07-12-2021 LUTC Agenda Packet
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use & Transportation Committee
July 12, 2021 City Hall
5:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Committee Members City Staff
Greg Baruso, Chair EJ Walsh, P.E., Public Works Director
Martin Moore, Member Rebecca Kovar, Administrative Assistant II
Hoang V. Tran, Member (253) 835-2701
Notice: As of June 30, 2021, City Hall has reopened, and City Council and Council Committees will be held in-person.
Until the Governor’s 20-28 et seq has been rescinded in its entirety, these meeting will take place in a hybrid format.
The public will have the opportunity to provide comments, either in-person or live via telephone. All Council Rules of
Procedure regarding public comments apply. To access these options please use the following:
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Topic Title/Description Presenter(s) Page Action
or Info Council Date
A. Approval of Minutes June 7, 2021 2 N/A
B. SW Dash Point Rd & 47th Ave SW Compact
Roundabout - Bid Award
Mullen 9 Action July 20, 2021
Consent
C. Authorization to Apply for Transportation Grant Perez 12 Action July 20, 2021
Consent
D. Resolution: Declaring Town Center 4 as
Surplus Property
Medlen 14 Action July 20, 2021
Consent
E. Draft Housing Action Plan Skadsen 21 Action July 20, 2021
Business
F. Progress Update on Sound Transit Activities Medlen 189 Info Only N/A
G. Pavement Condition and Preservation Program
Update
Winkler 191 Info Only N/A
4. OTHER
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: The next LUTC meeting will be August 2, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Click Here to Watch Online Live Streaming Video of the Meeting
Listen to the live meeting: (888) 788-0099 or 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 809 975 640
Sign-Up* here to give citizen comment during the meeting (via calling-in)
Click Here to submit written comments to the LUTC
Watch from the Zoom mobile app with meeting: 809 975 640 and passcode: 595617
1
Committee Members City Staff
Greg Baruso, Chair EJ Walsh, P.E., Public Works Director
Martin Moore, Member Rebecca Kovar, Administrative Assistant II
Hoang V. Tran, Member (253) 835-2701
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use & Transportation Committee
June 7, 2021 City Hall
5:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Greg Baruso, Committee Member Hoang Tran,
and Committee Member Martin Moore
Other Councilmembers in Attendance: City Council President Susan Honda, Council Member Lydia
Assefa-Dawson, Council Member Linda Kochmar,
Staff in Attendance: Public Works Director EJ Walsh, Assistant City Attorney Eric Rhodes, Assistant
City Attorney Kent van Alstyne, Senior Capital Engineer John Mulkey, Planning Manager Keith Niven, City
Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Associate Planner Chaney Skadsen, Sound Transit Liaison Ryan Medlen,
Community Development Director Brian Davis, Deputy Public Works Director Desiree Winkler, Capital
Engineering Manager Sarah Hamel, Associate Planner Natalie Kamieniecki, Jeri-Lynn Clark, and
Administrative Assistant II Rebecca Kovar
Citizens Presenting: Please see attached list of commenters and comments.
1.CALL TO ORDER:
2.PUBLIC COMMENT:
3.COMMITTEE BUSINESS:
Topic Title/Description
A.Approval of Minutes: May 3, 2021
Committee approved the May 3, 2021 LUTC minutes as presented.
●Moved: Moore
●Seconded: Tran
●Passed: 3-0 unanimously
B.Horizontal Curve Warning Signs – Final Acceptance.
Senior Capital Engineer John Mulkey presented information about the project, including bid process and
results. Questions and discussion followed.
Committee forwarded Option #1 (Authorize final acceptance of the Horizontal Curve
Warning Signs project as constructed by Transportation Systems, Inc. in the amount of
$78,036.60.) to the June 15, 2021 Consent Agenda for approval.
●Moved: Tran
●Seconded: Moore
●Passed: 3-0 unanimously
22
Committee Members City Staff
Greg Baruso, Chair EJ Walsh, P.E., Public Works Director
Martin Moore, Member Rebecca Kovar, Administrative Assistant II
Hoang V. Tran, Member (253) 835-2701
C 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Selection Process
Planning Manager Keith Niven presented information on amendments and the selection process.
Questions and discussion followed.
Committee forwarded Option #1 (Recommend both proposed amendments for placement on
the final docket for evaluation by staff and consideration by the Planning Commission.) to
the June 15, 2021 Consent Agenda for approval.
●Moved: Tran
●Seconded: Moore
●Passed: 3-0 unanimously
D.RESOLUTION: Adoption of the 2022-27 Transportation Improvement Plan
City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez presented information about the Transportation Improvement Plan.
Questions and discussion followed.
Committee forwarded Option #1 (Approve proposed resolution.) to the June 15, 2021
Council Meeting for Public Hearing.
●Moved: Moore
●Seconded: Tran
●Passed: 3-0 unanimously
E.City Center Access Phase I Environmental Process Update – Project Status Update
City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez presented information about the project. Questions and discussion
followed.
F.Preview of Federal Way Housing Action Plan Draft
Associate Planner Chaney Skadsen presented information on the draft of the Housing Action Plan,
including population growth projections and historical disparities in home ownership. Questions and
discussion followed.
G.Update on Sound Transit Activities
Sound Transit Liaison Ryan Medlen reported on current activities regarding Sound Transit projects.
Questions and discussion followed.
4.OTHER
5.FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS:
The next LUTC meeting will be held July 12, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers (or Zoom
meeting, per state guidance).
6.ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Attest: Approved by Committee:
Rebecca Kovar, Administrative Assistant II Date
33
Commenter Name Subject
Read by
Admin at
LUTC
Text from Email/Submission Form (if any)
1 Sandy Kon Steel Lake Rezoning No Steel Lake Viewpoint. I oppose rezoning amendment
2 Mark and Susan Sabol Steel Lake Rezoning Yes
Hello,
I'm writing on behalf of my wife and myself to voice our opposition to the amendment that would change the zoning for parcel #s 092104-9199 and 092104-
9012 at the NW end of Steel Lake to multi-family residential.
That wooded area is the last bit of wilderness-like habitat on the lake. It is a DESTINATION for so many people - not only we who live on the lake, but people
who visit Steel Lake Park. They boat, paddle-board, and kayak over to that little area all the time. It's a place you will almost always see turtles, and quite often
eagles and ospreys that use the trees for their hunting perches. These past weeks, a great blue heron has graced the lake on and off, and I've seen it land in
those trees.
We are also concerned about added traffic, of course, and the loss of the trees themselves, but the whole vibe of that little area is part of the magic of Steel
Lake. That and the park, which I've gone to since I was a kid in the 60s, sort of bookend the lake and combine to make it the special place it is.
Thank you for considering this perspective.
Sincerely,
Mark and Susan Sabol
3 John Pearson Steel Lake Rezoning No
4 Margaret Reyhner Rezoning of Property
at S. 304th St No
5 M. Colleen Sembar Bally’s Fitness Rezoning Yes
To the Members of the Federal Way City Council and Land Use Committee,
I am a resident at 226 S 328th Lane. I am right behind the Bally’s Fitness Center Property. I have some concerns regarding the request to rezone that property
for Multi-Family Dwelling and Business. I see on the application it says one unit per 1800 sq ft. I do not know what that equates into and exact number of units. I
also was not able to find the actual application on the city of Federal Way’s Web site, so I am concerned about how many actual units are planned for the site.
Does the application also request a change to the height limitation on that property?
My concerns deal with safety. There will be multiple families living on this site, if rezoning approved. These multiple families will all have cars. Most of them will
have two cars. These cars will be travelling on S 320th St, if coming from north of the property. S 320th St already has more cars on it than it should. These cars
will need to turn left from S 320th St. at 1st Avenue S. That intersection has way too many cars travelling through it now. These cars cannot access this property
directly from 1st Ave S when travelling south. They will therefore need to access the property via S 328th St. That will add many more cars to this two lane road.
An even bigger concern is that to avoid the 320th at 1st Ave intersection, many of these cars will exit S. 320th St at 5th Ave S and travel to the property via that
two lane road. This road runs through multi-unit apartments and condos, on one story or two story buildings. Children play on those properties, and many
people walk, stroll with babies in strollers, walk their dogs or jog along 5th Ave S, myself included. The number of cars travelling on 5th Ave will increase. As
someone who walks and jogs this road frequently I have to tell you that though the speed limit is 25, very few drive that speed. 50% of the traffic goes 30 – 40
mph, and regularly cars drive along this road at 50 mph. I can verify that from the many times on the of city’s speed signs have been put out on this road. We do
not need more cars speeding thorough this residential area where children play along this road.
I have yet to hear of a multi-family complex that offers enough parking spots for all residents cars. Usually the unit has one spot and if they need a second they
have to pay. I can also see many many cars parked along S 328th St which runs along the property. When there are cars parked on the street, on either side of
the entrance to the Heritage Court development, it is very dangerous trying to pull out onto 328th St/5th Ave S. I know there will be cars parked down that far
depending on how many units are planned for this property, not to mention the people who are trying to utilize the businesses. And speaking of the businesses,
what type of businesses are planned? Some businesses attract unsavory types of people.
(con't)
44
Commenter Name Subject
Read by
Admin at
LUTC
Text from Email/Submission Form (if any)
M. Colleen Sembar
(con't)
I also have a concern with privacy. How tall is this multi-family structure going to be? Depending on where the buildings are placed on the property, if the
structure is four floors or more, I am not looking forward to people being able to look down into my backyard, living room and bedroom. Additionally the reason
we all seek home ownership is based on our experience with apartments. Those who live there do not own their “homes” and many are younger people. I am
very concerned that there will be noise late at night, especially on weekends as partying goes on. Heritage Court has restrictions on noise after a certain time. As
my home is directly behind the Bally’s property, I am concerned there will be no noise restriction hours for that property.
Finally will this be low income housing? I have a concern if that is the plan for this property. We already have trouble with crime in our neighborhood. Not to say
all people who dwell in low income housing but I do know that many people have stopped shopping at the Safeway on S 320th St since that huge housing
complex opened as there have been more people loitering and intimidating and harassing people attempting to use that Safeway. I do not want to have to deal
with that in the neighborhood as I take my walks and jogs, and I do not want the other elderly people walking and children out playing along 5th Ave S / S 328th
St.
I appreciate your consideration of my remarks.
M. Colleen Sembar
6 Jenny Bemis Steel Lake Rezoning Yes Opposition to the Steel Lake rezoning amendment
7 Jeanette Droppert Steel Lake Rezoning Yes Opposition to the Steel Lake rezoning amendment
8 Jayne Lewis Steel Lake Rezoning Yes I oppose the Steel lake viewpoint rezoning amendment
9 Kathy Townsend Steel Lake Rezoning Yes
Hello,
As a resident of Federal Way, and Steel Lake specifically, I would like to voice my concerns about the rezoning amendment that is being considered for the
southwest corner of Steel Lake on 304th Street, from single family dwellings to multi-family dwellings.
Some of my concerns are for increased traffic, congestion, and noise on 304th St., especially with the houses currently being built across the street. In addition, I
am concerned about reduced habitat for wildlife, degrading the wetlands which impacts cover for animal habitats, and the cutting down of more trees near the
lake that provide landings for eagles, hawks, and other birds in the area.
The lake and its beauty and wildlife are a treasure to the citizens of our great city and should be protected as much as possible.
Sincerely,
Kathy Townsend
10 Cheryl Smith Payseno Steel Lake Rezoning Yes
I implore you to deny the amendment to the comprehensive plan and to vote NO to rezone of this property.
The property is covered with beautiful native trees and a hidden cove that provide shelter to birds, including Bald Eagles, osprey, hawks, small fish, Western
Pond turtles and small animals. Eagles keep watch over the lake from the tallest trees and turtles warm themselves on logs each morning, their shells shining in
the sun. The foundation of a sawmill remains, a bit of history reminding us of Weyerhaeuser timber in the early days of Federal Way.
Steel Lake is #1 of the Best 10 Lakes in Federal Way. Happy park visitors tour the lake in kayaks, on paddle boards, in peddle boats and on colorful floaties –
many head directly to the tall trees at the far end of the lake (parcels listed above) to see the birds, fish and turtles and to explore the cove beyond.
If you are even considering voting yes, I urge you to hop into a kayak and experience the area for yourself. This area is unique, unspoiled and must be preserved.
Thank you.
Cheryl Smith Payseno
11 Phyllis Massey Steel Lake Rezoning Yes I oppose the Steel Lake Viewpoint rezoning amendment. Due to the effect on wildlife.
55
Commenter Name Subject
Read by
Admin at
LUTC
Text from Email/Submission Form (if any)
12 Fairrel and Phyllis
Tackett Steel Lake Rezoning Yes
We oppose the Steel Lake Viewpoint rezoning. Steel Lake is a single family neighborhood and rezoning would cause severe traffic congestion on S 304th St and
would also destroy wildlife habitat that we need to preserve. We need more, not less trees in Federal Way. Rezoning to multi-family dwellings will lead to severe
clear cutting of that property such as we've seen in recent weeks just north of S 304 St in that area.
Please consider preserving what little natural habitat we have left and curtailing our already congested traffic situation in this area when making your decision.
Thank you
Fairrel and Phyllis Tackett
13 Jeremy Benson Steel Lake Rezoning Yes
Dear Council Member,
I am proud to say that my wife and I are currently raising our families 4th generation on Steel Lake. My family originally moved to Steel Lake in the mid 1950's.
Over the past 70 years our once small town of Federal Way has rapidly become one of the largest and most diverse cities in the state. With this expansion the
city has had to make several difficult decisions to accommodate the growth and plan for future expansions. Throughout the city's development there has always
been a critical and deliberate focus on conservation so that we can preserve beauty and uniqueness that only the Pacific NW has to offer.
When I learned about the proposed rezoning of the protected habitat at the NW end of Steel Lake it saddened me to think that in an effort to chase future tax
revenue the Council would throw out generations of deliberate environmental preservation. No amount of potential tax revenue will offset the irreparable loss
of a protected ecosystem in the heart of our community. The nearly 6 acres of habitat at the NW corner provides a home, hunting, and breeding ground for
Eagles, Hawks, Herons, Mallards, Turtles, and numerous other native wildlife.
In addition to the potentially devastating impact to the native inhabitants, there is also the very real and immediate traffic and storm water pollution problem.
The current streets are already nearing their critical capacity levels. With added vehicles comes added pollution to the overburdened storm drains which
subsequently results in runoff road pollution working its way into Steel Lake and eventually Redondo Creek causing yet even more environmental damage.
If the Council is set on developing the land at the NW end of Steel Lake, I propose that it be purchased by the city and turned over to the Parks Department to be
developed into Steel Lake Wetlands Park. The nearly 6 acres could become a popular City Park destination for locals and tourists alike. The Steel Lake Wetlands
Park would provide an opportunity to educate future generations about the importance of preservation while providing a vitally needed safe outdoor experience
for the community's youth.
I humbly and respectfully urge you to oppose the Steel Lake Viewpoint rezoning amendment and protect the values of our community.
Respectfully,
Jeremy Benson
Steel Lake resident and homeowner
14 Eric LaBrie Bally’s Comp Plan No
15 Dave Avenell -
Developer Bally’s Comp Plan No
66
Commenter Name Subject
Read by
Admin at
LUTC
Text from Email/Submission Form (if any)
16 Rachel Collier Steel Lake Rezoning Yes
Good afternoon,
I would like to comment about the potential rezoning of the Steel Lake Viewpoint (File #20-103849-UP). To be clear, I oppose the rezoning efforts. My property
is significantly impacted by the rezoning effort as it directly touches two sides of my property. Within the past month or so we have lost a significant amount of
trees on the north side of 304th street. The parcels under consideration on the south side of 304th street provide a natural habitat to wildlife and offer
beautification of this area. With the upcoming rezoning of the parcels on the south side of 304th, we will lose 5.8 acres of trees which serve as a habitat for Bald
Eagles, turles, hawks, osprey, cormorants, blue heron and shade for small fish. This rezoning would impact the wetlands and likely cause pollution of Duwamish
waterways.
Thoughtfulness regarding the impact on Indigenous people and lands should be seriously considered.
Federal Way has always had distinct woodlands which sets it apart from neighboring communities. It was certainly one of the reasons my family decided to
move to the area. As Federal Way continues efforts to attract local businesses and increase infrastructure, it is important to maintain balance with protecting
our limited forested areas and wetlands. Without these areas, the allure of wildlife that enrich our community and the trees which beautify our area will be
gone.
Other significant issues also lead me to oppose this issue. Traffic on 304th is considerable, especially when there are constant struggles with cars racing down
the street at all hours of the day and night.
I'm already concerned about the significant uptick in traffic due to the new housing development which has already begun construction on the northside of
304th. Additional development of these parcels will cause even more issues with traffic and safety. There is very little space for additional lanes which could
mitigate these traffic concerns. Additionally, the speeding on this road has not been sufficiently handled by the city, even before adding a hundred or more
housing units (between the development on the north side and south side of 304th st). What reason do citizens have to believe that this will be addressed after
these developments?
Again, I oppose this rezoning effort. If it is decided for the area to be rezoned, there should be significant efforts to protect wildlife, wetlands, streams and
address safety issues surrounding traffic (especially at the top of the hill when going east on 304th from Pac Hwy).
Thank you for your consideration,
Rachel Collier
17 Jerome F. and Kathleen
A. Koch
Steel Lake Rezoning Yes
I definitely oppose your plan to rezone the 2 parcels at 1931 South 304th street.
This would add additional traffic on to 304th street which is already backing up at the light on Pacific Highway. With Federal Way's approval of 69 homes on the
North side of 304th which when completed will add approximately 140 additional cars daily to 304th Street. Before anything is approved I recommend you
widen 304th Street at the entrance to Pacific Hwy so to allow for cars to make a right hand turn.
18 Masahiro Egawa Steel Lake Rezoning Yes I oppose the Steel Lake Viewpoint rezoning amendment
19 Terhi Johnson Steel Lake Rezoning Yes
I oppose the Steel Lake Viewpoint re-zoning amendment! I have lived on this lake over 45 years and seen many changes. Most concerning : After clearing the
freeway and airplanes flying over the lake, the air quality and clean lake water quality should be considered. The best way to clean air, is to save the trees!
Thank you, Terhi Johnson
20 Ken Egawa Steel Lake Rezoning Yes I oppose the Steel Lake Viewpoint rezoning amendment
21 David Henry Steel Lake Rezoning No
22 Marv Osterhout Steel Lake Rezoning Yes The turtles and the ducks need a place to live. Build the apartments next to the light rail.
77
Commenter Name Subject
Read by
Admin at
LUTC
Text from Email/Submission Form (if any)
23 Debbie and John O'Neal Steel Lake Rezoning Rec'd after
LUTC
Good evening - my husband and I have just been on the ZOOM meeting re: Steel Lake rezoning - first of all, thank you for offering the meeting option.
Secondly, I am frustrated and disappointed that, although we had submitted our comments regarding this rezoning, and received confirmation that our
comments were received and would be counted, they were not included in the meeting. So what happened?
We are strongly opposed to this rezoning, as are most everyone who lives on Steel Lake. Why would this parcel, on a lake and sensitive wildlife area, even be
considered for multi-family dwellings? For even a single-family dwelling to be remodeled or built on waterfront in this area is a crazy city process -- yet it would
be as easy as changing the zoning to build a multi-family dwelling? This makes little to no sense.
The wildlife, wetlands and green space that are offered here on Steel Lake are a sanctuary in the midst of urban sprawl, concrete and traffic. This is one of the
cleanest lakes in King County, and is used by residents and visitors alike who feel blessed to have this lake within the city limits of Federal Way.
I must say that I am shocked that this is even being considered, especially with the emphasis we are hearing about from every side regarding climate change and
preservation of what the Northwest is known for - amazing trees and native plants, clean water, and recreational opportunities for all citizens. I have just
completed Bill Gates' new book on climate change -- a book that details many ways that we, both as a society and individually, need to be aware of and take
ownership of the ways we can help to preserve and even heal our environment. Cutting down trees and destroying natural habitats, to build more concrete and
steel buildings, is most definitely not the way to do this.
I would hope that the City of Federal Way, and it's Council members, would be leaders in making sure that we work for the good of all people and the city we
live in, not building more housing in an area that is a rare sanctuary in our community, but in an area that is more conducive to the apartment dwellers life --
near shopping and transit.
Respectfully, Debbie and John O'Neal
24 Raquel Hivera Steel Lake Rezoning Rec'd after
LUTC Myself and Rodrigo Jacinto are residents of this address. We would like to express our opposition to the Steel Lake rezoning.
25 Tom Dezutter Steel Lake Rezoning Rec'd after
LUTC I oppose steel lake view point rezoning
26 Dino Gonzales Steel Lake Rezoning
Rec'd after
LUTC I oppose the Steel Lake Viewpoint rezoning
27 Devin and Jennifer
Lawton Steel Lake Rezoning
Rec'd after
LUTC We strongly oppose the Steel Lake Viewpoint rezoning amendment! Why lose the ONLY substantial wildlife habitat and left on the lake?
28 Patricia Sartison Steel Lake Rezoning
Rec'd after
LUTC Steel Lake Re-Zone: Opposed
29 Bruce Myers Steel Lake Rezoning
Rec'd after
LUTC I oppose Steel Lake Viewpoint rezoning
30
Meschell Miloscia Steel Lake Rezoning
Rec'd after
LUTC
Unfortunately we were out of town for the recent June 7th meeting regarding the Multi-Family Rezone from Single Family at the wetlands at the West end of
Steel Lake.
I oppose this for multiple reasons, including the impact to the environment, increased traffic in that area, etc.
We don’t need more bad decisions for Federal Way.
31 Roger vonDoenhoff
Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
Rec'd after
LUTC Item #5a "Eliminate the 376th Street/19th Avenue Connection “Minor Collector” Classification in Chapter 3, Map 3 of the Comprehensive Plan"
32
Martese Mason Steel Lake Rezoning
For 7-12-21
LUTC -
Agenda not
yet set I oppose the Steel Lake Viewpoint rezoning.
33
Kelley Gonzales Steel Lake Rezoning
For 7-12-21
LUTC -
Agenda not
yet set I oppose the Steel Lake rezoning amendment
88
99
Rev. 6/2020
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: July 12, 2021
TO: Land Use & Transportation Committee
VIA: Jim Ferrell, Mayor
FROM: E.J. Walsh, P.E., Public Works Director
Christine Mullen, P.E., Senior Capital Engineer
SUBJECT: SW Dash Point Rd & 47th Ave SW Compact Roundabout – Bid Award
Financial Impacts:
$15,000 of the cost to the City for the SW Dash Point Rd & 47th Ave SW Compact Roundabout
project was included within the approved budget under capital project #36217. An additional
$168,907.80 is recommended to be transferred to the project from the Transportation Capital
Fund (306 fund). Upon completion of this project, ongoing costs associated with operations and
maintenance will be performed and funded through streets maintenance. Funding requirements
for operations and maintenance of infrastructure is reviewed and adjusted as required during the
budget process.
Background Information:
Four bids were received and opened on June 11, 2021 for the SW Dash Point Rd & 47th Ave SW
Compact Roundabout project. Please see attached Bid Tabulation Summary. The lowest
responsive, responsible bidder is Sound Pacific Construction, LLC with a total bid of
$1,057,128.00.
Estimated Expenditures:
Design $ 212,195.00
Right-of-Way $ 0.00
2021 Construction Cost $ 1,057,128.00
10% Contingency $ 105,712.80
Construction Management $ 178,500.00
Total Project Costs $ 1,553,535.80
Available Funding:
City – Misc./Transfer $ 15,000.00
City - Transportation Capital Fund (306 Fund) *requested* $ 168,907.80
Federal HSIP Grant $ 1,105,400.00
Additional Federal HSIP Grant Funds *pending* $ 264,228.00
Total Project Funds $ 1,553,535.80
cjm
1010
SW DASH POINT RD & 47TH AVE SW COMPACT ROUNDABOUT
PROJECT #36217
BID OPENING DATE JUNE 11, 2021
Bidder Name --->
Location ---------->
BID SCHEDULE A: ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS - S DASH PT RD SIDEWALK PROJECT
Item
#Bid Item Description Unit Plan
Qty Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total
1 MINOR CHANGE FA 1 10,000.00$ $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 10,000.00 $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
2 ROADWAY SURVEYING LS 1 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
3 STRUCTURE SURVEYING LS 1 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
4 AS-BUILT SURVEY & RECORD DRAWINGS LS 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 2,800.00 $2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
5 SPCC PLAN LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 375.00 $ 375.00 $1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
6 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 90,000.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 99,023.00 $ 99,023.00 $ 103,000.00 $ 103,000.00 $ 133,000.00 $ 133,000.00 $58,000.00 $ 58,000.00
7 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVISOR LS 1 $ 55,000.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 105,000.00 $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
8 FLAGGERS HR 1200 $ 75.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 77.00 $ 92,400.00 $ 65.00 $ 78,000.00 $ 86.00 $ 103,200.00 $60.00 $ 72,000.00
9 CONSTRUCTION SIGN CLASS A SF 91 $ 28.00 $ 2,548.00 $ 36.00 $ 3,276.00 $ 20.00 $ 1,820.00 $ 36.00 $ 3,276.00 $20.00 $ 1,820.00
10 OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL LABOR HR 120 $ 80.00 $ 9,600.00 $ 71.00 $ 8,520.00 $ 65.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 86.00 $ 10,320.00 $60.00 $ 7,200.00
11 CONTRACTOR PROVIDED UNIFORMED
POLICE OFFICER HR 24 $ 140.00 $ 3,360.00 $ 200.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 105.00 $ 2,520.00 $80.00 $ 1,920.00
12 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN HR 1200 $ 12.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 4.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 5.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 10.00 $ 12,000.00 $5.00 $ 6,000.00
13 OTHER TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 23,000.00 $12,000.00 $ 12,000.00
14 CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC 0.21 $ 90,000.00 $ 18,900.00 $ 106,000.00 $ 22,260.00 $ 91,428.00 $ 19,199.88 $ 130,000.00 $ 27,300.00 $15,000.00 $ 3,150.00
15 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND
OBSTRUCTIONS LS 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,400.00 $ 8,400.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 102,000.00 $ 102,000.00 $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
16 SAWCUTTING LF 1000 $ 3.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 5.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 3.50 $ 3,500.00 $1.00 $ 1,000.00
17 REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN EA 2 $ 900.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 790.00 $ 1,580.00 $ 800.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 625.00 $ 1,250.00 $500.00 $ 1,000.00
18 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL CY 290 $ 55.00 $ 15,950.00 $ 68.00 $ 19,720.00 $ 80.00 $ 23,200.00 $ 55.00 $ 15,950.00 $35.00 $ 10,150.00
19 UNSUITABLE FOUNDATION EXCAVATION INCL.
HAUL CY 10 $ 45.00 $ 450.00 $ 63.50 $ 635.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 60.00 $ 600.00 $60.00 $ 600.00
20 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL TN 30 $ 38.00 $ 1,140.00 $ 54.50 $ 1,635.00 $ 80.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 37.00 $ 1,110.00 $45.00 $ 1,350.00
21 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE TN 200 $ 52.00 $ 10,400.00 $ 56.50 $ 11,300.00 $ 80.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 49.00 $ 9,800.00 $45.00 $ 9,000.00
22 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 1400 $ 10.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 8.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 8.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 10.50 $ 14,700.00 $6.00 $ 8,400.00
23 HMA FOR PRELEVELING CL. 1/2 IN. PG 58H-22 TN 300 $ 153.00 $ 45,900.00 $ 194.00 $ 58,200.00 $ 170.00 $ 51,000.00 $ 127.00 $ 38,100.00 $150.00 $ 45,000.00
24 HMA CL. 1/2 IN. PG 58H-22 TN 650 $ 118.00 $ 76,700.00 $ 147.00 $ 95,550.00 $ 170.00 $ 110,500.00 $ 141.00 $ 91,650.00 $130.00 $ 84,500.00
25 SOLDIER PILE RETAINING WALL WITH
SHOTCRETE FACING SF 875 $ 185.00 $ 161,875.00 $ 300.00 $ 262,500.00 $ 287.00 $ 251,125.00 $ 216.00 $ 189,000.00 $150.00 $ 131,250.00
26 MODULAR BLOCK WALL SF 250 $ 70.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 80.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 65.00 $ 16,250.00 $ 56.00 $ 14,000.00 $50.00 $ 12,500.00
27 SOLID WALL PVC CULV. PIPE 12 IN. DIAM. LF 360 $ 90.00 $ 32,400.00 $ 74.50 $ 26,820.00 $ 140.00 $ 50,400.00 $ 101.00 $ 36,360.00 $45.00 $ 16,200.00
28 DUCTILE IRON STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN.
DIAM.LF 45 $ 110.00 $ 4,950.00 $ 117.00 $ 5,265.00 $ 180.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 106.00 $ 4,770.00 $90.00 $ 4,050.00
29 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 EA 9 $ 2,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 15,300.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 1,475.00 $ 13,275.00 $1,750.00 $ 15,750.00
30 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 48 IN. DIAM.EA 2 $ 5,400.00 $ 10,800.00 $ 3,700.00 $ 7,400.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 4,775.00 $ 9,550.00 $3,000.00 $ 6,000.00
31 CONNECTION TO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA 2 $ 3,700.00 $ 7,400.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 750.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,225.00 $ 2,450.00 $1,000.00 $ 2,000.00
32 ADJUST CATCH BASIN EA 3 $ 1,100.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 550.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 750.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 3,300.00 $1,000.00 $ 3,000.00
33 SHORING OR EXTRA EXCAVATION CLASS B SF 1275 $ 2.00 $ 2,550.00 $ 1.00 $ 1,275.00 $ 1.00 $ 1,275.00 $ 0.70 $ 892.50 $5.00 $ 6,375.00
34 EROSION CONTRTOL AND WATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 28,000.00 $ 28,000.00 $3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
35 HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE LF 955 $ 6.00 $ 5,730.00 $ 4.50 $ 4,297.50 $ 7.00 $ 6,685.00 $ 6.50 $ 6,207.50 $15.00 $ 14,325.00
36 SEEDED LAWN SY 550 $ 3.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 2.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 3.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 6.00 $ 3,300.00 $1.00 $ 550.00
37 BARK MULCH CY 100 $ 70.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 70.50 $ 7,050.00 $ 50.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 149.00 $ 14,900.00 $80.00 $ 8,000.00
38 TOPSOIL TYPE A (4" DEPTH)CY 75 $ 70.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 59.00 $ 4,425.00 $ 60.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 149.00 $ 11,175.00 $70.00 $ 5,250.00
39 EXTRUDED CURB LF 980 $ 10.00 $ 9,800.00 $ 10.50 $ 10,290.00 $ 11.00 $ 10,780.00 $ 10.75 $ 10,535.00 $15.00 $ 14,700.00
40 PRECAST SLOPED MOUNTABLE CURB LF 400 $ 28.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 34.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 30.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 31.00 $ 12,400.00 $35.00 $ 14,000.00
41 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TYPE 2 HUN 2 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 530.00 $ 1,060.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 530.00 $ 1,060.00 $2,700.00 $ 5,400.00
42 BLACK VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK FENCE LF 185 $ 60.00 $ 11,100.00 $ 80.00 $ 14,800.00 $ 75.00 $ 13,875.00 $ 69.00 $ 12,765.00 $45.00 $ 8,325.00
43 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE SF 160 $ 55.00 $ 8,800.00 $ 70.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 60.00 $ 9,600.00 $ 115.00 $ 18,400.00 $25.00 $ 4,000.00
44 ILLUMINATION SYSTEM, COMPLETE LS 1 $ 140,000.00 $ 140,000.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 123,900.00 $ 123,900.00 $ 114,000.00 $ 114,000.00 $67,250.00 $ 67,250.00
45 FLASHING BEACON ASSEMBLY EA 3 $ 12,500.00 $ 37,500.00 $ 10,250.00 $ 30,750.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 31,500.00 $1,500.00 $ 4,500.00
46 PERMANENT SIGNING LS 1 $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 38,500.00 $ 38,500.00 $ 16,500.00 $ 16,500.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 26,000.00 $4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
47 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE SF 215 $ 7.00 $ 1,505.00 $ 7.50 $ 1,612.50 $ 7.00 $ 1,505.00 $ 7.75 $ 1,666.25 $15.00 $ 3,225.00
48 PLASTIC YIELD LINE SYMBOL EA 15 $ 80.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 88.00 $ 1,320.00 $ 200.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 88.25 $ 1,323.75 $100.00 $ 1,500.00
49 PLASTIC LINE LF 2400 $ 3.50 $ 8,400.00 $ 3.50 $ 8,400.00 $ 3.50 $ 8,400.00 $ 3.75 $ 9,000.00 $8.00 $ 19,200.00
50 PLASTIC WIDE LANE LINE LF 80 $ 9.00 $ 720.00 $ 8.50 $ 680.00 $ 9.00 $ 720.00 $ 9.00 $ 720.00 $15.00 $ 1,200.00
51 PLASTIC WIDE DOTTED ENTRY LINE LF 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00 $ 11.50 $ 575.00 $ 10.00 $ 500.00 $ 12.00 $ 600.00 $15.00 $ 750.00
52 MMA COLORED PAVEMENT MARKING FOR
CENTRAL ISLAND LS 1 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,700.00 $ 6,700.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,700.00 $ 6,700.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
53 REMOVING PAVEMENT MARKINGS LS 1 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,350.00 $ 3,350.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
54 RESOLUTION OF UTILITY CONFLICTS FA 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
55 POTHOLING FA 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
$ 1,057,128.00 $ 1,119,119.00 $ 1,153,634.88 $ 1,338,051.00 $ 765,390.00
Bid #3
Engineers Estimate
Puyallup, WA KPG, Inc.
