City......................................13 economy Improves,demand increases again,and unless supply is Data Sources.......................................................... .....16 ................................. overabundant,housing costs will usually rise. Although unemployment caused considerable stagnation in The rental market has exhibited exactly this pattern over the past five the County's economy, incomes continued to inch up very • years. Rents increased only 1.5%from 2001 to 2002,after several slowly,and many moderate income households decided to years of increasing at about 5%or more per year. As the effects of buy a home while the interest rates remained favorable. Thus, f high unemployment in King County were felt,they fell 2%in both 2003 in a time of recession,we've had an energetic housing market, and 2004. The fortunate result is that over half of King County's cities and home prices have risen. now have sufficient rental housing for those making about 50%of median income. However,the supply of affordable housing for the The demand,fueled by low interest rates,has been met by a 65,000 renter households in King County who make 30%of median healthy supply of new housing coming onto the market-both { f income or below remains almost non-existent. Even those earning condominiums and townhomes,and detached-single family about 40%of median income(around$24,000 per year)will find it homes. These homes are being built as infill in older cities,as extremely difficult to find rental housing they can afford. well as on newly-platted lots on the fringe of growing cities. On the other hand,the sale market is behaving in somewhat unorthodox Following a trend found in many other areas of the U.S.,over ways. Because mortgage rates fell regularly from 1999-2003,home the last four years King County has been building close to one purchase was becoming more affordable.This year, however, the new housing unit per new person in the County-over40,000 affordability gapfor a median income family has grown once again. new units fora population increase of about 50,000 persons. 'Based on data for the first 10 months of 2004, Median price had risen to This is an almost unprecedented rate of housing growth,and $299,000 by the third quarter of 2004. one that some economists worry Cannot be sustained In the Important Note for Affordability In 2004 longterm. (continued on page 16) Median household income is a key factor in determining the What We Are Doing affordability of housing. The Benchmark program depends on the King County has had considerable success in creating and estimate of median family income provided by the U.S.Department preserving affordable units in 2003. Preserving units refers to • of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)during intercensal years. investing in the rehabilitation of building or dwelling unit with From that base median income,various income levels, by size of a guarantee of long-term affordability.The 1,750 units additional • household, are calculated. In 2001-2003 HUD may have over- affordable units created or preserved in 2003 are the result of • estimated the median family income for King County,not accounting both local funding and a variety of incentive programs that IN' adequately for the recession. In 2004 it has revised that estimate encourage developers to build affordable units. This compares downward. The table of HUD income levels and affordable housing costs on page two includes this downward revision. As a result favorably to the 1,400 units created or preserved in 2002. of applying this correction, housing that appeared affordable last For the coming year,King County and its cities have already year (because households were assumed to be earning more) pledged$11.6 million in local,state,and federal funds for 15 appears less affordable this year. This affects many of the regional housing projects. This funding will help to create, indicators in this bulletin. The current estimates of affordability are preserve or rehabilitate 784 affordable housing units in the considered more accurate than last year's estimates. coup (continued on page 10) Indicator Flags There has been a long-term trend in a positive direction, There has been a long-term ne ative trend,or the or most recent data shows a marked improvement O g most recent data show s a significant downturn © There has been little significant movement in this Indicator,or the trend has been mixed A There is insufficient reliable data for this Indicator Metropolitan King Countil CountywidelProgram Background Profile Percent of Renter vs. Owner Households by of the Rental Market 100% Income Group -1999 90% • The universe of renters and the universe of 80% Owners owners are distinct in their income 70% characteristics. Half of renter households earn 60% less than 67%of the median income for King 50% County. 40% 30Y• Renters • Because of this differential,anadequatesupply 20% of affordable rental housing is crucial to meet 10 0 the needs of the more than 106,000 rental 0% households that make less than 50%ofmedian 0%to 31%to 51%to 81%to 101%to 121% 30% 50% 80% 100% 120%` and income. above Percent of Median Income Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "Planning and monitoring for affordable housing should use the median household income for King County indexed by household size,published annually by the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development[H.U.D.]Calculations of affordable house prices should assume standard Federal Housing Administration lending criteria and minimum down payments."(AH-5) 11 114 HUD Income Levels and Housing Costs* For the affordable home price this table uses a 5%down payment on a 30 yr.mortgage at 5.5%interest. Actual interest rates averaged 6.25% in 2002, 5.5%for 2003,and is expected to average about the same for 2004. Income Percent of Median Average Three Four (2.4 Person) Annual Income $ 15,100 $ 17,3001 $ 18,1001 $ 19,4001 $ 21,600 Affordable Monthly $ 315 $ 360 $ 377 $ 404 $ 450 30% Hsg Payment Affordable Rent $ 378 $ 433 $ 453 $ 485 $ 540 Affordable Home $ 58,300 $ 66,800 $ 69,900 $ 74,900 $ 83,400 Price Annual Income $ 25,200 $ 28,800 $ 30,2001 $ 32,400 $ 36,000 Affordable Monthly $ 525 $ 600 $ 629 $ 675 $ 750 50% Hsg Payment Affordable Rent $ 630 $ 720 $ 755 $ 810 $ 900 Affordable Home $ 97,300 $ 111,200 $ 116,600 $ 125,100 $ 139,000 Price Annual Income $ 40,200 $ 46,000 $ 48,300 $ 51,800 $ 57,500 Affordable Monthly $ 838 $ 958 $ 1,006 $ 1,079 $ 1,198 80% Hsg Payment Affordable Rent $ 1,005 $ 1,150 $ 1,208 $ 1,295 $ 1,438 Affordable Home $ 155,300 $ 177,700 $ 186,600 $ 200,100 $ 222,100 Price Annual Income $ 50,300 $ 57,500 $ 60,400 $ 64,700 $ 71,900 Affordable Monthly $ 1,048 $ 1,198 $ 1,258 $ 1,348 $ 1,498 100% Hsg Payment Affordable Rent $ 1,258 $ 1,438 $ 1,510 $ 1,618 $ 1,798 Affordable Home $ 194,300 $ 222,100 $ 233,300 $ 249,900 $ 277,700 Price Annual Income $ 60,400 $ 69,000 $ 72,500 $ 77,600 $ 86,300 Affordable Monthly 120%O Hsg Payment $ 1,258 $ 1,438 $ 1,510 $ 1,617 $ 1,798 Affordable Rent $ 1,510 $ 1,725 $ 1,813 $ 1,940 $ 2,158 Affordable Home $ 233,300 $ 266,500 $ 280,000 $ 299,700 $ 333,300 Price "HUD revised its median family income for 2003-2004 downward to$71,900(from$77,900)This table uses that new median household income figure as the basis for calculating other household incomes by household size and percent of median income. "This table shows "true 80%"of median income figure for our region. Official H.U.D. income eligibility tables show an"80%"that reflects 80%of the national median income,but is closer to 70%of the King County area's median income. 2 Recomber2084 AffordableHousing Outcome: Provide Sufficient Affordable Housing for All King County Residents O Indicator 21: Supply and Demand for Affordable Rental Housing Countywide Planning Policy Rationale • An additional 20,700 renter households earn 30 "All jurisdictions shall plan for housing to meet the needs of all economic -40%of median income.Atthe top of this range, segments of the population." (AH 1)....Each jurisdiction shall participate in households can afford no more than$600 for developing Countywide housing resources and programs to assist the large rent. The average price for a one-bedroom unit number of low and moderate-income households who currently do not in King County was$739 in 2004. have affordable, appropriate housing. These Countywide efforts will help reverse current trends which concentrate low-income housing opportunities • There are approximately30,500affordable units in certain communities,and achieve a more equitable participation by local available to house the 85,000 households jurisdictions in low income housing development and services. Countywide earring under40%of median income. efforts should give priority to assisting households below 50% of median-income that are in greatest need and communities with • This creates a deficit of over 55,000 market-rate high proportions of low and moderate income residents (AH-2) rental units for the two lowest income groups. ....King County shall report annually on housing development, the rate of housing cost and price increases and available residential capacity • When households pay more than 30%of their Countywide." (AH-4) income torrent,resources are divertedfrom other Fig. 21A Supply and Demand for Rental Units necessities such as food,healthcare,and utilities. in King County: 2003 • The deficit in market-rate affordable housing is 13 Number of Market Rate Affordable Rental Units(Includes partially compensated for by 30,000 subsidized vacant as w ell as occupied)' 200,000 is Number of Rental Households in this income Group housing units in King County. However,when 165500 these are included,there are still at least25,000 150,000 _I 1e0, households with no access to affordable housing. Households of more than two persons, 100,000 85,700 93 7% who need larger units,are especially at risk. 8 50,000 1 41,200 ' Subsidized units are available through Section 8 30 rental vouchers,in public housing developments, - 4-- or through public/private projects which Under 40% 40-60% so%and above guarantee that a proportion of their units will be Percent of Median Income affordable at below-market rents. 