Bid #2
TOTAL – BID SCHEDULE A (bid items incl. sales tax)
SOUND PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION
Gig Harbor, WA
ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bid #1 Bid #4
R.W. SCOTT NORTHWEST CASCADE
Auburn, WA Puyallup, WA
Page 1 of 1
1111
1212
1313
1414
1515
1616
Resolution No. 21-_____ Page 1 of 4
Rev 5/21
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of Federal Way, Washington, declaring a
0.47-acre parcel of real property located at the southeast corner of
316th St. S. and 21st Ave S. as surplus.
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way ("City") owns real property designated as parcel
number 092104-9057 and legally described as:
PCL A OF FEDERAL WAY LLA # 03-102586-00 SU REC # 20040202900009
SD LLA BEING LOCATED IN N 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SEC 9-21-4
CONTAINING 20,669 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS
(“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the subject property was transferred to the City for the purposes of transit-
oriented development by Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (“Sound Transit”) and
identified in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan as a site intended to be developed with future
transit-oriented development; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Way Link Extension is a light rail extension project that requires
400 parking spaces be developed in the area and building said parking spaces on this location has
been identified as an appropriate location for an extension to their existing parking garage to
construct parking spaces in support of their provision of transit service to the City; and
WHEREAS, Sound Transit has expressed to the City that it will purchase the Property at
its fair market value after consultation with the City about the Federal Way Link Extension; and
WHEREAS, the City published a public notice and news release in the Federal Way Mirror
on July 2, 2021, identifying the Property by means which could be easily understood by the public,
describing the proposed use of the Property, and setting the date, time, and place of a public hearing
1717
Resolution No. 21-_____ Page 2 of 4
Rev 5/21
to consider the surplus of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing on July 20, 2021 to consider whether to
surplus the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Property is no longer necessary for
public use and retention does not serve the best interests of the citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Property is surplus to the needs of the City of Federal Way.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Property Declared Surplus. The Property, legally described as:
PCL A OF FEDERAL WAY LLA # 03-102586-00 SU REC # 20040202900009
SD LLA BEING LOCATED IN N 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SEC 9-21-4
is declared surplus to the needs of the City of Federal Way.
Section 2. Execute an agreement. The Mayor and Staff are authorized to execute a purchase
and sale agreement to sell the property to Sound Transit for $723,000 as was determined to be the
fair market value for the property.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause, or phrase of this resolution.
Section 4. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authorized to
make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of
scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any
1818
Resolution No. 21-_____ Page 3 of 4
Rev 5/21
references thereto.
Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date
of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by
the Federal Way City Council.
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON this day of , 20__.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY:
JIM FERRELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
STEPHANIE COURTNEY, CMC, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. RYAN CALL, CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.:
1919
Resolution No. 21-_____ Page 4 of 4
Rev 5/21
2020
2121
Land Use and Transportation Committee June 25, 2021
Federal Way Housing Action Plan Draft Page 1 of 3
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 25, 2021
TO: Land Use & Transportation Committee
VIA: Jim Ferrell, Mayor
FROM:
Brian Davis, Community Development Director
Keith Niven, AICP, CEcD Planning Manager
Chaney Skadsen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Federal Way Housing Action Plan
I. FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial obligation to the City in presenting this information.
II. BACKGROUND
The draft Housing Action Plan (HAP) was presented to the Land Use and Transportation
Committee on June 7, 2021. At the LUTC briefing, questions and comments were raised by the
Council. Below is staff’s response and update to the draft HAP in response.
On June 16, 2021 the draft HAP was presented at the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing.
The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the draft HAP.
III. JUNE 7TH LUTC FOLLOW UP
Involvement and collaboration with builders and developers.
Comment
The City should reach out to developers and work with them to achieve success
Staff Response
The process for developing the draft Housing Action Plan included varying perspectives from the
housing industry. Intentional outreach for builders and developers of both market rate and income-
restricted units was achieved through participation on the Advisory Group, stakeholder interviews
and community engagement.
As a result, working toward public/private partnerships was identified as a priority for implementing
Strategy #1: “Promote a dense, walkable, mixed-use City-Center.” The City will continue to work
2222
Land Use and Transportation Committee June 25, 2021
Federal Way Housing Action Plan Draft Page 2 of 3
closely with developers to implement this strategy. Successful implementation will be monitored and
evaluated by the number of public/private partnerships established.
Additionally, Strategy #5: “Ensure that financial and regulatory incentives for mixed-income housing
are effective,” includes the following identified actions:
• Conduct a study to evaluate the financial incentives and impacts of the existing mixed-
income provisions on multifamily development.
• Periodically evaluate provisions and implement changes as necessary to promote mixed-
income developments
Any regulatory changes proposed to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) will follow proper
planning protocol including outreach to developers and public meetings that provide opportunities
to comment. Also, as part of the HAP Engagement Plan, an E-Newsletter list was developed that
provided periodic updates on project milestones to interested parties. This list will continue to be
used to ensure interested groups have ample opportunity to learn about and get involved in
regulatory changes.
Allocating 6,789 new housing units by 2040 or 339 new units per year.
Comment
It is difficult to envision how the City will grow. The City should look at Buildable Lands, zoning
and other factors to have a comprehensive view of where new housing will be added in the City.
Staff Response
As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment (Appendix A), Federal Way will need to add 6,786
new housing units by 2040 to keep pace with forecasted demand. This equates to an average of 339
additional units per year. The attached Housing Forecast Map illustrates a possible growth outcome
based on zoning and various information compiled by the City for the buildable lands update (part of
the process to set the City’s Growth Targets for the next Comprehensive Plan update).
Homeowner Associations and Accessory Dwelling Units
Comment
If an HOA is unaware of a permit submittal for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), their
opportunity to take action is limited and potentially late in the process.
Staff Response
As part of an ADU permit application, the City will require the applicant to submit proof of written
notification to the HOA. This would be a new requirement. This notification requirement would be
intended to reduce unnecessary conflict with property owners and HOAs. Notwithstanding any
conflicts, the City cannot legally withhold a permit because of HOA rules.
Accessibility & Inclusion
Comment/Question
Is there an ability to increase accessibility for our housing and new neighborhoods to improve
inclusiveness?
2323
Land Use and Transportation Committee June 25, 2021
Federal Way Housing Action Plan Draft Page 3 of 3
Staff Response
Housing planning and policymaking are integral functions of cities, and essential for
supporting inclusive, diverse, and economically vibrant communities. The Housing Needs
Assessment (HNA) identified that housing need and risk to displacement are not the same
for all individuals and families, particularly for marginalized communities. Therefore,
Objective #1 of the HAP was designed to promote new market-rate and affordable housing
construction that expands housing choices and is inclusive to community needs. Locating
higher density housing near amenities like grocery stores, retail businesses, parks, schools,
services, and existing and future transit lines support healthy walkable communities and
promote a downtown, neighborhood centers and subarea plans for accessible, vibrant, and
livable neighborhoods (strategy #1 and #2).
In addition to ADA requirements, the City of Federal Way can enhance the built
environment for people with disabilities. Wayfinding is a key element to navigating high
density, amenity rich areas. Examples could include incorporating architectural elements, a
variety of vegetation, water features, decorative paving, interpretive or directional signage
and kiosks. Amenity rich areas can be made more accessibility through inclusive wayfinding.
To address the concern raised by the Council, the Administration proposes to add an action
under the implementation matrix under strategy #1: promote a dense, walkable, mixed-use
City Center.
Additionally, strategy #4: encourage ADU production, highlights considerations for
preapproved ADU plans that include designs accessible for those living with disabilities,
require mobility support and desire to age in place. The strategy aims to ensure provisions
within single-family zones.
IV. NEXT STEPS
July 20, 2021 Housing Action Plan potential adoption
V. ATTACHMENTS
A. Housing Forecast Map
B. Draft Housing Action Plan
C. Planning Commission Minutes from June 16, 2021 Public Hearing
Strategy/Action Priority Level of
Effort
Department/
Division/Partners
Implementation
Milestones
#1 Promote a dense, walkable, mixed-use City Center.
“Develop wayfinding plan
that is inclusive and
accessible for people with
disabilities."
MT Medium • Planning
• Consultant
• Create
wayfinding
plan
2424
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!"#5
!"#5
18
5 90
5 90
1 16
5 90
5 90
!"#5
99
99
99
1 16 Pacific
Milton EdgewoodFife
DesMoines
Kent
Tacoma
FederalWay
Star
NorthLake
TroutLake
FiveMileLake
Lake
Dollof Lake
LakeGeneva
MirrorLake
EasterLake LakeSteel
SW 320th StSW 320th St
S 304th St
SW DashPoin tR d
I - 5SW 356th St
I-5Hwy 18I - 5SW Camp
u
sDr
9thAvSH
o
yt
RdSWMarineViewDr
E
n
c
h
a
n
t
e
d
P
kw
y
Military RdPacificHwySMi
l
i
t
a
ry
R
d
M
a
ri
n
e
Vi
e
wD
r
NorthshorePkwy
S 288th St
R
e
d
o
ndoWyS MilitaryRdSSt
a
r
La
k
e
R
d
S 272nd St
S 348th St I - 5E 11th StPo
r
t
o
f
T
a
c
o
m
a
R
d 21st Av SWS 320th St
SW 312th S t
1st Av S1stAvSPacific Hwy S16th Av S28th Av SS 324th St
S 336th St
1st Av S49th Av SNorpointWyNESWD ashPtRd28th Av SS 312th St
Hyl
e
b
o
s
C
r
e
e
k
W
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
Bla
i
r
W
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
P
uyallu
p
R
i
v
erPuget Sound
BayDumas
PovertyBay
Sit
c
u
m
W
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
CommencementBay
10 units
50 units
350 units
960 units
120 units
250 units
100 units
200 units
300 units
2500 units130 units
150 units
175 units
1300 units
200 units
City of
Federal Way
R:\staceyc\CD\Chaney\unit_allocation.mxd
0 10.5
Miles
´Scale:This map is intended for use
as a graphical representation.
The City of Federal Way makes
no warranty as to its accuracy.
Housing Forecast Map Map Date: June 2021
City of Federal Way
Community Development
33325 8th Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
253-835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Legend
City Limits
Primarily Residential / Single Family
Primarily Mixed Use / Multi Family
2525
HOUSING ACTION PLAN
DRAFT REPORT
JUNE 16, 2021
2626
DRAFT June 16, 2021
Acknowledgements
The Project Team who developed this plan consisted of both City staff as well as consultant support.
CITY STAFF
▪ Chaney Skadsen, Associate Planner
▪ Brian Davis, Community Development Director
▪ Sarah Bridgford, Community Services Manager
CONSULTANT SUPPORT
BERK Consulting
▪ Kevin Ramsey, Ph.D., Project Manager
▪ Erika Rhett, AICP, Land Use Planner
▪ Dawn Couch, Analyst
▪ Chloe Kinsey, Analyst
MAKERS Urban Design and Architecture
▪ Bob Bengford, AICP, Policy and Code Review
▪ Rachel Miller, Engagement
▪ Ian Crozier, Planning support
HOUSING ACTION PLAN ADVISORY GROUP
To help guide and inform the Housing Action Plan, Federal Way convened an Advisory Group
comprised of community members, representatives of civic and faith-based organizations, local
builders and real estate professionals, service providers, and other housing stakeholders. Over the
course of four meetings, these volunteers provided local insights about housing needs and challenges
that are not well represented in available data. They also reviewed preliminary strategies and actions
and shared perspectives about potential benefits and impacts in the community. The plan benefitted
from their input.
▪ Pastor Joe Bowman, Integrity Life Church
▪ Robin Corak, Multi-Service Center
▪ Brett Jacobsen, Family Northwest
Development
▪ Daniel Landes, King County Housing Authority
▪ Miguel Maestas, El Centro de la Raza
▪ Rebecca Martin, Chamber of Commerce
▪ Sally McLean, Federal Way Public Schools
▪ Mike Park, Former mayor, Korean
Community representative
▪ Brett Waller, Washington Multi-Family
Housing Association
▪ Melinda Weber, BECU Mortgage Advisor
2727
DRAFT June 16, 2021 i
Executive Summary
Federal Way is a city with many assets that make it a desirable community of nearly 100,000 residents.
While the city has long benefited from relatively lower housing costs compared to many other parts of
King county, rapid job and population growth coupled with a lack of housing supply across the region
has resulted in a sustained high demand for housing and rising costs. Housing availability is an urgent
and growing challenge in Federal Way. Two out of every five households are struggling to manage the
cost of housing.1 The lack of supply and resulting cost pressure is contributing to the displacement of
long-term Federal Way residents, a process that can uproot lives and undermine the social fabric and
support structure for many residents.
This Housing Action Plan identifies strategies that can help to diminish this imbalance and guide new
growth that provides benefits to both new and existing residents . Collectively, these strategies are
intended to achieve four key objectives.
HOUSING OBJECTIVES
▪ Promote new market-rate and affordable housing construction that expands housing choices and is
inclusive to community needs.
▪ Encourage homeownership opportunities and support equitable housing outcomes .
▪ Plan for forecasted growth and ensure the built environment promotes community development
and increases the quality of life for Federal Way’s existing and future residents.
▪ Preserve existing affordable housing stock to reduce displacement pressure.
HOUSING STRATEGIES
Promote a dense, walkable, and mixed-use City Center.
Promote mixed-use, walkable subareas and neighborhood centers.
Increase diversity in housing choice through expanding “missing middle” development
opportunities.
Encourage accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production.
Ensure that financial and regulatory incentives for mixed-income housing are effective.
Review school impact fees on multifamily housing.
Coordinate affordable housing development and preservation with nonprofit developers,
community groups, and the South King Housing and Ho melessness Partners (SKHHP).
Protect tenants and support pathways to homeownership.
This Plan also includes guidance for implementation and monitoring. During the implementation
process, there will be additional opportunities for residents and stakeholders to share their input.
1 Source: HUD (based on Census ACS 5-year Estimates, 2012-2016). See Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment for details.
2828
DRAFT June 16, 2021
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Subregional Housing Action Framework ................................................................................................ 5
The City’s Role in Housing ....................................................................................................................... 5
Areas of Opportunity .............................................................................................................................. 6
Developing the HAP .......................................................................................................................... 7
Community Engagement ........................................................................................................................ 7
Assessment of Housing Needs .............................................................................................................. 11
Review of Housing Goals and Policies .................................................................................................. 12
Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies ................................................................................ 15
Housing Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 15
Housing Strategies ................................................................................................................................ 16
Implementation and Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 36
Implementation Matrix and Priority Schedule ..................................................................................... 36
Monitoring Progress ............................................................................................................................. 40
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix A: Federal Way Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix B: Federal Way HNA Qualitative Interviews Summary
Appendix C: Visual Preference Survey Results
Appendix D South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Appendix E: Federal Way Fact Packet
Appendix F: South King County Regional HAP – Housing Strategies Framework
2929
DRAFT June 16, 2021
Table of Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Housing Unit Growth Compared to Target, 2006-2018 ........................................................... 12
Exhibit 2. Housing Goals in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2015) .............................................. 13
Exhibit 3. Capacity for new housing development by density level ......................................................... 14
Exhibit 4. Housing Units in Federal Way by Structure Type, 2020 ........................................................... 15
Exhibit 5. Interrelated Housing Strategies to Support Planned Growth in Federal Way ......................... 17
Exhibit 6. Housing Strategies and Related Housing Objectives ................................................................ 17
Exhibit 7. Zoning and current/planned frequent transit service in North Federal Way .......................... 21
Exhibit 8. Townhome Unit-Lot Subdivision Example ................................................................................ 26
Exhibit 9. Implementation Matrix and Priority Schedule ............................................................................ 37
Exhibit 10. Total Additional Housing Units Needed in 2040 by Affordability Level (% of AMI) ............... 41
3030
DRAFT June 16, 2021
Introduction
PURPOSE
This Housing Action Plan identifies strategies the City of Federal Way can implement to support
housing opportunities for residents at all income levels. These strategies are intended to increase
housing production and choices available to better meet the diverse needs of Federal Way residents
and reduce displacement pressure. Providing a sufficient supply of both market-rate and income-
qualified affordable housing also supports neighborhood stability, vibrant communities, and economic
vitality.2
This plan lays out a comprehensive housing policy direction to guide city investments and efforts to
facilitate both market-rate and affordable housing production. It identifies actions the city may take to
implement regulatory and service changes following plan adoption.
BACKGROUND
As more people move to the Puget Sound Region, the competition for the limited housing available in
Federal Way grows. This causes rents and housing prices to rise, which can lead to housing insecurity
and the displacement of many long-term residents. In recent years, housing production in Federal Way
and the rest of South King County has not kept pace with this growing demand.3
Much of today’s housing supply was built between the 1960s and 1980s, before Federal Way
incorporated as a city. During the mid-1980s, the area experienced a boom in new apartment
development. Desiring controlled, quality growth and community identity, residents organized and
voted to form the City of Federal Way in February 1990. The rate of new housing production declined
significantly in the decades that followed. The development that has occurred generally falls into two
categories: single-family homes and large apartment complexes. Federal Way now lacks a spectrum of
housing options to meet the needs of different household types. These options could include “missing
middle” formats like townhomes, multiplexes, accessory dwelling units (ADU), or garden style low-rise
apartment buildings. Zoning and regulatory barriers have prevented, among other challenges, the
development of these housing types.
During the decades since Federal Way’s incorporation, King County and the Central Puget Sound
Region have experienced sustained periods of rapid economic growth. This has drawn hundreds of
thousands of new residents to the region in search of housing. Federal Way’s central location and
historically lower housing costs compared to more expensive communities to the north also contribute
to high demand for housing. When more and more households compete for a limited supply of
housing, prices are pushed upward.
In 2019, the City of Federal Way received a grant from the Washington State Department of Commerce
to prepare this Housing Action Plan (HAP). The goal of a HAP is “to encourage construction of
2 While there is also a strong need for housing solutions to address the needs of households struggling with homelessness,
such as transitional housing and shelters, this plan focuses on building or preserving permanent housing solutions.
3 ECONorthwest estimates that communities in South King County have underproduced housing compared to demand by
nearly 20,000 units. See Error! Reference source not found..
3131
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Introduction
DRAFT June 16, 2021 5
additional affordable and market-rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices that
are accessible to a greater variety of incomes, including strategies aimed at the for-profit single-family
home market.”4
SUBREGIONAL HOUSING ACTION FRAMEWORK
Housing affordability is a regional challenge. Six cities in South King County (Auburn, Burien, Federal
Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila) joined together to develop the South King Housing and Homelessness
Partners (SKHHP). They pooled resources to develop a Subregional Housing Action Framework, which
was completed in 2020. Key deliverables from this analysis included:
▪ Fact Packets for the subregion and each city which summarize how each performs in critical topic
areas, such as housing trends, affordability, housing need forecast, and an employment profile. See
Appendix D South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework and Appendix E:
Federal Way Fact Packet
▪ A Housing Context Assessment that identifies the methodology of data collection, expands on
existing policy tools, and evaluates their potential impact with regards to intended outcomes.
▪ A Housing Strategies Framework that identifies housing policies, tools, and incentives, summarizes
current use in each jurisdiction, and evaluates their potential impact for achieving intended results.
Appendix F: South King County Regional HAP – Housing Strategies Framework
▪ This work has informed the development of this Housing Action Plan, including strategies explicitly
focused on opportunities for continued collaboration.
THE CITY’S ROLE IN HOUSING
While the City of Federal Way does not build or provide housing to residents, it can facilitate the
conditions to encourage the housing developers to build housing in a diversity of formats and
affordability levels. Housing planning and policymaking are integral functions of cities, and essential for
supporting inclusive, diverse, and economically vibrant communities. Reviewing, evaluating, and
updating housing plans, policies, and associated development regulations can help jurisdictions meet
evolving community needs for housing variety and affordability, as well as achieve other planning goals
for land use, economic development, transportation, and the environment.
There are four ways in which Federal Way can influence the housing market.
▪ The city can adopt and update development regulations such as zoning and design standards to
either limit or facilitate the types of new housing that can be built by private and nonprofit housing
developers in different parts of the city. These regulations also determine characteristics such as
building heights, setbacks, parking, and design.
▪ The city can utilize and update development incentives to encourage the construction of housing
types that are in greatest need. Incentives may include tax exemptions, density bonuses,
4 RCW 36.70A.040
3232
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Introduction
DRAFT June 16, 2021 6
alternative design standards, fee reductions, or streamlined permitting. Incentives can affect the
profitability of new housing development and therefore the likelihood that private developers will
choose to build. They can also affect the financial feasibility of project s with income-qualified
affordable housing.
▪ The city can provide financial assistance to affordable housing providers through direct funding,
loans, fee waivers, or land donations to help subsidize new or existing income-qualified affordable
housing projects. The City can also pool resources with other jurisdictions to support affordable
housing through SKHHP.
▪ Finally, the city can provide support for residents through programs that provide tenant education
or protections, monitor and enforce building codes to ensure safety, provide rental assistance, and
provide local services that promote community well-being.
AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY
Federal Way has tremendous opportunities to encourage new housing development that can benefit
both existing and future residents. Most notably, the city will be served by two Sound Transit LINK light
rail stations – Federal Way Transit Center and SW 272nd Street - with service expected to begin in
2024, and a third station in South Federal Way area planned for a later phase. This regional
transportation investment will greatly increase development potential in the City Center and other
station areas due to high demand for living and working near frequent and high-quality transit service.
The Puget Sound Regional Council designated Federal Way’s City Center as a Regional Growth Center.
This planning designation makes it a focal point for economic development and transportation
infrastructure investments that promote dense, walkable, mixed-used development.
Federal Way has the opportunity to shape the investments and growth in the City Center to maximize
benefits for new housing production as well as amenities for the c ity as a whole. By adopting
regulations and incentives that support transit-oriented development, Federal Way can encourage new
apartment and condominium housing that provides residents with easy access to transit and urban
amenities. It can also attract or provide other land uses and resources that benefit all residents, such as
restaurants, new retail, entertainment, parks, and services like childcare.
The city also has significant opportunities outside of its City Center and station areas to provide
residents with new options for more affordable living and homeownership. These include making it
easier to rent portions of single-family homes as accessory dwelling units and making it easier to build
“missing middle” housing types like multiplexes and townhomes in appropriate areas. These changes
would increase the diversity of housing options available within existing neighborhoods.
3333
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Developing the HAP
DRAFT June 16, 2021 7
Developing the HAP
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
This plan is informed by the input of community leaders, residents, and other stakeholders. While
COVID-19 social distancing requirements prevented face-to-face meetings, city staff and consultants
used several methods to engage safely with community members. A summary of these activities is
included below and more details about the feedback received are provided in Appendix B: Federal Way
HNA Qualitative Interviews Summary and Appendix C: Visual Preference Survey Results.
Engagement opportunities for Federal Way residents were promoted in the following ways:
▪ Project webpage
▪ Facebook posts and ads
▪ Nextdoor
▪ Interested parties list E-Newsletter
▪ Community Services listserv
▪ Press releases
▪ Public announcements on local radio stations
▪ Targeted outreach through phone calls and emails
Due to existing barriers and those exacerbated by the pandemic, not all Federal Way residents had an
equitable opportunity to contribute ideas to this plan. Some communities in Federal Way experience
barriers to participation such as English proficiency, lack of access to technology or skills for attending
virtual meetings, lack of connection to--or knowledge about--city government decision making
processes, or simply a lack of interest or time to engage. We attempted to mitigate these barriers by
providing different engagement opportunities and by reaching out to community leaders and
representatives with local knowledge about the housing challenges residents experience in Federal
Way. However, we also recognize continued work to engage more Federal Way residents will be
necessary as city staff works to refine and implement the strategies in this plan.
Engagement Activities
The Federal Way Housing Action Plan Website and Newsletter
Throughout the development of this plan, city staff maintained a project website that featured a short
informational video, the HAP project schedule, engagement opportunities, answers to frequently
asked questions, and project documents such as the Housing Needs Assessment. Residents could also
sign up for an e-newsletter to receive updates about opportunities to engage. As of May 21, 2021, the
page has been viewed a total of 1,165 times, with 897 unique views.
3434
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Developing the HAP
DRAFT June 16, 2021 8
City Council Interviews
At the beginning of the HAP process, the consultant team invited each City Councilmember to an
individual interview to gain a better understanding of their priorities and concerns , as well as the
housing challenges they have heard about from their constituents. The input received from the
Councilmembers helped to shape the development of the planning and community engagement
process.
Housing Action Plan Advisory Group
To help guide and inform the plan, the Project Team convened an Advisory Group comprised of
community members, representatives of civic and faith-based organizations, local builders and real
estate professionals, service providers, and other housing stakeholders. Over the course of four
meetings, these volunteers provided local insights about housing needs and cha llenges that are not
well represented in available data. They also reviewed preliminary strategies and actions and shared
perspectives about potential benefits and impacts in the community.
Interviews with Stakeholders and Community Members
The project team contacted 23 organizations and a total of 6 groups were interviewed over the phone
or video conference during October and November 2020. Each conversation typically included two
interviewees. Interview participants included local landlords, a local market-rate housing construction
company, an affordable housing builder, a local architect/developer, a local church minister and
members, and local housing advocates. A summary of findings is provided in Appendix B: Federal Way
HNA Qualitative Interviews Summary.
Visual Preference Survey
All Federal Way residents were encouraged to complete an online survey between January and
February 2021. The survey asked residents to evaluate images of new kinds of housing options that the
city is considering allowing in different residential zones. The purpose was to hear from residents
about their preferences and help determine what design features or attributes are most important
when integrating new housing into the community. There were a total of 226 respondents, 91% of
whom were current residents of Federal Way. Preferences varied greatly by design type. However, a
strong majority responded positively to images of several housing types, including duplexes and
triplexes in single-family zones, townhouses in multifamily zones, and apartments or condominiums in
commercial and downtown zones. A summary of findings is provided in Appendix C: Visual Preference
Survey Results
3535
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Developing the HAP
DRAFT June 16, 2021 9
Housing Action Plan Strategies Public Open House
City staff also hosted two live, online Open
House events on April 8 and April 10, 2021 over
Zoom. They were held at different times (one
during the week in the evening and one on
Saturday morning) in hopes to increase
opportunity for participation. Federal Way is an
ethnically and culturally diverse community
where many languages are spoken. Spanish and
Korean are two of the common languages
spoken in Federal Way and interpreters were
present to interpretation services. Total
attendance was approximately 20 participants,
which allowed for detailed discussions.
The live online meetings were designed to be
interactive for participants to share their lived
experiences, desires for the future of Federal Way, and provide feedback on the strategies under
consideration. City staff utilized Zoom’s polling feature and Slido, a live polling platform, was used to
create a conversation between staff and participants and displayed information and data collected.
Other Public Meetings
Project Team members presented updates on the HAP during several meetings open to the public.
These included Planning Commission meetings, the City Council Land Use and Transportation
Committee (LUTC), a City Diversity Commission meeting, and a Senior Commission meeting. Meetings
that occurred between February 2020 and May 2021 include:
▪ 2/19/20 Planning Commission; Scope of HAP and Consultants Chosen
▪ 8/5/20 Planning Commission; Housing Action Plan Introduction
▪ 12/16/20 Planning Commission; Housing Needs Assessment
▪ 1/4/21 LUTC; Housing Needs Assessment
▪ 1/20/21 Planning Commission; Gaps in Regulations Potentially Inhibiting Housing Development &
Subregional Framework
▪ 2/17/21 Planning Commission; Summary to Date
Word cloud of Open House participant answers to the question:
“What do you love about Federal Way?”
3636
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Developing the HAP
DRAFT June 16, 2021 10
▪ 3/2/21 City Council Special Session; HAP Overview
▪ 3/13/21 Diversity Commission; HAP Overview
▪ 3/17/21 Senior Commission; HAP Overview
▪ 4/7/21 Planning Commission; Strategies Briefings
▪ 4/21/21 Planning Commission; Strategies Update
▪ 5/5/21 Planning Commission; Implementation Matrix
A Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for June 16, 2021 and the City Council is expected
to vote on adoption of the plan in July 2021.
3737
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Developing the HAP
DRAFT June 16, 2021 11
ASSESSMENT OF HOUSING NEEDS
Early in the planning process, the consultant team developed a Housing Needs Assessment. This
document presents an evaluation of community conditions, housing demand, and housing supply
in Federal Way. It addresses housing needs across the full spectrum of household types and income
levels. The findings are based on an analysis of the latest available data as well as i nput from
community leaders and housing stakeholders gathered through the engagement process. The full
Needs Assessment is available in Appendix A: Federal Way Housing Needs Assessment.
Key Findings
▪ Nearly 40% of all households in Federal Way (over 13,000 households in total) are cost-burdened.
This means they spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs. These households
have less money available for other essentials, like food, clothing, transportation, and medical
care. Cost burden is most common among both owner and renter households with incomes below
50% of area median income (AMI). Black, indigenous, and persons of color (BIPOC) households
disproportionately experience housing cost-burden compared to White households.
▪ The rate of new housing construction in Federal Way is not keeping pace with demand or
comprehensive plan growth targets. One reason is the lack of multifamily housing construction
since mid-2017 following a temporary moratorium on multifamily housing permits and an
increased impact fee to support the Federal Way School District. There has also been a lack of
“missing middle” housing such as townhomes and multiplex formats. The underproduction of
housing is contributing to intense competition for available housing, which is driving up housing
costs faster than the incomes of residents.
▪ Federal Way needs to add approximately 6,800 new units before 2040 to accommodate expected
population growth and account for past underproduction. This equates to an average production
of 339 units each year, a 68% increase over recent housing production trends.
▪ The city needs a diversity of new housing types, including both rental and ownership units that
cater to a variety of income levels and housing needs to grow in a balanced manner. This includes
“missing middle” housing types such as townhomes and condominiums that can support more
affordable homeownership opportunities.
3838
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Developing the HAP
DRAFT June 16, 2021 12
REVIEW OF HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES
Progress Towards Meeting Housing Targets
Between 2006 and 2018, Federal Way added 2,525 new housing units, with an average annual growth
rate of 0.61% or about 202 units per year. As shown in Exhibit 1, the city is growing slower than
needed to achieve its 2035 growth target adopted in King County’s Countywide Planning Policies and
the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. To achieve the target, the city will need to nearly double its rate
of growth in the years ahead.
Exhibit 1. Housing Unit Growth Compared to Target, 2006-2018
=
Note: This chart shows Federal Way’s 2031 housing growth target of 8,100 units extended to the year 2035 assuming a
continuation of the same growth rate.
Source: King County Urban Growth Capacity Report (Preliminary Draft, April 2021).
Achievement of Housing Element Goals and Policies
The Housing Element of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2015) includes goals and policies for
guiding city actions that regulate and incentivize new residential development. Exhibit 2 presents each
of the ten housing goals. Collectively, these existing goals and the 48 associated housing policies are
supportive of encouraging new construction of both affordable and market-rate housing in a greater
variety of housing types and at prices accessible to households across the income spectrum. However,
the city has not been successful in recent years at achieving its goals related to encouraging new
housing production or increasing housing types.
A review of Federal Way’s zoning code indicates that housing supply and type are limited by code
provisions that present regulatory barriers as well as high school impact fees. A key purpose of this
HAP is to identify actions the city may consider taking to reduce these kinds of barriers to production
while still achieving the remainder of the housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
9,396
34,560
37,085
2,525
6,871
Gross
Area (acres)
Critical Areas
(acres)
Public Purpose
(acres)
ROWs
(acres)
Net
Area (acres)
Total
Units
Total
Units
Very Low 0 - 4 du/acre 29.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.7 29 1.0 123
Low 4 - 10 du/acre 57.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.1 245 4.3 264
Medium Low 10 - 24 du/acre 59.0 17.9 7.1 0.3 33.7 659 19.5 0
Medium High 24 - 48 du/acre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 -1.0 846
High 48 & up du/acre 14.1 0.0 0.5 1.5 12.2 723 59.2 423
Total 160.0 17.9 7.6 1.7 132.8 1,656 1,656
24% 76%
Net Area (acres)
Residential Achieved Densities
Federal Way
Since 2006, Federal Way has grown
at 65% of the pace needed to achieve
its 2035 housing growth target of
9,396 units. During this period, the
total number of housing units in
Federal Way grew by roughly 7%. At
this current rate, Federal Way is
under the production pace needed to
meet its 2035 growth target, and
needs to grow at an annual rate of
1.1% to reach its remaining target
by 2035.
Zoned Density (du/acre)
Achieved Density
Level
Federal Way Housing Growth Target: 2006-2035
2006 Estimated Housing Units
2018 Estimated Housing Units
Very Low
Low
Medium Low
Medium High
Achieved Density
(DU/acre)
Estimated Housing Growth
Remaining 2035 Target
3.7
132.8
1.0
4.3
19.5
59.2
12.5
High
Total
56.5
46.4
0.0
26.1
65.0%0.61%1.09%
% of Pace Needed to
Achieve 2035 Housing
Growth Target
Annual 2006-2018
Growth Rate
Annual 2018-2035
Growth Rate Needed to
Meet 2035 Target
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighDU/AcreZoned Density Level
Achieved Density vs Zoned Density, 2012-2018
Zoned Density
Range of
Zones with
Produced
Units
Average
Achieved
Density
2035 Target
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034Housing UnitsActual vs Target Housing Growth
(From 2006 Baseline)
Target Actual
7%
16%
0%
51%
26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very Low Low Medium Low Medium High HighPercent of Total UnitsAchieved Density Level
Permitted Housing Units, 2012-2018
3939
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Developing the HAP
DRAFT June 16, 2021 13
Exhibit 2. Housing Goals in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2015)
HG1 Preserve and protect the quality of existing residential neighborhoods and require new
development to be of a scale and design that is compatible with existing neighborhood
character.
HG2 Involve the community in the development of new housing to a degree that is consistent with the
scale of impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.
HG3 Develop a zoning code that provides flexibility to produce innovative housing solutions, does
not burden the cost of housing development and maintenance, and diversifies the range of
housing types available in the city.
HG4 Proactively plan for and respond to trends in housing demand.
HG5 Develop a range of affordable housing opportunities for low-income households consistent with
the CWPPs and the needs of the community.
HG6 Encourage development of mixed-income projects and communities.
HG7 Develop a range of housing opportunities that meet the requirements of people with special
housing needs, including the elderly, mentally ill, victims of domestic abuse, and persons with
physical and/or developmental disabilities.
HG8 Develop emergency shelter and transitional housing facilities for the homeless.
HG9 Coordinate and integrate the City’s housing programs with regional housing efforts and with
local housing and service providers.
HG10 Work with other King County jurisdictions to ensure that affordable housing is equitably
distributed across jurisdictions and not concentrated in less affluent cities and communities.
Source: Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2015).
Capacity for New Housing Production
Federal Way is participating in the 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Study. As part of this
study, the city analyzed buildable land capacity based on current zoning and development standards.
The study identified parcels that are vacant or have potential for redevelopment. Exhibit 3 summarizes
the findings. The city has capacity for over 14,000 new units of development. This is over double the
amount needed to meet its 2036 growth target. Almost 80% of that capacity is in high density zones
that allow for over 48 dwelling units per acre. Much of this capacity is in mixed-use zones in the City
Center where there is potential for redevelopment of under-utilized property for new apartment and
condominium projects near the planned Sound Transit Link light rail station. Much less capacity is
currently available in the medium-low or medium-high density levels that allow for “missing middle”
housing types like townhouses, multiplex units, or smaller garden-style apartment or condominium
buildings.
4040
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Developing the HAP
DRAFT June 16, 2021 14
Exhibit 3. Capacity for new housing development by density level
Density Levels
Very Low 0-4 units/acre
Low 4-10 units/acre
Medium-Low 10-24 units/acre
Medium-High 24-48 units/acre
High 48+ units/acre
Source: King County Urban Growth Capacity Report (Preliminary Draft, May 2021).
Capacity (units)
Very Low Density Zones 483
Low Density Zones 1,311
Medium Low Density Zones 1,003
Medium High Density Zones 202
High Density Zones 11,079
Capacity in Pipeline 0
Total Capacity (Units)14,077
Remaining Target (2018-2035) 6,871
Surplus/Deficit Capacity (Units)7,207
483
1,311
1,003
202
11,079
Very Low Density
Low Density
Medium Low Density
Medium High Density
High Density
Housing Capacity by
Density Level (units)
4141
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 15
Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
This plan identifies four objectives that form the basis for the city’s strategies to address housing
needs. These objectives and strategies are informed by the Housing Needs Assessment; a review of
current housing goals, policies, development regulations, and permitting process; community and
stakeholder engagement; and input from the Advisory Group, City Departments, Planning Commission,
and City Council.
HOUSING OBJECTIVES
Objective 1: Promote new market-rate and affordable housing construction that expands
housing choices and is inclusive to community needs.
To accommodate population growth and account
for past underproduction, the Federal Way
Housing Needs Assessment and Subregional
Housing Action Plan Framework estimated that
the city will need to increase the annual
production of housing units by 67%.
The Federal Way housing market is not producing
enough housing, or the right mix of housing types
to meet community needs and preferences.
Objective 2: Encourage homeownership
opportunities and support equitable
housing outcomes
Homeownership is highly desirable for many
Federal Way households. It can provide greater
economic security, residential stability,
generational wealth, and an important financial
asset to the homeowner. However, the Housing
Needs Assessment found that homeownership is out of reach for many Federal Way households,
especially BIPOC residents. This is shown in stark disparities in homeownership rates between White
and Black households: 68% compared to just 28%.5
With a rising population and a fixed supply of land, new homeownership opportunities that are
attainable to moderate income earning households will require creative strategies that are often
referred to as the “missing middle” housing types. Promoting homeownership units in the city of
Federal Way will increase the opportunities for households to build generational wealth , particularly
for those previously excluded.
5 Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2013-2017 5-year estimates).
Exhibit 4. Housing Units in Federal Way by
Structure Type, 2020
Source: OFM, 2020.
54%
1%
8%
33%
4%Single-Family
Duplexes
Multi-family
(3 or 4 Units)
Multi-family
(5+ Units)
Mobile
Homes
4242
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 16
Objective 3: Plan for forecasted growth and ensure that the built environment promotes
community development and increases the quality of life for Federal Way’s existing
and future residents.
Proactive planning efforts through internal and external coordination will promote stronger and more
sustainable communities. Public resources can be invested in a way to benefit the whole city and
promote development and thriving communities.
Objective 4: Preserve existing affordable housing stock to reduce displacement pressure.
The South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework – Task 2 Housing Context Methods
Memo identified naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) as a critical component of a
jurisdiction’s housing stock. Throughout South King County, the largest share of housing that is
accessible to middle- and low-income households is in the unregulated affordable housing stock
meaning it is affordable at lower incomes without subsidy or income or rent restrictions . Nearly 30% of
Federal Way’s existing housing is affordable to households at 80% AMI. The tight housing market in
Federal Way from the imbalance of lagging housing supply not keeping up with growing demand puts
NOAH units at risk of redevelopment which would displace current residents.
Many lower-income residents face eviction and displacement pressures as housing costs escalate
rapidly. There are significant racial disparities in displacement pressure. About 4% of Black households
receive an eviction filing each year, compared to only 1.5% of White households6.
Anti-displacement strategies can be implemented to help residents stay in their homes through the
preservation of existing affordable housing.
HOUSING STRATEGIES
This plan includes eight strategies designed to help Federal Way achieve its housing objectives. None of
these strategies will be fully effective in isolation. However, together they can help the city overcome
barriers to new housing development and guide new growth to effectively carry out the vision of the
city and this plan. Exhibit 5 depicts how these interrelated strategies work together to support planned
growth in Federal Way while meeting the city’s housing needs. Exhibit 6 lists each of the strategies and
the related housing objectives. The pages that follow describe each strategy as well as the actions the
city can take to implement them.
6 University of Washington. 2017. “The Evictions Study Map.” Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology.
https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/
4343
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 17
Exhibit 5. Interrelated Housing Strategies to Support Planned Growth in Federal Way
Exhibit 6. Housing Strategies and Related Housing Objectives
Strategy Promote
Housing
Options
Encourage
Home-
ownership
Plan for
Quality
Growth
Preserve
Affordable
Housing
#1 Promote a dense, walkable, mixed-use City
Center.
⚫ ⚫ ⚫
#2 Promote mixed use, walkable subareas and
neighborhood centers.
⚫ ⚫ ⚫
#3 Increase diversity in housing choice through
expanding “missing middle” development
opportunities.
⚫ ⚫ ⚫
#4 Encourage accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
production.
⚫
#5 Ensure that financial and regulatory
incentives for mixed-income housing are
effective.
⚫
#6 Review school impact fees on multifamily
housing.
⚫ ⚫ ⚫
#7 Coordinate affordable housing development
and preservation with nonprofit developers,
community groups, and SKHHP.
⚫ ⚫
#8 Protect tenants and support pathways to
homeownership.
⚫ ⚫
4444
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 18
#1 Promote a dense, walkable, mixed-use City Center.
In 2024, the Sound Transit Link station is planned to
open and serve Federal Way’s City Center, connecting
residents to jobs and opportunities to the north. Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) designated Federal Way’s
City Center Core (CC-C) zone as a Regional Growth
Center. A key purpose of the Regional Growth Center
designation is to promote dense, walkable, mixed-used
areas.
Federal Way’s adopted plans, policies, and Planned
Action SEPA for the City Center zones call for mixed-use
and transit-oriented development. However, to date,
there has been limited residential development in this
area. The purpose of this strategy is to enable and
encourage higher density mixed-use and residential
development in the City Center that provides access to
transit as well as resources and amenities for current
and future residents.
Benefits of this strategy
Encouraging dense, mixed-use development in the City
Center will enable more households to live and work
near the Sound Transit Link light rail, benefitting from
the access to jobs and opportunities the light rail
provides. It will also provide benefits to the city as a
whole:
▪ A livable, vibrant, people-friendly City Center that
serves the full spectrum of Federal Way’s residents
and businesses.
▪ Safe and pleasant connections and gathering spaces near transit .
▪ Increased access to opportunity—the ability to reach jobs, education, healthcare, and services—
through improved transit access and proximity of uses.
▪ A critical mass of transit riders to support the transit investment and reduce the need for single-
occupancy vehicle travel.7
Well-planned TOD can leverage existing assets like local businesses, cultural anchors, and parks while
7 PSRC calls for high capacity transit-served areas to have residential and commercial densities exceeding 15 to 20 homes
per acre and/or 50 jobs per acre. In a Regional Growth Center densities of at least 45 people (resident/employee) per acre
are desired (VISION 2040, p 81).
An example of walkable, mixed-use development that
was popular with participants of Federal Way’s Visual
Preference Survey. Source: Bob Bengford, MAKERS.
Related Strategies
This strategy will be most effective when the
following strategies are also implemented.
▪ #2 Promote mixed-use, walkable subareas and
neighborhood centers.
▪ #5 Ensure that financial and regulatory
incentives for mixed-income housing are
effective.
▪ #6 Review school impact fees on multifamily
housing.
Related Objectives
▪ Promote Housing Options
▪ Encourage Homeownership
▪ Plan for Quality Growth
4545
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 19
adding new amenities and avoiding displacement.
Actions Federal Way can take to implement this strategy
▪ Implement the City Center Subarea Plan.
Explore specific opportunities, challenges, and strategies to encourage TOD in an update to
the City Center chapter of the Comprehensive Plan .
Consider a phasing plan that demonstrates how the station area can intensify over time and
offer flexibility to meet changing community needs.
In station area planning efforts, incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
principles and funding mechanisms that promote safe and pleasant paths for people walking,
biking, and rolling to transit and other amenities within the context of the total transportation
network.
▪ Modify Federal Way Revised Code Title 19 to ensure that zoning and development code provisions
are supportive of TOD. Specific considerations:
Update the City Center Core (CC-C) and City Center Frame (CC-F) zone provisions.
Consider providing for minimum density standards to ensure supportive planned -for densities
are achieved.
Evaluate whether changes to Comprehensive Plan classifications within a ½ mile and ¼ mile of
transit to allow higher density zoning are necessary.
▪ Leverage assets and financial opportunities to realize City Center Subarea Plan vision.
Evaluate city-owned assets and future capital improvements in and around the City Center
area that are appropriate for public and private partnerships.
Review the city’s existing Local Infrastructure Financing Tool “LIFT Tax” program for
opportunities to support City Center development.
Case Studies
▪ Lynnwood is also designated a Core City and Regional Growth Center by PSRC. To plan for the
coming light rail, Lynnwood developed the City Center Subarea Plan (2005), Streetscape Plan
(2014), Lynnwood Transit Center Multimodal Accessibility Plan (2016), City Center Subarea
Implementation Strategies Report (2017), City Center Parks Master Plan (2018), City Center Design
Guidelines (2019), and others. These planning efforts set the vision and development and design
standards for the area and has attracted hundreds of new units prior to light rail arrival in 2024.
▪ Kent’s “Meet Me on Meeker” initiative is an effort to update the main corridor to the historic
downtown, complement new development, and better connect residents with businesses through
4646
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 20
updated streetscape design and construction standards. Pairing one side of the road with wide
sidewalks, a landscaped buffer/amenity zone, and on-street parking, the other featuring a multi-
modal promenade that extends from community trails to the downtown.
▪ Many Puget Sound cities require minimum densities around transit, including Bellevue, Bothell,
Mountlake Terrace, and Redmond. Mountlake Terrace Town Center uses a minimum height—four
stories—rather than a minimum density, paired with a prohibition on surface parking near the
future light rail station.
4747
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 21
#2 Promote mixed-use, walkable subareas and neighborhood centers.
Similar to the desired amenity-rich City Center,
Federal Way has opportunities to achieve
dense, walkable, mixed-use areas in other
locations including around future mass transit
locations and smaller-scale neighborhood
centers.
The north and south station locations can
support opportunities for new housing
development that should be incorporated into
future planning for the city.
Higher density housing near amenities like
grocery stores, retail businesses, parks, schools,
services, and existing and future transit lines
(see Exhibit 7) support healthy walkable
communities. This strategy would include
identifying housing opportunities citywide that
increase housing options within a 15-minute
walk to amenities.
To better meet the community’s housing
needs, the City of Federal Way should identify
opportunities to enhance and promote
neighborhood centers and subarea plans to
encourage local economic development for
accessible, vibrant, and livable neighborhoods.
Well-crafted design standards are an essential
component of this strategy to help shape the
form of Federal Way’s subareas and
neighborhood centers. Such standards should
integrate a strategic mix of predictability and
flexibility. This includes integrating clear
minimum standards for site and building design
so that the community knows what to expect
with new development. Options provide the
developer ways to have some flexibility while
still meeting the intent of the standards.
Theis strategy encourages the development of
market-rate townhome and condominium units
to increase entry-level homeownership
opportunities at a lower cost at higher densities
than single-family detached housing. Shared
Exhibit 7. Zoning and current/planned frequent
transit service in North Federal Way
Related Strategies
This strategy will be most effective when the
following strategies are also implemented.
▪ #3 Increase diversity in housing choice through
expanding missing middle development opportunities.
▪ #5 Ensure that financial and regulatory incentives for
mixed-income housing are effective.
▪ #6 Review school impact fees on multifamily housing.
Related Objectives
▪ Promote Housing Options
▪ Encourage Homeownership
▪ Plan for Quality Growth
4848
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 22
wall houses are also more energy efficient8 than free-standing houses and are typically less costly to
build on a per unit basis. However, Federal Way’s rules for townhouses and condominiums are
complex and restrictive, which makes new construction slower and more expensive than in other
cities.
Actions Federal Way can take to implement this
strategy
▪ Continue support of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plans to allow reduced
parking requirements where appropriate.
▪ Encourage mixed-use areas to include
elements that foster local economic
development through partnerships with
community based organizations (CBOs).
▪ Support additional long-range planning
around mass transit, including the portion of
the sub-area within the City of Federal Way
planned at the S 272nd Street Station, the S
352nd Street Station, and neighborhood
centers.
▪ Modify Federal Way Revised Code Title 19 to ensure that zoning and development code provisions
are supportive of walkable, mixed-use subareas and neighborhood centers. Specific considerations:
Craft block frontage, site, and building design standards in conjunction with the code flexibility
provisions to enhance the character, compatibility, and livability of new development.
Collaborate with the Public Works Department to identify alternative parking standards near
the development of future mass transit.
Consider amending the ground floor commercial requirement in mixed-use zones to promote
flexibility. Couple code-flexibility provision with design standards to emphasize entrances and
other similar active/pedestrian-friendly ground level frontages for residential uses.
Revise and simplify dwelling unit definitions and types outlined in FWRC 19.05.040.
Case Studies
▪ Wenatchee’s 2019 housing code update includes design guidelines to ensure pedestrian-friendly
8 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013. “Apartments in buildings with 5 or more units use less energy than
other home types” https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=11731.
El Centro De La Raza is a mixed-use development with
affordable housing, retail, services, and public open space. It is
located next to a Link light rail stop in the Beacon Hill
neighborhood of Seattle. Source: Beacon Development Group,
2016.
4949
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 23
design in higher density and mixed-use zones. Specific pedestrian-oriented streets in the historic
downtown require non-residential use and have more stringent design guidance.
▪ Anacortes’ code includes standards for live-work units, which accommodate ground-floor
residential use with the flexibility to convert to commercial use when market conditions permit.
5050
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 24
#3 Increase diversity in housing choice through expanding “missing middle” development
opportunities.
This strategy calls for expanding opportunities for market-rate
development of missing middle housing types such as
duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage housing, and
courtyard apartments in the Single-Family Residential (RS)
zone. Currently nearly all RS zones do not allow missing middle
housing types. Only RS5.0 provides limited options for missing
middle housing, and this zone only accounts for 1.1% of land in
Federal Way (see map).
Benefits of this strategy
In Federal Way and many suburban communities, nearly all
housing choices fall into two categories: detached single-
family homes or larger multifamily apartment buildings.
Such limited options do not reflect the wide range of
preferences and needs of differing family sizes,
household incomes, and cultural groups. One potential
solution is to encourage a larger variety of housing types,
often referred to as the “missing middle.” They are
considered “missing” because many zoning codes have
blocked or disincentivized their production since the
1950s and are “middle” as they fall between single-family
detached housing and larger apartment buildings. These
housing types are also some of the most affordable forms
of housing in terms of construction-cost-per-square-foot.
In general, these types are lower cost than detached
single-family homes and offer a greater range of design
and locational choices than larger apartment buildings
can offer. When properly designed, missing middle housing options can be compatible with established
single-family neighborhoods.
Actions Federal Way can take to implement this strategy
▪ Modify Federal Way Revised Code Title 19 and Title 18 to ensure that zoning and development
code provisions are supportive of “missing middle” housing types in single-family zones. These
include cottages, compact single-family housing, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and courtyard
apartments/condos.
▪ Analyze areas that can support redevelopment or infill development and where additional housing
capacity can occur and would be supported by the neighborhoods. Integrate proposed changes
into Comprehensive Plan update and FWRC.
Encourage missing middle housing types of four units or more, such as courtyard apartments
Related Strategies
This strategy will be most effective when the
following strategies are also implemented.
▪ #2 Promote mixed-use, walkable subareas
and neighborhood centers.
▪ #6 Review school impact fees on multifamily
housing.
Related Objectives
▪ Promote Housing Options
▪ Encourage Homeownership
▪ Plan for Quality Growth
5151
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 25
and townhomes, on lots in amenity-rich areas near schools, parks, transit, or services.
Allow duplexes on corner lots and to be reviewed under the same process as single-family
homes, rather than requiring a separate land use approval, which adds time and cost to
development.
Consider lower school impact fees and expedited permitting for missing middle housing types.
Revise minimum lot size for townhouse
developments from the current standard of 5,000 sf
per unit to improve the financial feasibility of this
type of development and opportunity for infill.
Adopt a unit-lot subdivision ordinance to
accommodate greater flexibility for integrating
townhouses and other missing middle housing types.
Apply lot standards to the whole development
rather than individual dwelling units. See Exhibit 8
for example.
Revise lot coverage permitted for higher density
single-family residential uses.
Allow reduced front setbacks for porches and
covered entries.
Expand cottage housing and compact single-family
housing options to more single-family zones and
consider allowing attached units. Reevaluate cottage
housing and compact single-family housing lot and
design criteria and approval process. Consider a
reduction to required minimum lot and an expansion
to maximum development size.
Revise the City’s Comprehensive Plan (related to
Traffic and Street Sections), Non-Motorized Plan,
and Park PROS plan. Review ADA Transition Plan for
required revisions.
▪ Pair all regulatory strategies to encourage new types of
housing development with updated design standards to ensure compatibility and livability.
Add design standards for façade modulation, covered entries, pitched roofs, and integration
of design details. These should also include standards on garage/driveway width and design.
Examples of missing middle housing types.
From top to bottom: a corner duplex,
traditional townhomes with garages in rear,
and a cluster of attached homes surrounding a
shared open space. Source: Sightline Institute.
5252
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 26
Case Studies
▪ Kirkland recently passed missing
middle-related housing amendments
which made it easier to develop
cottages, carriage houses, duplexes,
and triplexes through expanded
allowances within all low density
residential zones, relaxed setbacks
and parking standards, simplified the
review process, and elimination of
proximity limitations. They also
expanded opportunities for ADUs (see
Strategy 4), including allowing two
ADUs on one single-family property,
increasing maximum size to 1,200sf,
eliminating owner occupancy
requirement, allowing ADUs to be
condominium units for separate
ownership, and relaxing setbacks and
parking requirements.
▪ In 2019, Wenatchee revised its
zoning code to allow duplexes,
triplexes, cottage housing, and
townhouses in almost all low-density residential zones.
Exhibit 8. Townhome Unit-Lot Subdivision Example
This is an example of a townhome unit lot subdivision. Compliance with
setbacks and density standards are assessed for the entire development
instead of individual lots to allow developer to have greater flexibility
for integrating townhomes on infill parcels.
Source: Cone Architecture
5353
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 27
#4 Encourage accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production.
This strategy encourages the construction of market-rate
housing options by removing code barriers and existing
disincentives for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). ADUs are
small dwelling units that share a parcel with an existing or
concurrently-built house (the primary dwelling unit) that can
provide an accessible housing opportunity for intergenerational
households, aging populations, people with disabilities, as well
as other household types. Detached ADUs, like a backyard
cottage or garage apartment, are not connected to a house.
Attached ADUs are contained within the house or are built onto
the existing house but have separate living facilities (bathroom
and kitchen) like a basement apartment.
Benefits of this strategy
All cities in Washington state with more than 20,000 residents
are required to allow ADUs, but in many cities, restrictions like
owner-occupancy and parking requirements make adding an
ADU difficult to finance or accommodate on a site. For ADUs to
play a role in reducing housing scarcity and contribute to the
diversity of housing options, restrictions that severely limit ADU
construction need to be reconsidered.
Federal Way requires owner-occupancy in ADUs. Owner-
occupancy provisions mean the homeowner is required to live
in either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU. However, these
provisions make it more difficult to finance ADU construction,
add time to the permitting process, and are generally
considered to be unenforceable.
Currently, Federal Way limits ADU size to less than 40% of the
primary residence and between 300 to 800 square feet. These
regulations can have unintended consequences and create
barriers to ADU construction. Simplifying the ADU size limits
and removing the minimum lot size requirements would reduce
barriers.
Actions Federal Way can take to implement this strategy
▪ Modify Federal Way Revised Code Title 19 to ensure that
zoning and development code provisions support ADU
production.
▪ Promote ADU development through marketing and streamlined permitting.
Establish a program to promote ADUs to the community.
Examples of potential ADU configurations.
Source: American Planning Association.
Related Strategies
This strategy will be most effective
when the following strategies are also
implemented.
▪ #2 Promote mixed-use, walkable
subareas and neighborhood centers.
▪ #6 Review school impact fees on
multifamily housing.
Related Objectives
▪ Promote Housing Options
A detached backyard accessory dwelling unit in
Tacoma. Source: Lauren-Flemister/City of
Tacoma
5454
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 28
Examine fees charged for the permitting of ADUs and look for opportunities to reduce.
Eliminate stand-alone land use application process and conduct zoning review as part of the
building permit.
Simplify ADU permitting for the community by providing preapproved ADU plans at low cost.
Consider including plans that are designed for those living with a disability and mobility needs
and support aging in place.
▪ Evaluate best practices implemented by cities successful in attaining more ADUs and recommend
code revisions.
Case Studies
▪ In 2017, Vancouver, WA
removed ADU owner-occupancy
and parking requirements and
allowed ADUs to be up to 50%
of the size of the primary house.
▪ In 2018, Olympia removed
owner-occupancy and parking
requirements, and increased
allowed heights for ADUs to 24
feet.
▪ In 2019, Burien removed its
owner-occupancy requirement,
removed parking requirements
near transit stops, and allowed
two ADUs on a lot if one is a
detached ADU and the other is
attached.
▪ In 2020, Kenmore modified its owner-occupancy provision so that it only applies in the first six-
months after construction and removed minimum lot sizes.
▪ In 2019, Seattle removed barriers and promoted the construction of ADUs in single -family zones by
launching ADUniverse, an online central resource that includes a step-by-step guide and pre-
approved Detached Accessory Dwelling Units plans.
A selection of preapproved detached ADU designs available in Seattle’s
ADUniverse. Source: City of Seattle, 2021.
5555
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 29
#5 Ensure that financial and regulatory incentives for mixed-income housing are effective.
This strategy seeks to calibrate the city’s existing incentives for
affordable housing to current market conditions. Periodically
reviewing the productivity of incentives against the policy goals
ensures incentives are aligned with community priorities. The
strategy includes reviewing the measures the city has in place
to determine which are effective and which may need updating
to ensure that multifamily housing development effectively
includes mixed-income units and supports the community’s
housing needs. Mixed-income housing developments include
units offered at market-rate as well as units set aside for
income-qualified households that are affordable at lower
income thresholds.
Benefits of this strategy
While increased production of market-rate housing is an
essential part of this Housing Action Plan, the housing market in
Federal Way provides few options that are affordable to very
low-income individuals and families, including income-qualified
units.
The city already has a variety of policy and code provisions in
place to encourage the development of affordable housing
designated for income-qualified households. These include:
▪ Mandatory inclusionary zoning per FWRC 19.110.010(2)
requires that developments with 25 units or more provide
5% of total of rental units be affordable for households with
incomes at 50% AMI.
▪ Optional density bonus per FWRC 19.110.010 (3)(a) allows
one bonus market-rate unit for each affordable unit
included in the project; up to 10% above the maximum
density of the underlying zoning district.
▪ Multifamily dwelling unit limited property tax exemption
(also known as MFTE) program is eligible in the CC-C and
CC-F residential target areas per FWRC 3.30 serving 80-
115% AMI.
The implementation of these tools has not been regularly
evaluated or monitored for efficacy.
Related Strategies
This strategy will be most effective
when the following strategies are also
implemented.
▪ #1 Promote a dense, walkable, mixed-
use City Center.
▪ #2 Promote mixed-use, walkable
subareas and neighborhood centers.
▪ #6 Review school impact fees on
multifamily housing.
Related Objectives
▪ Promote Housing Options
▪ Encourage Homeownership
▪ Plan for Quality Growth
The Solera mixed-income project in Renton
will begin construction in 2021. It includes
275 affordable housing apartments,
275 market-rate apartments, 102 for-sale
townhomes, childcare facilities, and
commercial retail space. It was enabled in
part by fee waivers as well as a multifamily
tax exemption. Source: Tiscareno Associates.
5656
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 30
Actions Federal Way can take to implement this strategy
The city should review its existing program of incentives to determine the effectiveness of current
parameters.
▪ Conduct a study to evaluate the financial incentives and impacts of the existing mixed -income
provisions on multifamily development.
▪ Monitor the income-qualified units created by these provisions.
▪ Periodically evaluate provisions and implement changes as necessary to promote mixed-income
developments.
▪ Consider development of 10-year targets. (Additional recommendations for target-setting are in
the following chapter.)
5757
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 31
#6 Review school impact fees on multifamily housing.
This strategy addresses the school impact fees that are
collected from new housing units to partially fund capital
facilities necessary to accommodate the resulting growth in
students attending Federal Way Public Schools. Federal Way’s
school impact fees for multifamily housing are high compared
to other cities in the region and should be reviewed jointly
with the school district.
Currently, children and youth make up a larger portion of the
population in Federal Way than in King County as a whole:
27% of Federal Way residents are aged 19 or under,
compared with 22% of King County residents. Furthermore,
student generation rates for multifamily housing in Federal
Way are 2.7 times higher than the King County composite
rate.
Benefits of this strategy
No new multifamily housing projects subject to school impact
fees have occurred since the fees increased in 2017 from
approximately $8,000 per new unit to $20,000 per new unit.
While the methodology for the increase was based in state
statute, county code, and upon co-adoption by the city,
stakeholder input indicated that local developers do not
consider Federal Way to be a viable location for new
multifamily development due to its higher school impact fees.
Despite an adjustment in December 2020 by the Ci ty and
FWPS in which the aggregate impact fee was lowered, no new
multifamily development permits subject to the fees have
been submitted.
Actions Federal Way can take to implement this strategy
▪ Annually review and adjust, if needed, school impact fees
for multifamily housing with consideration for both FWPS’
need for funding of future facilities and the city’s policy
goals of encouraging housing production and diversity.
▪ Clarify school impact fee rates for ADUs, townhomes,
duplexes, and triplexes.
Related Strategies
This strategy will be most effective
when the following strategies are also
implemented.
▪ #1 Promote a dense, walkable, mixed-
use City Center.
▪ #2 Promote mixed-use, walkable
subareas and neighborhood centers.
▪ #4 Encourage accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) production.
▪ #5 Ensure that financial and regulatory
incentives for mixed-income housing
are effective.
Related Objectives
▪ Promote Housing Options
▪ Encourage Homeownership
▪ Plan for Quality Growth
Source: The Federal Way Public Schools
Capital Facilities Plan (2020).
5858
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 32
# 7 Coordinate affordable housing development and preservation with nonprofit
developers, community groups, and the South King Housing and Homelessness Partners
(SKHHP).
This strategy seeks to prevent displacement through regional
collaboration to promote and preserve adequate affordable
housing supply.
Benefits of this strategy
There are many opportunities to work with community
entities that are interested in meeting the housing needs in
Federal Way. This work can include, but is not limited to,
coordinating with organizations that provide rental
assistance, affordable housing developers, religious
institutions, anti-racism and racial equity advocates, and
community based organizations.
Addressing Federal Way’s housing needs will require creative
solutions that cannot be achieved by the city alone. The
Housing Needs Assessment found that nearly 40% of all
households in Federal Way are cost-burdened (over 13,000
in total), meaning they are spending more than 30% of their
income on housing. There is a shortage in the affordable
units available relative to the number of households and
individuals that are housing cost-burdened. Furthermore,
housing insecurity and vulnerability to displacement does not
affect all groups equally. On average, over 2% of renter
households in Federal Way experienced an eviction filing
each year between 2004 and 2017. This rate is nearly double
for Black households, echoing similar patterns of inequitable
outcomes in other South King County communities.
In addition to addressing the scale of need, collaboration and
sharing of data, technical expertise, policy expertise, and
experience can strengthen the city’s ability to improve
housing policies and regulations to meet it s objectives. For
example, currently Federal Way has eight manufactured home parks with approximately 1,018 homes.
Manufactured Home Parks (MHPs) provide naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH)9 and
homeownership opportunities in Federal Way to low-income households including many senior
households. Collaborating with regional partners on the role of cities in regulating MHPs and options
for reducing displacement pressure on MHPs can help Federal Way calibrate its policy and regulations
9 Naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) refers to housing that is not required to be income-qualified, but happens
to be offered on the market at a lower cost than is typical. In some cases, these units may be in older buildings or building s
in poorer condition.
Related Strategies
This strategy will be most effective
when the following strategies are also
implemented.
▪ #3 Increase diversity in housing choice
through expanding “missing middle”
development opportunities.
▪ #5 Ensure that financial and regulatory
incentives for mixed-income housing
are effective.
▪ #8 Protect tenants and support
pathways to homeownership.
Related Objectives
▪ Promote Housing Options
▪ Preserve Affordable Housing
Laurelwood Gardens is an income-qualified
housing development in Federal Way owned
and managed by the King County Housing
Authority.
5959
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 33
to achieve its stated objectives.
Actions Federal Way can take to implement this strategy
Collaboration will be essential to meeting the housing needs in Federal Way. Success will require a
combination of actions, such as:
▪ Coordinate with the Diversity Equity and Inclusion Manager to establish mutually beneficial
relationships with CBOs serving BIPOC communities that are disproportionately vulnerable to
displacement and historically marginalized in local policy discussions.10
▪ Coordinate with the South King Housing and Homeless Partners (SKHHP) network to support a
capital fund for affordable housing opportunities.