'There are approximately30,000 subsidized rental units in King • Many of the subsidized units are available to County. Mostofthem are notincludedin this marketrateunitcount. those eaming up to80%of median income. But Key Trends there is a surplus of market-rate rental housing • There are only about 315 market-rate rental units in King County which are affordable to those earning 50%to 80%of median affordable to the 65,000 renter households earning 30%of median income income and above. or less. A household in this income group eams$18,100 or less,and can • Practices which subsidize rents affordable to afford $450 or less for rent. There are no affordable units for99.5%of this those above 50%of median income may limit the lowest income group. supply of subsidized housing for the lowest Fig' 21.2 incomegroups. Supply . D- ng: rr Percent of Number of Market Rate Number of Rental Cumulative Deficit Median Income Upper Income Affordable Rental Affordable Rental Units or Surplus of of HH Break Range In 2004' (Vacant as well as Households in this Su I to oecu ied Income Group pp y... Demand Under 30% $ 18,100 Under$450 315 65,000 (64,685) 30-40% $ 24,160 $450-$600 30,216 20,700 (55,169) 40-50% $ 30,200 $600-$750 107,959 20,500 32,290 50-60% $ 36,240 $750-$900 82,465 20,700 94,055 60%-80% $ 'a 300 $900-$1200 74,911 39,400 129,565 80%and above 3ver$1200 18,885 126,1001 22,350 .r - r r r 292,400 r 'This data is updated and estimated from the 2002 American Community Survey,Table 3"Selected Economic Characteristics,and the 2000 Census:DPT 4"Selected Housing Characteristics". The affordable rental range reflects different household sizes with different incomes and needing different unit sizes. Most units under$700 are studio or one bedroom units,not suitable for a household of more than 2 persons. These numbers include single family as well as multifamily rentals."The total number of vacant units is 22,350,equivalent to excess of supply over demand."'In addition to the market rate units,there are approximately 30,000 subsidized units available to qualifying low income households. 3 Metromolitan King CoUntV CoUntIlWide Planning Policies Benchmark Program Outcome: Provide Sufficient Affordable Housing for all King County Residents O Indicator 22: Percent of Income Paid for Housing Countywide Planning Policy Rationale Fig. 22.1 Percent of Households Paying More than "All jurisidictions shall provide for a diversity of 30% of Income for Housing Costs housing types to meet a variety of needs and 50% provide housing opportunities for all economic 46% segments of the population. All jurisdictions 45% shall cooperatively establish a process to 40% 3g°�°40 38% ensure an equitable and rational distribution of 35% 32% 33 low-income and affordable housing throughout the County..." (FW 28). "The Growth 30% 270 270 Management Planning Council...shall evaluate 25% achievement of Countywide and local goals for 20%- 180 housing for all economic segments of the population. [It] shall consider annual reports 15% prepared under policy AH-5 as well as market to%- conditions and other factors affecting housing 5% development. If the Growth Management Planning Council... determines that housing 0% + planned for any economic segment falls short Owners Renters Both Owners and of need for such housing, the Growth ■1989 ❑1999 ■2002 Renters Management Planning Council...may recommend additional actions." (AH-6) 1989 and 1999 data is from the decennial census of 1990 and 2000, The 2002 data is from the American Communities Survey(ACS)conducted by the Census Key Trends Bureau. Because the ACS is a sample survey it is considered somewhat less reliable than the census data. There are no new data available for2003. An update will be available in 2005 based on the 2004American by job losses or the transition to a lower-paying job during the 2001-2003 Community Survey. recession. • Among all households, the proportion paying • Thefactthat46%of rental householdsare having difficultywith housing morethan 30%of their income for housing costs costs suggests that even in a relatively affordable rental market, low has risen from 27%to 38%since 1989. This income households are at a disadvantage. There is clearly not enough means that nearly two out of five King County housing - market-rate or subsidized -that is affordable to the lowest households pay more for housing than they can income groups. comfortably afford. ' According to the 2000 Census,the lower a household's income is,the • When households pay more than 30%of their more likely it is to pay a high percentage of its income for housing costs. income for housing,resources areoften diverted About 74%of renter households in the two lowest income categories from other essentials such as food,healthcare, (those earning less than half of the County median income)paid more than clothing,and utilities. they could afford for housing. • This is particularly critical for low-income • Without the maintenance and expansion of subsidized housing,tens of households most of whose income goes for basic thousands of households will pay more than they should for housing. necessities. These households are also at a Owner Households greater risk of homelessness. • The rise in the proportion of households paying more than 30%was Renter Households sharpest for owner households-especially between 1989 and 1999. • Renter households,whose average income is • In 2002,32%of owner households paid more than they could afford for lower than owner households,are more likely to housing,while in 1989,only 18%paid more than their means. In 1999, have to pay more than they can afford for housing. 27%overpaid for housing. • In 2002,46%of renter households were paying • 62%of ownerhouseholds in the two lowestincome categoriespaid more more than 30%of their income for housing. This than 30%of their income for housing in 1999. was a sharp increase from 39% in 1989 and • While the rise in owner costs is cause for concern, it is less likely to 40%in 1999. compromise those households'essential needs. Since owner incomes • This increase in households paying more than are typically over 80%of median income,the extra proportion spent on they can afford is somewhat surprising since housing usually leaves adequate resources forfood,clothing,and other vacancy rates were up and rents were necessities. stabilizing in 2002. Low and moderate income • However, high housing costs may significantly reduce a household's households may have been particularly hard hit abilityto save forfuture needs,such as college tuition,or retirement. 4 Decomber2084 AffordableHousing Outcome: Provide Sufficient Affordable Housing for all King County Resident O ( Indicator 23: Homelessness include individuals who are working full-time at Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "Countywide programs should provide the following types of housing $7.50 to$8.00 per hour. They can afford less and related services: 1) Low income housing development, including than$400 per month in rent. new construction,acquisition,and rehabilitation; 2)Housing assistance, • In 2002, 13.2%of all King County households such as rental vouchers and supportive services; 3) Assistance to expand the capacity of nonprofit organizations to develop housing provide earned less than 30%of median income. Only housing related services; 4) Programs to assist homeless individuals 0.3%of housing units were affordable to that and families: 5) Programs to prevent homelessness,and 6) Assistance incomegroul to low and moderate-income buyers. (AH-2A) • Poor economic conditions over the past several Fig.23,1 years have contributed to unemployment and Estimated Number and Percent of Persons who are Homeless increased the risk of homelessness. More single men in the 34-65 age range,who have some job 2000 2002 2003 2004*" skills,have appeared in shelters,compared to Street Count 1085 2,040 1,899 2,216 the numbers of younger men with fewerjob skills. Shelterrrransitional Sub-Regional Concerns Inventory 4500 4,675 4,617 na • Although 85% of emergency shelter and Est.Uncounted` 915 1,265 1,500 na transitional housing are located in Seattle,only 52%of those using them reported Seattle as Total Homeless Est 6,500 7,980 8,016 na their last permanent address. 26%reported a Percent of Population 0.37% 0.45% 1 0.45% 1 last address in King County outside of Seattle. *This includes an estimate of those missed in the street count, and those living Others come from outside the County. outside of shelters in the balance of the County where no street count is taken. • There are no emergency shelters on the Eastside **The countfor2004 included new areas in White Center,andparts of the Eastside. for single, homeless women who are not the • Key Trends victims of domestic violence. Thereisjustone • The street count of homeless persons showed an increase of 12%from 2003 nine-bed shelter for women in South Icing County. to 2004,when only areas counted in both 2003 and 2004 were compared. What We Are Doing Additional persons were counted in areas in White Center and parts of the Eastside. These areas were not previously included in the count. for the Homeless • The total population of homeless persons for 2003 was estimated at over • Providing$1 million annually in operating support 8,000 on a typical night. This amounts to 0.45%of the population of King for transitional housing programs,and for rental County,or about one person out of every 220 residents. assistance to homeless families with children, • Factors underlying homelessness include domestic violence,poverty,the high using state grant funds. From mid-2003 through cost of housing,disabilities,family crises,and discharge from institutions with mid-2004,these funds housed 483 families for no housing plan in place. up to 12 months. • 26% of individuals in emergency shelter and transitional housing were • Supplying$350,000 in federal and countyfunds employed.The greatest deficit in affordable housing is for those earning less for emergency and rental assistance,housing than 30%of median income(under$15,000 for a single person). Thiswould counseling,and other services for people at Fig.23.2 risk of becoming homeless. Housing Related Requests on the Community Information Line: 1996-2004 • Providing emergency shelter in King County ■Callers Identified as Homeless outside of Seattle, serving 1,464 homeless 14,000 ■Calls for Emergency Shelter' households in 2004. 