▪ Monitor income-qualified affordable housing properties with expiring covenants.
▪ Require notice of intent to sell for properties with rents under a certain affordability threshold.
▪ Support MHP preservation and mitigate displacement for residents from closure or redevelopment.
This action may include coordination with MHP owners, residents, and advocates to identify
opportunities such as creating a city webpage with resources and key materials, options for
reducing hardship on residents, and promoting alternative ownership models when appropriate.
▪ Work with nonprofit and religious institution s interested in developing property for affordable
housing.
10 See Appendices
Appendix A: Federal Way Housing Needs Assessment
6060
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 34
#8 Protect tenants and support pathways to homeownership.
This strategy calls for the City to expand tenant protections to
ensure housing safety and collect data on rental properties in the
city.
Throughout South King County, the largest share of housing that
is accessible to households with middle and low -incomes is
provided by private owners in the open market. Housing in
Federal Way also includes naturally occurring affordable housing
(NOAH) that is affordable by nature of its age, location, condition,
or amenities. Current market conditions include a deficit of
affordable housing options, and households that rent are
vulnerable to exploitation given the lack of housing options in the
community. A tenant may be disinclined to report unsafe or
unhealthy housing conditions for fear of retribution and /or
eviction.
In 2019, Federal Way residents passed the “Stable Homes
Initiative”, which created new protections for renters.
Specifically, it limits the reasons for which a landlord can evict a
tenant, requires a 120-day notice period when the landlord is
removing the property from the market, and requires landlords
to give tenants the option to renew a lease with at least 60 days’
notice prior to lease expiration. The city also provides limited
financial support via grants to nonprofits for legal assistance and
credit counseling to prevent evictions.
Another important way to provide more housing and economic
security for renter households is to provide better pathways to
homeownership. The Housing Needs Assessment identified
barriers to achieving homeownership that BIPOC households
often experience, and these barriers result in wide disparities in
homeownership rates.11 Therefore this strategy also includes actions the city can take to reduce these
barriers.
Benefits of this strategy
▪ Monitoring and maintaining existing affordable housing units can often be cheaper than
constructing new units (although both are needed).
▪ Homeownership can provide households with greater economic security and the ability to generate
11 68% of White households are homeowners in Federal Way compared to just 28% of Black
households. Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2013-2017 5-year estimates).
Related Strategies
This strategy will be most effective
when the following strategies are also
implemented.
▪ #3 Encourage Diversity in housing
choice through expanding “missing
middle” development opportunities
▪ #7 Coordinate affordable housing
development and preservation with
nonprofit developers, community
groups, and the SKHHP.
Related Objectives
▪ Encourage homeownership
▪ Preserve Affordable Housing
The Stable Homes Federal Way campaign
was a community-led effort to strengthen
tenant protections.
6161
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Housing Action Plan Objectives and Strategies
DRAFT June 16, 2021 35
wealth that can be passed on to future generations.
▪ Increased homeownership rates can also improve the stability of neighborhoods and formation of
longer-term social ties among residents.
Actions Federal Way can take to implement this strategy
▪ Develop an inspection program and inventory of rental housing units in Federal Way to monitor
their condition.
▪ Provide additional tenant education and legal assistance.
▪ Partner to provide first time homebuyer educational programs, with special emphasis on the
unique needs of BIPOC and immigrant communities.
6262
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Implementation and Monitoring
DRAFT June 16, 2021 36
Implementation and Monitoring
Strategies and actions proposed in this HAP must be implemented by the city to have an impact on
housing development. Implementation will require significant staff time and resources as well as
coordination with non-city partners. This chapter provides a framework for prioritizing strategy and
action implementation as well as developing a workplan to guide staff efforts and resource allocation
over the next several years. The HAP as a whole is intended to be reviewed in conjunction with the
Comprehensive Plan periodic review every eight years. Frequent updates on the implementation of the
HAP strategies and actions will be presented to the City Council for monitoring and evaluation of
progress.
IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX AND PRIORITY SCHEDULE
The Implementation Matrix and Priority Schedule (Exhibit 9) lists each strategy and notable actions. It
also includes additional information to inform implementation planning and prioritization.
▪ Priority Each strategy and action will require different levels of partnership, staff time, and
potential funding to be fully implemented. Each of the actions includes a priorit ization of short-
term (ST) 0-3 years (2021-2024) medium-term (MT) 3-7 years (2024-2028), and long-term (LT) 7 or
more years (after 2028). These timeframes assume full and timely resource allocation of staff and
necessary funds.
▪ Level of Effort refers to the anticipated amount of resources as well as costs for technical studies
years to implement the actions if staff and resources are available. Low-effort actions can be
implemented without the allocation of additional resources. Medium-effort actions will require
additional staff time or resources and possibly consultant support to implement. High-effort
actions will likely require significant additional staff time, funding resources, and possibly
consultant support to implement.
▪ Department/Division/Partners lists the city department/division responsible for implementation
as well as other collaborators necessary for the action to be a success.
▪ Implementation Milestones lists milestones for tracking successful implementation, such as
adopting a plan or code amendment. The following section, Monitoring Progress, includes a list of
metrics that Federal Way can use to measure the overall effectiveness of these strategies for
achieving the four HAP objectives.
6363
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Implementation and Monitoring
DRAFT June 16, 2021 37
Exhibit 9. Implementation Matrix and Priority Schedule
Strategy/Action Priority Level of
Effort
Department/
Division/
Partners
Implementation
Milestones
#1 Promote a dense, walkable, mixed-use City Center.
Audit City Center-Core (CC-C) and City
Center-Frame (CC-F) zones to ensure
developments standards are supportive of
Transit Oriented Development (TOD).
ST Medium
Planning
Public
Works
Conduct an audit and
present findings
Evaluate city-owned assets and future
capital improvements in and around the
City Center area appropriate for public
and private partnerships.
ST Medium
Planning
Pub. Works
Number of
public/private
partnerships
established
Implement code revisions for the City
Center Subarea Plan
ST/MT High
Planning Code amendments
adopted
Review and refine the City’s existing Local
Infrastructure Financing Tool “LIFT Tax”
program for opportunities to support City
Center development.
MT Medium
Planning
Finance
Pub. Works
Parks
Revenue from LIFT
Tax
Develop wayfinding plan that is inclusive
and accessible for people with disabilities.
MT Medium Planning
Consultant
Create wayfinding
plan
#2 Promote mixed-use, walkable subareas and neighborhood centers.
Continue support of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plans to allow reduced
parking requirements where appropriate.
ST Medium
Planning
Pub. Works
Inventory of TDM
plan created
Encourage mixed-use areas to include
elements that foster local economic
development through partnerships with
community based organizations (CBOs).
ST Medium Planning
Pub Works
Partnerships
established
Support additional long-range planning
around mass transit, including the planned S
272nd Street Station, and S 352nd Street
Station, and neighborhood centers.
ST/MT Medium
Planning Subarea planning,
interjurisdictional
collaboration
Consider alternative code provisions to
remove barriers to development supportive
of this HAP.
MT Medium
Planning Code amendments
adopted
Collaborate with the Public Works
department to identify areas for creative
parking standards near the development of
future mass transit stations.
MT/LT Low
Planning
Pub. Works
Establish an
interdepartmental
work group
6464
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Implementation and Monitoring
DRAFT June 16, 2021 38
Strategy/Action Priority Level of
Effort
Department/
Division/
Partners
Implementation
Milestones
#3 Increase diversity in housing choice through expanding “missing middle” development opportunities.
Identify and remove barriers to the
development of “missing middle” housing
types in single-family zones.
MT Medium
Planning
Code amendments
expanding “missing
middle” adopted
Adopt a unit-lot subdivision ordinance to
accommodate greater flexibility for
integrating townhouses and other missing
middle housing types. Apply lot standards
to the whole development rather than
individual dwelling units.
MT Medium Planning Ordinance adopted
Add design standards for façade
modulation, covered entries, pitched roofs,
and integration of design details. These
should also include standards on
garage/driveway width and design.
MT Medium
Planning
Code amendments
updating design
standards adopted
#4 Encourage accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production.
Remove regulatory barriers to ADU
production and streamlined permitting. Also
examine fees charged for the permitting of
ADUs and look for reductions.
ST Medium
Planning
Finance
Public
Works
Updated
development
regulations
Monitor ADU
applications and
review timeline
Promote ADU development with marketing MT High
Planning
Building
Architect
Establish ADU
promotion campaign
on City website
#5 Ensure that financial and regulatory incentives for mixed-income housing are
effective.
Conduct a study to evaluate the financial
incentives and impacts of the existing
mixed-income provisions on multifamily
development.
MT Medium
Planning Study completed
Monitor the income-qualified units created
by these provisions.
MT Low
Planning
Community
Services
Inventory of income
restricted units
created, and monitor
over time
Periodically evaluate provisions and
implement changes as necessary to
promote mixed-income developments.
MT/LT Medium
Planning Evaluations
conducted
6565
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Implementation and Monitoring
DRAFT June 16, 2021 39
Strategy/Action Priority Level of
Effort
Department/
Division/
Partners
Implementation
Milestones
Necessary changes
implemented
#6 Review school impact fees on multifamily housing
Annually review and adjust, if needed,
school impact fees for multifamily housing
with consideration for both FWPS’ need for
funding of future facilities and the city’s
policy goals of encouraging housing
production and diversity.
ST Medium
Planning
Finance
FWPS
Annual review
conducted
Adjustments to school
impact fees adopted,
if necessary
Clarify school impact fee rates for
townhomes, duplexes, and triplexes.
MT Low
Planning
FWPS
Code amendment
#7 Coordinate affordable housing development and preservation with nonprofit developers,
community groups, and the South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP)
Coordinate with the Diversity Equity and
Inclusion Manager to establish mutually
beneficial relationships with community
based organizations (CBO) serving BIPOC
communities that are disproportionately
vulnerable to displacement and historically
excluded.
ST Low
Human
Resources
Community
Services
Established mutually
beneficial
partnerships with
CBOs
Coordinate with the South King Housing
and Homeless Partners (SKHHP) network to
support a capital fund for affordable
housing opportunities.
ST High
Planning
Community
Services
Finance
City investment in
capital fund
Monitor income-qualified affordable
housing properties with expiring covenants.
MT Medium
Planning
Community
Services
Create/maintain a
database of
affordable housing
preservation
opportunities
Require notice of intent to sell for
properties with rents under a certain
affordability threshold.
MT Medium
Planning Adopt notice of intent
to sell ordinance
Enforcement of
ordinance
Support Manufactured Home Park (MHP)
preservation and mitigate displacement for
residents from closure or redevelopment.
MT/LT Medium
Community
Services
Planning
Relationship building
with residents and
landowners
Webpage added to
the city website
6666
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Implementation and Monitoring
DRAFT June 16, 2021 40
Strategy/Action Priority Level of
Effort
Department/
Division/
Partners
Implementation
Milestones
#8 Tenant Protections and Pathways to Homeownership
Develop an inspection program and
inventory of rental housing units to monitor
their condition.
ST High
Community
Services
Planning
Building
Rental inspection
program adopted
Inventory of rental
units inspected
Provide additional tenant education and
legal assistance.
MT High
Community
Services
Building
Establish or partner
to provide tenant
education and legal
assistance program
Partner to provide first time homebuyer
educational programs.
MT Medium
Community
Services
Educational program
offered and
accessible to
community
Work with nonprofit and religious
institutions interested in developing
property for affordable housing.
MT Medium
Community
Services
Partnerships
developed
MONITORING PROGRESS
In addition to the actions listed above for implementing the eight strategies, Federal Way should also
establish a monitoring program to measure progress towards achieving each of the four HAP
objectives. Below is a discussion of monitoring for each object ive.
Objective 1: Promote new market-rate and affordable housing development that expands
housing production and choices and is inclusive to community needs.
This objective is fundamentally about increasing the rate of housing production in Federal Way as well
as the diversity of housing types being built. As discussed in Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment,
between 2020 and 2040 Federal Way will need to add 6,786 new housing units to accommodate
population growth and account for past underproduction.1 This equates to an average of 339
additional units per year. Exhibit 10 breaks down the total units needed by level of affordability. It also
shows housing types commonly associated with that affordability level in the Federal Way housing
market. While these housing types do not reflect the housing preference of all households at these
affordability levels, they provide a guide for setting reasonable housing production targets by housing
type.
6767
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Implementation and Monitoring
DRAFT June 16, 2021 41
Exhibit 10. Total Additional Housing Units Needed in 2040 by Affordability Level (% of AMI)
Affordability
Level (% of AMI)
Total Units
Needed
Average Annual
Units Needed
Housing Types Most Likely to Meet Need
0-30% 950 48 Income-qualified affordable housing
30-50% 1,289 64 ADUs; Income-qualified affordable housing in
mixed-income buildings
50-80% 1,629 81 Market-rate apartments, multiplex, condominiums
80-100% 814 41 Market-rate townhomes
100%+ 2,104 105 Market-rate single-family homes and townhomes
Sources: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation, 2020; BERK, 2021.
If housing costs continue to rise faster than incomes in Federal Way, many existing homes will become
less affordable over time. For example, a single-family home that is affordable today at 80% of AMI
may only be affordable at 100% of AMI in 2030. These rising costs reduce the supply of housing
available at lower affordability levels and increase the economic displacement pressures faced by
current residents. Therefore, it may be appropriate to set higher production targets for less expensive
housing types in anticipation of losses at those affordability levels, and lower targets for single-family
homes as indicated in Exhibit 10.
Objective 2: Encourage homeownership opportunities and support equitable housing
outcomes.
There are a few important ways to measure achievement of this objective. First is measuring the
production of new housing units suitable to homeownership. Exhibit 10 already includes some basis
for selecting average annual production targets for ownership housing types like condominiums,
townhomes, and single-family homes. Additional measure of success could include:
▪ Increasing the total number of homeowners in Federal Way: It is quite possible the
homeownership rate in the city will start to slowly fall in years to come due to the anticipated
increase in apartment development in the City Center. However, the total number of homeowners
will be an important metric for evaluating if homeownership is becoming available to more
residents.
▪ Narrowing or eliminating the homeownership gap between White and BIPOC households:
Federal Way should monitor the difference between new homeownership totals for White and
BIPOC households. Efforts to reduce barriers to homeownership for BIPOC households will be
successful if they reduce racial disparities in homeownership.
6868
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Implementation and Monitoring
DRAFT June 16, 2021 42
Objective 3: Plan for continued growth to ensure that the built environment promotes
community development and increases the quality of life for Federal Way’s
existing and future residents.
Achievement of this objective is more difficult to measure directly, since “quality of life” is interpreted
differently by residents. However, there are some indicators that can be used to determine if the
intent of this strategy is achieved:
▪ Addition of new community amenities such as parks, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, or public
gathering spaces in areas that receive housing growth: This will help the city evaluate if it is
successful in focusing new publicly or privately funded improvement in areas that receive new
housing.
▪ Increased Walkscore in station areas: Walkscore measures the density and diversity of amenities
(such as grocery stores, retail, restaurants, entertainment, or childcare) within walking distance of a
point of interest, as well as the quality of the pedestrian environment. Increases in Walkscore will
indicate that the station areas are growing in ways that make more amenities available to both new
and existing residents.
▪ Increased density of new development in station areas: Federal Way can monitor the achieved
density of new projects proposed and built within Link station areas it is transit-supportive and
consistent with transit oriented-development.12
Objective 4: Preserve existing affordable housing stock to limit displacement pressure.
Federal Way’s current supply of housing affordable to households with incomes less than 50% of AMI
includes both income-qualified, affordable housing as well as naturally occurring affordable housing.
Both kinds of housing are at risk. There are a few indicators to support monitoring achievement of th is
objective.
▪ Total units of preserved income-qualified affordable housing: This indicator measures the
effectiveness of Federal Way’s work to collaborate with SKHHP in identifying opportunities for
affordable housing preservation.
▪ Total units of income-qualified affordable housing lost: Once Federal Way begins monitoring
regulated affordable housing, it will be able to monitor when these units are lost due to expiring
covenants that regulate affordability and/or when units are demolished in favor of new
development.
12 See Strategy 1 for a discussion.
6969
Appendices
APPENDIX A: FEDERAL WAY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
7070
December 2020 City of Federal Way | Housing Needs Assessment 1
City of Federal Way
Housing Needs Assessment
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Housing Terminology ................................................................................................................................................. 4
Community Profile ................................................................................................................................ 7
Population ................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Households ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Employment Profile ............................................................................................................................. 20
Employment and Wages ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Travel to Work ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Housing Inventory ............................................................................................................................... 24
Housing Supply Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 24
Homeownership ........................................................................................................................................................ 27
Rental Housing .......................................................................................................................................................... 32
Housing Production .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Subsidized Housing .................................................................................................................................................. 36
Gap Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 37
Housing Needed to Accommodate Further Growth .......................................................................................... 37
7171
December 2020 City of Federal Way | Housing Needs Assessment 1
Introduction
This housing needs assessment presents an evaluation of current housing needs and supply in Federal
Way, across the full spectrum of household types and income levels. This assessment will help evaluate
potential options and guide implementation so that the Housing Action Plan (HAP) plan strategies are
based on data and connect to the needs of residents. The assessment helps to answer the following kinds
of questions:
▪ Who lives and works in Federal Way and what are their socioeconomic characteristics?
▪ What types of housing are available in Federal Way?
▪ Are there any groups of people who are not able to find housing that is safe, inclusive, and meets
their household needs?
▪ How much housing, and what types of housing, are needed to meet current and future housing needs
of Federal Way residents?
This housing needs assessment is organized into four main sections: a community profile, an employment
profile, a housing inventory, and a gap analysis. Below is a summary of overall findings.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
For many years Federal Way has been a place where people could live affordably in the Puget Sound
region. The community offers lower- and moderate-income housing within a short commute of both Seattle
and Tacoma. It also offers higher income housing with sweeping views and easy access to the Puget
Sound. Regional growth pressures resulted in greater demand for housing and higher prices for housing in
and around Seattle. Growth did not occur evenly throughout the region, resulting in a unique pattern of
housing needs and demands for Federal Way.
Federal Way’s demographics highlight that the community needs a range of housing types to
accommodate its population. Housing is needed for families with children, larger households, and smaller
one- and two-person households. Like most of the region, Federal Way also has a growing number of
older adults. Variety in Federal Way’s housing is necessary to meet the needs of changing needs of
community members throughout their lifecycle.
▪ Children and youth make up a larger portion of the population in Federal Way than in King County
as a whole: 27% of Federal Way residents are age 19 or under, compared with 22% of King
County residents.
▪ Nearly 20% of Federal Way’s population is over age 60 and an additional 13% of the population
will reach that age within the next 10 years.
▪ Whereas the King County overall has 8% of households with five or more members, 13% of Federal
Way households are in this category.
▪ About a quarter of all households have only one or two members in Federal Way. This is slightly
below the King County trend but speaks to a continued need for smaller unit housing.
7272
Since Federal Way historically provided an affordable option for people seeking housing in the region,
it was an attractive community for households with low and moderate incomes. However, rising regional
prices have increased housing costs in Federal Way, resulting in high levels of household cost burden.
Cost burden occurs when households spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs. Households
experiencing cost burden have less money available for other essential expenses such as childcare, food,
healthcare, transportation, and education. Rising rents also increase the rate of eviction and are the
primary driver of homelessness in Washington State.1 As a result, cost burden increases the need for a
variety of community supports and social services.
▪ Nearly 40% of all households in Federal Way are cost-burdened (over 13,000 households in total).
Cost burden is most common among both owner and renter households with incomes below 50% of
area median income (AMI).
▪ Housing costs are rising faster than incomes. The median annual wages in the four largest
employment sectors in Federal Way—health care and social assistance, retail trade, accommodation
and food services, and educational services—range between approximately $32,000 and $51,500.
Affordable monthly housing costs for such incomes range from $798 to $1,289.
▪ On average, over 2% of renter households in Federal Way experience an eviction filing each year
between 2004 and 2017. This rate is nearly double for Black households, echoing similar patterns in
other South King County communities. Eviction is extremely traumatic and disruptive. It often results in
homelessness and/or prolonged housing insecurity.
In addition, rising housing costs and cost burden are barriers to homeownership. Homeownership is an
important mechanism for building and securing household wealth and for creating investment in the
community. The barriers to homeownership are multi-faceted and not unique to Federal Way, but they
still profoundly affect the community. Homeownership requires financial means, including a stable income
and savings for a down payment, that put it out of reach for many households based on income
limitations or existing cost-burden. Even when households may have the means, homeownership requires a
knowledge base that is not shared by all. This includes knowing about building and repairing credit,
application processes and procedures, and banking. BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color)
households disproportionately lack access to this knowledge base, particularly those households who do
not come from a tradition of homeownership due to immigration status or systemic inequities. Addressing
the barriers to homeownership is an important need for supporting equity and community-building in
Federal Way.
New housing production has been far slower than is necessary to meet both existing and expected future
demand for housing in Federal Way. Housing production shortages increase competition for available
units and drive up rents and housing prices. New housing is needed at all affordability levels in the
community and to meet a variety of household needs. This includes both smaller and larger unit types,
rental and ownership units, and housing for households with moderate and low incomes. This may include
single-family housing, multifamily housing, and a variety of “missing middle” housing types that offer
attached single-family or smaller-sized multifamily housing such as duplexes, townhomes, or cottages.
▪ Federal Way needs to add about 6,800 new units before 2040 to accommodate population growth
and account for past underproduction. This equates to an average production of 339 additional units
1 Washington State Department of Commerce, 2018, Drivers of Homelessness in Washington State.
7373
each year, a 68% increase over recent housing production trends.
▪ Federal Way has seen no new multifamily housing permit activity since mid-2017 following a
moratorium on multifamily housing permits and an increased impact fee to support the Federal Way
School District.
▪ At least a third of the existing housing gap is for Lower-income households (making 50% of AMI or
less). Most residents in this income range would require a housing subsidy to afford housing without
being cost-burdened.
▪ Federal Way has seen little production of “missing middle” housing, such as duplex or multiplex (3-4
unit) units. Only about 9% of Federal Way’s housing stock consists of these types.
▪ For some in the development community, Federal Way is seen as “built out” based on its existing
zoning. Zoning changes that allow additional density or development types could support new
development.
There is increased awareness of the need to address systemic inequities that have affected BIPOC for
generations in the United States. In Federal Way, like other places, the results of these inequities can be
seen in disparities in income, homeownership, and evictions. While this an issue that Federal Way will not
solve alone, improving equity for BIPOC residents can start with a commitment to addressing housing
disparities. Reducing cost burden, which disproportionately affects BIPOC households, provides families
with opportunities to invest in their future. It is particularly important to increase the supply of housing
affordable to households with income below 50% AMI, for whom cost burden is particularly impactful.
Programs that support pathways to ownership for BIPOC households would increase BIPOC’s share of
investment and wealth-building in the community and begin to reverse historical trends of exclusion and
systemic racism.
Federal Way can address housing needs and challenges and improve conditions for existing residents
through its Housing Action Plan. New investments in housing are also an opportunity for community-
building that will enhance quality of life and support smart, equitable, and healthy growth in Federal
Way. Regional investments in light rail provide the opportunity for new housing choices and transit-
oriented development (TOD) around Federal Way’s new light rail stations. Building new housing around
community assets such as transportation, social services, employment, education, and childcare supports
growing families and older adults aging in place. New housing provides the opportunity to integrate such
assets in parts of the community where they are less available.
7474
HOUSING TERMINOLOGY
Below are definitions of terms, data sources, and acronyms used in this needs assessment.
Housing Types
▪ Affordable Housing. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers
housing to be affordable if a household spends no more than 30 percent of its income on housing
costs. A healthy housing market includes a variety of housing types that are affordable to a range of
different household income levels. However, the term “affordable housing” is often used to describe
subsidized and income-restricted housing available only to qualifying low-income households.
Income-restricted housing can be located in public, nonprofit, or for-profit housing developments. It
can also include households using vouchers to help pay for market-rate housing.
▪ Inclusionary Housing. In this study, “inclusionary housing” refers to the vision of supporting a local
housing market that provides a diversity of housing types at different affordability levels and meets
the diverse social, geographical, and design needs of individuals and families. The goal is to make
sure there are housing options are attainable to anyone who wishes to live in Federal Way, inclusive
of their level of income.
Income Measures
▪ Area Median Income (AMI) refers to HUD Area Median Family Household Income. HUD calculates
AMI for counties or metropolitan regions.2 Federal Way is in the Seattle-Bellevue Metro Area, which
includes all of King and Snohomish counties. In 2020, the Seattle-Bellevue Metro AMI was $113,300
for a 4-person household. HUD sets income limits to qualify for affordable housing relative to AMI.
When classifying households by income level, HUD adjusts these income limit thresholds based on
household size. This reflects the fact that housing and living costs are higher for larger households
than they are for smaller households.
▪ Cost Burden. Households that spend more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing, including
utilities are considered “cost-burdened.” Cost-burdened households have less money available for
other essentials, like food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.
▪ Income-Restricted Housing. This term refers to housing units that are only available to households
with incomes at or below a set income limit and are offered for rent or sale at a below-market rates.
Some income-restricted rental housing is owned by a city or housing authority, while others may be
privately owned. In the latter case, the owners typically receive a subsidy in the form of a tax credit
or property tax exemption. As a condition of their subsidy, these owners must offer a set percentage
of all units as income-restricted and affordable to households at a designated income level.
▪ Low-Income. Households that are designated as “low-income” may qualify for income-subsidized
housing units. HUD categorizes households as “low-income,” “very low-income,” or “extremely low-
income” relative to area median income (AMI), with adjustments for number of household members.
2 Note that HUD sometimes refers to HUD Area Median Family Income as just Median Family Income, or MFI. See
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html
7575
Exhibit 1 summarizes these categories and income limits by household size for the Seattle-Bellevue
Metro area, which includes Federal Way.
▪ Median family income is calculated based only on the incomes of family households (those with two
or more related persons living together). Median family income is typically higher than median
household income (which is based on all households, including one-person households).
▪ Severe Cost Burden. Households spending more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing,
including utilities, are “severely cost-burdened.” Severely cost-burdened households have less money
available for other essentials, like food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.
Exhibit 1. Income Limits for Grouping Households by Income Level in Seattle-Bellevue Metro Area
INCOME
CATEGORY
% OF
AMI
ANNUAL INCOME LIMITS BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE (2020)
1-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 5-person 6-person
Extremely Low-
Income
30% $25,080 $28,680 $32,250 $35,820 $38,700 $41,580
Very Low-
Income
50% $41,800 $47,800 $53,750 $59,700 $64,500 $69,300
Low-Income 80% $66,880 $76,480 $86,000 $95,520 $103,200 $110,880
Middle-Income 100% $79,310 $90,640 $101,970 $113,300 $122,360 $131,430
Sources: HUD, 2020; BERK, 2020.
Data Sources
▪ The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing nationwide survey conducted by the U.S.
Census Bureau. It is designed to provide communities with current data about how they are changing.
The ACS collects information such as age, race, income, commute time to work, home value, veteran
status, and other important data from US households.
▪ The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) is a dataset published by HUD. Based
on custom data tabulations from the ACS, the CHAS provides insight into current housing
circumstances, needs, and problems, with an emphasis on the needs of low-income families.
▪ Qualitative Data. BERK and MAKERS collected qualitative information from community and housing
industry stakeholders to better understand housing Federal Way. Information was collected through
interviews, small group discussions, and the Stakeholder Advisory Group.
7676
Households and Individuals
▪ Household. A household is a group of people living within the same housing unit.3 Such individuals
may be related. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a
housing unit, is also counted as a household. People living in college dormitories, military barracks,
nursing homes, or other “group quarters” are not considered to be living in households.
▪ Householder. This is an adult resident who answered the Census survey on their household’s behalf.
Summaries of households by race or ethnicity typically focus on the race or ethnicity of the
householder, and other members of the household may identify with other racial or ethnic groups.
▪ Household Income. The U.S. Census Bureau defines household income as the sum of the income of all
people 15 years and older living together in a household.
▪ Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). In this report, we use “Black, Indigenous, and
people of color” to refer to people who identify as any race other than White alone, as well as
Hispanic and Latino persons of any race.
3 The Census Bureau sometimes refers to "occupied housing units" and considers all persons living in an occupied housing unit to
be a single household. So, Census estimates of occupied housing units and households should be equivalent.
7777
December 2020 City of Federal Way | Housing Needs Assessment 7
Community Profile
POPULATION
As of 2020, the estimated population of Federal Way is 98,340. Since 2010, the City of Federal Way
has grown at an average annual rate of 1.1%, which is below the countywide average annual growth
rate of 1.6%.4
Age of Population
Children and youth make up a larger portion of the population in Federal Way than in King County as a
whole: 27% of Federal Way residents are aged 19 or under, compared with 22% of King County
residents. This indicates that housing for families with children is a need within the City of Federal Way.
Federal Way has a proportionally smaller population of young adults aged 20 to 39: this group makes
up 28% of Federal Way residents but 32% of King County residents (Exhibit 2).
Similar to King County as a whole, nearly 20% of Federal Way’s population is over age 60 and an
additional 13% of the population will reach age 60 within the next 10 years. Many of these residents
will have specific and changing housing needs as they age. A diversity of housing types can be an
important asset to support independent adults that are aging in place. Single-family homes may work for
some aging adults, but others may require or desire maintenance-free housing or need accommodations
for limited mobility or sensory impairments. Services, health care, social opportunities, shopping,
transportation, and other needs may be more accessible to older adults who live in denser neighborhoods
with those opportunities nearby. While many of the older households in Federal Way have the financial
means to afford adequate housing and services, many others will not.
4 Washington State Office of Financial Management. 2020. “April 1 population estimates.”
https://www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-demographics/population-estimates/april-1-official-
population-estimates
7878
Exhibit 2. Population Distribution by Age and Gender in City of Federal Way (left) and King County (right)
Sources: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2014-2018; BERK, 2020.
Race and Ethnicity
Federal Way is more racially and ethnically diverse than King County as a whole: in 2018, 47% of
Federal Way residents identified as a race other than White alone, as compared with 35% for King
County as a whole (Exhibit 3). Federal Way has a larger proportion of Hispanic residents than King
County as a whole, with 19% of Federal Way residents identifying as Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish
origin compared with 10% of residents in King County as a whole (Exhibit 4).
7979
Exhibit 3. Percentage of BIPOC Population by Race in City of Federal Way and King County
Note: This exhibit only presents race and does not present ethnicity. Individuals who identify as ethnically Hispanic, Latino , or of
Spanish origin AND as a race other than White alone are included here under their self-identified race. Individuals who
identify as ethnically Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin AND White alone are not included in this exhibit.
Sources: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010 & 2014-2018; BERK, 2020.
Exhibit 4. Percentage of Population by Race and Ethnicity in City of Federal Way and King County
Sources: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010 & 2014-2018; BERK, 2020.
8080
HOUSEHOLDS
As of 2018, there were an estimated 35,589 households in the City of Federal Way. This represents an
increase of 2,348 households since 2012, when the estimated total was 33,241.5
Housing Tenure
As of 2018, an estimated 56% of households in the City of Federal Way owned their home, while 44%
were renting their home. This represents a slight decline in the proportion of owner household units since
2012, when 57% of Federal Way households were homeowners and 43% were renters. Federal Way is
very similar to King County as a whole on this measure: countywide, 57% of households were
homeowners and 43% were renters as of 2018.6
A healthy housing market includes a mix of both ownership and rental housing types to meet the needs of
a diversity of households and income levels. Not all households can afford homeownership or desire to
own a home. There is some evidence that higher rates of homeownership in a community are associated
with a higher median length of residence (amount of time living the same housing unit). Higher rates of
homeownership are also linked to higher property values, though that relationship may work in reverse,
with higher property values leading to the higher ownership rates.7
Household Size
The term “household” refers to a group of people living together in a single housing unit. As of 2018, the
average household size in the City of Federal Way is 2.7 individuals, slightly higher than the King County
average of 2.5 individuals per household.8 As shown in Exhibit 5, two-person households are the most
common household size overall in Federal Way. Among renter households, one-person households are the
most common size. While smaller households are more common, there are still a significant number of
larger households in Federal Way. More than 7,500 households have four or more members.
Compared to King County as a whole, Federal Way has a slightly lower proportion of small households:
24% of Federal Way households have one or two members compared to 29% of King County
households. Federal Way also has a higher proportion of large households than King County: 13% of
Federal Way households have five or more members compared to 8% for King County.9
5 ECONorthwest. 2020. Federal Way: South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework. Original data from the
U.S. Census Bureau Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), 2018.