12,000 Calls for Housing • Allocating$1,584,000 in Regional Affordable 10,000 Housing Operations and Maintenance(RAHP) 8,000 funds—a new funding source—to transitional housing and emergency shelter programs 6,000 throughout King County including Seattle. These 4,000 allocations are for the period from July 2004 2,000 through December 2006. lia • Spending over$3 million annually for permanent 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 supportive housing for 550 homeless persons '728 of the callers seeking shelter in 2004 specdicallyrequested domestic violence shelter. with disabilities. 5 metropolitan King Couniv Coonliviiiiihile Planning Policies Benchmark Program Outcome: Increase Affordable Home Ownership Opportunities O Indicator 24: Home purchase affordability gap for a) buyers with 80% of median household income (typical first-time buyers); and b) buyers with median income Countywide Planning Policy Rationale Key Trends "Within the Urban Growth Area, each jurisdiction shall demonstrate its ability • The median price of a home in King County to accommodate sufficient affordable housing for all economic segments of was$293,000 for the first 10 months of 2004. the population. Local actions may include zoning land for development of This median includes condominiums, sufficient densities,revising development standards and permitting procedures as needed to encourage affordable housing, reviewing codes for townhomes,and detached single-family homes. redundancies and inconsistencies, and providing opportunities for a range of • The 2004 median price of a home represents housing types,such as accessory dwelling units,manufactured homes,group an increase of about 9.3% over 2004, the homes and foster care facilities,apartments,townhouses and attached single family housing." (AH-1) largest increase since 1998. • The median price rose sharply in the second Fig. 24.1 Affordability Gap for Median Income and First-Time Buyer quarter of 2004,and settled atabout$299,000 Households: Census Series in the third quarter. ■Median Home Value ' Low interest rates,along with modest signs of $300,000 $273,300 a recovering economy,continue to fuel the very ❑Median-Income HH's active housing market in King County. $250,000 Affordable Home Price $236,900 • Fig. 24.2 reflects new estimates of the ■First-Time Buyer's $206,600 affordable home prices for 2002-2004,based $200,000 - Affordable Home Price on the downward revision of income estimates > $140100 $171,000 165,300 for those years(see box on page one). , m $150,000 1 136,8 • The affordability gap once again appears E G considerable for both median-income _ $100,000 $90,500 871,700 72,40 households and typical first-time buyers. 1D0 Gap for Median Income Households $50,000 $25,500 35,30 • A median-income household in King County $2 ,7 40 could afford a home costing about$246,200 in $ 1970 1980 2000 2002 2004,assuming a down payment of 10%. 1990 -11 • With the median home price at$293,000,there The series above (Fig. 24.1) is based on the home values reported by was a gap of nearly$46,800,or about 16%of In for each decennial census. It differs somewhat from the median price of all closed home sales reported by the Northwest Multiple Listing Service the median home price of a home. and used in Fig.24.2 below. For 2002,the home value reported is based on the • This compares to a gap of$26,600 in 2003,or American Communities Survey conducted by the Census Bureau. about 10%of the median price of a home.This Fig.24.2 made 2003 the best year for buying a home in Affordability Gap for Median Income and First-Time the past decade. Buyer Households: Recent Year Series In 1990 the gap was$44,600,or approximately E350'000 ■Median Home Price o 32/o of the median home price. Not since 1970 ❑Median-Income Household's Affordable Home Price(10%down) has the median-income household been able $300,000 ■First Time Buyer's Affordable Home Price(5%down) $2 ,000 to easily afford the median-priced home. d $256,000$�8�0 1998wasalsoa good year forbu In ahome. EL r150'000 $233,000 $244,000 • 9 Y buying ar $220,000 The gap was$27,600,or about 13.5%of the o E200,000$ 03,000 1 6 60D median home price. Interest rates had fallen, $ 65, 82 wages were up,and prices had not yet caught t$ 65, $150 OOa 2 90 1 1 6,80 47' up. The gap rose again to 19.5%in 1999. Gap for First-Time Buyer Household $100.000 • In 2004,a first-time buyer could afford about $186,600 for a home. This is$106,400 less $50,000 than the median-priced home. In 2004,only about 15%of homes sold for$187,000 or less. i • A typical first-time buyer earns about 80%of 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 median income. Adown payment of just 5%is 6 (continued on page 7) Revowbor2084 Affordable Indicator 24(continued) an index of 96(100=$356,000,the average for assumed for first-time buyers,since they have no existing equity in a home. all300 markets surveyed). • This is the highest gap in dollar amount for the last decade. However,at36% • Last year Seattle's index number was 102, of the median price, the gap is a lower than the average for the decade. placing itjust above the average for all markets. • In both 1980 and 1990,the median-priced home was valued at nearly twice • A home in Seattle would cost more than inmost what the first-time buyer could afford. southern or midwestern locations. However,• Overall,home purchase affordability has declined somewhat in 2004,but incomes in this region are also proportionately homes remain more affordable than in the early 1990s. higher. Median household income in King County For Comparison is about 140%of the national median income. • According to Coldwell-Banker's home price comparison index for 2004,a • A home in Bellevue(Index 139 in 2004,Index 144 four-bedroom,2112 bath home in Seattle would cost about the same as in St. in 2003),while cheaper than one in most of the Paul,MN, Sacramento,CA,Annapolis,MD,orAnn Arbor,MI,but much less Bay Area, Southern California, Hawaii, or than in nearly all the communities in the BayArea,Southem Califormia,Hawaii, Chicago,would cost about the same as a home greater Boston, Chicago,Fairfax County,VA, New York City, New Jersey, or in Philadelphia, Fairfax County,VA,Miami,FL, Vancouver,B.C. Bethesda,MD,or Framingham, MA. It would • Based on an average four bedroom home price of$341,333,Seattle received cost more than most other parts of the country. IF Outcome: Increase Affordable Home Ownership Opportunities O Indicator 25: Home Ownership Rate Countywide Planning Policy Rationale Key Trends "Countywide programs should provide...low-income housing development, • Based on recent permit activity,and on home- including new construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation; [and]...assistance to low and moderate income home buyers. (AH-2A) buying Vends,it is estimated that KingCounty's home ownership rate has risen above 61%for Fig.25.1 the first time since 1980. It could be as high as Home Ownership Rate 62%.The 2003 American Community Survey, based on sample data collected by the Census Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 20 Bureau,estimates the home ownership rate at 04* 61.9%. King County(overall) 63% 62% 59% 60% 61% • With continuing low interest rates,and modest signs of a recovery from the recession, more Seattle/Bellevue 1 Everett Metropolitan Area` 65% 64% 65% 63% 64% King County households have taken the opportunity to buy a home,many of them for the Washington State 67% 67% 62% 65% 67% firsttime. • In addition to low interest rates,the availability of United States 63% 64% 64% 67% 68% lower-priced condominiums and townhomes in the housing market may have provided (CPS) data for the Metro area, state and U.S. is from the Current Population Survey opportunities for first-time buyersthatwere not (CPS) and Annual Housing Survery (AHS), conducted by the Census Bureau. Because they are sample surveys,they are somewhat less reliable than the decennial present in earlier years. Purchasing these homes census figures. The estimate for King County is based on recent permit data(through allows first-time owners to build equity towards 2004), home-buying trends, and the 2003 ACS (Census bureau) survey. other homes in the future. King County Growth Management GMPC Members Planning Council Members Tim Clark, Councilmember, City of Kent Alternate Members Chair Bob Edwards,Commissioner,Port of Seattle Marlene Ciraulo,Commissioner,KC Fire Ron Sims, King County Executive Eric Faison,Councilmember, City of Federal District#10; Don DeHan, Executive Committee Way Councilmember,SeaTac;Jane Hague, Richard Conlin,Councilmember,City of Seattle David Irons,Councilmember, King County; Councilmember,King County;Bob Grant Degginger, Councilmember,City of Bellevue Greg Nickels, Mayor, City of Seattle Hensel,Councilmember, Kenmore;Lucy Dow Constantine,Councilmember,King County Julia Patterson,Councilmember,King County Krakowiak,Councilmember,Burien;Jean Garber,Councilmember, City of Newcastle Larry Phillips,Councilmember, King CountyKathy Lambert,Councilmember,King Walt Canter,Commissioner,Cedar River Water John Resha, Councilmember, City of County; Phil Noble, Deputy Mayor, Redmondand Sewer District Bellevue; Nancy Whitten, Terri Briere,Councilmember,Ci of Renton Pete von Reichbauer,Councilmember,King ty CountyCouncilmember, Sammamish. Mary-Alyce Burleigh, Mayor,City of Kirkland Peter Steinbrueck,Councilmember,Seattle 7 BotheCC _ S4oreCine Fore#- ink Keenmore� � N �r4vat�` J W` nd- \_rkfa - a f rtn 2' 00 '�t - n a e 7fiCC JKe eattCe "I BeCCevue Sammamish �bter ,."J. 3 i `. f NewcastCe ,, �no�uairr�ie r / �ukwiO Anton s Be Bunew ` Nonnandy Sea2'ac Tar Dersgdo`�_ Kent J J - Mapk-V y i _..' t -- King County Legend Water Bodies \. FederaC2Na Rental Affordabili y z� BCack�iarinond tY `. ,Au(urn Less than 8% 8%-20% AC�dna -- - 39%-63% ffordahility of Rental Housing to Households 64%-99% Earning Under 50% of Median Income. 2004 DMap by Rose Cu , K :/G S/Rentalaffr04.mxd OMB 0 2 4 8 Miles I t I t I Enumcfau �` *. � •+.•;� `;a•. .}i•' r'�1� King Courtly �{ i ` Re fi nd. •, .. E on �� .. Carnation Se 704is r. fir o 4 e • �► � r"Ll�lo th Be ..` P \ . % f `w , ., • v .� „q`� •A� I N Norman Sea �.�, .. • �C�n :. County De T. ; •. , ` , • le-Valley Jr \ Legend j K 9 ' Bt 9*t nd ' '' :j � 2004 Home Sales by Price VVLI • •• ' . ! Sale Price i'� r '•_, $12,000-$195.000 $195,001-$245,000 • ••'.." $245,001-$293,000 $293,001-$360,000 Nome Sales by Price Range •- $500$500,001-$500.000 Water Bodies King County, 2004 Urban Growth Boundary 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Map by Rose Curran,King County OMB,10118104 I 1 I 1 i I I I I D:gisdahlnawmaps.mxd Metropolitan King Coumv Counlywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program Outcome: Provide Sufficient Affordable Housing for All King County Residents Indicator 26: Apartment Vacancy Rate Fig.26.2 Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "The distribution of housing affordable to low and Average Apartment moderate-income households shall take into County Subareas consideration the need for proximity to lower wage employment,access to transportation and human North South East Countyservices, and the adequacy of infrastructure to support housing development ...avoid over- 1994 4.5% 7.2% 4.0% 5.80/c concentration of assisted housing; and increase housing opportunities and choices for low and 1996 3.0% 4.9% 2.9% 4.0% moderate-income households in communities throughout King County. Each jurisdiction shall give 1998 3.0% 2.8% 2.5% 3.30/o equal consideration to local and and Countywide 2000 3.3% 3.1% 3.0% 3.6% housing needs." (AH-2)...All jurisdictions shall monitor residential development within their 2002 6.3% 8.0% 7.7% 7,70/0 jurisdictions....Housing prices and rents also should be reported...King County shall report annually on 2004 5.8% 7.9% 6.7% 7.2% housing development,the rate of housing cost and Key Trends price increases and available residential capacity y Countywide." (AH-5) • The current apartment vacancy rate in King County is 7.2%,down from 7.7%in 2002,and 7.5%in 2003. Fig.26.1 Relationship Between Change in • As the effects of the recession were felt in Seattle, the average Employment and Rental Vacancy vacancy rate rose very quickly from 4.7%in 2001 to 7.7%in 2002. It 10.0% Rates: King County 1994-2003 is still above the"normal market rate"of around 5%. • The relationship between the rental vacancy rate and the percent vacancy mate change in employment is shown graphically in Figure 26.1. There is a \ nearly-perfect inverse relationship between change in employment > 6.0% \\'1 and change in the vacancy rate.As employment increases,the vacancy rate drops; as employment begins to decline; the vacancy rate E 4.0% increases. & • An additional factor has contributed to the high vacancy rates of the w past few years. Because mortgage interest rates are low, many c 2.oY° Percent Chg in Jobs y middle-income renters have been able to afford to buy their first home. This has reduced the demand for rental housing,while increasing the tLi 6 6% -T - demand(and price)for home sales. win 4�h ^fie ��A ^�0^fie ry�o ryes �ry ry�� • Average rents are also inversely-related to vacancy rates.As vacancy increases,rents stabilize or decrease. The average rent for all types Year of units in King County decreased from$855 in 2003 to$841 in 2004. 4.0%] The average rent for a 2 BR/1 BA unit dropped from$821 to$804. What We Are Doing(continued from page one) Efforts already underway in 2004 are: Among these will be 124 new units for the homeless and • Developing affordable housing at several locations in Urban Planned those at risk of homelessness. 65%of the units will serve Developments including 50 units in the Issaquah Highlands UPD and 32 households below 50%of median income. units at Redmond Ridge UPD as part of inclusionary zoning requirements. The largest 2005 projects will include: • Initiating new cottage housing projects in Kirkland and Redmond. • the construction of 174 units in south Seattle by Opening The Gilmore,located at3b and Pine in Seattle,which provides SouthEast Effective Development(SEED); 65 affordable housing units on land formerly owned by King County • the rehabilitation of 118 units in Redmond by the and set aside for affordable housing development by the Housing Downtown Action to Save Housing(DASH); Resource Group. • Opening 50 units of affordable senior housing units at Greenbrier • the rehabilitation of a 150-unit complex in Kent, by Heights,a project located on surplus County land and supported by Intercommunity Mercy Housing; the efforts of ARCH,King County and the City of Woodinville. • the rehabilitation of 84 studio units in downtown Seattle • Completing significant work on transit-oriented development projects for homeless individuals by Plymouth Housing Group; in Seattle,Kenmore,Woodinville,Redmond and King County,which • the construction of 111 units in White Center by King will incorporate affordable housing opportunities into these areas. County Housing Authority. (continued on page 16) 10 8000Mber2084 Outcome: Promote Affordable Home Ownership Opportunities (indicator 27: Trend of Housing Costs in Relation to Income O Fig.27.1 Rate of Increase in Income, Median Home Price, and Average Rent: 1990 -2004 Median Yearly Percent Median Home Yearly Percent 2 BR/1 BA Yearly Percent Year Household Increase In Median Price(Condo and Increase in Median Average Increase in 2 BR Income HH Income single Family) Home Price Rent /1 BA Rent 1990 36 200 140 000 537 199 $ , 50 3.8% $ 182,000 3.8% $ 655 2.9% 1998 $ 50 50,150 7.0% $ 203,000 11.5% $ 708 8.1% 1999 53 200 6.1% 220 000 2000* $ 53,200 0.00/0 $ 233,000 5.9% $ 784 5.4% 2001* $ 55,900 5.1% $ 244,000 4.7% $ 826 5.3•h 2002* $ 58,000 3.80/40 $ 256,000 4.9% 20G4 $ 60,400 2.0% $ 293,000 9.3% $ 804 -2.1% *Median household income figures for 2000-2003 are interpolations,based on the fact that H.U.D.overestimated household income in this regio during regi y on period. The 2004 median income is a revised H.U.D. o .D.estimate. Median home price is for condos, wnfwmes,and detached single family homes inKing Count Fig.27.2 Average Annual Increases in Income, Home • During the fourteen years since 1990, home Price, and Rent: 1990 -2004 prices rose at an annual rate of 5.4%,compared ■1990-97 ❑1997-04 ■1990-04 to income growth of just 3.7%annually. Even $0% though incomes have not kept pace with home 0 7'0% 7.0/o prices,the demand for homes has continued to 6.0% 1 5.4% rise because of strongly favorable mortgage 5.0% rates. 4 4.0% � 3'8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8° • This trend could be of concern. If higher interest 3.0% 2.9% 3.0% 2 9% rates significantly dampen demand for homes, 2.0% prices could fall. Recent buyers who need to 1 00/1 sell their homes in the short-term, or need to 0.0% refinance,may be faced with higher loans than they can comfortably pay off. Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual Increase in Income Increase in Home Increase in Rent Some moderate income buyers,lured by low interest conventional mortgages,orby adjustable Price Notes: The yearly percent increase(or average annual increase) is an annualized rate mortgages(ARMS), may also have bought rate based on the increase over the previous period. The median home price is more home than they can realistically afford. for both condos and detached single family homes in King County. Key Trends Rental Costs Home Ownership Costs • Rents,in the meantime,have been falling for the • Home prices took another sizeable leap ahead during 2004,rising over 9% past several years, as low interest rates from 2003. The median home price was$293,000 for all homes,including continued to make home ownership attractive to condominiums as well as detached and attached single family houses. middle-income renters. • Fig.27.2 shows that the increase in median income for King County has been • Rents have historically risen more slowly than very steady over the long term. From 1990 to 1997 incomes rose at an median income. More than half of all renter average annual rate of 3.75%,and from 1997-2004,at an average annual households earn under70%of median income. rate of about3.70%. During the fourteen years,the rate of growth in income They are often the most vulnerable to averaged about 3.72%per year. unemployment,and their incomes may rise more • Over the longterm,home prices rose almost the same as income during the slowly than middle and upper incomes. 1990-1997 period,while they have outstripped growth in income during the • It is likelythat both employment rates and interest most recent seven-year period(1997-2004). The increases in 1998,1999, rates will increase in the coming year,causing and 2004 were particularly large. rents to stabilize or rise once again. 11 MetroPolitan King County CoUnMille Planning Policies Benchmark Program Indicator 28 • Fig. 28.1 Fig. 28.2 Local Public r. Housing Housing Total Affordable ARCH New& New& Discrebonary Value of Preserved Preserved Repair Funding for New, Operating Units ADUe Units from Fee and ADU Loan npayment Other(see (CDBG 8 Subsidies Repaired Permitted Density and notes) (CDBG) (Local) Local) Preserved& Bonuses Ware Programs Housing Repair A one` $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 0 0 Auburn $ 104,990 $ $ 150,000 $ 254,990 $ 35,000 70 1 Beaux Arts' $ $ $ $ V23761 0 0 Bellevue $ 140,0D0 $ 267500 $ 418,480 $ 825,980 40 7 $92,500 $66,787 Black Diamond` $ $ $ $ - 0 0 Bothell $ 185,566r$ 17,500 $ 8,500 $ 194,066 1 2 Burien $ $ 59,142 $ 59,142 5 13 Carnation` $ $ $ 0 0 CI a Hill` $ $ $ 7,500 0 0 $5,000 Covin ton $ $ 55,466 $ 55,466 9 0 Des Moines $ $ 15,408 S 15,408 S 4 0 Duvall` $ $ - $ S - 0 0 Enumclaw $ $ 17.000 $ 17,000 1 S 5,000 1 0 Federal Way $ 207,254 $ - $ 102,000 $ 309,254 1 $ 58,200 30 1 1 Hunts Point* $ $ $ $ $ - 0 0 Issaquah $ 120,617 1$ 58,469 $ $ 179,086 $ 2 3 $ 6,949 $5,000 Kenmore' $ $ $ $ $ - 0 4 $5,000 Kent $ $ $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 119,777 140 0 Kirkland $ 315,036 $ 5,000 $ $ 320,036 $ 108,226 2 4 12 $60.000 520,000 Lake Forest Park $ $ $ 14,450. $ 14,450 $ 2 0 Maple Valle $ $ $ $ $ 0 0 Medina $ $ 7,500 $ $ 7,500 $ - 0 0 $10,000 Mercer Island $ 85,387 $ 16,966 $ $ 102,353 1 $ - 3 7 1 $17,500 Milton $ - $ - I$ $ $ - 0 0 Newcastle' $ $ 42.000 1$ $ 42,000 $ - 0 0 $12,500 Normand Pk $ - $ _ $ $ - $ _ 0 0 North Bend` $ - $ $ $ $ 0 0 Pack` $ $0 $ $ $0 0 0 Redmond $ 50,000 $ 40,000 $ $ 90000 $ 55,395 1 0 $34,603 560,000 Renton $ 15,000 $ $ 296,002 $ 311,002 $ 12,088 166 0 Sammamish $ $ $ $ $ 0 0 SeaTac $ 38,390 $ $ 78,760 $ 117,150 $ 41,950 56 4 Seattle $1,125 457 1$ 7,050,680 $1400,280 $ 9,576,417 $ 787,035 1 304 1 64 121 Shoreline $ 10.000 $ $ 161,484 $ 171,484 $ 12,000 1 11 1 3 4 S omish' $ $ $ $ $ 0 0 Sn ualmie' $ $ $ $ $ 30` Tukwila $ $ $ 58,000 $ 58,000 $ 16,000 21 0 Uninc.Kin C 'z $ 118,000 $ 2,311,000 $1,460,896 $ 3,889,896 $ 181,537 90 11 Woodinville' $ $ 45,000 $ $ 45,000 $ 0 0 Yarrow Point" $ - $ - $ 0 ,`Albcations are administered through the County and 8rreil Cities Fund of the King 'KCHA units rehabilitated County CDBG Consortium by King County Notes on Fig. 28.1 Notes on Fig. 28.2 'Seattle expended federal and local funds totalling$11,381,691 to 'Seattle permitted or completed 121 affordable units construct and preserve 452 affordable rental housing units. These with $2,687,033 of contributions through the dollars are not reflected in the total above. It also spent$3,205,554 commercial density bonus program; 274 affordable HOME dollars for affordable multifamily rental housing; $2,118,222 units using $1,290,040 of proceeds from of state and local funds for weatherization of multifamily rental Transferable Development Rights; and 333 housing for low-income households, $1,830,000 homebuyer affordable units provided through Multifamily Tax assistance funds for an estimated 46 households(low-income,first- Exemption Program incentives. time homebuyers), $350,000 local funds for Emergency Rent Assistance Program, $350,000 HOME funds for the Renter 2Bellevue allocated $66,787 to support Stabilization Program,$8,970,866($6,738,B06 CDBG;$534,459 ESG; homelessness prevention; Kent spent$20,000 of and $1,697,601 HOME funds)for emergency shelter and housing- CDBG funds for sprinkers for King County Housing based case management and other community services. Authority units. 2On behalf of the King County Consortium: $3,149,562 HOME funds 3Units in the Urban Planned Developments are in were spent for new units and $800,000 HOME funds for housing addition to the 519 units created or preserved by repair, $300,000 were used for the Housing Stabilization Project, the King County Consortium. and$212,000 for Emergency Shelter Grants. continued on following page 12 Alfordable Housing Outcome: Promote Equitable Distribution of Affordable Low-Income Housing in King Cou� Indicator 28: Public Dollars Spent for Low Income Housing Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "All jurisdictions shall share the responsibility for achieving a rational and equitable distribution of affordable housing to met the housing needs of low and moderate-income residents in King County.-The distribution shall... recognize each jurisdiction's past and current efforts to provide housing affordable to low and moderate-income households; avoid over-concentration of assisted housing;and increase housing opportunities and choices for low and moderate-income households....Each jurisdiction shall participate in developing Countywide housing resources and programs to assist the large number of low and moderate- income households who currently do not have affordable, appropriate housing. These Countywide efforts will help reverse current trends which concentrate low-income housing in certain communities,and achieve a more equitable participation by local jurisdictions in low income housing...Countywide efforts should give priority to assisting households below 50% of median income...[a GMPC commitleej...shall recommend...new Countywide funding sources for housing production and services; participation by local governments, including appropriate public and private financing, such that each jurisdiction contributes on a fair share basis...Each jurisdiction should apply strategies which it determines to be most appropriate to the local housing market. For example,units affordable to low and moderate income households may be developed through new construction, projects that assure long-term affordability or existing housing, or accessory housing units added to existing structures....Small,fully-built cities and towns that are not planned to grow substantially....may work cooperatively with other jurisdictions and/or subregional housing agencies to meet their housing targets." (AH-2)"Each jurisdiction shall evaluate its existing resources of subsidized and low-cost non-subsidized housing and identify housing that may be lost due to redevelopment,deteriorating housing conditions,or public policies or actions. Where feasible,each jurisidiction shall develop strategies to preserve exising low-income housing and provide relocation assistance to low income residents who may be displaced." (AH-3) "Success will require cooperation and support for affordable housing from the stale, federal and local governments, as well as the private sector." (AH-6) Fig. 28.3 Fig. 28.5 Local Dollars FundingNew/Preserved Low- units Units Created Created or or Preserved Income Housing: 1996 -2003 Preserved Through A Units with Public Incentive Permitted Repaired $24,991,309 Funds Programs $25,000,000 $21,839,360 Seattle 452 485 64 304 $ 1,073,042 $19,997,972 $20,000,000 $19,350,912 $17,781,426 Auburn 1 0 1 70 16,963 180 $15,000,000 KC/Small Cities 519 95 59 614 $10,000,000 Consortium $5,000,000 Urban Planned 82 Developments $- 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 Key Trends 'Comprehensive data for 2001 is not available • Nearly$20 million of local funds were expended for Fig. 28.4 low-income housing during 2003. This is up from$17.8 million in 2002. This includes$3 million allocated by the LocalDollars Allocated to Low Income Housing2003 Regional Affordable Housing Program,anew funding Operating source provided by document recording fees. Dollars to Subsidies Percent • Over 1,750 units were created or preserved for long- Fund Now/ Percent of Preserved (Emergencyl Total Dollars Pop of Total term affordability.This is well above the 1,400 new Units Transitions] Dollars units created or preserved in 2002. Seattle $ 9,s76,417 $ 787,035 $ 10,383,452 32% 48% • 972 were created with local funds,while another 662 units were added as the result of various incentive Auburn $ 254,990 $ 35,000 $ 289,990 2% programs,and a further 124 accessory dwelling units KC I Small Cities $ 7131,773 $ 864,526 $ 7,996,299 65% (ADUs) were added to the affordable housing Consortium inventory. Regional 51% 1% • Seattle contributed 48%of the local funding for low- Affordable $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 (all cities) income housing.Auburn's share was 1%. In addition Housing Program they contributed tothe RAHP funding.The King County Total Units $ 19,963,180 $ 1,688,561 $ 21,649,741 100% 100% Consortium contributed 51%,including RAHP funds. 13 Metropolitan King Carlow Counlywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program Outcome: Promote Equitable Distribution of Affordable Low-Income Housing in King Cou Indicator 29: Existing Housing Units Affordable to Low Income Households 6 Countywide Planning Policy Rationale IN "Each jurisdiction shall specify the range and amount of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households to be accommodated in its comprehensive plan [and]... shall plan for a number of housing units affordable to to households with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of the County median household income that is equal to 17%of its projected net household growth each jurisdiction shall plan for a number of housing units affordable to households with incomes below 50%of median income that is either 20 percent or 24 percent of its projected net household growth...(AH-2) "All jurisdictions shall...determine annually the total number of new and redeveloped units receiving permits and units constructed, housing types, developed densities and remaining capacity for residential growth. Housing prices and rents also should be reported,based on affordability to four income categores: zero to 50 percent of median income, 50 to 80 percent...80 to 120%...and above 120 percent"(AH- 5)) "[The GMPC]...shall review local performance in meeting low and moderate income housing needs. The basis...shall be a jurisdiction's participation in Countywide or subregional efforts to address existing housing needs and actual development of the target percentage of low and moderate-income housing units as adopted in its comprehensive plan. (AH-6) In the graphs below, the lines indicate the percent of households in that income group. The light blue part of the column should reach to the black line to meet the target for moderate-income housing. The dark blue part of the column should reach to the blue line to meet the target for low-income housing,and the plum-colored part of the column should reach to the plum-colored line to meet the demand for very low income housing. The percentage in each income group reflects the 2002 Census Bureau figures on household income distribution. Target for Units Affordable at under 80% of Median Income (3991o) — — — — — — — — ——— — Target for Units Affordable at under 50%of Median Income (23%) — — — — — — — — — — — — — Demand for Units Affordable Under 30% of Median Income(13%) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fig. 29.1 Percent of Housing that is Affordable to 60% Low and Moderate Income Households 50% SE iHORE EASTSIDE UNINC. K.C. 30% ' 20%00 — — — — 0% -- Q°`��Q°`��9� ° °aJ+ ``°,J °�G�a�J$Qa�g9QJ�0c���`� e`��`�`� ������� °a`a��°�Q�rt Jc,94 FG %e�° N Pct.Aff.at 30%of Median Inc. ■Pct.Aff.at 30-49%of Median Inc. ❑Pct.Aff.at 50-79%of Median Inc. 80% - 70% SOUTH RURAL CITIES 60% 11 50% 1 30% 20% - - - - - 10% 0% oc� t` oa rec oc c°� �aa �eO `"OA a�\ �tb Gn0° ticP qs° �s ��oc �Q�� `aa� Mgr �o PO Pad?`a� G°J`c �ftV 0 �Q`Ja�GQ9c�Q Qa �0� �a �J. Gamma Q�cJ�c�r0m Q�� ?