6 U.S. Census Bureau. 2014-2018. American Community Survey 5-year Estimates.
7 Mallach. A. 2016. Homeownership and the Stability of Middle Neighborhoods. Community Development Innovation Review.
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/publications/community-development-
investment-review/2016/august/homeownership-and-the-stability-of-middle-neighborhoods/#_ftn20
8 U.S. Census Bureau. 2014-2018. Table CP04. American Community Survey 5-year Estimates.
9 U.S. Census Bureau. 2014-2018. Table B25009. American Community Survey 5-year Estimates.
8181
Exhibit 5. Household Size by Tenure in City of Federal Way
Sources: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2014-2018; BERK, 2020.
The breakdown of households by tenure and size has changed over the past decade. Exhibit 6 shows the
gain or loss of renter and owner households by household size between 2010 and 2018. Most of the
increases were in large (5+ person) and small (two-person) households and were among renter
households. Between 2010 and 2018, the City experienced a net gain of more than 1,300 households
with five or more members, the overwhelming majority of which (1,070 households) were renter
households. There was an overall decline of more than 500 three- and four-person households, with the
losses coming primarily from owner households. While the number of two-person owner households
remained relatively stable, the city experienced an increase of more than 500 two-person renter
households over the same period.
Exhibit 6. Change in Number of Households by Household Size and Tenure in City of Federal Way, 2010-2018
Sources: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010 & 2014-2018; BERK, 2020.
8282
Household Income
In 2018, the median household income in the City of Federal Way was $48,629 for renters, $85,607 for
homeowners, and $66,653 across all households (Exhibit 7).10 Federal Way is part of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Seattle-Bellevue Metro Area, which includes all
of King County. In 2020, the HUD Area Median Family Household Income for a four-person household for
the Seattle-Bellevue HUD Metro Area (also known as Area Median Income or AMI) was $113,300.11 It is
important to note that the median household income for Federal Way households is substantially below
the AMI, which is the base metric used in a number of affordability measures throughout this report. The
majority of households in Federal Way have incomes below the AMI, and so are more likely to face
housing affordability challenges than the typical residents of the HUD Seattle-Bellevue Metro Area.
Exhibit 7. Median Household Income by Tenure in City of Federal Way
Housing Tenure 2012 2018 % Change
Renter $37,378 $48,629 30%
Owner $68,694 $85,607 25%
All $49,976 $66,653 33%
Sources: ECONorthwest, 2020; PUMS, 2012 & 2018; ACS 1-year Estimates, 2012 & 2018; BERK, 2020.
Exhibit 8. Distribution of Households by AMI in City of Federal Way
Sources: ECONorthwest, 2020; PUMS, 2012 & 2018.
Exhibit 8 shows the distribution of households in Federal Way by household income as a percentage of
the area median income for the Bellevue-Seattle HUD Metro area. In 2018, an estimated 74% of
households in Federal Way had incomes at or below the AMI, while 26% had incomes greater than the
AMI. As shown in Exhibit 9, households that own their homes in Federal Way are more likely to have
higher incomes: 40% of homeowners have incomes above the AMI compared with just 11% of renters.
10 ECONorthwest. 2020. Federal Way: South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework. Original data from the
U.S. Census Bureau Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), 2018.
11 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2018. “FY 2018 Income Limits Documentation System.” HUD User.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2018/2018summary.odn
8383
This is an indicator that homeownership may be unaffordable for many moderate and even middle -
income households in Federal Way. More information about homeownership affordability is provided
later in this assessment.
Exhibit 9. Distribution of Households by AMI and Tenure in City of Federal Way
Sources: ECONorthwest, 2020.
The distribution of household income levels also differs by race and ethnicity, as shown in Exhibit 10.
Among White, non-Hispanic households, 45% of households have incomes above the AMI.12 Among
households of color (including Hispanic/Latino households), 29% have incomes above the AMI.
Exhibit 10. Distribution of Households by AMI and Race in City of Federal Way
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 5-year Estimates, 2012-2016); BERK, 2020.
12 The race/ethnicity of a household is determined by the r ace or ethnicity of the “householder.” The householder is the person
in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented.
8484
Cost-Burdened Households
Cost-burdened households are defined as those that spend more than 30% of their income on housing
costs. Severely cost-burdened households are those that spend more than 50% of their income on housing.
Exhibit 11 shows the cost-burdened status of households by percentage of AMI and tenure in Federal
Way.13 The likelihood of being cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened tracks with income categories in
this data: the lower a household’s income (by category, as a percentage of area median income), the
more likely the household is to be cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened. Where sufficient housing
available, either through attainable market-rates or through subsidized affordability programs, this does
not have to be the case.
Exhibit 11. Distribution of Cost-Burdened Status (Households) by AMI and Tenure in City of Federal Way
Note: percentage of AMI is shown along the horizontal axis.
Sources: ECONorthwest, 2020; PUMS, 2018.
The rate of housing cost-burden among households in Federal Way with incomes less than 50% of AMI is
very high. Most households in Federal Way with incomes 30% or less than AMI are severely cost-
burdened. Eighty-two percent of renter households and 71% of owner households in this income category
are severely cost-burdened. More than half of households with incomes between 30 and 50% of AMI are
cost-burdened in Federal Way, though the rate is higher for renter households. Eighty-seven percent of
renter households and 59% of owner households in this income category are cost-burdened. The
percentage of households that are cost burdened is significantly lower for households with incomes above
80% of AMI.
The cost burden data used above are the most current available, but reflect conditions surveyed between
2012 and 2016. As will be shown later in this needs assessment, rents in Federal Way have increased
13 As described in the Housing Terminology section of this report, AMI is measured relative to the King-Snohomish region and
not just Federal Way.
8585
significantly since this time period. Additionally, while there is not a data source with accurate information
on the impact of the COVID pandemic, it is widely acknowledged that households experiencing COVID-
related income losses have less ability to pay housing costs. Therefore, it is likely that the problem of
household cost burden has also increased significantly.
The likelihood of being cost-burdened also differs by race and ethnicity in Federal Way. Forty-six
percent of households of color and/or Hispanic households are cost-burdened in the city, compared with
33% of White, non-Hispanic households. Twenty-four percent of households of color and/or Hispanic
households are severely cost-burdened, while just 14% of White households are (Exhibit 12).
Exhibit 12. Cost-Burdened Status by Householder Race in City of Federal Way
Sources: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2014-2018; BERK, 2020.
Exhibit 13 shows the number of cost-burdened households by AMI grouping and household type in
Federal Way. As noted previously, while there are households struggling with housing costs across the
entire income spectrum, the greatest number are among households with incomes below 30% of HUD
AMI. In terms of household type, the greatest need is among small families, among which nearly 5,600
households are cost-burdened. There is also a substantial number of cost-burdened older adult
households, including nearly 1,200 older adult families and over 2,300 older adults living alone.
8686
Exhibit 13. Cost-Burdened Households by Household Type and AMI Grouping
HOUSEHOLD
TYPE
EXTREMELY
LOW-
INCOME
(≤30% AMI)
VERY
LOW-
INCOME
(30-50% AMI)
LOW-
INCOME
(50-80% AMI)
MODERATE
INCOME
(80-100% AMI)
ABOVE
MEDIAN
INCOME
(>100% AMI)
ALL COST-
BURDENED
HOUSEHOLDS
Older Adult
Family
425 160 205 150 239 1,179
Older Adult
Living Alone
1,280 545 340 140 40 2,345
Large Family 580 530 225 140 55 1,530
Small Family 2,270 1,885 874 255 310 5,594
Other 950 1,050 280 185 90 2,555
Total 5,505 4,170 1,924 870 734 13,203
Notes: Older Adult Family – Two persons, either or both age 62+.
Older Adult Living Alone – A person age 62+ living alone.
Small Family – Families with 2-4 members (excluding older adult families).
Large Family – Families with 5 or more members.
Other – Non-family, non-older adult households (includes those living alone).
Sources: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2012-2016; BERK, 2020.
In Federal Way, cost burden is more concentrated among households with incomes less than 50% of AMI
than it is in King County as a whole: 73% of cost-burdened households in Federal Way have incomes
below 50% of AMI, compared with 59% of cost-burdened households in King County as a whole. This
implies that households with incomes above 50% of AMI living in Federal Way are much less likely to
experience cost burden than those living in other parts of King County. Nonetheless, there is a great deal
of need for housing that is affordable and inclusive to households with very low and extremely low
incomes in Federal Way.
Housing cost burden is also more common among older adult households in Federal Way than it is in King
County as a whole: 42% of older adult households are cost-burdened in Federal Way, compared to
38% in King County as a whole.
Housing Vulnerability and Displacement Risk
Households evicted from rental housing are at greater risk of housing insecurity, vulnerability to
exploitation, and homelessness. Households with a history of evictions or eviction filings14 can face
significant challenges finding rental housing as many landlords conduct background checks and screen out
applicants with eviction records. Recognizing that there are many reasons why a household may be
unable to pay rent, including economic insecurity, job loss, or unexpected medical expenses, many
communities provide renter protections to reduce the likelihood that short-term economic setbacks result in
evictions and subsequent displacement. In addition, tenants financially impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic may have accumulated significant debt in the form of rent arrears. While a state mandate is
14 Eviction filing is a legal notice of an eviction suit—not all eviction filings result in actual evictions, in which a household is
forced to leave their housing unit. Instead, a renter household may move out preemptively, pay overdue rent, or reach some
other settlement with the landlord. However, eviction filings are public record and may be seen be future potential landlords
when conducting background checks.
8787
temporarily protecting these tenants from eviction, such households are likely to face eviction when the
mandate is lifted unless additional protections are put into place.
The Evictions Study by the University of Washington and University of California Berkeley tracks eviction
filing rates across much of the Central Puget Sound Region, including Federal Way.15 The eviction filing
rate is the rate of eviction filings per 100 renting households per year.16 This is distinct from the eviction
rate, which is the rate of households actually evicted from their housing per 100 renting households.
Nationally, the rate of eviction filings is two to three times the rate of evictions.17
In the City of Federal Way, the rate of eviction filings is highest in the southeastern portion of the city,
around SW 356th St andWA-99, where the eviction filing rate between 2004 and 2017 was nearly 7%.
The rate is also comparatively high, at 5.2%, in the area around 320th St and 11th Ave SW and in the
area around Military Rd S and S 304th St, at 4.3%. Exhibit 14 shows the eviction filing rate by census
tract in the City of Federal Way and surrounding areas.
Exhibit 14. Eviction Filing Rate by Census Tract
Source: The Evictions Study, 2017.
The rate of eviction filings differs by the race of the renting household, as shown in
Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 16. In the City of Federal Way, the eviction filing rate for White renters was
15 University of Washington. 2017. “The Evictions Study Map.” Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology.
https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/
16 The Evictions Study calculates eviction filing rates by dividing the number of eviction filings in a specific geography (e.g.,
census tract) by the number of renting households in that area according to ACS 2013 -2017 5-year estimates
(https://tesseract.csde.washington.edu:8080/shiny/evictionmaps/).
17 Eviction Lab. 2016. “National Estimates: Eviction in America.” Princeton University.
8888
1.46% between 2004 and 2017. For Black renters, the rate was more than double—3.94%—over the
same period. The rates for Latino and Asian renters fall in between, at 2.10% and 2.05%, respectively.
The overall eviction filing rate in Federal way is similar to that of other South King County cities, such as
Auburn and Kent, which have eviction filing rates of 1.92% and 2.19% respectively. The racial and ethnic
disparities in these other cities follow the same pattern as in Federal Way: in both Auburn and Kent,
Black renters are the most likely to experience an eviction filing and White or Asian renters are the least
likely to experience one.
Exhibit 16 shows the eviction filing rate by census tract for Black and White renter households in Federal
Way and surrounding areas. Higher rates of eviction filings for BIPOC households, particularly Black
households, indicates that these households face a greater displacement risk and are more housing
vulnerable than White households.
Exhibit 15. Eviction Filing Rate by Race in the City of Federal Way
RACE OF HOUSEHOLD EVICTION FILING RATE
Black 3.94%
Hispanic or Latino 2.10%
Asian 2.05%
White 1.46%
All 2.21%
Sources: The Evictions Study, 2017; BERK, 2020.
8989
Exhibit 16. Eviction Filing Rates for Black and White Renter Households by Census Tract
Black Renter Households White Renter Households
Note: Areas with fewer than 100 renting households of the specified race are omitted.
Source: The Evictions Study, 2017.
9090
December 2020 City of Federal Way | Housing Needs Assessment 20
Employment Profile
EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
As of 2018, there were more than 30,000 jobs based in Federal Way. Exhibit 17 summarizes the
number of jobs in Federal Way by sector, the change in the number of jobs between 2010 and 2018,
median salary by sector, and percentage of jobs within each sector accessible by car and transit.
The largest numbers of jobs in Federal Way are available in the sectors of health care and social
assistance (7,900 jobs), retail (4,900), accommodation and food services (3,700), and educational
services (2,600).
The median annual wages in the four largest employment sectors in Federal Way—health care and
social assistance, retail trade, accommodation and food services, and educational services—range
between approximately $32,000 and $51,500. Exhibit 18 shows the maximum housing costs that would
be affordable to a household with an annual income equal to the median annual wage in these four
sectors. “Affordable” here means that a household could spend up to that amount on housing costs
(whether renting or owning) and not exceed 30% of their total income. Affordable monthly housing costs
for such households range from $798 to $1,289. See the sections on Home Values and Homeownership
Affordability and Rental Housing Costs and Affordability for more details on the availability of housing
that is affordable for these households.
9191
Exhibit 17. Employment Profile and Trends by Sector in City of Federal Way
Sources: ECONorthwest, 2020; PSRC, 2018.
9292
Exhibit 18. Median Annual Wage and Maximum Affordable Monthly Housing Cost in the Largest Employment
Sectors, City of Federal Way
INDUSTRY MEDIAN
ANNUAL
WAGE
MAXIMUM
AFFORDABLE MONTHLY
HOUSING COST
Health care and social assistance $45,870 $1,147
Retail trade $40,378 $1,009
Accommodation and food services $31,935 $798
Educational services $51,543 $1,289
Sources: ECONorthwest, 2020; PSRC, 2018, BERK, 2020.
TRAVEL TO WORK
Federal Way is located within the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan area, and residents from
Federal way are employed in cities throughout the area. Exhibit 19 shows the locations that are
accessible from Federal Way within 45 minutes by transit and car during normal commute times. Under
existing traffic and transit conditions, most areas of Federal Way and some of the surrounding cities are
accessible within 45 minutes by transit, but the major employment centers of downtown Seattle and
Tacoma can only be reached by car within the same timeframe.
Exhibit 19. Map of Locations Within 45-minute Commute of Federal Way
Sources: ECONorthwest, 2020; PSRC, 2018.
9393
Exhibit 20 shows the inflow and outflow of employees for all jobs in Federal Way in 2017. A larger
number of people leave Federal Way for work than commute into the city from another location. Nearly
39,000 Federal Way residents are employed outside of Federal Way.
Exhibit 20. Inflow/Outflow Counts of Jobs for City of Federal Way
Source: U.S. Census OnTheMap, 2017.
Federal way is highly connected to employment centers in Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellevue. Some
households live in Federal Way because it is relatively affordable in comparison with housing available
in those employment centers. As housing costs increase in these major urban centers, lower income
households located in Federal Way and other areas, where housing costs are still comparatively lower.
This regional movement can further exacerbate existing shortages of housing units in Federal Way and
other suburban South King County cities and contribute to displacement of existing residents, particularly
those with lower incomes.
In addition, Sound Transit is working on the extension of light rail service to Federal Way, with service
planned to begin in 2024. Two stations will serve Federal Way, one at the Federal Way Transit Center
and one at South 272nd Street. The light rail line will provide service to and from Seattle including stops
in SeaTac and Kent/Des Moines. It may also impact the cost and desirability of housing in areas near the
station areas. Without providing additional housing in these areas, the increased demand for housing
near transit can increase housing costs. This increases cost burden and increases the likelihood that current
residents are economically displaced.
One way to address this challenge is by encouraging more transit-oriented development (TOD). This
means allowing neighborhoods with a mix of higher-density residential and commercial development to
be built nearby to new light rail stations. TOD provides more opportunities for households to live near
transit, as well as a greater variety of housing types and affordability levels. Residents of TOD are less
dependent on cars for commuting and everyday trips. This lowers their transportation costs while reducing
traffic and pollution for all residents citywide. TOD can also include improvements to streets, sidewalks,
bike lanes, and local transit service that support access to new amenities and light rail by residents
citywide.
9494
December 2020 City of Federal Way | Housing Needs Assessment 24
Housing Inventory
HOUSING SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS
Housing Units by Type
As of 2019, there were an estimated 37,257 housing units in Federal Way.18 The majority of the city’s
housing units (54%) are single family homes, with a significant minority of units (34%) located in
multifamily structures of five or more units. Federal Way has a smaller proportion of multifamily housing
units than King County as a whole. While 34% of Federal Way housing units are located in multifamily
buildings of five or more units, this proportion is 41% in King County as a whole. Fifty-four percent of
housing units in Federal Way are single-family homes, compared with 51% in King County as a whole
(Exhibit 21).
Exhibit 21. Housing Inventory by Type of Structure in City of Federal Way and King County
Sources: OFM, 2019; BERK, 2020.
Housing Units by Size
While most of the net gain in total households in Federal Way in recent years has been among larger
households (see Exhibit 6), the majority of households are still small. Federal Way’s current housing stock
is not aligned well with its population in terms of unit size. As Exhibit 22 shows, the majority of households
in Federal Way (56%) have one or two members, but the majority of housing units in Federal Way are
built for larger households: 57% of all units have three or more bedrooms.
18 Washington State Office of Financial Management. 2020. “April 1 postcensal housing estimates.”
https://www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-demographics/population-estimates/april-1-official-
population-estimates
9595
Exhibit 22. Comparison of Distributions of Housing Unit Size and Household Size
Sources: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2014-2018; BERK, 2020.
It is likely that many of the larger (3+ bedroom) homes in Federal Way are occupied by households with
only one or two members. For example, this can happen when there are many “empty nester” owner
households living in single-family housing stock. This reduces the number of larger homes available for
larger households. Exhibit 23 focuses exclusively on the alignment of the rental housing stock with renter
households. This comparison shows that there is a very small number of studio units available relative to
the many one-person households in Federal Way. It also shows a shortage of larger units (3+ bedroom)
compared to the number of households with four or more residents.
9696
Exhibit 23. Comparison of Distributions of Rental Housing Unit Size and Renter Household Size
Sources: CoStar, 2020; ACS 5-year Estimates, 2014-2018; BERK, 2020.
Overcrowding is another indicator that there may be a lack of attainable housing units sized for larger
households.19 Larger households take many different forms and could include households with large
family sizes, multigenerational households, families doubling-up to save money, or other situations. By
HUD standards, a dwelling is considered overcrowded if it has a ratio of more than one person per room
(PPR). The threshold for severe overcrowding is a PPR ratio of 1.5.20 In Federal Way, 5.3% of households
are overcrowded and 1.3% are severely overcrowded. This represents nearly 1,260 households
experiencing overcrowding, with 490 of those experiencing severe overcrowding. The rate of
overcrowding in Federal Way is relatively high compared to King County as a whole: countywide, 3.6%
of households are overcrowded and 1.4% are severely overcrowded.21
19 Overcrowding refers here to definitions set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. This definition may
not be consistent with some cultural expectations or practices that support higher PPR (person per room) ratios. When paired
with other factors, such as cost-burden and a mismatch in housing stock, measured overcrowding is a consistent indicator that
the community lacks attainable housing options.
20 US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2007. Measuring Overcrowding in Housing.
https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/Measuring_Overcrowding_in_Hsg.pdf
21 US Census Bureau. 2014-2018. American Community Survey 5-year Estimates.
9797
The likelihood of living in overcrowded housing differs by household race and ethnicity in Federal Way
(Exhibit 24). White, non-Hispanic households have the lowest rate of overcrowding: just 1% of these
households meet the threshold for overcrowding. In contrast, 9% of Black households, 11% of American
Indian or Alaska Native households, and 13% of Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander households
are considered overcrowded. Households with the greatest likelihood of overcrowding are Hispanic or
Latino households of any race (18% are overcrowded) and households of some other race (16% are
overcrowded).22
Exhibit 24. Overcrowding in Federal Way Households, by Race/Ethnicity
Note: All categories except “Hispanic or Latino” and “White only, non-Hispanic” include households of both Hispanic and non-
Hispanic ethnicity.
Sources: American Community Survey B25003, 2014 -2018; BERK Consulting, 2020.
HOMEOWNERSHIP
Exhibit 25 shows homeownership by race and ethnicity of householder. As of 2018, there were 19,463
owner-occupied housing units in the City of Federal Way.23 Two-thirds (67%) of White, non-Hispanic
householders24 in Federal Way are homeowners, compared with only 42% of BIPOC householders.
Exhibit 26 provides further detail on homeownership rates by race and ethnicity in Federal Way.
Homeownership rates among non-Hispanic White households, American Indian or Alaska Native
households, and Asian households are higher than the citywide homeownership rate for all households
(56%). In contrast, households of some other race (including multiracial households), Black households,
Hispanic households, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander households have homeownership rates
lower than the citywide rate.
22 Reporting for the American Community Survey data in this chart includes a limited number of racial and ethnic categories
for respondents to select. Those who do not fully identify with these categories may chose either “some other race” or “two o r
more races.” Those categories have been collapsed into the “other” identity category in Exhibit 24.
23 US Census Bureau. 2018. American Community Survey 5-year Estimates.
24 The Census summarizes households by the race and ethnicity of the “householder,” which they define to be “the person (or
one of the people) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented (maintained) or, if there is no such person, any adult
member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees.” (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-
documentation/subject-definitions.html)
9898
Black and Hispanic households, which together represent nearly a quarter of Federal Way households,
are substantially less likely to be homeowners than White, non-Hispanic households: 35% of Black
households and 30% of Hispanic households (or any race) are homeowners.
BIPOC households face many barriers to homeownership beyond affordability, including both overt and
covert discrimination. The history of racially discriminatory housing policies and practices in the US is
extensive, pervasive, and still profoundly impacts access to housing and homeownership in communities of
color. 25 Laws, policies, and practices implemented by governments at the federal, state, and local level
have contributed to racial disparities in homeownership rates, home values, levels of opportunity in
different neighborhoods, and much more. This includes actions such as the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA)’s decades-long practice of not insuring mortgages for Black homeowners, the Supreme Court’s
1926 ruling that it was constitutional to enforce racially restrictive covenants (which prohibited
homeowners from selling their home to Black buyers and other racial and ethnic minorities), and the
building of racially-segregated public housing projects by the federal government and local housing
authorities.26 A major consequence of this history was the inability of many BIPOC households to gain
wealth through homeownership and pass on that wealth through the generations.27
The historical and current impacts of racially discriminatory housing policies means BIPOC households may
be less likely to be homeowners even if they meet the income thresholds necessary to own a home
in Federal Way. While homeowner education programs are available in Federal Way, none are
proactively working in BIPOC communities to address the disparity. There is also a lack of programs to
support new affordable homeownership opportunities among BIPOC households. There are many options
for the city to address these disparities through regulatory changes, partnerships, funding, and regional
collaboration.
25 There is an extensive body of literature on the history of and current practice of racially discriminatory housing policy in the
United States, which this HAP is not positioned to fully summarize. Starting points for further exploration into this body of work
include Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (Liveright,
2017), John Yinger’s Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost: The Continuing Costs of Housing Discrimination (Russell Sage Foundation,
1995), and the Urban Institute’s Exposing Housing Discrimination research repository
(https://www.urban.org/features/exposing-housing-discrimination), to name a few.
26 Rothstein, R. (2017.) The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. New York, NY:
Liveright.
27 Goodman, L.S., & C. Mayer. (2018.) Homeownership and the American Dream. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(1), 31-
58.
9999
Exhibit 25. Homeownership by Race and Ethnicity of Householder in City of Federal Way
Sources: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2014-2018; BERK, 2020.
Exhibit 26. Homeownership Rates by Race/Ethnicity in City of Federal Way
Note: The American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander categories are based on samples that
are substantially smaller than the samples for other racial groups, and thus the estimated homeownership rates for t hese
groups have larger margins of error than the estimates for other racial groups.
Sources: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2014-2018; BERK, 2020.
Race/Ethnicity
Homeownership
Rate
(households)
White 67%
American Indian or Alaska Native 64%
Asian 63%
All Households 56%
Other (including multiple races)38%
Black or African American 35%
Hispanic or Latino, any race 30%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 22%
100100
Home Values and Homeownership Affordability
In 2020, the median sale price for homes in Federal Way was $414,700, an increase of 96% from 10
years earlier, when the median sales price was $211,600.28 Exhibit 27 shows the change in the Zillow
home value index (ZHVI) which reflects seasonally-adjusted home values in Federal Way and King
County between 2010 and 2020. The ZHVI for all homes reflects the median value for homes that fall
within the 35th to 65th percentile range, while the ZHVI for “bottom tier” homes reflect the typical value
for homes in the 5th to 35th percentile range.
Exhibit 27. Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) for Federal Way and King County
Sources: Zillow, 2020; HUD, 2020; BERK, 2020.
While the value of the median home in Federal Way is lower than in King County as a whole, homes in
both Federal Way (including bottom tier homes) and King County as a whole have experienced a similar
trajectory of increasing value over the last eight years.
In order to afford a median-value home in Federal Way, a household would need an income of at least
$96,153, slightly above 80% of AMI for a 4-person household.29 30 To afford a “bottom tier” home, a
household would need an income of at least $71,507, or slightly above 60% of AMI (Exhibit 28).31
Since incomes in Federal Way are considerably lower than that of the HUD metro area, homeownership
is out of reach for the majority of all Federal Way households. With a household income of $66,653, the
median household in Federal Way could not afford a median home or bottom tier home in the city
28 ECONorthwest. 2020. Federal Way: South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework. Original data from
Zillow, 2020.
29 Sources: City of Seattle Office of Housing, 2020; Freddie Mac, 2020; HUD, 2020; City of Federal Way, 2020; King
County Assessor’s Office, 2020; Zillow Home Value Index, 2020; BERK calculations, 2020.
30 These calculations assume a down payment equal to 3.5% of the sale price of the home. This is the minimum down payment
necessary to receive a Federal Housing Association (FHA) home loan. These calculations include mortgage payments, mortgage
insurance, property taxes and fees, and homeowners’ insurance. They do not include utility payments or home upkeep costs,
which can vary and are not necessarily tied to home sale price or value .
31 Zillow data groups all homes in Federal Way into three tiers based on home value. The “bottom tier” home value represents
the median home price amongst the homes in the lowest tier.
101101
without being cost-burdened. For the median renter household in Federal Way, which has an income of
$48,629, homeownership is even further out of reach. Without additional income from some other source,
the median worker in Federal Way’s four largest employment sectors (health care, retail, accommodation
and food service, and education) would be unable to afford a median home or a bottom tier home.
Since 2010, the value of the median home in Federal Way increased by 63%, while the AMI increased
by 32% (Exhibit 29). Increases are even steeper among bottom tier homes, with the median value of a
bottom tier home increasing by 69% over the same period. As median home values and median incomes
diverge over time, homeownership is falling further out of reach for many Federal Way residents.
Exhibit 28. Homeownership Affordability in the City of Federal Way
MEDIAN HOME VALUE 3.5%
DOWN
PAYMENT
ANNUAL INCOME NEEDED TO AFFORD FOR A
FAMILY OF 4
(ASSUMING ACCESS TO 3.5% DOWN PAYMENT)
Median Home $405,070 $14,177 $96,153
(80% of AMI is $95,520)
Bottom Tier
Home
$301,221 $10,543 $71,507
(60% of AMI is $71,640)
Note: ZHVI represents the whole housing stock and not just the homes that list or sell in a given month. Median home value is
the median value of all homes (single family residential and condos) in 2020 as of February 2020. Indicated AMI values
are for a 4-person household.
Sources: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), February 2020; BERK, 2020.
Exhibit 29. Percent Change in Home Value and City Median Income
Sources: ACS 1-year Estimates, 2019; Zillow, 2020; BERK, 2020.
102102
Reducing the gap in homeownership requires bringing the home value and household income curves (the
blue and yellow lines in Exhibit 29) closer together. Information gathered from stakeholder interviews
and discussion groups suggests that even small increases in density can reduce the cost of housing by
reducing land costs per unit. Cottages or townhomes, which can develop multiple units on a single-family
lot, may provide attainable homeownership opportunities. Rental fees from duplex and accessory
dwelling units may also provide income to support homeownership opportunities, while also expanding
the rental housing supply.
RENTAL HOUSING
In 2018, there were an estimated 15,460 renter households in the City of Federal Way.
Rental Housing Costs and Affordability
Exhibit 30 shows the average rent for housing units in multifamily buildings in Federal Way during the
third quarter of 2020. It also shows the level of income that a household would need to afford that
average rent without being cost-burdened. The average market-rate rent for a two-bedroom apartment
in the City of Federal Way was $1,510, a 69% increase from 2010, when the average rent for a two-
bedroom apartment was $894.32 To afford the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Federal
Way, a household would need to have an income of $60,400, or about 51% of AMI, after adjusting for
household size. Affordability level is similar for other unit sizes, with three-bedroom units being slightly
less affordable at 55% of AMI.
Without additional income from some other source, the median worker in Federal Way’s four largest
employment sectors (health care, retail, accommodation and food service, and education) would be
unable to rent an average two-bedroom or three-bedroom unit. The median education worker could
afford on average studio or one-bedroom unit and the median health care worker could afford an
average studio, but median workers in retail and accommodation/food service would be unable to rent
even an average studio apartment.
Exhibit 30. Average Rent and Affordability Level by Rental Unit Size
Note: Affordability Level adjusted for assumed household size consistent with HUD Income Limits methodology, third quarter,
2020.
Sources: CoStar, 2020; HUD, 2020; BERK, 2020.
Exhibit 31 shows the distribution of renter households and affordable rental housing by AMI grouping
(income level) in Federal Way. There is a misalignment between the distribution of costs for rental housing
and the incomes of renter households in Federal Way. While 25% of renter households have incomes that
32 The 2020 average rent includes only market-rate rental units and excludes units that are restricted to seniors. The market -
rate average rent represents the costs that a typical renter would face when seeking to rent a unit on the open market. The
market-rate average is higher than the average rent for all 2 -bedroom units—$1,343—which is listed in the South King
County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework 2020 , produced by ECONorthwest (2020). This later average includes
subsidized units.
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
Average Rent $1,039 $1,246 $1,510 $1,804
Annual Income Needed to Afford $41,560 $49,840 $60,400 $72,160
Affordability Level* (% of AMI)49% 49% 51% 55%
103103
are 30% or less of AMI, just 13% of rental units are affordable to households in this income category.
While the percentage of rental units affordable to individuals with incomes between 30 and 80% of AMI
(84%) exceeds the percentage of renter households in this range (64%), there is a shortage of units at
the higher-cost end of the market. Eleven percent of renter households have incomes greater than 100%
of AMI, but just 2% of rental units fall into the category of affordable for this income group. This means
that most renters at this income level are renting units at costs substantially below the maximum they can
afford. This reduces the number of units affordable and available to households at lower income levels,
putting further pressure on the lower-cost end of the rental market.
Increases in the housing supply at both the lower and higher ends of the market would benefit the
community as a whole by providing households with a range of incomes options for attainable housing.
Exhibit 31. Distribution of Renter Households by Income Level and Rental Units by Affordability
Sources: ECONorthwest, 2020; PUMS, 2018; BERK, 2020.
104104
HOUSING PRODUCTION
Since 2011, 1,813 new housing units have been built in the City of Federal Way.33 The majority of new
housing units built in the last decade have been in large multifamily housing developments of 100+ units.
Most housing units in the city were built in the 1980s or earlier, including more than half of units in
multifamily buildings (Exhibit 32). Federal Way experienced a boom in housing production in 2016 and
2017, with nearly 1,200 new housing units built across those two years, as shown in Exhibit 33. Most of
those new units were in larger multifamily buildings. Since then, new construction has slowed, with just over
300 units built in 2018 and 2019 combined.
Exhibit 32. Housing Units by Decade Built and Building Scale in City of Federal Way
Sources: ECONorthwest, 2020; King County Assessor’s Office, 2020.
33 ECONorthwest. 2020. Federal Way: South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework. Original data from
OFM, 2019.
105105
Exhibit 33. New Housing Units Built by Year* in Federal Way
Note: OFM summarizes annual housing production beginning April 2 of the previous year (So 2019 represents net new housing
built between April 2, 2018 and April 1, 2019).
Sources: OFM, 2019; ECONorthwest, 2020.
Exhibit 34 shows annual permit activity by housing type, with a surge of permit activity for larger
multifamily projects seen between 2014 and 2016. This activity tapers off in 2017, with essentially no
new multifamily permits in 2018 or 2019.34 One likely explanation for this sharp reduction in multifamily
permits was the one-year moratorium on new apartment complexes passed in June 2016 and a
significant increase in school impact fees. These fees significantly increased the costs to develop new
apartments in Federal Way compared to neighboring jurisdictions.