° 5� yco NIP (continued on p. 15) 14 Recember2804 Affordable Indicator29(continued) Fig.29.3 Percent of Affordable Housing Fig.29.2 Countywide Percent of Households County Income Group 50% Tar ets o 50%-80%of Median hcome ■Below 50%of Median Inc 40% Definition 1990(used in 2002 Affordable in CPPs) Housing nts 30% Households Earning o Very Low Under 30%of Median 11.1% 13.2% No Stated 20/o Income Income Target 10% Low Income Households 30-49% 10.3% 9.6% No Stated o of Median Income Target 0/o Low Income All Households 2000 2002 2004 (including Earning Under 50%of 21.4% 22.8% 21 -24% Fig.29.4 Very Low) Median Income I I Percent of Affordable Housing Units by City Moderate Households Earning o 0 0 Income from 50-79%of 17.1 /0 16.5/0 17/o Pct.Aff.at Pct Aff.at Pert.Aff.at 50 Cumulative All Households Jurisdiction 30%of 30.49%of .79%of Low and Earning under 80%of 38.5% 39.3% 38-40% Median Inc. Median Mc. Median Inc. Moderate Median Income SEASHORE Key Trends Lake Forest Park 1 0.0% 12.5% 30.5% Seattle 0.1% 18.1% 32.7% • Forall of King County,just over 27%of housing is affordable to Shoreline 1 0.0% 19.5% 18.8% those earning 50-79%of median income(moderate income). EASTSIDE This compares positively to the 16.5%of all households who are Beaux Arts 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% in that income group. Bellevue 0.1% 13.5% 31.4% Bothell 0.2% 11.4/0 38.2/o • While there appears to be enough affordable housing for moderate Clyde Hill 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% income households,only 18.8%of units are affordable to those Hunts Point 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% earning below 50%of median income. 22.8%of all households Issaquah 0.0°% 1.1°0 48.1% Kenmore 1.0/0 15.9/0 16.6/o are in this income category. Kirkland 0.1% 11.6% 34.9% • Only 0.3%of units are affordable to very low income households. Medina 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 13.2%of the households are in the very low income group. It is Mercer Island 0.0% 1.0% 17.4% this group of over98,000(renter andowner)households that is Newcastle 0.0% 6.3% 20.8% in the greatest need for housing. Redmond 0.30% 7.3°% 43.4% Sammamish 0.1/0 1.6/0 8.8% • As Fig.29.1 shows,affordable housing is not equitably distributed Woodinville 0.0% 1 12.5% 24.9% throughout the County. Cities in South County,and two rural cities Yarrow Point 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% have disproportionately high amount of affordable housing,while SOUTH ° Algona 10.2/° 11.8% 47.0% most Eastside cities have very little. This creates long commutes Auburn 1.5% 46.5% 19.2% for many low-earning workers, and militates against equal Black Diamond 0.0% 8.7% 22.5% opportunity in public schooling. Burien 0.6% 41.1% 15.8% Housing for Moderate-income Households Covington 0.0% 0.2% 24.3% DesMoines 0.3% 16.9% 36.5% • Twenty out of King County's forty jurisdictions have sufficient Federal Way 1.2% 37.6% 24.0% affordable housing for moderate-income residents. Cities meeting Kent 0.3% 39.1% 25.4% the target include all three SeaShore cities,ten of the South County Maple Valley 0.0% 4.9% 10.3% cities,five Eastside cities,and two of the rural cities. At least Milton KCpart) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Normandy Park 0.0% 21.7% 4.4% 39%of all units in these cities are affordable to moderate income Pacific 0.0% 50.2% 19.0% households. Twenty jurisdictions do not meet the target. Renton 0.2% 33.7% 22.7% Housing for Low-income Households SeaTac 1.i)% 39.5% 22.9% • Thirteen out of fortyjurisdictions have enough affordable housing Tukwila 1.5% 52.5% 23.2% for those earning 30 - 49% of median income or less. The RURAL CITIES o Carnation 0.0% O.Ok 0.0% remaining 27jurisdictions do not have sufficient housing forthe Duvall 0.0% 2.6% 10.5% 170,000 County households earning under 50%of median income. Enumclaw 0.0% 36.6% 18.0% Housing for Very Low Income Households North Bend 0.0% 1.1% 44.7016 Skylkomish 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% No jurisdictions have sufficient affordable housing for those Snocualmie 0.0% 23.1% 11.6% . earning under 30%of median income. Algona,with 10.2%of its UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY housing affordable to this group,comes the closest. Uninc.King Cty 0.2% 9.9% 20.5% King County Total 0.3% 18.8% 27.3% 15 Metropolitan King Countill Countilwide Planning Policies Benchmark Program Housing Markets (continued from page 1) Data Sources The construction industry in the County saw only modest job Indicator 21:Supply and Demand for Rental Housing losses compared to other sectors during the recent recession, Data Sources: 2000 Census of Population and Housing. 2002 and has begun to gain jobs again. From 2000 -2003, homes American Community Survey(Conducted by Census Bureau)data for King County (Tables 1 —4) Other sources include: 1996 American continued to be built at a rate of over 10,000 per year. Housing Survey for Seattle-Bellevue-Everett PMSA (King and There are two reasons that this strong home-building and home- Snohomish Counties)for income characteristics of renter and owner buying market is likely to change in the next few years. First, if households;2003—2004 revised H.U.D.income data for low-income groups; and the 2003 King County Housing Affordability Study, interest rates go up, as they are likely to do in the next year, prepared by Dupre + Scott, Inc., updated in 2004. homes that were affordable lastyear,will no longer be affordable Information on subsidized housing was obtained from the Seattle to moderate-income buyers. Secondly,the demand for new Office of Housing and from the King County Housing and Community housing may have peaked,and with an abundant supply,prices Development Division (KC DCHS). Exact data on the number of subsidized units occupied by various low-income groups is not are likely to stabilize,and perhaps even drop. available. It is estimated that about 80% of subsidized housing is A drop in home prices may be a good corrective for housing occupied by households under 30% of median income. affordability. However,the worrisome feature of this housing Indicator 22: Percent of Income Paid for Housing market is that mid-income households may have"overpaid"for Data Sources:2000 Decennial Census and 2002 American Community housing in the last year or two. As long as they hold onto their Survey. Tables DP-3, Selected Economic Characteristics, and DP- 4, Selected Housing Characteristics. home,and can afford their payments,this is not a problem. It Indicator 24: Affordability Gap becomes a problem if 1)they have no choice but to move to a Data Sources:For median household income in King and Snohomish new home,and must sell in a softer marker,and buy again at a County, H.U.D. income levels by household size, also available at higher interestrate;or2)if they have an adjustable-rate mortgage httpifwwwhuduserora/datasets/odrdatashtml. For median prices of that becomes burdensome as it adjusts upward. The latter is single family homes and condos sold, the Northwest Multiple Listing Service,and The Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report, particularly an issue if ajob is lost in a household. published semi-annually. For the percent of homes for sale at various In the long-term,marketforces are likelyto keep home purchase affordability levels, the 2003 King County Housing Affordability prices rising in proportion to income,demand,and interest rates. Study,prepared by Dupre+Scott, Inc.using data from the Northwest Multiple Listing Service and MetroScan, and updated in 2004. For In the short-term,we may see some loss of equity in recently median values of homes in census years, the 1970, 1980, 1990 and purchased homes. 2000 Decennial Censuses. For conventional interest rates, the Summary of U.S Housing Market Conditions published by H.U.D. What We Are Doing (continued from page 10) and available at http://huduser.org For comparison of affordability across the U.S,the Coldwell Banker Home Price Comparison Index. • Under the direction ofARCH(ARegional Coalition forHousing), Indicator 26: Apartment Vacancy Rates Data Sources: Rental working to implement a new loan program for ADUs vacancy rates by sub-areas are based on a twice yearly survey of (Accessory Dwelling Unit) as well as a Downpayment apartment properties with more than 20 units, by Dupre+Scott, Inc. Assistance program forfirst time homebuyers. and published in The Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report, Vol. 55, 1 & 2.The vacancy rates have been averaged over • As a part of Kenmore's downtown plan,adopting provisions the two semi-annual survey periods. to require affordable housing in new development. Indicator 27: Trend in Housing Costs vs. Income • As a part of Seattle's 2004 Consolidated Plan process, Data Source: For median household income in King and Snohomish beginning work on designating Housing Investment Areas. County, H.U.D. income levels by household size, also available at • Proposing innovative housing initiatives for King County's httD7//www.huduser.oraidatasets/pdrdatas.htmI. (See table on page two). For average rents and median home prices, Central Puget Comprehensive Plan including five-story wood frame Sound Real Estate Research Report. construction and cottage housing. Indicator 28: Local Dollars Spent for Low-income Housing The King County Countywide Planning Policies Data Sources: Data on local dollars spent,and regulatory incentives is supplied by the King County and Small Cities Consortium, by the Benchmark Program is a program of the Metropolitan Seattle Office of Housing, by non-profit housing consortiums (ARCH King County Growth Management Planning Council. Reports and REACH), and by individual cities. It was compiled by King on the 45 Benchmark Indicators are published annually by County Housing and Community Development Division. Information the King County Office of Budget. Acompanion to these on units funded, ADU's created, number of units built through reports is the King County Annual Growth Report. All regulatory incentives, and units repaired was also supplied by these reports are available on the Internet at http:// sources. www.metrokc.gov/budget/. For information about the Indicator 29: Existing Housing Units Affordable to Low Income Benchmark Program, please contact Rose Curran, Households Program Manager(206)205-0715,or e-mail rose.curran @metrokc.gov.The Benchmark Program address is King Data Sources:For existing housing stock by structure type and tenure County Office of Budget,Room 406,King County Courthouse, type: 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Tables DP-3 and Seattle,WA98104. DP-4, updated with King County permit data for 2000—2002 2002 Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report for update of King County Office of Budget rental rates. For 2004 analysis of percentage of both rental and for- Steve Call,Director; sale units that are affordable at various income levels: Dupre + Chandler Felt,Demographer/Growth Information Team Lead; Scott, Inc., King County Housing Affordability Study (November, Rose Curran,Benchmark Program Coordinator,,Lead Analyst; 2003 and 2004 Update). Revised H.U.D. income eligibility limits Nanette M.Lowe,Growth Information Team,G.I.S.Analyst for median income by household size. 16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager KEN T WASHIN GTDN Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 June 13, 2005 To: Chair Tim Clark and Planning & Economic Development Committee Members From: Michael Hubner, AICP, Buildable Lands and Land Use Manager Through: Mayor Jim White Subject: Buildable Lands 2004 MOTION: None required. For information only. Overview of the Buildable Lands Program The Buildable Lands Program was established as a requirement of Washington's Growth Management Act by amendment in 1997 (see RCW 36.70A.215). Under this GMA requirement, the City of Kent, in coordination with King County and other cities in the county, is required to implement a review and evaluation program. The goals of this program include 1) determining whether "urban densities" are being achieved within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), 2) measuring the degree of consistency between comprehensive plans and actual development that has occurred since . their adoption, and 3) addressing any inconsistencies through follow-up measures to be adopted by local jurisdictions. The statute and state Buildable Lands Program Guidelines more specifically direct local governments to undertake a series of data collection and analysis tasks with the objective of determining the adequacy of the current supply of "lands suitable for development" to accommodate growth needs for the remainder of the current planning period. This exercise represents an update of work done in the mid-1990s by King County and its cities to estimate land capacity within the newly designated UGA. In contrast to the more "theoretical" capacity estimates in this earlier exercise, RCW 36.70A.215 requires that Buildable Lands analyses base assumptions about development density (dwelling units/acre, floor area ratio) on actual development patterns and trends. Capacity estimates for each city in King County, for each urban unincorporated area, and for the UGA as a whole are then evaluated against future growth needs, which are derived from the growth targets established in the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). If a jurisdiction has less capacity, for either housing or employment, than targets remaining to be accommodated during the remainder of the planning period, then it must adopt "reasonable measures"—which may include changes to comprehensive plans and development regulations—generally intended to increase densities and overall development potential in the future. The Buildable Lands Program is implemented as a coordinated effort by King County and its cities. Countywide coordination is administered by a Buildable Lands Program Manager at the Suburban Cities Association (SCA). The first 5-year report, the 2002 King County Buildable Lands Evaluation Report, was completed, as required by statute, in September 2002. Countywide, the evaluation found that sufficient capacity existed to accommodate growth targeted for the planning period ending in 2012. Since then, new growth targets were adopted by the county and cities, extending the planning period to 2022. With the new targets as the effective benchmark, local governments have been adopting reasonable measures, where needed, as well as continuing to collect annual data on development activity. The next Buildable Lands evaluation report is due in September 2007. Buildable Lands Findings for the City of Kent As of June 2005, Buildable Lands data for the City of Kent covers 9 years of planning under the Growth Management Act. The data include final data from the 2002 Evaluation Report on development activity during the 1996-2000 review period and land supply and capacity as of January 2001, as well as unpublished preliminary data on development activity for the years 2001-2004. The sections below highlight key findings of this research and analysis. Residential Building Permits Issued(1996-2004)— • Total of 5,061 new dwelling units over the 9-year period • 51% were single-family detached units and 49% multifamily or townhouse units, with multifamily representing a declining share of the total over time • 1,434 units permitted during 2001-2004, well on the way toward absorbing the 2001-2022 household growth target of 4,284 • 358 units permitted per year during 2001-2004, only half the rate of housing production (725 units per year) seen during first 5-year review period • Actual density of single-family development largely has been consistent with planned densities in each designation • Actual density of multifamily development is more variable with respect to planned or historically assumed densities in each designation • During 1996-2000, multifamily projects included a mix of building types, from mid-rise to garden density to townhouse units • Townhouses have been the predominant type of attached dwelling unit permitted in Kent since 2000 Single-family Subdivisions (1996-2004)— • 1,803 newly platted single-family lots during the 9-year period • An average of 188 lots recorded per year during 1996-2000; 215 lots per year during 2001- 2004 • Increasingly predominant share of the platted lots in SR-6 zone • Overall single-family net density in plats increased from 5.16 dus/ac during 1996-2000 to 6.45 dus/ac in the 2001-2004 period • Actual density of single-family platting largely has been consistent with planned densities in each designation Employment Change (1995-2003)— • Kent gained nearly 5,000 jobs in the late 1990s • Between 2000 and 2003 Kent lost about 1000 jobs, a decline with respect to the ultimate growth target for a net increase of 11,500 jobs during the 2001-2022 planning period • Nearly all of the net loss in jobs occurred in manufacturing and warehouse, transportation, and utilities sectors • Greatest net job increase was in the services sector P&EDC June 20,2005 Buildable Lands 2004 Page 2 of 4 Commercial and Industrial Building Permits Issued (1996-2004)— • During 9-year period, permits issued for total of 5.3 million square feet in industrial zones, 1.7 million square feet in commercial zones • Sharp decline after 1998 in floor area permitted per year, particularly industrial space • Kent zoning does not establish a point of comparison for non-residential building in terms of planned floor area ratio (FAR); permit data indicate FARs in most commercial and industrial zones in Kent compare well with FARs achieved in other jurisdictions • However, several designations, including CC, O, and mixed use zones have experienced significant auto-oriented single-story development, with low resulting FARs, despite allowing for more intensive uses and structures • No mixed-use projects have been built in any of the mixed-use zones • Relatively little development has occurred in the downtown (designated Urban Center) , particularly compared with the vision for and land use potential of this area • However, recent projects not reflected in the data, such as Kent Station, represent a significant shift in this trend Land Supply Inventory and Development Capacity A geographic information systems analysis in 2002 generated an inventory of vacant and redevelopable land updated to the year 2001. The acreage figures and the achieved densities were analyzed together in order to estimate the anticipated yield of the land supply—in terms of additional dwelling units and employees. Major findings include the following: • A total of 3,775 gross acres of vacant and redevelopable land, of which 1,147 acres is constrained by critical areas • After further deducting for future rights-of-way and public purposes and applying a discount to adjust for long-term market availability, the analysis showed a total of 732 acres of net buildable vacant land and 1,179 acres of net buildable redevelopable land • A relatively small amount of residential land remains for further multifamily development (51.6 acres) as opposed to single-family development (296 acres) • Three quarters of the single-family land supply is in the "redevelop able" category, comprised of parcels with existing houses that have significant potential to subdivide • The Gateway project represents a large share of the industrial land capacity • The Kent Station site constitutes approximately one third of all developable land in the designated Urban Center identified in the 2002 analysis; success of the Kent Station development may stimulate market demand to render more parcels downtown feasible for redevelopment • As of 2001, Kent had capacity for 6,814 new additional dwelling units. This compares with a 2001-2022 growth target of 4,284 households. With surplus capacity of 2,530 units no further action was required to comply with GMA. • As of 2001, Kent had capacity for 14,448 new additional jobs. The city's total jobs target for 2001-2022 is 11,500. With surplus capacity for 2,948 jobs, no action further was required to comply with GMA. • The Buildable Lands analysis took into account the state of land development and regulations in place January 2001. Since 2000, considerable remaining vacant and redevelopable acreage has been consumed for new development • Also since 2000, the City of Kent has taken a number of actions that have had an impact on the overall capacity for housing and jobs, to include, on the plus side, agricultural land rezones, PUD code changes, clustering provisions, and, on the minus side, critical areas ordinance and storm water requirements P&EDC June 20,2005 Buildable Lands 2004 Page 3 of 4 2007 Buildable Lands Evaluation Report The next major update of the Buildable Lands Report will be completed by September 2007. This document will detail development trends 2001-2005, land supply and capacity as of January 2006, an evaluation of the county and cities' ability to accommodate remaining 2022 growth targets, and effectiveness of reasonable measures adopted in response to the 2002 evaluation. SCA staff will be available to brief the Kent City Council with the findings