It is also worth noting that there is little variety in the production of housing types in Federal Way. While
there was a spike in larger apartment complex construction and a steady production of single-family
homes, intermediate development types such as duplexes and smaller-unit multifamily types remained a
relatively small part of new housing construction.
Qualitative information from housing stakeholders identified potential gaps in production related to
current codes and processes.35 Under current zoning, development professionals consider Federal Way to
be nearly “built out.” Zoning and development regulation and process changes identified in interviews
that could make Federal Way attractive for new development include:
▪ Transit-oriented development – encouraging the highest densities around the future light rail stations.
▪ Expanding allowances for accessory dwelling units in single-family areas.
▪ Identifying areas where density can be increased for infill housing types such as duplexes, triplexes,
townhomes, and cottages.
The production of diverse types can have multiple benefits for a community. Duplexes may be a way to
add additional units while maintaining single-family character. Multiplexes may provide attainable
34 Note that OFM tracks permit activity by years starting on April 2 of the previous year and ending on April 1. So much, if
not all, of the building and permit activity shown in 2017 in Exhibit 33 and Exhibit 34 could have occurred in 2016.
35 As part of the Housing Action Plan, there will be a report that specifically identifies gaps and barriers in the Federal Way
Municipal Code. This summary identifies qualitative information on housing supply needs, but these issues will be fully assessed
as part of the Policy Environment Review.
106106
housing across a variety of incomes. These types may also help fill the need for smaller unit types and
provide step-up or step-down housing for families seeking first-time homeownership or older adults
seeking to age in place.
Exhibit 34. Annual Permitted Housing Units by Housing Type in Federal Way
Note: OFM summarizes annual housing permit activity beginning April 2 of the previous year (so 2019 represents permit activity
between April 2, 2018 and April 1, 2019).
Sources: OFM, 2019; BERK, 2020.
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
Regulated affordable housing includes units that are income-restricted or rent-restricted. They are
typically restricted to households that have incomes of less than 30%, 50%, 60% or 80% of AMI,
depending on the building, project, or unit. As of 2019, Federal Way had a total of 3,393 regulated
affordable housing units, representing about 17% of the city’s total apartments. In comparison, 19% of
all apartments in South King County as a whole are regulated affordable units.36
36 ECONorthwest. 2020, 15 July. “South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework – Task 2 Housing
Context Assessment Methods Memo.”
107107
December 2020 City of Federal Way | Housing Needs Assessment 37
Gap Analysis
HOUSING NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE FURTHER GROWTH
PSRC projects that Federal Way’s population will grow to 106,571 by year 2040, or about 451 new
residents per year.37 In the Sub-Housing Action Plan Framework, ECONorthwest estimates that the City
will need to add 6,786 new housing units to accommodate this population growth and account for past
underproduction.38 This equates to an average production of 339 additional units each year,39 a steep
increase from the 202 units per year build between 2011 and 2019.40 The city would need a 68%
increase in annual housing production to accommodate the growth projected by PSRC. Exhibit 35 shows
the historical level of housing production compared to the forecasted needs.
Exhibit 35. Historical Housing Production in Federal Way Compared to Forecasted Needs
Sources: ECONorthwest, 2020; OFM, 2020; PSRC, 2017; BERK, 2020.
Exhibit 36 estimates the number of new units needed by affordability level, with housing needs seen
across the income spectrum. About a third of all units needed are for households with incomes below 50%
of AMI. New housing at this affordability level will almost certainly require subsidy. On the other end of
the income spectrum, the city needs to add over 2,900 new units affordable to households with incomes
above 80% of AMI. This analysis indicates that many of these units could be provided at market rate
37 PSRC, 2017. Land Use Vision version 2. https://www.psrc.org/projections-cities-and-other-places
38 “Underproduction” is a calculation by ECONorthwest. The methodology is described in “South King County Subregional
Housing Action Framework – Task 2 Housing Context Assessment Methods Memo” (ECONorthwest, July 15, 2020)
39 ECONorthwest. 2020. Federal Way: South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework. Original data from
OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017.
40 Washington State Office of Financial Management. 2019. “Housing estimates.”
108108
without additional subsidy. In the middle are households with incomes between 50 and 80% of AMI.
While it would be unlikely that private housing developers would produce new ownership units at this
affordability level, they could produce rental units affordable to many of these households. The
likelihood of them doing so would depend on policies and regulations that impact the cost of housing
development in Federal Way.
Housing preservation may also be an important strategy in Federal Way. As housing costs rise, the
existing stock of market-rate homes affordable at lower income levels could diminish significantly.
Furthermore, many subsidized units could expire in coming years. The City could work with partners to
purchase and preserve these units to maintain their affordability and reduce the risk of displacement.
Exhibit 36. Total Additional Housing Units Needed in 2040 by Affordability Level (% of AMI)
Sources: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation, 2020.
This analysis also indicates a need for more smaller-scale housing units, such as studios or accessory
dwelling units, to help accommodate the community’s large number of one-person households.
Additionally, Federal Way has seen a steep increase in the number of large households with four or
more members. Many of these households are renters, and there is a need for more large apartments
and rentals to accommodate these residents.
In addition to needing an increased number of units, stakeholders underscored the need for community -
building to accompany housing production. New housing alone does not provide the services and quality
of life needed to sustain Federal Way’s households. Access to quality education, health care, supportive
services, childcare, parks and recreation, and mental healthcare will support quality of life for all
residents, with the greatest impact on households living below median incomes. Strategies to plan for and
incentivize complete neighborhoods that include opportunity and space for community building were
noted as an important development gap.
109109
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Appendices
APPENDIX B: FEDERAL WAY HNA QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS SUMMARY
110110
1
Federal Way HNA Qualitative Interviews
Summary
DRAFT 5/4/2021
MAKERS contacted 23 organizations and interviewed 6 groups over the phone or video conference
during October and November 2020. Each conversation typically included 2 interviewees. Interview
participants included:
• Small local landlords (Peter and Kathleen Tenerelli)
• Small local construction company (Aleksey Guyvoronsky, Ace Construction)
• Local church members (Minister Drew Dixon and 2 church members, Church of Christ)
• Housing advocates (Patience Malaba and Marty Kooistra, HDC)
• Local architect/developer (Bill McCaffrey, The Nexus Studio)
• Affordable housing builder and repair (Bret D’Antonio, Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King
County)
The following themes arose in these interviews. When a suggestion or topic was raised in more than one
interview, it is noted below with “multiple interviews.”
Maintain Rental Affordability
• There should be no limit on the number of people allowed in a unit. Recognize people’s
individual choices and life circumstances. (multiple interviews)
• Landlords providing “naturally occurring affordable” rental houses bought houses almost 20
years ago when sales prices were lower. Thus, they can afford to charge low rents. They
recognize that if they bought now, they would no longer be able to offer affordable rentals.
Likewise, their current tenants, though making similar incomes, cannot afford to buy now.
• Consider rent control (residents feel like it’s getting out of control).
Improve Development Feasibility
• Attract developers:
o Show development community Federal Way is serious about opening its arms (like
Tacoma).
o Demonstrate feasibility for missing middle housing to attract investors. Do site concepts
and pro forma analyses. Clearly show the City requirements.
• Update development code:
o To compete with Tacoma and other nearby cities, remove code barriers in lower density
zones to townhouses, DADUs, ADUs, and small single family to accommodate entry level
homes. (multiple interviews)
o Make code requirements clear (like Seattle).
o FW’s cottage housing regulations are well crafted.
111111
2
• Consider fee adjustments:
o High impact fees are preventing multifamily development.
o Reduce development fees. (Fee deferral doesn’t save developers much money.)
• FW staff capacity caused some delay in permitting processes. Commit to consistently staffing a
full planning department.
• Provide adequate infrastructure as possible. Most developers won’t want to deal with a site that
has no streets and utilities.
• Developers can avoid public backlash by design cottages, duplexes, and triplexes that fit into the
existing neighborhood scale.
• Good examples where cities spurred desired development:
• Burien demonstration project—allowed greater density
• Seattle ADUs and limited parking regulations
• Portland allowance for 50% more affordable homes than market-rate on low density lots
(sixplex vs fourplex)
Housing Needs
• Housing supply in general (multiple interviews)
• Family-sized homes (3+ bedrooms) (multiple interviews)
• Home ownership opportunities (multiple interviews)
• Missing middle housing types and starter homes (multiple interviews)
• Single adults 55+, especially women and baby boomer couples who are downsizing. This is a
fast-growing segment looking for a community setting with the privacy of a single family house.
• 5-6 story apartments in station areas/equitable mixed-use, transit-oriented development (TOD)
with homes affordable to a range of incomes
• Extremely Low Income homes—no jurisdiction in King County has met these targets, and rents
have grown fastest in South King over the last 3 years.
• ADUs
Improve Ownership Opportunities
• There is a strong desire for more homeownership opportunities (multiple interviews).
• Lock in existing affordability with community land trusts (multiple interviews).
• Offer education/training/support for home buying, especially for immigrants or people speaking
languages other than English (multiple interviews).
• Access to credit and down payment are the biggest barriers; consider a down payment revolving
fund.
• Connect community members with the Washington State Financing Housing Commission’s
down payment assistance program.
Curb/Address Displacement
• Offer credit counseling and trainings before eviction.
• Displacement is an issue in South King County with fast-rising rents and lack of homes affordable
to extremely low income households.
112112
3
• Develop a community preference policy to allow displaced people to return with
redevelopment. Do proactive marketing, outreach, and credit remediation work.
Complete Community Needs
• Cities have legitimate concerns that if they don’t have infrastructure or school funding, they
can’t safely claim they can accept more people. Work with regional partners to form an
equitable regional way to distribute resources.
• Invest in sidewalks and lighting, especially along Military Rd, to go hand-in-hand with increased
numbers of people using these facilities.
• Continue requiring impact fees for schools with redevelopment.
• Provide additional parks or outdoor gathering space.
• Offer more support for immigrants and build trust, community strength, and mutual support
through multi-lingual services/communication and community liaisons.
• Transit-oriented development is a win for all to achieve more homes near more resources.
Other
• “Every public official on every board should be aware that the decisions they make will affect
housing affordability for their kids and grandkids.”
• Maintain a focus on and expand shelters, day centers, and transitional housing and services.
113113
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Appendices
APPENDIX C: VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS
114114
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 1
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Federal Way Housing Action Plan
Housing Options Visual Preference Survey
Results Summary
Participation
The survey was hosted on SurveyMonkey.com. The survey had 39 image-related questions, followed by
several demographic questions at the end of the survey.
The survey recorded 226 responses between January 8 and February 11, 2021, and the typical
completion time was nine minutes.
Format
36 image-based multiple-choice questions and 3 open-ended questions asked respondents to assess a
range of “missing middle” housing buildings and multifamily buildings. The images included a mix of
architectural styles and configurations.
The 36 image questions were divided into three categories: single-family areas, multifamily areas, and
commercial/downtown areas. Each image was captioned with a list of notable design features.
Respondents were asked whether they would like each example in the respective area.
Respondent’s choices for these questions were the following:
5. Yes – enthusiastically!
4. Yes – acceptable
3. Neutral/unsure
2. Probably not
1. Absolutely not!
An average score for each question was developed. An average score of 5 is highly positive, 3 is neutral,
and 1 is highly negative.
Key Findings
Generally positive reception. Participants, including both homeowners and renters, responded
positively to many of the images presented. A majority of survey-takers answered either “enthusiastic”
or “acceptable” to examples of several different housing types, including duplexes and triplexes in
single-family zones, townhouses in multifamily zones, and apartments and mixed-use buildings in
downtown zones.
Renters show even more support. In all but approximately three images, renters more enthusiastically
support the images. Where images included renter amenities like outdoor shared deck space, ratings
among renters were very high.
Duplexes and triplexes in single family zones are supported. All scored positively except for modern or
garage-dominated images.
115115
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 2
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Townhouses in multifamily zones are supported. Townhouse images received very high scores except
when dominated by paving and garages.
Mixed results on 3-4-story apartments/condos. While most owners viewed these building types
generally neutrally or negatively, renters viewed them positively.
Apartments/condos in commercial and downtown zones are supported. Across the board, most
participants viewed these building types favorably, except when monotonous, monolithic, or messy.
Renters particularly appreciated outdoor common space like courtyards and decks.
Design matters. Images that received low scores typically included heavily paved areas with no
landscaping, garages as a predominate feature, a lack of private entry definition, or monolithic or messy
designs.
Demographics
Of the 226 respondents:
• 91% are Federal Way residents
• 88% live in single-family areas
• 86% own their homes (see Figure 1)
• 44% spend more than 30% of income on housing
• 11.5% identify as people of color
• 50% are between 46 and 64 years old; and about a
quarter are older and a quarter are younger
Figure 1. If you live in Federal Way, do you
own or rent your home?
116116
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 3
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Figure 2. Zoning map
117117
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 4
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Single Family Zones - Missing Middle Types
The first question series asked about a range of duplex and triplex home styles’ appropriateness in single
family zones. Participants generally viewed the images positively, except for modern or garage-
dominated images. Renters showed even stronger support.
Top-rated Images
118118
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 5
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Bottom-rated Image
Multifamily Zones – Townhouses and 3-4-story Apartments/Condos
The second question series asked about townhouse and 3-4-story apartment/condo styles’
appropriateness in multifamily zones. Participants viewed the townhouse images favorably (except
where paving dominated the landscape) and generally had a neutral to negative response to the
apartment/condo images. However, renters showed support for all, especially for images that showed
landscaped courtyards or other renter amenities.
Top-rated Images
Note, this image received the top score across all images on this survey.
119119
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 6
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
120120
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 7
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Bottom-rated Image
121121
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 8
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Commercial/Downtown Zones – Apartments/Condos
The third image series asked about the
appropriateness of 5-8-story apartment/condo
home styles in the commercial and downtown
zones. There was an overall positive response
amongst both owners and renters. The top-rated
image shows a mixed-use building with a pleasant
street level environment, balconies, extensive
façade variation/modulation, and stepbacks on
upper floors. In these larger buildings, participants
supported both traditional and modern styles.
Again, renters scored images with outdoor amenity
space very positively.
No images stood out as the bottom-rated image, but
participants generally showed less support for types
that were monotonous, monolithic, or messy.
Top-rated Image
Figure 3. Renters scored this image with an outdoor deck especially
positively.
122122
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 9
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Image Question Results
An average score of 5 is highly positive, 3 is neutral, and 1 is highly negative.
Single-Family Areas
Image Average Score
1
3.6
2
3.1
*Slightly less support among renters.
3
3.2
123123
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 10
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
4
3.5
5
2.7
6
3.3
7
3.0
*Slightly less support among renters.
124124
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 11
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
8
3.0
9
2.8
10
2.5
*Significantly more support among renters.
11
2.8
125125
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 12
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Single-Family Areas Written Comments
• Duplex is OK with design consistent with
current design trends. Modern box designs
don't fit in. Triplex are not acceptable.
• Really love the duplex, triplex. Less emphasis
on garages, parking, and pavement. The
driveways in alleys...yes! Emphasize
walkability and connection to the already
great roadway system, sidewalks, and transit
the city has. Time to start emphasizing
housing. What about quadraplex? Has the city
considered that? Stacked flats? Get more
density and make it more affordable to build?
Can the city ensure affordable housing
providers and for market builders have a say in
pulling together new regulations to make sure
things get built? Incentives to production?
Don't over regulate design or parking or
require wide roads (unsafe for pedestrians,
too much pavement and bad for
environment). Always protecting single family
residential is not inclusive. Singling out areas
as "low-income," or "only for seniors," or "that
part of town with lots of apartments," is
segregating. It's time the city stops racist
development patterns. Integration,
multigenerational, multi-income, multi-ethnic.
Get ahead of forcing low-income, seniors, or
communities of color out though with new,
more expensive development. Make sure
there's some protections for communities too.
Thank you for working to provide new housing
opportunities hopefully at more affordable
rates too!
• It seems like many of these example duplexes
have a small front yard. Will there be plans to
build them in areas with accessible and safe
play areas for children?
• Why would a single family want to accept a
duplex. Why would we?
• No 4 and 11 would be acceptable with more
uniform trim. The different brick location and
siding are awful. 11 would be better with the
siding and brick pattern of the mid unit, the
end units the same color. The difference of
the atrium roof is good. The other extreme is
12 which is too bland. Perhaps different
garage doors to break up the monotony.
• These homes need to stay clean outside.
• Only true single-family homes. No more
duplex/triplex/apartments, no more section 8
• Needs to fit in with the rest of the
neighborhood. Should not stand out and be
entirely different.
12
2.6
*Significantly more support among renters.
13 Do you have any comments on the specific
features that are acceptable or unacceptable in
the single family images above?
90 written comments
126126
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 13
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
• If the garage is in the back of the complex, is
there a back door or do homeowners walk to
the front with groceries, children, etc.? If so,
then I would not like the design.
• Whatever allows more families to live in
Federal Way!
• Duplexes are ok, triplexes are too much like
apartments or condos.
• Not crazy with MORE multiple family housing
units in my neighborhood We have Highpoint
already and that is Way more than what we
found Acceptable
• We don't have enough housing unit is for
everybody who needs a place to live in our
city. That's not an act of nature, it's a
function of policies within the control of the
City Council. If members of the City Council
do not dramatically increase the number of
housing units allowed in the city's
comprehensive plan and zoning code, Federal
Way's children will graduate from our schools
and then be forced out of town by economic
necessity. In the process, their parents will
become senior citizens who are separated
from their adult children at the time of life the
parents need their children most. The
result? We will allow knowingly and
foreseeably allow economic necessity -
created by the City Council's failure to address
the lack of access to the necessities of life
(specifically housing) - to shred the social
fabric of our community, tarnish the golden
years of our seniors, and drop-kick our
children into a future that requires them to
live well beyond - perhaps counties beyond -
the city limits of Federal Way. Leadership is
not easy. Stepping-up to address this
challenge courageously will not be easy for
members of the City Council. The Council's
leadership - or its failure to lead - will be
evident for decades to come. Addressing
this specific challenge will define the
Courageous Legacy, or the Catastrophe of
paralysis, of this generation of Federal Way's
elected leaders. The surest way for City
Council members to keep their job, is to do
their job. THAT is the standard by which
Councilmembers should answer the questions
propounded in this survey.
• Triplexes, even with garages, will lead to more
cars parked on street.
• Driveways to side/alleys and garages in back
are highly desirable. Garages that take up
50%+ of front facade highly undesirable.
• Most models with unique architectural designs
would be acceptable. Only concern for Federal
Way is being overbuilt and heavy traffic
congestion! Getting worst with no solution!
• The acceptable choices are mainly aesthetics. I
prefer the modern facade and more tradition
decorative facades.
• Single-Family should be defined by horizontal
units with no more than 3 units being
attached.
• Adequate onsite parking is a MUST or streets
are clogged with vehicles.
• Like modern aspects of some of these and
designs that don't scream duplex.
• The units that look like they are obviously a
duplex or triplex do not belong in
neighborhoods with single family homes.
• Duplexes are acceptable since housing size
would likely be comparable to SFH. Triplex is
too large and would trend towards looking like
an apartment building.
• Given our weather, a separate garage in the
back is not ideal.
• alley-way parking is great. For the love of god,
do not put multi-family dwelling in those tiny
cul-de-sacs. No one can park anywhere and it
creates hazards for pedestrians. Just make
sure sure each house has parking for 3 cars -
everyone in FW has at least that many and it's
hard to see oncoming traffic if people are
parking on corners because there's no parking
by their home.
127127
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 14
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
• Driveways and garages have front access. No
alley access to a garage in back or detached
garages in back.
• None of these homes truly fit in with current
home designs. Try designing a home that
would blend with neighborhoods that are
established, not “ new build “ looking. So a
rambler and not a fabricated looking 3 story
mansion. Look at neighborhoods like marine
view, twin lakes, or totem junior high area.
These new builds stick out, are eye sores and
look so out of place. I’m tired of new places
being built, why not focus on using what is
already out there and fixing them up for once.
• Duplex seems to fit and architecture similar to
what is the single family area. Triplex is too
much.
• I think all of these designs would be a great
addition to any neighborhood.
• Style needs to fit into the existing
neighborhood.
• I prefer those where the garages are in the
back. Putting duplex/triplex with most
families having multiple cars in single family
neighborhoods means more cars and traffic.
• Federal Way DOES NOT NEED ANY MORE LOW
INCOME / homeless ANYTHING. Please no. So
much crime and run down areas
• What about "tiny houses" as an option?
• I think a variety of styles will allow individuals
to choose a place that seems like home to
them.
• Some are so modern they seem.out of sync
with existing Federal Way look and feel,
designs that bring more housing units than
less is better. In the end the shared
maintenance approach to mukti-housing is
more critical than all these designs.
• As long as the designs fit in with the
neighborhoods, I see no reason why they can’t
be done. Of course you art going to run into
NIMBY issues regardless of where you put
them. Federal Way is the past has fought to
keep affordable housing out stating they don’t
want those people living in there town.
• Multiple connected housing units are ugly.
And they jam too many people into one area.
• No
• Traffic and crime!
• none of the images above are single family
homes. they are duplex and triplex. in my
opinion a single family home is a building with
its own roof for a single family. duplex and
triplex falls in the category of a mini
apartment complex.
• Do not at all like the 'modern' designs and Tri-
plexes are too much.
• Designs are fairly acceptable throughout. The
problem I have is that the more people you
stuff into a single building the more
problematic the clientele becomes and the
more consequences there are like parking
problems.
• Concern that all models show at least two (2)
floors each. What about handicapped people?
• They aren't single family
• Need to look like single family homes if your
are going to build them within the g single
family zone.
• We definitely need ultimate family housing so
people can own a home, I just find the
"modern" style absurdly ugly aesthetically.
• Minimize visibility and space dedicated to cars
(e.g. garages and driveways) and maximize
density for people.
• I would like any new construction to fit with
the appearance of existing construction, and
to look as much as possible like single family
homes. I think that's better for the appearance
of the neighborhoods and for the dignity of
the homeowners. I would not like new builds
to look too modern or to look like standard
apartment and condo buildings.
• None of them are SINGLE family houses!!!
They are duplexes and triplexes!!! Not single
family houses. These are all basically
apartments!. Federal Way does not need more
128128
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 15
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
apartments!!! Especially in single family
zoning.
• Unless Federal Way increases financial support
for community infrastructure--public
transportation, police, fire, water, sewer,
waste-management, electricity, road
maintenance, grocery stores, etc--to support
an increase in population density, I do not
support multi-family dwellings in current
single-family home areas. This shift happened
in in multiple Seattle neighborhoods, which
drove up the cost of.living and further limited
access to resources.
• I have lived here in Federal Way since 1968.
Growing up my parents always owned their
own home. As I married I lived in an apt, for
the past 10 yrs I live in a 3 bedroom duplex
with attached garage. I've noticed FW doesn't
have many duplexes and an abundance of
triplexes. From my experience I would prefer
living in a duplex as it feels more like a house
instead of living on top of your neighbor
• Single family is single family. Every structure is
multi family so no, not in single family zoned
neighborhoods.
• These are not single family homes. Keep these
out of the single family homes area.
• Single family is one structure, one family. No
on dueplexes.
• Please let the "modern" looks be the last thing
you approve. Thank you for asking our input
• Acceptable ones are inviting the absolutely
not ones are hideous or impractical
• There needs to be a focus on single level living
to meet the needs of our aging boomers.
• More space between each dwelling is desired
and needed.
• Garages in a row at the street are most
unappealing in a single family residential area.
Providing more variety of lines and features of
design improves appeal significantly.
• Triplex is too much for single family home
areas
• Given the sheer amount of existing single-
family homes in neighborhoods across Federal
Way, I feel that duplexes would be ideal for
infill development and new development
mixed-in with standard single-family homes.
Triplexes, on the other hand, would be more
suited toward narrow & long building lots or
new development that is built around them.
Overall, I prefer the designs with garages in
the back that are accessible from a back alley
or single driveway leading from the front.
These designs are more aesthetically-pleasing,
take away less green space, and encourage
walking & cycling (less curb cuts). The
modern facades shown on this page are
attractive, as are MOST of the traditional
facades. The designs with a sizable front patio
or porch are ideal.
• these are all fine in appropriate areas. federal
way has many areas where multi-family
housing would work. but when I think of
"single-family" zoning, i think of the typical
neighborhood subdivision -- these generally
don't work in those environments. Which is
sort of moot, since I doubt we're going to be
knocking down homes built in the 90s an
replacing them with duplex/triplexes. I think
these types of housing are fine in purpose-
built developments and also become more
find as we get closer to the city core/transit
hubs
• Triplexes put too many cars in too small of an
area. People fill their garages with junk and
then park their 2 or 3 cars in the driveway and
street. Would look junky.
• NONE of them are accessible for wheel chair
persons.
• Street parking not acceptable and strictly
enforced for any of the designs.
• Modern design does not fit Federal Way, I'm
ok with duplex in single family neighborhoods,
but do not like triplex in these areas.
• Would there be extra parking areas, play
parks? Extra sound proofing, firewalls??
129129
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 16
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
• All/each will increase density and require
some existing homes to be razed. These need
to be built where single family homes do not
already exist.
• Duplexes and triplexes are multifamily and
therefore not single family housing. They go in
a different neighborhood with different
zoning.
• The garage doors lined up in front look like an
apartment. Also the multiple garages together
may create parking concerns.
• They all appear to be semi-attached instead of
detached from one another, which crams
more people together.
• It really depends on the footprint of the new
buildings and how they fit in the
neighborhoods. Dozens of ranch style homes
with a huge 2 story duplex in the middle of the
block taking up every single inch of ground,
ripping out trees SUCKS.
• They all look cookie cutter and so my
responses are based more on that. I
appreciate that FW is interested in getting the
community's feedback and I REALLY hope that
more single family homes (verses apartments)
are the direction we are headed. We need
people who care and are invested in the
growth and care for the area.
• Is this a proposal?
• Single family best for raising a family! No
multi-family apartments!!!
• They are not appealing and should not be in
residential areas
• Prefer to see shared/combined driveway
space to maximize available green space.
• eye-pleasing designs are always welcome
• my question is , when you talk about putting
these in residential areas, does that mean I
could have one next door? I would like more
information of the impact of the value of
existing single family homes if these type of
homes are placed in existing residential
neighborhoods.
• Whatever goes in must integrate visually with
that neighborhood. Nothing worse than an
ultra-modern building in a craftsman-style or
mid-century neighborhood.
• I would ask that if they are coming into
neighborhoods that they be maintained. We
do not need any more ‘affordable housing’
especially with so many amenities. Any new
builds should be harmonious into the existing
neighborhood. No ultra modern builds in a
70’s era neighborhood.
• What about cottage home communities? The
triplexes would be acceptable on certain roads
in single-family zoned areas.
• Add sound proofing between shared walls.
Make them all owner occupy or renter occupy.
Not a mix. Move driveways to outer side of
area. Be mindful of back yard area, sharing is
hard for upkeep and use.
• Higher density that doesn’t scream higher
density is much preferred.
• no more building unless the city is able to reap
the benefits of taxes................
• The recent increase in home rentals, nursing
homes and extended families are already
causing significant parking headaches in some
established neighborhoods. Increasing density
like this in areas traditionally zoned 7.2 will
just make it worse. We've still got plenty of
density opportunities along the corridor roads
in Federal Way. Please don't push density like
this into the 7.2 zones, too. Federal Way is a
suburban city and we need to protect families
who choose that lifestyle. Look what has
happened to West Seattle, where many old
single family lots have been redeveloped with
duplexes. Don't do this here. That will just be
yet another red mark on Federal Way.
• Single family zoning does not equate to
building duplexes. Traditionally, duplexes
drive down the value of neighborhoods.
Federal Way needs to look at ways of
maintaining and increasing our areas value.
We already have more than our fair share of
130130
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 17
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
everything but single family dwellings. What
do you want the future of Federal Way to be?
I have been waiting for years to see
improvements, I am still waiting. I do not see
the choice of building more multi family
housing as improving anything in our city.
• All of the builds are really not single family as
2 families are in each one causing more
crowding per acre or square mile. Society is
better off with people not being contained in
small areas. Where are the choices for true
single family homes. Or has the city already
made it's choice with out the vote of the
people.
• For image 12, the street-level seems a little
dominated by 2 car garage doors.
• Single Family Area to me means single family
houses and properties are separate properties
with space inbetween. No duplexes or Tri
Plexs.
• a up stairs
131131
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 18
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Multifamily Areas
Question/Image Average Score
14
3.7
15
3.0
16
2.5
*Significantly more support among renters.
132132
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 19
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Multifamily Areas
Question/Image Average Score
17
3.4
18
3.0
*Significantly more support among renters.
19
3.2
*Significantly more support among renters.
133133
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 20
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Multifamily Areas
Question/Image Average Score
20
3.0
21
2.7
22
2.9
134134
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 21
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Multifamily Areas
Question/Image Average Score
23
2.6
24
3.0
*Significantly more support among renters.
25
3.0
*Significantly more support among renters.
26 Do you have any comments on the specific
features that are acceptable or unacceptable in
the multi family images above?
56 written comments
135135
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 22
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Multifamily Areas Written Comments
• "House looking" is favored over box-look.
Trees and landscaping a must. Under-building
parking preferred.
• Love the ones with common areas, courtyards
and those with a variety of parking options. No
need for always providing one giant paved
beast of a parking lot. Underground parking is
so expensive. If did it, would need to allow for
other incentives and maybe more densities to
help keep building costs down and make it
more affordable to lease/buy. For some of the
townhomes, how about shared parking areas?
No need for every unit to have it's own
garage? Shared storage areas? Common guest
parking? Work with builders and lenders to
ensure that policies can reflect what can
actually be built to help working families buy a
home or a senior buy a home or maybe a first
time buy a home.
• I do not want it to look like an apartment
complex
• Will planned multi-family buildings be located
in areas close to public transportation?
• Ugh--density.
• There must be room for people to be outside
and safe from traffic and traffic fumes.
• Just let people build according to guidelines.
Do not tie them up in years of reviews!
• NO MORE HIGHPOINTS in residential 1-2 story
existing neighborhoods!!!
• Please see the answer to question number 13.
• It's 2021, we should not be permitting
developments with no sidewalks or no direct
sidewalk access that isn't across a parking lot.
• Multi-Family should be defined by vertical
integration of units, and include horizontally
integrated units with more than 3 attached
units.
• Again, adequate off street parking is essential.
• Most of these examples are real similar.
Would be nice if Federal Way would be a
leader in design versus a follower.
• All these are good options. They all look nice.
It is more about making sure they and the area
are maintained over time. Also that there is
enough parking in the surrounding area
and/or access to transportation.
• Enough parking (2 cars/household), and easily-
accessible units for people with mobility
challenges. I like the aesthetic of steps going
into/out of buildings, but that's really hard on
folks with disabilities.
• You want a multi family building, use
Weyerhaeuser. All these designs are junk!
They look completely out of place, cheap and
scream low income housing! It looks like you
are trying to pack in a huge amount of people
in one small area! Unacceptable! And this
just says to me that people will be parking
their 4 cars for every household on a single
lane street- causing congestion, looking
absolutely awful and encouraging car
breaking- look at the shag building- there is
broken glass all around that building all the
time. Use the old target building, the vacant
gold gym building on 1st ave, or any other
number of vacant buildings. Stop building on
every inch of land !!! It’s disgusting! Like the
apartments to the side of Lowe’s or near city
hall- they’re all awful!
• No more apartments in Federal Way. I have
lived here over 55 years. It is ghetto enough.
Build a zoo instead and send the homeless to
California. Gov Newsome needs some voters.
• I think any/all options should be available.
• @
• Underground parking is great.
• The tri-levels seem crowded, but preferable to
homelessness
• All new areas need to match the surroundings
and have plenty of area for children. Also see
prior comments.
• Do not like under ground parking and like the
idea of having balcony facing a courtyard or
play area.
136136
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 23
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
• concerns regarding parking, traffic and
property damage to transportation vehicles,
etc. Also storage of items. people have a lot of
stuff, many times garage are used to store
items and cars are parked in the streets. so of
we develop houses with no storage we should
ensure there is adequate parking. average
family in my opinion has 2-3 vehicles for a
married couple with no children. if there are
children then it is 3+ vehicles. multi bedroom
homes that are low priced also sometimes are
occupied by several unrelated adults (room
mates) so a 2 bedroom may have 4 adults with
4 separate vehicles. the designs and space use
should consider this aspect of reality.
• These are great. We need places for families
to move into!
• Strong preference for density (let's build tall!)
and hidden parking.
• I would like the exterior to look as much like
traditional single-family housing as possible,
and to avoid the modern look that I associate
with office buildings. I would like as many
trees as possible, and I like the idea of parking
being out of sight. I don't want more units that
look like the usual apartment and condo
buildings. When garages are available, I'd like
them to be at the back of the building or to
give the appearance, as much as possible, of
single-family homes, rather than having rows
of garages visible from the front. Rows of
carports in front are also a problem. Having all
the cars in front puts the focus on the parking
rather than the home.
• Federal Way has its share of high occupancy
housing. It’s time to concentrate of stopping
the apartment growth and focus on improving
what we have. No more apartments.
• Too many 3 story apt complexes would rather
see duplexes or town homes
• There must be enough parking for each unit
required. At least two cars with visitor
parking.
• We do not like the back alley parking type
properties.
• Acceptable are homey and inviting; probably
not or unacceptable at not attractive or too
tall. We already have enough mega-tall
gargantuan complexed. Hopefully these
duplex/triplex homes will be for sale rather
than for rent to allow Federal Way Residents
to build wealth at an entry level. ALSO
hopefully they will be 1-2 bedroom to allow
single people or couples just starting out.
There have been near or over 1000 family
units built in FW since 2014/2016 and nothing
for single/2 person households. We need
diversity in household and diversity in income
levels.
• Too crowded.
• Modulation of lines, trees, landscaping,
breaking up the features--all result in
increased appeal.
• All of the designs shown here are acceptable
except for those in questions #15, #16, and
#17. There are far too many curb cuts in #15
to walk down the sidewalk comfortably, while
neither #16 nor #17 have a sidewalk at all. #17
has absolutely no vegetation incorporated into
its design. Additionally, each of these designs'
entryways/patios is too small to be functional.
Regarding parking, the designs with
underground parking and rear garages are
preferable. The designs with surface parking
lots in the rear should utilize poured concrete
rather than asphalt for their lot surfaces, due
to its better aesthetic appearance and longer
lifespan.
• taller and more dense is better. larger,
sprawling complexes is worse. Closer to the
city core/transit hub is better. (complexes on
21st and 320th are terrible - no services,
minimal transit; closer to 348th is better;
closer to Pacific Hwy and transit
center/downtown is ideal)
137137
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 24
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
• 4 story seems too high for Federal Way,
landscaping (tress, other plants) are needed
around these multifamily buildings
• Aren’t these just apartments and
townhouses?
• Duplexes or triplexes would be fine. FW has
too many apartments already.
• I don't like Apartments mainly because they
are stacked on top of each other. Children are
noisy And adults can be even worse
• Traffic management is a concern with some of
these. Three stories is about as high as a
building can go without starting to look like an
institution. Mixed entries are good.
• No detached housing. Cramming people
together.
• There is never enough Surface parking which
creates street parking which is unacceptable.
Prefer parking spaces provided on sight
• Again, amount of land versus building
footprint versus destruction of established
trees and habitat.
• Again, we have more than enough apartments
and need to increase our single family homes.
• Multi-“family” apartments bring low income
crime and unsupervised juvenile delinquents.
Just ask FWPD and surrounding businesses!!!
• Keeping them no more than two levels
• all of these look too packed in a very small
space and are very unattractive.
• Too many people, the city cannot
accommodate the schools and roads. Not to
mention the skyrocketing crime since more
multi family housing has been put in.
• The courtyard entry is appealing as long as it is
safe and secured. I would not want to come
home late and have to walk through the
courtyard otherwise.
• We have enough apt type buildings. There is
never enough parking, and a drain on schools.
• Blocks of cramped apartments that offer no
breathing room are not safe and are not
productive for the community.
• Please consider how landscaped areas would
look after years of neglect. Many of the
townhouse designs tend to be problematic
with lots of little yards, which is why the
landscaping at two-story apartments tend
generally work better.
• We have too many apartments as it is.
Congested streets, over crowded public
schools, etc. why continue to increase the
density of this city? We need viable
businesses more than residences.
• More people per acre means more crime per
acre, pollution and congestion. Why are there
no option for traditional single family homes.
Has the city already made plans and have their
agenda mapped out.
• thick walls and end units
138138
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 25
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Commercial/Downtown Areas
Question/Image Average Score
27
3.1
28
3.2
*Slightly less support among renters.
29
3.1
139139
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 26
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Commercial/Downtown Areas
Question/Image Average Score
30
3.2
31
2.8
140140
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 27
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Commercial/Downtown Areas
Question/Image Average Score
32
2.9
33
3.4
34
3.0
*Significantly more support among renters.
141141
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 28
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Commercial/Downtown Areas
Question/Image Average Score
35
2.8
36
3.1
*Significantly more support among renters.
37
2.9
*Significantly more support among renters.
142142
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 29
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Commercial/Downtown Areas
Question/Image Average Score
38
2.8
Commercial/Downtown Areas Written Comments
• Walls divided into various materials, especially
using brick overlay (or REAL brick on ground
floors). Flat, box designs are definitely not
accepted. Break up into separate buildings is
good. Offset, alternating decks break up the
surface.
• Definitely maximize densities in downtown. Go
higher and more dense, especially if utilizing
underground parking. Integration with
live/work, lease/work, ground floor retail, mix
of ownership opportunities and TOD. Careful
again of displacement. If utilize green building,
ensure builders are maximizing Built Green
points and incentives so costs are maximized.
• My concern for building housing in the
downtown core of Federal Way is that
currently, there is so much traffic that it makes
it dangerous and unpleasant to walk in that
area. The example buildings that include
gathering spaces for pedestrians, as well as
have convenient retail spaces, hold the greatest
appeal to me.
• 7 story max is good
• The sky bridge in 37 is intrusive.
• Is there a playground in the complex for
children? It's important to keep them occupied
and making friends so that they are emotionally
healthy.
• Let them build without parking minimums and
make sure they’re served by a rapid bus line to
the transit center.
• No more 5-6 story multi family housing units
like Highpoint or Shag
• Summary Please see the answers to question
number 13 in question number 26
• Mixed use/ground retail is important. BUT
nobody wants to live in a strip mall, so don't
put parking lots between the front door and
the street.
• Residential development in the
downtown/commercial area should have a
commercial component on at least a portion of
the ground floor, otherwise it's just multi-
family.
• I’m not a great authority on multi family
dwellings.
• Do something different. Most of these are
similar in design and are not appealing.
143143
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 30
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
• Federal Way already has difficulty defining a
"downtown". Adding buildings that are strictly
residential, with no businesses in the building
would only add to that lack of definition, and
encourage residents to go elsewhere to shop.
The "downtown" area needs to encourage
businesses, not residences.
• All look to be good options. Like underground
parking to eliminate need for a lot of street
parking. But needs to be safe and secured.
• Try to maintain enough trees as the buildings
get taller. It's so depressing walking through all
concrete/brick areas with only a couple trees in
sight. And again, ensure enough parking for all
residents (even if they are older!).
• I don’t want commercial downtown buildings
built! Stop building and use what is already
available!
• I was going fit ones that had commercial on the
bottom but then I started thinking of not being
able to fill that with a commercial unit. As FW
seems to have problems with. We don’t need
more vacant stores.
• Glorified Ghettos that will turn into crack
houses.
• No more than 5 stories
• I think a sky bridge (or other pedestrian
accommodation) should be included with any
large downtown housing structure, whenever
possible.
• Ensure adequate resident and guest parking.
• I would rather see more diverse commerce
come to town than apartments. Federal Way
seems to run off good retail.
• Those with monotone colors look drab and
depressing.
• needs to have parking off street for residents
• I don't think we need anymore apartments in
downtown FW.
• Gotta make sure we have ramps and elevators
for our disabled population. Both our
wheelchair bound and elderly residents.
• Strong preference for maximizing density and
building tall. Parking should be minimized, but
if present, should be underground when
possible.
• Some of the images above, though marked as
modern, look dated to me, looking much like
apartment buildings from the 50s - 70s. I would
prefer that when buildings include residential
units, they look more like the other homes in
our area. I would like as many trees as possible
in all areas, including business, multi-family,
and single-family. Trees make a place feel more
friendly and help with both noise and air
pollution problems.
• Again, Federal Way has so many apartments
already, I hate to see more.
• If it's a 'commercial' area, why isn't there
something commercial in all of these? That
could be office space or something other than
retail, but if dowtown is all residential where do
people work/shop?
• Must have parking required for each unit.
• Having a view of the mountain is one of the
most treasured things in our city and I'd hope
it's one that'll be available for all to see and not
those who can afford to live in downtown
skyrises.
• Absolutely not = unattractive; the only one I
marked absolutely is because of the loft option
on top. We need more 1 bedroom and loft
options in Federal way. We need to give single
people just starting out and young people
options. Hopefully these will be loft, 1
bedroom, and 2 bedroom condos to give
people a chance to participate in the real estate
market at an entry level and Begin to build
equity and wealth for their Families and future
generations.
• No comments at this time.
• Mix of materials, underground parking,
balconies, elevated stoops, landscaped front
yard, modulation are all essential to good
design and strong appeal.
• I generally prefer the modern façade designs
over the others, but each of the designs shown
here is attractive. Buildings facing arterial
144144
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 31
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
streets should always have commercial and/or
live-works units on the ground floor. All
tenant parking in downtown/commercial
district housing buildings should be
underground. Larger "anchor" stores should be
required to have underground or garage
parking for shoppers, similar to the one shown
in question #32. Designs with ground floor
commercial should have street parking
available for guests where feasible and/or
small, landscaped, pedestrian-friendly parking
lots such as the one shown in question #29.
• taller, more dense, closer to transit please.
prefer not to have big setbacks from the street
- make it part of the walkable environment.
• Federal Way needs single family dwellings.
Apartments have too many children with not
enough tax income. Schools are already
suffering.
• 6, 7, 8 story buildings don't seem to fit Federal
Way, I think 5 story should be the tallest,
modern design does not fit Federal Way, make
sure to have enough trees and other natural
elements around buildings
• Are these going to be market rate places or low
income?
• FW has too many apartments already.
• The 7, 8 story buildings will dwarf lower ones
near it. The rear, underground parking is great.
People in suburbs have kids, cars. They need
safe parking. Varied fronts always appealing.
• Street parking unacceptable
• So boring and cookie cutter. But if you're set on
it, PLEASE provide off street parking to
minimize MORE theft
• FW is a suburban city. STOP trying to be
Seattle!! The homeless, crime and societal
issues belong in the big cities, not family
friendly, middle class, highly educated, highly
skilled suburban Federal Way!
• Some of these are not appealing in looks
• Ground floor commercial - retail office should
be required in all city center mf complexes, and
also in BC zone
• We need more density and we need to lower
the schools fees to get more market rate
housing for young professionals and families
• I would say trying to blend in with the existing
structures is the most important. I personally
would not want to be downtown shopping or
eating and know that residents and look down
on me and see what I am doing, uncomfortable
feeling.
• Shops snd living need to be separated
• Underground parking a must
• As long as it’s not more low income.
• Each of these buildings is acceptable when
chosen depending on the location. It would be
important to consider whether or not they are
blocking a view or impacting surrounding areas
otherwise. I like the use of a sky bridge where
foot traffic is heavy. The rooftop public space
would be great for viewing mountains and
water. Apartments with corner open space
okay as long as no camping loitering and drug
dealing etc.allowed. It may be better just to
avoid having that space.
• We already have too many multi story
“residential buildings’. These are apartments.
• There would be horrible parking issues.
• It all looks like the same stuff everywhere. No
real design just cookie cutter stuff that packs
people in. It would be a shame if this became
our downtown core.
• Don't build towering units over our heads, so
we have to travel through urban corridors.
Whenever possible, units should be setback
from street with parking in front and
modulation façades and rooflines.
• More crime and congestion. Less likely to visit
those areas.
• Regarding looks, they all look fine to me. My
concerns are mostly with this building type in
general.
• Five story good height, Six story is the limit.
• paid cable and water suer and grabage
145145
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 32
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Demographic Data
The following charts and tables contain respondent’s demographic data. Note that some questions were
skipped by a considerable percentage of respondents.
146146
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 33
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Other answers (“I have a different situation”)
• I live with the homeowner.
• homeless / native Alaskan residential theft discrimination *claim
• temporarily living with family
• Children attend FWPS's but I own a home in Des Moines
• Section 8
• own home; rent lot
• I live on my brother's couch
• Homeless
147147
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 34
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
148148
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 35
SnapshotVPSSurveyResults_2021-05-06.docx
Race or Ethnicity Count
Percentage of
respondents
who
answered this
question
Percentage of total
respondents,
including those
who skipped this
question
White 73 66.4% 32.3%
Black 3 2.7% 1.3%
American Indian/Alaska Native 3 2.7% 1.3%
Asian 5 4.5% 2.2%
Hispanic 1 0.9% 0.4%
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 3 2.7% 1.3%
Two or More Races 11 10.0% 4.9%
Invalid Answer 11 10.0% 4.9%
BIPOC 26 23.6% 11.5%
Total Answers 110
Skipped Responses 116
Total Respondents 226
149149
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Appendices
APPENDIX D SOUTH KING COUNTY SUB-REGIONAL HOUSING ACTION PLAN
FRAMEWORK
150150
FEDERAL WAY
SOUTH KING COUNTY SUB-REGIONAL
HOUSING ACTION PLAN FRAMEWORK
2020
151151
2 City of Federal Way | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
This document provides trends in demographic,
employment, housing, and housing affordability
along with housing projections for the City of
Federal Way. Fedreal Way is a participant of the
South King County Sub-regional cities who are
coordinating a comprehensive Housing Action
Plan Framework for South King County which
includes the cities of:
• Auburn
• Burien
• Federal Way
• Kent
• Renton
• Tukwila
Given that the participating communities are
impacted by many common market trends and
demands, cooperation is necessary to address
these issues. Providing for the sub-regional
coordination of Housing Action Plans through a
common Framework will allow all the partners
to address housing issues holistically and
ensure housing-related burdens are not simply
shifted around between cities.
The sub-region differs from East King County
and Seattle, where housing markets and income
levels significantly skew the Area Median
Income as it relates to how affordability is
defined, and therefore how successful south
King County cities are in providing affordable
housing for their communities. A sub-regional
framework that captures broad factors
impacting housing choice, cost burden, and
existing conditions of housing stock in South
King County will set the stage to evaluate and
incorporate appropriate policies, tools and
incentives for increasing residential capacity.
This document and analyses were produced by:
152152
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Federal Way 3
Executive Summary
› Federal Way needs about 6,786 new housing
units by 2040 when its population is expected to
reach more than 106,500 people. This includes
1,154 units that were underproduced and are
needed to meet current demand, plus 5,632 units
needed to meet future population growth (see
page 7).
› Federal Way needs to produce about 339
units per year to reach this goal (pg. 7). This is
more than 1.5x the 200 average units produced
annually over the 2011-2019 timeframe (pg. 4).
› In the 2011-2019 timeframe, Federal Way
produced 5.7 housing units for every 10 new
households that formed in the city (pg. 4). This
is the lowest level of production of any city in
the South King County subregion.
› The majority of these new units were built in
the middle of this development cycle - in 2016
and 2017 (pg. 4).
› As a result of this imbalance in supply and
demand for housing, average 2-bedroom rents
increased about 60% since 2010, and home
prices increased about 96% (pg. 6).
› Housing costs are quickly outpacing
incomes: over the 2012 to 2018 time period,
renter incomes only grew 30% and homeowner
incomes only grew 25% (pg. 5).
› In 2018, 89% of renters and 84% of
homeowners earning less than 30% of AMI were
cost burdened, along with 87% of renters and
59% of homeowners earning between 30% and
50% of AMI (pg. 6).
› Federal Way is increasingly seeing an influx
of four and five and more family households,
potentially due to generational shifts in
homeownership of the existing single-family
stock. (pg. 5).
› Federal Way saw a decline in the number
of households earning less than 50% of AMI
between 2012 and 2018, while the number of
households earning over 50% of AMI grew. Part
of this change can be attributed to changing
household sizes and part due to an influx of
higher-income households (pg. 5).
› As a result of Federal Way’s changing
demographics, the bulk of its new units are
needed at the 50%-80% AMI and over 100% AMI
affordability range (pg. 7). Some households in
this income range may be renting down – taking
stock from lower-income households – or
renting up and experiencing cost burdening.
The 2018 HUD Area Median Income (AMI)
for King County is $103,400 for a 4-person
household. Data discussing “% AMI” are
proportioned off of this median and are also for
4-person households.
153153
4 City of Federal Way | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Housing Trends
Number of Units Built Per Year, 2011-2019
Source: OFM, 2019
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020
Housing Units Built by
Decade, 1960-2020
Decade % of Units
Before 1960’s 4%
1960’s 16%
1970’s 22%
1980’s 31%
1990’s 15%
2000’s 6%
2010’s 5%
37,257
Number of total housing
units in 2018
Source: OFM, 2019
1,813
Number of housing units
built since 2011
Source: OFM, 2019
202
New housing units built on
average every year since 2011
Source: OFM, 2019
5.7
New housing units per every
10 new households› Between 2010-2019
Source: OFM, 2019, ECONorthwest
calculations
Scale of Housing Built by Decade, 1960-2020
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020
154154
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Federal Way 5
Change in Household Type, 2012 & 2018
Income Distribution by AMI, 2012 & 2018
Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, 2018
2010 2018
Population 89,306 97,440
2012 2018
Households 47,812 50,368
2012 2018
Median
Income $37,378 $48,629
2012 2018
Median
Income $68,694 $85,607
Demographics
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: OFM, 2019
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS, 2018
9%
Change in population › Between 2010 and 2018
5%
Change in number of households› Between 2012 and 2018
30%
Change in median renter
household income› Between 2012 and 2018
25%
Change in median owner
household income› Between 2012 and 2018
155155
6 City of Federal Way | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Cost Burdened› A household who pays more
than 30% of their income
on housing (inclusive of
households with severe cost
burdening).
Severely Cost Burdened› A household who pays more
than 50% of their income on
housing.
Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened by
Tenure, 2018
Housing Units Affordable by AMI and Tenure, 2018
2010 2020
Average
Rent $857 $1,343
2010 2020
Median
Sales Price $211,600 $414,700
Source: PUMS, 2018
Source: PUMS, 2018
Source: Costar
Source: Zillow
60%
Change in average rent for
2-bedroom apartment› Between 2010 and 2020
96%
Change in median home
sales price› Between 2010 and 2020
Housing Affordability
3,195
Number of income restricted
units› Total units as of 2020
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of public
affordable housing data
156156
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Federal Way 7
Housing Need Forecast
106,571
Projected population by
2040
451
Average annual population
growth projected through 2040
6,786
Projected number of units
needed by 2040
339
Average number of new
units needed per year
through 2040
68%
Increase in annual housing
production to reach 2040
housing need target
Housing Units Needed Through 2040
Housing Units Needed as a Share of Existing Stock
Housing Units Needed by AMI, 2040
Underproduction Future Need Housing Need
1,154 5,632 6,786
Existing Units Housing Need % of Existing Units
37,257 6,786 18%
AMI # of Units % of Units
0-30% 950 14%
30-50%1,289 19%
50-80%1,629 24%
80-100%814 12%
100%+2,104 31%
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: PSRC, 2017
Source: PSRC, 2017, ECONorthwest
calculations
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017;
ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017;
ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017;
ECONorthwest Calculation
HUD Affordability Level by Housing Type, 2018
AMI Studio 1-bed 2-bed
30%$542 $582 $698
50%$904 $970 $1,164
80%$1,448 $1,552 $1,862
100%$1,810 $1,938 $2,326
Source: HUD, 2018
Underproduction › Housing units needed to satisfy existing households today.
Future Need › PSRC 2040 population forecast translated into housing units.
157157
8 City of Federal Way | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Employment Profile
Source: PSRC, ECONorthwest
Federal Way Employment Numbers Regional Access to
Employment
Industry (2-digit NAICS Code)Employees
(2018)
# Change
(2008-2018)
% Change
(2008-2018)
Median Salary
(2018)
% Jobs by
Auto
% Jobs by
Transit
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting 19 14 280%$36,563 24%0%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
Extraction 22 17 340%NA 47%6%
Utilities 0 -8 -100%$93,542 24%1%
Construction 1,085 138 15%$50,362 44%1%
Manufacturing 308 -416 -57%$62,420 45%1%
Wholesale Trade 1,093 302 38%$47,864 51%2%
Retail Trade 4,914 -394 -7%$40,378 39%3%
Transportation and Warehousing 569 106 23%$50,920 66%4%
Information 105 -256 -71%$57,418 6%0%
Finance and Insurance 1,424 193 16%$63,308 24%2%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing 1,024 318 45%$41,974 34%3%
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services 1,447 98 7%$74,257 16%1%
Management of Companies and
Enterprises 99 -2,861 -97%$46,319 26%1%
Administrative and Support
and Waste Management and
Remediation services
913 -326 -26%$38,838 38%3%
Educational Services 2,614 281 12%$51,543 34%2%
Health Care and Social Assistance 7,927 2,615 49%$45,870 36%2%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation 472 -272 -37%$50,625 33%3%
Accommodation and Food
Services 3,680 -84 -2%$31,935 36%4%
Other Service 952 -558 -37%$44,544 34%2%
Public Administration 1,772 33 2%$59,243 38%3%
158158
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Federal Way 9
Employment Profile
* Transit and drive time of 45 minutes, departing at 8:00 AM, midweek
Source: PSRC, ECONorthwest Access to Employment*
These city-level employment estimates by
2-digit NAICS codes were derived using a
combination of the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
(LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment
Statistics (LODES) data, and Puget Sound
Regional Council’s Covered Employment
Estimates. These employment estimates show
the total number of residents working in each
2-digit NAICS sector in that city, the change
in employment in that sector in that city since
2008, and the 2018 median wages for the
residents in that city in that sector.
Transit and auto access to regional employment
was derived using 45-minute travel sheds for
each mode. We calculated the number of jobs
available within these travel sheds in each
2-digit NAICS category for the four-county
region (King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap).
159159
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Appendices
APPENDIX E: FEDERAL WAY FACT PACKET
160160
FEDERAL WAY
SOUTH KING COUNTY SUB-REGIONAL
HOUSING ACTION PLAN FRAMEWORK
2020
161161
2 City of Federal Way | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
This document provides trends in demographic,
employment, housing, and housing affordability
along with housing projections for the City of
Federal Way. Fedreal Way is a participant of the
South King County Sub-regional cities who are
coordinating a comprehensive Housing Action
Plan Framework for South King County which
includes the cities of:
• Auburn
• Burien
• Federal Way
• Kent
• Renton
• Tukwila
Given that the participating communities are
impacted by many common market trends and
demands, cooperation is necessary to address
these issues. Providing for the sub-regional
coordination of Housing Action Plans through a
common Framework will allow all the partners
to address housing issues holistically and
ensure housing-related burdens are not simply
shifted around between cities.
The sub-region differs from East King County
and Seattle, where housing markets and income
levels significantly skew the Area Median
Income as it relates to how affordability is
defined, and therefore how successful south
King County cities are in providing affordable
housing for their communities. A sub-regional
framework that captures broad factors
impacting housing choice, cost burden, and
existing conditions of housing stock in South
King County will set the stage to evaluate and
incorporate appropriate policies, tools and
incentives for increasing residential capacity.
This document and analyses were produced by:
162162
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Federal Way 3
Executive Summary
› Federal Way needs about 6,786 new housing
units by 2040 when its population is expected to
reach more than 106,500 people. This includes
1,154 units that were underproduced and are
needed to meet current demand, plus 5,632 units
needed to meet future population growth (see
page 7).
› Federal Way needs to produce about 339
units per year to reach this goal (pg. 7). This is
more than 1.5x the 200 average units produced
annually over the 2011-2019 timeframe (pg. 4).
› In the 2011-2019 timeframe, Federal Way
produced 5.7 housing units for every 10 new
households that formed in the city (pg. 4). This
is the lowest level of production of any city in
the South King County subregion.
› The majority of these new units were built in
the middle of this development cycle - in 2016
and 2017 (pg. 4).
› As a result of this imbalance in supply and
demand for housing, average 2-bedroom rents
increased about 60% since 2010, and home
prices increased about 96% (pg. 6).
› Housing costs are quickly outpacing
incomes: over the 2012 to 2018 time period,
renter incomes only grew 30% and homeowner
incomes only grew 25% (pg. 5).
› In 2018, 89% of renters and 84% of
homeowners earning less than 30% of AMI were
cost burdened, along with 87% of renters and
59% of homeowners earning between 30% and
50% of AMI (pg. 6).
› Federal Way is increasingly seeing an influx
of four and five and more family households,
potentially due to generational shifts in
homeownership of the existing single-family
stock. (pg. 5).
› Federal Way saw a decline in the number
of households earning less than 50% of AMI
between 2012 and 2018, while the number of
households earning over 50% of AMI grew. Part
of this change can be attributed to changing
household sizes and part due to an influx of
higher-income households (pg. 5).
› As a result of Federal Way’s changing
demographics, the bulk of its new units are
needed at the 50%-80% AMI and over 100% AMI
affordability range (pg. 7). Some households in
this income range may be renting down – taking
stock from lower-income households – or
renting up and experiencing cost burdening.
The 2018 HUD Area Median Income (AMI)
for King County is $103,400 for a 4-person
household. Data discussing “% AMI” are
proportioned off of this median and are also for
4-person households.
163163
4 City of Federal Way | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Housing Trends
Number of Units Built Per Year, 2011-2019
Source: OFM, 2019
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020
Housing Units Built by
Decade, 1960-2020
Decade % of Units
Before 1960’s 4%
1960’s 16%
1970’s 22%
1980’s 31%
1990’s 15%
2000’s 6%
2010’s 5%
37,257
Number of total housing
units in 2018
Source: OFM, 2019
1,813
Number of housing units
built since 2011
Source: OFM, 2019
202
New housing units built on
average every year since 2011
Source: OFM, 2019
5.7
New housing units per every
10 new households› Between 2010-2019
Source: OFM, 2019, ECONorthwest
calculations
Scale of Housing Built by Decade, 1960-2020
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020
164164
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Federal Way 5
Change in Household Type, 2012 & 2018
Income Distribution by AMI, 2012 & 2018
Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, 2018
2010 2018
Population 89,306 97,440
2012 2018
Households 47,812 50,368
2012 2018
Median
Income $37,378 $48,629
2012 2018
Median
Income $68,694 $85,607
Demographics
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: OFM, 2019
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS, 2018
9%
Change in population › Between 2010 and 2018
5%
Change in number of households› Between 2012 and 2018
30%
Change in median renter
household income› Between 2012 and 2018
25%
Change in median owner
household income› Between 2012 and 2018
165165
6 City of Federal Way | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Cost Burdened› A household who pays more
than 30% of their income
on housing (inclusive of
households with severe cost
burdening).
Severely Cost Burdened› A household who pays more
than 50% of their income on
housing.
Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened by
Tenure, 2018
Housing Units Affordable by AMI and Tenure, 2018
2010 2020
Average
Rent $857 $1,343
2010 2020
Median
Sales Price $211,600 $414,700
Source: PUMS, 2018
Source: PUMS, 2018
Source: Costar
Source: Zillow
60%
Change in average rent for
2-bedroom apartment› Between 2010 and 2020
96%
Change in median home
sales price› Between 2010 and 2020
Housing Affordability
3,195
Number of income restricted
units› Total units as of 2020
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of public
affordable housing data
166166
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Federal Way 7
Housing Need Forecast
106,571
Projected population by
2040
451
Average annual population
growth projected through 2040
6,786
Projected number of units
needed by 2040
339
Average number of new
units needed per year
through 2040
68%
Increase in annual housing
production to reach 2040
housing need target
Housing Units Needed Through 2040
Housing Units Needed as a Share of Existing Stock
Housing Units Needed by AMI, 2040
Underproduction Future Need Housing Need
1,154 5,632 6,786
Existing Units Housing Need % of Existing Units
37,257 6,786 18%
AMI # of Units % of Units
0-30% 950 14%
30-50%1,289 19%
50-80%1,629 24%
80-100%814 12%
100%+2,104 31%
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: PSRC, 2017
Source: PSRC, 2017, ECONorthwest
calculations
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017;
ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017;
ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017;
ECONorthwest Calculation
HUD Affordability Level by Housing Type, 2018
AMI Studio 1-bed 2-bed
30%$542 $582 $698
50%$904 $970 $1,164
80%$1,448 $1,552 $1,862
100%$1,810 $1,938 $2,326
Source: HUD, 2018
Underproduction › Housing units needed to satisfy existing households today.
Future Need › PSRC 2040 population forecast translated into housing units.
167167
8 City of Federal Way | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Employment Profile
Source: PSRC, ECONorthwest
Federal Way Employment Numbers Regional Access to
Employment
Industry (2-digit NAICS Code)Employees
(2018)
# Change
(2008-2018)
% Change
(2008-2018)
Median Salary
(2018)
% Jobs by
Auto
% Jobs by
Transit
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting 19 14 280%$36,563 24%0%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
Extraction 22 17 340%NA 47%6%
Utilities 0 -8 -100%$93,542 24%1%
Construction 1,085 138 15%$50,362 44%1%
Manufacturing 308 -416 -57%$62,420 45%1%
Wholesale Trade 1,093 302 38%$47,864 51%2%
Retail Trade 4,914 -394 -7%$40,378 39%3%
Transportation and Warehousing 569 106 23%$50,920 66%4%
Information 105 -256 -71%$57,418 6%0%
Finance and Insurance 1,424 193 16%$63,308 24%2%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing 1,024 318 45%$41,974 34%3%
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services 1,447 98 7%$74,257 16%1%
Management of Companies and
Enterprises 99 -2,861 -97%$46,319 26%1%
Administrative and Support
and Waste Management and
Remediation services
913 -326 -26%$38,838 38%3%
Educational Services 2,614 281 12%$51,543 34%2%
Health Care and Social Assistance 7,927 2,615 49%$45,870 36%2%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation 472 -272 -37%$50,625 33%3%
Accommodation and Food
Services 3,680 -84 -2%$31,935 36%4%
Other Service 952 -558 -37%$44,544 34%2%
Public Administration 1,772 33 2%$59,243 38%3%
168168
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Federal Way 9
Employment Profile
* Transit and drive time of 45 minutes, departing at 8:00 AM, midweek
Source: PSRC, ECONorthwest Access to Employment*
These city-level employment estimates by
2-digit NAICS codes were derived using a
combination of the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
(LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment
Statistics (LODES) data, and Puget Sound
Regional Council’s Covered Employment
Estimates. These employment estimates show
the total number of residents working in each
2-digit NAICS sector in that city, the change
in employment in that sector in that city since
2008, and the 2018 median wages for the
residents in that city in that sector.
Transit and auto access to regional employment
was derived using 45-minute travel sheds for
each mode. We calculated the number of jobs
available within these travel sheds in each
2-digit NAICS category for the four-county
region (King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap).
169169
City of Federal Way Housing Action Plan | Appendices
APPENDIX F: SOUTH KING COUNTY REGIONAL HAP – HOUSING STRATEGIES
FRAMEWORK
170170
ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Boise | econw.com 1
DATE: July 19, 2020
TO: South King County Regional HAP Team Members
FROM: ECONorthwest
SUBJECT: SOUTH KING COUNTY REGIONAL HOUSING ACTION PLAN – TASK 3.2 HOUSING
STRATEGIES FRAMEWORK
Background and Purpose
Six cities in South King County, Washington—Auburn, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and
Tukwila— submitted applications for funding through HB 1923 with portions of each funding
identified for a collaborative effort to develop a Subregional Housing Action Framework. This
plan will include a housing context assessment, public engagement, an evaluation of existing
housing policies, and recommendations for future housing strategies to incentivize
development in the South King County Region and participating cities.
Figure 1. South King County Subregion
Source: ECONorthwest
Building off the data from the housing
context assessment, input from public
engagement, and the evaluation of past
housing policies, this memorandum
provides a strategic framework for the
six cities to consider as they work on
incentivizing additional housing
production to meet their housing unit
growth targets through 2040.
Action Sheets
The four major strategies considered are
evaluated via “action sheets” that
describe the strategy, its goals relating to
housing production and affordability,
the market conditions needed to
implement the strategy and when, the
scalability (whether the strategy works at
the market, neighborhood, or property
level), and its impact on affordability
(whether they have a large, medium, or
small impact on overall housing
affordability).
In addition, these action sheets include
various strategy elements that can be
171171
ECONorthwest 2
implemented by each city as appropriate. Not all the strategy elements would be needed to
achieve the desired affordability goal, but they each work toward the overall theme of the
strategy and can be implemented depending on political will, funding, staffing, and numerous
other considerations. These strategies and the goals they achieve are summarized in Figure 2
below. The goals identified in Figure 2 are consistent with Housing Action Plan (RCW
36.70A.600) requirements and draft guidance recommendations for housing strategy
development and strategies to minimize displacement.