of that work prior to publication of the final report. MH/pm S:IPermitlPlanlPlanningCommittee120051StaffReportslBldable Lands_Memo_062005_PEDC_Mtg.doc cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Kurt Hanson,AICP,Acting Planning Manager Michael Hubner,AICP,Buildable Lands and Land Use Manager Project File"Buildable Lands Program 2004" P&EDC June 20,2005 Buildable Lands 2004 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL * SU18JECT: Planning and Econ. Dev. Agenda Pkts Sent on 6/14/05 . TQ= Brenda Jacober, City Clerk FROM: Pamela Mottram SIGNATURE: ;Vameka, . U40zan Copies of the 6120105 PLANNING & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE Agenda Packets were distributed as follows: iil, City Council Members- aLc', :'u' ull Packet*(7) Deliver to City Clerk's Office—(7) Hard Pam Mottram Tim C, JulieP, BruceW, RonH, LesT,Deborah R,Deb bieRaplee Copies) in Cncl Mmbers Mail Boxes TomB, RobertN, FredS, CharleneA, KimM, Gloria GouldWessen, Email Note: Distribute Hard Copies to: Pam Mottram BrendaJacober, Bill Osborne, KimP, ReneeC Full Packet—(10) FS/CA/KP/RC/BJ >+(5)—Ind copies) Web Page —Mary Simmons Agenda &Full Packet Email: Front Page Mary Simmons King County Journal Place in Box @-City Clerks- Full Packet FAX„ Pam Mottram Kent Reporter- Agenda FAX:MJetti I G i - 9 4a7-6Q26 Pam Mottram Marcelle Pechler,, Chamber of Commerce Full Packet Email: MpechlerC kentchamber.com Pam Mottram Garrett Huffman, SKCtylvtgr 425451-7920Ext236 Full Packet Email: ghuffman(&mbaks.com Pam Mottram Master Blders Assoc, 335 1161h Ave SE, Bellevue,WA 98004 Don Shalfer,Kent CARES,2070 North 78 St,Seattle,WA 98103 Ful Packet US Mail (1) William T. Miller, 827 W.Valley Hwy#95, Kent 98032 Agenda US Mail (KBAB) Pam Mottram Michael D. Manderville, 11415 SE 196 , Renton 98055 Agenda US Mail (KBAB) Pam Mottram Ryan Zulauf, 24502 98 Ave. S., Kent 98030 Agenda US Mail Pam Mottram Jennifer Gorman/Warren Perkins Agenda Email: warren.perkins@gwest.com Pam Mottram Qwest Communications, 23315 661h Ave S, Kent WA 98032 JStorment„EdCrawford,LBlanchard, GGill, MGillespie, JHodgson, Email: Pam Mottram BLopez,RGivens,KSenecaut, KSprotbery, MayorWhite, MMartin, BColeman, BHutchinson, NTorgelson,TWhite,JSchneider, AGENDAS (37) MHubner, SMullen, LFlemm, BBilodeau, CHolden,JMorrow, CBarry, SHeiserman, MGilbert, CHankins, KHanson, DHooper,J- Immacolato, LMoorehead, • LUPB Members: Jon Johnson, Kenneth Wendling, Steve Dowell, Email David Malik, Elizabeth Watson,Theresa Ferguson AGENDAS (7) Seattle Post Intelligencer(P.I.) Agenda Email:citvdesk ,seattlepi.com Pam Mottram Kelly Snyder, Roth Hill Engineering Agenda Email: ksnyder(&rothhill.com Pam Mottram Pam Cobley, Roth Hill Engineering Agenda Email: pcobley@rothhill.com Pam Mottram 14450 NE 29" PI, Suite 101, Bellevue,WA 98007 Shaunta Hyde,The Boeing Co., 206-655-3640 Agenda Email: shaunta.r.hyde(&boeing.com Pam Mottram Local Gvmt Relations Mgr. POB 3707 MC 14-49, Sea,WA 98124 Ted Nixon, Campbell/Nixon Assoc. Agenda Email: ten@cn-architects.com Pam Mottram 10024 SE 2401h, Suite 102, Kent 98031 Doug Corbin, Puget Sound Energy, Agenda Email.:douglas.corbin(oiipse.com Pam Mottram 3130 S 38`h St.,TAC-ANX,Tacoma,WA 98409 PH:1-800-32141231395-6867 Lobby of City Hall Agenda POST Pam Mottram Kent.Downtown Partnership PO Box 557,Kent WA98035.Agenda Email: kdp(aDkentdowntown.org Pam Mottram (Jacquie Alexander) Ph:253-813-6976 David Hoffman, 25334 W Ave S, Kent, 98032-4223 Agenda Email: David.W.Hoffman cDBoeing.com Pam Mottram (KBAB) Hm: 253-852-4683 Wk: 253-773-2861 Melvin L. Roberts, 9421 S.241s St., Kent 98031 Agenda Email: Melvin.L.Roberts(cDBoeing.com Pam Mottram (KBAB) Hm: 253-854-0952 Wk:425-865-3695 Jacob W. Grob, 5408 S.236 St., Kent 98032-3389 Agenda Email: Jacob.W.Grob(cDBoeing.com Pam Mottram (KBAB) Hm:253-813-3809 Wk:425-234-2664 Steven M. Nuss,26220 42'0 Ave. S, Kent, 98032 Agenda Email: Steve Nussa Red DOtCorp.Com Pam Mottram • (KBAB) Hm:253-854-7561 Thomas Hale,23327 115 PI SE, Kent 98031-3426 Agenda Email: sthale2 comcast.net Pam Mottram (KBAB) Hm:253-854-0734 Aaron Renner, (KBAB) Kent,WA 98032 Agenda Email: aaron rennerayahoo.com Pam Mottram 13 Full Packets+2 for Mtg (7 Orig Ltrhd Agda Cvrs for CC)4 Hd copy Agdas (Revised 4113/05) SAPermitTlanTlanning Committee120051DistributionlPC.dislribution062005.doc y . Mottram, Pamela From: Mottram, Pamela nt: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:06 PM Warren Perkins, Qwest Communications; Corbin, Doug; Puget Sound Energy; Dana Ralph (Thera Iphs4@msn.com); David Malik (dpmalik@hotmail.com); Elizabeth Watson; Garrett Huffman, SKC Mgr; Jon Johnson Qonkjohnson@attbi.com); Kenneth Wendling; Kent Downtown Partnership (Jacquie Alexander); Pam Cobley, Roth Hill Engineering; Renner, Aaron T. , KBAB; Seattle Post Intelligencer(P.I.); Snyder, Kelly Roth Hill Engr; Steve Dowell (dowell 1 6@msn.com); Ted Nixon (ten @cn-architects.com); White, Tammy; Adams Pratt, Kim; Asst City Attorney;Anderson, Charlene; Planning Manager; Barry, Cathy, Admin Sec., Planning Services; Bilodeau, Bernie Admin Secretary, Planning; Brubaker, Tom, City Attorney; Cameron, Renee; Civil Legal Assistant; City Council; Coleman, Bonnie; Crawford, Ed; Flemm, Lori; Gilbert, Matt, Planning Services; Gill, Gary; Gillespie, Mike, Development Mgr, PW; Givens, Rosalie; Gould-Wessen, Gloria; Grob, Jacob W. KBAB; Hale, Thomas KBAB; Hankins, Chris, Planning Services; Hanson, Kurt, Planning Services; Heiserman, Steve Prod. Assist, Multimedia; Hodgson, John; Hoffman, David KBAB; Holden, Chris, Admin Secretary, Planning Services; Hooper, Damien, Planning Services; Hubner, Mike; Hutchinson, Robert; Immacolato, Jocelyn; Jacober, Brenda; City Clerk; Larry Blanchard, PW Director; Lopez, Barbara; Marousek, Kim; Principal Planner; Martin, Mike; Mary Simmons, City Clerk's Office; Michael Hubner, Suburban Cities Consultant, Planning Services; Moorehead, Lydia; Morrow, Judy, Admin Sec., Planning Services; Mullen, Steve Transp Engr Mgr; Nachlinger, Robert; Nuss, Steven M KBAB; Osborne, William; Planner; Pechler, Marcelle - Kent Chamber of Commerce; Peterson, Kelly; Roberts, Melvin L KBAB; Satterstrom, Fred; CD Director; Schneider, Jim; Senecaut, Kathleen; Shaunta Hyde, the Boeing Co.; Sprotbery, Kevin; Storment, Jim; Torgelson, Nathan; White, Jim Subject: Agenda Packets for the upcoming PEDC Meeting - Scheduled 6/20/05 Importance: High 0 All Concerned, Please find attached the AGENDA PACKET for the upcoming Planning & Economic Development Committee Meeting scheduled for Monday, June 20, 2005. gn PEDC_Packet_062 OO5.pdf(4 MB) If you should have any questions or need further assistance, please contact myself or the applicable planner. Thank you, PawLel,a A. McttVP.w, Ltidvuivistrative Secvetav� PLawv�.%v.c+ sew�ces Fhcwe: 253-85""�-S�F64 faX: 253-BSG-�454 e-w�a%L: �w�ottraw@c%.i2ew.t.wa.us 1 6/14/2005 2:06 PM 2:06 PM Mottram, Pamela Zistribution List Name: Planning & Economic Development Committee -AGENDA PACKETS Members: Adams Pratt, Kim; Asst City Attorney kpratt@ci.kent.wa.us Anderson, Charlene; Planning Manager canderson@ci.kent.wa.us Barry, Cathy, Admin Sec., Planning Services cbarry@ci.kent.wa.us Bilodeau, Bernie Admin Secretary, Planning bbilodeau@ci.kent.wa.us Brubaker, Tom, City Attorney Tbrubaker@ci.kent.wa.us Cameron, Renee; Civil Legal Assistant rcameron@ci.kent.wa.us City Council CityCouncil@ci.kent.wa.us Coleman, Bonnie BColeman@ci.kent.wa.us Corbin, Doug; Puget Sound Energy douglas.corbin@pse.com Crawford, Ed ECrawford@ci.kent.wa.us Dana Ralph (Theralphs4@msn.com) Theralphs4@msn.com David Malik (dpmalik@hotmail.com) dpmalik@hotmail.com Elizabeth Watson elizabeth_watson@comcast.net Flemm, Lori Lflemm@ci.kent.wa.us Garrett Huffman, SKC Mgr ghuffman@mbaks.com Gilbert, Matt, Planning Services mgilbert@ci.kent.wa.us Gill, Gary GGill@ci.kent.wa.us Gillespie, Mike, Development Mgr, PW mgillespie@ci.kent.wa.us Givens, Rosalie RGivens@ci.kent.wa.us Id-Wessen, Gloria GGould-Wessen@ci.kent.wa.us b, Jacob W. KBAB Jacob.W.Grob@Boeing.com ale, Thomas KBAB sthale2@comcast.net Hankins, Chris, Planning Services chankins@ci.kent.wa.us Hanson, Kurt, Planning Services khanson@ci.kent.wa.us Heiserman, Steve Prod. Assist. Multimedia sheiserman@ci.kent.wa.us Hodgson, John JHodgson@ci.kent.wa.us Hoffman, David KBAB David.W.Hoffman@Boeing.com Holden, Chris, Admin Secretary, Planning Services cholden@ci.kent.wa.us Hooper, Damien, Planning Services dhooper@ci.kent.wa.us Hubner, Mike MHubner@ci.kent.wa.us Hutchinson, Robert RHutchinson@ci.kent.wa.us Immacolato, Jocelyn Jlmmacolato@ci.kent.wa.us Jacober, Brenda; City Clerk bjacober@ci.kent.wa.us Jon Johnson Qonkjohnson@attbi.com) jonkjohnson@comcast.net Kenneth Wendling kwendling1@msn.com Kent Downtown Partnership (Jacquie Alexander) kdp@kentdowntown.org Larry Blanchard, PW Director Iblanchard@ci.kent.wa.us Lopez, Barbara BLopez@ci.kent.wa.us Marousek, Kim; Principal Planner kmarousek@ci.kent.wa.us Martin, Mike MHMartin@ci.kent.wa.us Mary Simmons, City Clerk's Office msimmons@ci.kent.wa.us Michael Hubner, Suburban Cities Consultant, Planning Services mhubner@ci.kent.wa.us Moorehead, Lydia LMoorehead@ci.kent.wa.us row, Judy, Admin Sec., Planning Services jmorrow@ci.kent.wa.us Mullen, Steve Transp Engr Mgr smullen@ci.kent.wa.us 1 6/14/2005 1:59 PM 1:59 PM Nachlinger, Robert RNachlinger@ci.kent.wa.us Nuss, Steven M KBAB SteveNuss@RedDotCorp.com asborne, William; Planner wosborne@ci.kent.wa.us Pam Cobley, Roth Hill Engineering pcobley@rothhill.com chler, Marcella- Kent Chamber of Commerce mpechler@KentChamber.com Peterson, Kelly KPeterson@ci.kent.wa.us Renner, Aaron T. , KBAB aaron_renner@yahoo.com Roberts, Melvin L KBAB Melvin.L.Roberts@Boeing.com Satterstrom, Fred; CD Director Fsatterstrom@ci.kent.wa.us Schneider, Jim JSchneider@ci.kent.wa.us Seattle Post Intelligencer (P.I.) citydesk@seattlepi.com Senecaut, Kathleen KSenecaut@ci.kent.wa.us Shaunta Hyde, the Boeing Co. shaunta.r.hyde@boeing.com Snyder, Kelly Roth Hill Engr ksnyder@rothhill.com Sprotbery, Kevin KSprotbery@ci.kent.wa.us Steve Dowell (doweII16@msn.com) dowell16@msn.com Storment, Jim JStorment@ci.kent.wa.us Ted Nixon (ten@cn-architects.com) ten@cn-architects.com Torgelson, Nathan NTorgelson@ci.kent.wa.us Warren Perkins, Qwest Communications warren.perkins@gwest.com White, Jim JWhite@ci.kent.wa.us White, Tammy TLWhite@ci.kent.wa.us 2 6/14/2005 1:59 PM 1:59 PM