Figure 2. South King County Housing Strategies, Goals, and Potential Impact
Goal Achieved Potential Impact
Strategy
Preserve
Affordability
Create
Affordable &
Workforce
Housing
Increase
Housing
Options &
Supply
Scalability
Impact on
Affordability
Preservation & Anti-
Displacement
Market level Low impact
Affordable Housing
and Production
Property level High impact
Middle Housing
Market or
Neighborhood
level
Moderate
impact
TOD & Urban Centers
Market or
Neighborhood
level
Moderate
impact
Additionally, a market conditions and timing matrix on page 13 lists the strategies, their various
elements, and includes considerations on the urgency and applicability for the South King
County region and for each city. This table considers findings from each city’s market
conditions and demographic makeup, to determine whether staff should consider the strategy
element now (indicated in green), in the medium-term (2-3 years or as market conditions
change, indicated in yellow), or whether it would be a lower priority for implementation
(indicated in red).
172172
ECONorthwest 3
1 Preservation & Anti-Displacement Strategies
Primary Goal Housing Barriers Overcome
Preserve affordability in existing units Preserves aging or expiring restricted units,
preserves unregulated affordable properties,
minimizes displacement.
Scalability
Impact
Preservation and anti-
displacement efforts work at the
neighborhood or market level.
These strategies have a moderate
impact on affordability.
Market
Conditions
and Timing
These strategies are applicable in
“hot” housing markets facing high
price and rent growth,
gentrification and displacement
pressures, and redevelopment.
Description
Housing preservation and anti-displacement strategies can expand housing affordability and
availability in various ways. Many of the housing markets in South King County have aging housing
stock that could be at risk of investment purchases (where they are bought, renovated, and rented at
higher prices). Even regulated affordable housing properties can be at risk if their affordability periods
are nearing expiration and the funders are unable to recapitalize (which is often dependent on limited
public funding). A review of the South King County Regulated Affordable Housing Inventory compiled
for this project indicates that there are 1,339 income restricted units in 10 buildings that will have
expiring affordable housing agreements by 2030 and 2,507 income restricted units in 18 buildings
that will have expiring affordable housing agreements by 2040. These expiring tax credit funded
affordable housing agreements represent 28% of the total 13,562 income restricted that exist in
South King County today.
The following strategy elements could help preserve both regulated and unregulated affordable units
and prevent the displacement of low-income communities while new development occurs.
Strategy Elements
1A) Regional Revolving Loan Fund. Cities should consider joining forces to create a regional affordable
housing revolving loan fund for preservation opportunities. An affordable housing revolving loan fund is
a pool of money that offers low-interest loans to eligible recipients for the development or preservation
of affordable housing. Revolving loan funds can aid the feasibility of (re)development by offering
below- market interest rates and generous loan terms compared to market loans, and can be used to
fill funding gaps in a development deal (a major hurdle for creating new affordable housing). A fund is
seeded by numerous investors: public funders, philanthropic funders, banks, financial institutions, or
other investors. An entity like the South King Housing and Homeless Partner (SKHHP) network would
be a strong lead for this type of regional effort. This could be modeled off the City of Seattle’s REDI
Fund.
1B) Monitor Expiring Regulated Properties. Cities could establish programs and mechanisms to
monitor regulated affordable housing properties that are nearing their affordability expiration dates,
and work with the property owners to recapitalize and rehabilitate the property with new funding.
Create a database and mapping system to monitor and plan for upcoming expirations.
1C) Monitor Unregulated Affordable Properties. Cities could establish a process to monitor unregulated
affordable rental properties and mobile home parks that might be at risk of selling to private investors
and seeing rents/leases increase. Establish criteria to flag properties at risk, such as: low-rents,
deferred maintenance, small (under 20 units), non-institutional owners (e.g., - “mom and pop”
owners), located in amenity rich areas, near recent redevelopments, or on high cost land.
§ This strategy would be more valuable if paired with a revolving loan fund that could offer grants or
low-interest loans to purchase properties and maintain affordability and habitability for a defined
duration.
§ This strategy could also be paired with a requirement of notice of intent to sell for properties that
are identified in an unregulated affordable housing inventory.
173173
ECONorthwest 4
1D) Empowering Community and Partnering with Community Organizations. Cities could evaluate their
communities and neighborhoods to identify who may be especially vulnerable to displacement as
housing markets continue to see increasing affordability pressures. This work should prioritize building
capacity for historically marginalized communities like communities of color, immigrants, or non-
English speaking communities. This work should focus on equity and social justice outcomes and
empower the community by providing leadership training in advocacy for equitable development,
enhancing culturally and linguistically specific services, and gaining more direct, community informed
guidance on future development
1E) Tenant Protections. Cities could establish, update, or strengthen tenant protections and resources,
such as policies relating to just-cause evictions, low-barrier application screening, and fair-housing or
anti-discrimination policies. Tenant education and tenants’ rights programs like RentWell or RentSmart
can help tenants with difficult rental histories set themselves up for success. Tenant protections such
as those listed here are most effective at mitigating displacement risk for households that are most at
risk in the housing market.
1F) Manufactured Home Preservation. Manufactured home parks can face incredible displacement
and redevelopment pressure if they are sited on valuable land with close proximity to strong housing
markets, regional employment centers, and concentrations of amenities. Cities could establish
procedures or guidelines to help the residents at these properties to establish a co-operative
ownership structure or support non-profit housing providers to acquire and manage manufactured
home pars. These guidelines should also provide clear criteria around housing quality and
environmental health and life safety standards for housing in manufactured home parks to identify
when it is appropriate for public or non-profit acquisition to support long term healthy housing for
households. Preservation can be a highly effective model for preventing mobile home parks from being
purchased and redeveloped.
§ Additionally, there are zoning strategies that cities could implement to preserve mobile home
parks and their critical affordable housing stock. A 2018 city ordinance in Portland Oregon created
a new Manufactured Dwelling Park zone to regulate land use at 56 parks in the city. This
preservation strategy requires a review process and City Council vote if a developer proposes
closing a park for redevelopment.
1G) Rental Licensing and Inspection Programs. Cities could consider establishing strong rental
licensing and inspection programs to track, monitor, and inspect a portion of all rental housing in their
jurisdiction. This preservation strategy helps eradicate slumlords, creates a database of all multifamily
housing, and prevents landlord retaliation from habitability complaints. If the license fee is set
appropriately, this type of funding can be revenue positive (or at least revenue neutral) to pay for the
costs of inspections and overhead.
Currently, Auburn, Burien, Kent, and Tukwila all have these programs in place. Renton’s program does
not require an inspection, except when a violation has occurred. Without being a random inspection, a
landlord could retaliate against a tenant when an inspection occurs. Federal Way is currently
considering a program, and should look to the successes and failures of its neighboring cities to
design the program and set the fee.
174174
ECONorthwest 5
2 Affordable Housing and Production Strategies
Primary Goal Housing Barriers Overcome
Create More Affordable & Workforce Housing;
Preserve Affordability
Lack of funding for affordable housing
developments, reduces cost of development for
affordable housing.
Scalability
Impact
Affordable housing production
works on a property-by-property
basis, but have a high impact on
affordability.
Market
Conditions
and Timing
With scarce resources, affordable
housing resources can go further
in markets with lower land prices.
In areas with high land prices and
high housing costs, affordable
housing can be more expensive
to produce but create lasting
mixed-income communities
Description
Various options exist to boost affordable housing production. These range from funding tools to land
use and zoning tools, and can be directed toward market rate developers or nonprofit developers. The
Washington State legislature is very focused on housing affordability and may add more options in the
near term. According to the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC), the following local taxing
measures for affordable housing could be considered.
The following strategy elements could be considered to boost affordable housing production and
preserve affordable housing as new development occurs.
Strategy Elements
2A) Regional Revolving Loan Fund. Similar to the revolving loan fund mentioned in the preservation
strategies, a revolving loan fund could be used to fill development gaps for regulated affordable
housing. The South King County Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP) has identified the
creation of affordable housing fund in the organization’s work plan. SKHHP is well positioned to
administer a South King County affordable housing loan fund.
2B) Other Funding Mechanisms include:
§ A property tax levy (RCW 84.52.105) which allows cities to place an additional tax up to $0.50 per
thousand dollars assessed for up to ten years. Funds must go toward financing affordable housing
for households earning below 50% MFI.
§ A sales tax levy (RCW 82.14.530) which allows jurisdictions to place a sales tax up to 0.1%. At
least 60% of funds must go toward constructing affordable housing, mental/behavioral health-
related facilities, or funding the operations and maintenance costs of affordable housing and
facilities where housing-related programs are provided. At least 40% of funds must go toward
mental / behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing-related services.
§ A real estate excise tax (REET) (RCW 82.46.035) which allows a portion of city REET funds to be
used for affordable housing projects and the planning, acquisition, rehabilitation, repair,
replacement, construction, or improvement of facilities for people experiencing homelessness.
These projects must be listed in city’s the capital facilities plan.
2C) MFTE Expansion. Federal Way is the only city not currently offering an MFTE bonus so it should
consider the program when market conditions are right. This financial incentive program can be
implemented in certain areas where the city wants to see new development, such as along major
arterials, in station areas, or urban centers. This program can encourage higher-density development
than the market would otherwise deliver.
The cities already utilizing MFTE should ensure that they are calibrated with their market conditions –
ensuring that that exemptions are valuable enough for a developer to want to use them, but not too
valuable to erode public benefit. Cities should also consider expanding MFTE zones to encourage
density in larger areas. Or when market conditions are strong enough, cities should consider utilizing
175175
ECONorthwest 6
the affordable housing component of the MFTE program to capture public benefit (affordable housing)
in private development.
2D) Fee Waivers. Many cities currently have, or have had in the past, fee waivers to support the
development of affordable housing. Cities should evaluate the structure of their fee waivers to as an
additional tool that can be layered with MFTE, density bonuses, and other financial resources to help
support affordable housing.
2D) Additional Land Use Tools. These land use tools were evaluated and identified for further
implementation consideration in the Housing Policy Analysis in Task 3.1.
§ Reduced Parking Requirements. Parking can be an expensive part of project development (when
structured) or can consume large amounts of land, reducing the amount of development that can
fit on a site. To the extent that code requires more parking than a developer would otherwise want
to provide, the cost of meeting these requirements creates financial burden. Cities should adjust
parking requirements for targeted housing types and for affordable housing projects. Excessive
parking requirements can have deep impacts to project feasibility for both middle housing and
larger scale multi-family development. Parking requirements vary widely by city and across
different zoning designations in South King County. Cities should evaluate minimum parking
requirements for middle housing and multi-family development and consider parking ratios of less
than two spaces per unit to support additional housing development. Cities could also explore
options to allow parking requirements to be met through on-street parking or in shared parking
facilities in TOD areas and Urban Centers.
§ Create and Calibrate Density Bonuses. The Task 3.1 Housing Policy Memo has identified
underutilized density bonus programs in several cities (such as Federal Way and Tukwila). Federal
Way and Tukwila should ensure that these programs are calibrated with their market conditions –
ensuring that the bonuses are valuable enough for a developer to want to use them, but not too
valuable to erode public benefit. While this is dependent on market conditions, which fluctuate,
the cities should have ongoing discussions with developers to understand the barriers to the types
of development these programs aim to encourage, and then align the bonus to help overcome
those barriers. Renton’s program has been the most utilized of all South King County cities.
Auburn, Burien, and Kent do not have density bonuses outside of the MFTE program but should
consider density and height bonuses along with the full range of tools evaluated to support
housing production.
176176
ECONorthwest 7
3 Middle Housing Strategies
Primary Goal Housing Barriers Overcome
Create More Affordable & Workforce Housing;
Increase Housing Supply
Overcome zoning barriers (illegality) of diverse and
dense housing types, increase development
feasibility via reduced costs
Scalability
Impact
These strategies can be scaled
and implemented at the
neighborhood level.
These strategies have a
moderate impact on
housing affordability.
Market
Conditions
and Timing
These are strategies that should
be considered in all markets
throughout the subregion. Cities
with a high share of demand for
80-100%+ MFI households
should prioritize these strategies
to meet demand for market rate
ownership opportunities.
Description
Encouraging certain types of moderately-dense housing, such as cottage clusters, internal division of
larger homes, duplexes, and accessory dwelling units, can help to increase housing supply and choice
in appropriate neighborhoods. In theory, these units can be more affordable than other units because
they are smaller. This would not guarantee affordability, but would expand opportunities for
unregulated housing types that may be lower cost than single family detached housing and help create
supply over the twenty year planning period to help with affordability over the long-term.
Strategy Elements
Step 3A) Enable middle housing. Planning for this type of housing often starts with a review of zoning
codes and development standards, and adjusting them to legalize this type of housing where
appropriate. In many cities, these types of moderately-dense housing are illegal in urban areas zoned
for single-family dwellings.
§ It is important to carefully identify the zones that would be changed, the types of units allowed,
and the size, scale, and development standards of those units.
§ A capacity analysis might be needed, and would include likely development costs, the number of
units that could be expected to be developed, the likely potential rents, and the locations where
rents make development feasible.
§ A public engagement plan to reduce fears about neighborhood change, up zoning, and density
would be helpful to reduce political or neighborhood opposition. This should include conversations
on how added density can be designed to blend into communities.
§ HB1923 sets out example zoning changes, parameters, goals, and also protection from legal
appeals for communities that change zoning designation in favor of higher density housing.
Step 3B) Remove Other Barriers. Beyond legalizing this type of housing, jurisdictions may also need to
remove barriers that effectively prevent them from being developed (even if legal) in high-opportunity
areas. These changes could include any the following concepts, implemented in combination or
separately. This is not an exhaustive list, but is meant as a starting point for incremental changes:
§ Lower impact fee and utility hookup charges for internal conversions if no net-new square footage
is added to a property.
§ Allowing property owners to finance impact fees and utility hookup charges, thereby spreading the
upfront costs over time.
§ Reduce or waive off-street parking requirements for middle housing, particularly for internal
conversions if no net-new square footage is added to a property.
§ Having pre-approved designs for ADUs or middle housing types that homeowners can choose from
reduces the complexity, time, and cost for development. Consider by-right development standards
for ADUs in areas that are already medium density, walkable, and desirable communities.
§ Evaluate land division code requirements to facilitate fee simple development to better meet
home ownership demand.
§ Review of code for compatibility with prefabricated homes, design standards, or other innovative
home production techniques.
177177
ECONorthwest 8
Step 3C) Incentivize. Beyond removing barriers, jurisdictions can actively encourage this type of
housing development via zoning and financial incentives. These may include:
§ Density bonuses for new construction of a middle property type.
§ Streamlined or prioritized permit and design review for middle housing development in high-
opportunity areas.
§ Parking requirements have a large impact on middle housing development on smaller infill lots.
Parking standards for single family development applied to middle housing can create both
physical development and feasibility challenges to producing middle housing.
178178
ECONorthwest 9
4 Transit-Oriented Development & Urban Centers
Strategies
Primary Goal Housing Barriers Overcome
Develop additional housing in urban centers and
transit-served areas
Improves development feasibility in high
opportunity areas. Creates location efficient
housing options.
Scalability
Impact
These strategies can be
implemented at the neighborhood
level.
They have a moderate
impact on affordability.
Market
Conditions
and Timing
TOD and Urban Centers
Strategies need strong market
conditions where rents are high
enough to support new, dense,
mixed-use market rate
development.
Description
Cities in South King County have a unique opportunity to leverage large scale investments through the
Tacoma Dome Link Extension and I-405 BRT to advance housing production, increase affordability, and
support community goals. Targeting housing growth in urban centers and transit-oriented development
(TOD) areas allows jurisdictions, planners, developers, and the public to understand where growth will
occur, and places needed housing close to transit and amenities.
Understanding that much of the South King County region is already built out – there is little
undeveloped land and a lot of single family zoned land. Thus, the production of new housing needed to
meet population and housing growth targets will need to occur in higher densities. The following
strategy elements can be helpful for cities to consider as they look to place needed housing in their
communities, with strong access to opportunity, transit, and amenities.
Strategy Elements
Building higher density housing near transit allows for transit agencies to increase ridership, reduces
cars on the roads, improves congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, and can create amenity-rich
areas with mixed commercial, residential, and retail development. Building higher density housing in
urban centers can create vibrant neighborhoods with a mix of housing, retail, and commercial
development along with plazas and public spaces.
4A) Encourage Higher Density Housing. Cities can encourage higher-density TOD by offering allowances
that help improve development feasibility thereby increasing the number of units that can be built near
station areas. Many cities have opportunities to identify barriers to development feasibility that exist in
development standards and design standards in TOD areas and Urban Centers.
§ Increase Allowances. Increase height and floor area ratio (FAR) allowances in existing TOD areas
and urban center zones can help developers get the number of units (and rent revenues) needed
for a TOD project to be feasible. Consider expanding development allowances for medium density
development beyond traditional ¼ mile station area planning boundaries.
§ Reduced Parking Requirements. For similar reasons as discussed in the affordable housing
strategy, reduced parking requirements in TOD areas reduces costs and encourages residents to
use transit instead of automobiles, thereby increasing ridership and generating revenue for transit
agencies. Lower parking requirements in TOD areas can meaningfully improve project feasibility.
§ Review Development And Design Standards. There are a number of well-intended development and
design standards that negatively impact development feasibility in cities that have market
constraints where the revenues of new development cannot clear the hurdle of development costs.
Examples of development and design standards that could be reviewed to support more near term
development include building step-back requirements, open space and recreation area
requirements, ground floor commercial requirements, and use of rooftop area to meet some
requirements.
179179
ECONorthwest 10
4B) Expand TOD Areas. By expanding TOD overlays further from existing transit stations cities could
expand the higher density zoning and development allowances to generate more housing. Transit
supportive zoning can sometimes be limited to narrow bands of parcels along commercial corridors
adjacent to stations areas. Expanding transit supportive land uses more broadly through mixed-use and
medium-density zoning can help support TOD outcomes.
4C) Evaluate TOD Market Readiness. Analyze the local real estate market and feasibility criteria for various
development relative to development standards in and around station areas. This will help set realistic
expectations of level of change for development in station areas over time and as real estate markets
shift.
4D) Evaluate Capital Improvement Plans. Evaluate capital improvement plans to prioritize near term
infrastructure projects that support transit stations areas and transit-oriented development.
4E) Prioritize Location-Efficient Affordable Housing. Prioritize affordable housing resources in TOD areas and
Urban Centers to create more location-efficient and reduce household transportation costs through better
access to regional transit.
4F) Explore Public-Private Partnerships. Cities can play an important role in coordinating development with
both non-profit and market rate developers. Public-private partnerships are most effective when cities
can contribute resources, land, or process improvements to facilitate TOD when broader market barriers
can exist.
Housing Strategy and Implementation Matrix
The housing strategy and implementation matrix summarizes information from all previous
work in this project. The strategies in the matrix are identified as near term, medium-term, or
long-term opportunities for each city in the subregion. In general, the assignment of these
strategies represents the market readiness and potential impact of each strategy for each city in
the subregion. Market readiness and potential impact were identified using data and
information gathered from the housing context assessment, policy assessment memo,
stakeholder engagement efforts, and the testing of policy options in the housing policy tool.
Some cities in South King County are currently evaluating and implementing strategies in this
matrix as part of their local Housing Action Plan implementation work. For example, Renton is
in the process of creating a TOD subarea plan and already has reduced parking requirements
for affordable housing. The consultant team heard clearly from both city staff and external
stakeholders in the engagement effort that while some cities might have implemented some of
these strategies in the past, these policies and programs should be evaluated on an on-going
basis and updated as needed to support desired outcomes. As such, we have still identified
those strategies that should be evaluated for cities where appropriate with the
acknowledgement that the housing market and housing needs shift and that improvements to
existing policies or programs should be considered.
180180
ECONorthwest 11
Housing Context Assessment
The project team conducted a housing context assessment for each of the six cities and the South
King County Subregion. Thee housing context assessment provides an analysis of the housing
supply, demand, and needs in each city and throughout South King County and forms the basis
for evaluating strategies for each jurisdiction and the subregion to incentivize future housing
production to meet population forecasts through 2040. The results of the housing context
assessment were shared with each city via a “fact packet” containing data and analysis
surrounding their existing housing stock and future housing needs. The housing needs and
housing trends identified for each city is reflected in the strategy and implementation matrix.
Stakeholder Engagement
Key stakeholder interviews are important qualitative research tool that compliments
quantitative data analysis and allows people to authentically share their lived experiences. For
the purposes of this project, the consultant team conducted two series of interviews – one
process focused on developers, both nonprofit and private sector, and the other focused on
internal city staff and integrated feedback from engagement efforts into the strategies and
implementation matrix.
Developer Interviews
South King County project managers identified a list of stakeholders with experience working,
or proposing development, in the South King County community for interviews. The consultant
team convened two groups of focused conversations and conducted seven one-on-one
interviews. Participants included both nonprofit and private developers, and real estate
professionals who addresses questions of:
§ Their experience and/or perception of developing housing projects in South King
County.
§ Policy and code barriers to housing production that they encountered.
§ Ideas for increasing affordable housing options.
§ Challenges of working with City government, as well as opportunities for collaboration.
Developer Interview Key Themes
Key themes that emerged from developer interviews are listed below, with the complete results
of the interviews found in the Stakeholder Interview Summary
§ Development is constrained by a combination of perception and economics. Land prices
are high, but without the demand for density that exists in Seattle and other areas in East
King County.
§ All cities should consider the following to support the development of additional
housing:
§ Establish a clearly articulated vision of their approach to housing with buy-in at
every staff level.
181181
ECONorthwest 12
§ Eliminate barriers to housing production by expanding incentives, eliminating
policy barriers, and increasing zoning capacity. These include:
- Remove some retail requirements in mixed-use zones.
- Revise or eliminate parking requirements.
- Evaluate impact fees and identify a fee waiver program to support housing
goals.
- Ease design guidelines for affordable housing.
- Allow more housing capacity around transit.
City Staff Interviews
The city project team collectively identified policies to be evaluated and a list of current
planning staff to be interviewed to provide qualitative context to supplement interviews for this
project. The Cities also provided permit data and fee information, which was examined for
trends. Six follow-up interviews were then conducted with ten staff representing five cities.
City Staff Interview Key Themes
Key themes that emerged from city staff interviews are listed below, with the complete results
of the interviews found in the Housing Policy Assessment.
§ Evaluate parking standards in zones that allow multifamily and mixed-use
development. Interviewees indicated and evaluation of parking minimums in station
areas and transit corridors should be prioritized for evaluation and code changes.
§ Evaluate and explore expanding additional residential density allowances around
transit corridors and stations areas and continue to advocate for transit service
improvements and high capacity transit infrastructure to serve target growth areas.
§ Evaluate infrastructure and utility needs to better support housing capacity increases in
lower-density areas and in unincorporated and/or potential annexation areas (PAAs)
immediately adjacent to city boundaries.
§ Explore creating new, or expanding existing, funding sources and opportunities for land
dedication to support affordable housing production. This was an opportunity
identified for South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHPP) to play an active
role in supporting sub regional affordable housing production.
Housing Policy Tool
Three strategies were evaluated quantitatively via a housing policy web-tool made available to
the South King County project management team. The three strategies evaluated in the housing
policy tool included; allowances for middle housing, expansion of TOD and Urban Center areas
to allow multi-family development more broadly around transit and regional growth centers,
and a naturally occurring affordable housing preservation strategy. The housing policy tool
used development proformas, construction costs, and quantitative market data to provide a
deeper evaluation of the strategies’ applicability and appropriateness across the South King
County region.
182182
ECONorthwest 13
Strategy # Element
Market Conditions & Timing
Existing Near-term Medium-Term Long-Term
Regional
/ SKHHP
Auburn Burien Federal
Way
Kent Renton Tukwila Preservation & Anti- Displacement 1A Revolving Loan Fund
1B Monitor Regulated Properties
1C NOAHs / aging housing stock
1D Culturally Specific Support
1E Tenant Protections
1F Mobile Home Park Preservation
1G Rental Licensing Program Affordable Housing & Production Strategies 2A Revolving Loan Fund
2B Other Funding Mechanisms
2C MFTE Expansion
2D Reduced Parking Requirements
2D Create and Calibrate Density Bonuses Middle Housing Strategy 3A Middle Housing Zoning Code
3B Middle Housing Incentives
3C Refine ADU Standards and Incentives TOD & Urban Centers 4A Encourage higher density housing
4B Expand TOD and urban center designations
4C Evaluate TOD Market Readiness
4D Evaluate Capital Improvement Plans
4E Explore Public-Private Partnerships
183183
ECONorthwest 14
184184
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 June 16, 2021
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 16, 2021 City Hall
6:30 p.m. Zoom
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Wayne Carlson. Diana Noble-Gulliford, Tom Medhurst, Dale Couture, Hope
Elder, and Anna Patrick. Commissioners absent: Lawson Bronson, Tim O’Neil, Eric Olsen, and Jae So (all
excused). City Staff present: CD Director Brian Davis, Planning Manager Keith Niven, Associate Planner
Chaney Skadsen, Assistant City Attorney Kent van Alstyne, and Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety.
With Chair Bronson and Vice-Chair O’Neil absent, Commission Medhurst moved and Commissioner
Elder seconded, to name Wayne Carlson as the temporary chair for the meeting. The vote was held and
the passed unanimously.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Carlson called the meeting to order at 6:35 P.M.
MINUTES
The May 19, 2021, minutes were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Roger vonDoenhoff – He spoke regarding public comments submitted by email from Roger and Jayne
vonDoenhoff (the comments are enclosed) on June 15, 2021, which were forwarded to the Commissioners.
The comments refer to the “Traffic Study for the elimination of the extension of S. 376th/19th Way in
Regency Woods in Comprehensive Plan.” Since the comments were forwarded to the Commissioners, this
is a short summary. He noted that proposed development of the property is on its third developer. He stated
that at a recent meeting with city staff regarding developing the property, staff said the proposed “BLA
would be treated the same as a short subdivision by the city, and that the extension of 376th St must be
done by the developer per the CIty's [sic] existing comprehensive master plan CMP.” In the comments, he
states why it doesn’t make sense to require the extension of 376th Street, including that it would go through
a wetland and would be on a strip of land located in King County, not Federal Way. Due to the developer’s
conditions and cost, the development will fail if the road goes through. This would mean the city will lose
a short-term opportunity for new housing. Everyone will lose if the road is maintained.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Public Hearing; Housing Action Plan – Planner Skadsen delivered the staff report. Commissioner Noble-
Gulliford commented the Commission had been told they would receive a document regarding issues
185
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 16, 2021
raised at the June 7th Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) meeting, but she has not received
the document. Planner Skadsen apologized that the document has not been sent, she will address some of
the issues during her presentation. The following issues were discussed at the LUTC meeting:
1. Involvement and collaboration with builders and developers should be emphasized.
2. Allocating 6,789 new housing units by 2040. Staff are working on preparing a map to graphically
show where these units might be located.
3. Homeowner Associations & Accessory Dwelling Units. (The city will require the applicant to
submit proof of a written notification to the HOA that an ADU will be built. This notification
requirement intends to reduce unnecessary conflict with property owners and HOAs. Note that
the city cannot legally withhold a permit because of HOA rules.)
4. Accessibility and inclusion.
As a result of the LUTC’s fourth issue, a new action was added to strategy #1 (Promote a dense,
walkable, mixed-use City Center) as follows:
“Develop wayfinding plan that is inclusive and accessible for people with disabilities.”
(Wayfinding are physical elements [signage, architecturally features, etc.] that help form an
identity of the area.)
Planner Skadsen went over the background. The HAP will go to the July 12th LUTC and July 20th City
Council for potential adoption. The HAP has four objectives, with eight strategies and a number of action
steps to work towards those objectives. She noted that strategies are rarely effective in isolation; they need
to work together. The strategies are:
#1: Promote a dense, walkable mixed-use City Center.
#2: Promote mixed use, walkable, neighborhood centers.
#3: Expand “missing middle” development opportunities.
#4: Encourage ADU production.
#5: Ensure that incentives for mixed-income housing are effective.
#6: Review school impact fees on MF housing.
#7: Coordinate to support affordable housing development and preservation.
#8. Tenant protections and pathways to homeownership.
Staff created an implementation matrix whereby the action steps have been categorized into short-term (one
to three years implementation), medium-term (three to seven years implementation), and long-term (more
than seven years implementation) prioritization. She outlined some of the actions that fall into short-,
medium-, and long-term categories. Federal Way has a monitoring program with milestones to measure
progress towards achieving each of the four HAP objectives. The objectives are:
1. Promote new market-rate and affordable housing development that expands housing
production and choices and is inclusive to community needs.
2. Encourage homeownership opportunities and support equitable housing outcomes.
3. Plan for continued growth to ensure that the built environment promotes community
development and increases the quality of life for Federal Way’s existing and future residents.
4. Preserve existing affordable housing stock to limit displacement pressure.
There were no oral public comments.
Commissioner Noble-Gulliford complemented Planner Skadsen on a remarkable job on a project that
deals with a lot of information. She went on to express a concern regarding manufactured homes.
Currently, the city has a number of older (built in the in 60’s) homes in our manufactured home parks that
186
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 16, 2021
have a limited lifespan. The city has been using CDBG funds to repair these homes for lower-income
residents. Her question is that given the age of these homes, should we be improving/repairing them? Do
we run into safety issues? Maybe the homes should be replaced instead of repaired. In addition, isn’t there
a state law that says manufactured homes are affordable homes and protects them? Can the city refer to
the state law rather than creating and maintaining our own? Planner Skadsen responded that staff isn’t
sure what we will propose; we need to study the issue and determine the conditions of the parks.
Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked how much can our city afford to do? We need to be sure we aren’t
duplicating efforts already offered by the state (such as the landlord tenant act). Why are we looking into
an expensive program (rental inspection program) when the state already has a law? Planner Skadsen
commented that the suggested rental inspection program hasn’t been develop as yet and therefore, staff
doesn’t know what resources may be needed to implement it or what the cost may be. Director Davis
stated that staff was directed by the City Council to develop a rental inspection program. Commissioner
Noble-Gulliford asked that if we give tax exemptions (MFTE) to multifamily projects, who will pay the
bills? She stated that in regards to the comments from Merlone Geier, she likes and agrees with what they
want to accomplish in the City Center. However, it would not be beneficial to allow multifamily
development in zones throughout the city. It wouldn’t encourage multifamily development and creation of
a lifestyle center in our City Center and City Center-Frame. In addition, it would encourage
overdevelopment of below market-rate housing and we need market rate housing. The city needs more
private investment in our City Center to meet what the public investment has been. She looked at
proposed multifamily development in the pipeline and counted 775 units, which takes us ahead of the
curve in meeting our growth target for housing.
Commissioner Patrick agrees with comments made regarding school impact fees. She asked what does
the district feel about lowering the impact fees? Can we target lower impact fees in the City Center to
encourage growth? Planner Skadsen commented the city currently has a discount in City Center zones.
Director Davis commented the proposal is to review the fees, not necessarily reduce them. Staff is
working with the school district on this plan, which states that any adjustment to the school impact fee
must be mutually beneficial. The district’s base fee for next year is lower due to their calculation. The
adjustment is bedroom based, with four or more bedrooms receiving no discount, but with stepped down
discounts for units with bedrooms fewer than four. Commissioner Patrick is concerned that more
affordable housing (below market rate) will be developed (rather than market rate) leading to less in
property tax returns.
Commissioner Medhurst asked for clarification that the HAP is a framework and specific amendments
may be proposed in the future that will be reviewed by the Commission. Planner Skadsen agreed any code
amendment that results from the HAP will go through the code amendment process.
Commissioner Elder commented this is the best agenda packet she has seen in a long time.
Commissioner Carlson agreed with much of what Commissioner Noble-Gulliford said. He noted the
LUTC and City Council would benefit from the Planning Commission minutes of this meeting. He stated
that in the HAP there are 33 references to homelessness and some for transitional housing, which leaves
him feeling the main approach to homelessness is through transitional housing and conversion of hotels.
He expressed concern about the policies of HB1220 and feels the result is that the city won’t be able to
stop hotels from being made into homeless shelters. He doesn’t see a connection between homelessness
and the proposed HAP policies. Commissioner Patrick agreed with concerns about HB1220. She stated
the city needs to be proactive about this to not have our city flooded with homeless shelters.
Commissioner Carlson moved to recommend the City Council adopt draft HAP as amended to include the
action to develop a wayfinding plan (Commissioner Elder seconded). The vote was held and the motion
passed with four yeses and one no.
187
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 16, 2021
STAFF BUSINESS
Commissioner’s Resignation –Commission Couture announced this is his last meeting; he is moving to
Arizona. Commission Carlson thanked him for his service. Manager Niven stated that if the alternates
want to move to a voting seat, they have to submit a commission application. The City Clerk has
announced the Planning Commission is seeking a volunteer for a voting commission seat. Applications
may be found at https://www.cityoffederalway.com/content/Boards-Commissions.
Manager’s Report – City Hall will be open to the public starting June 30th. The full City Council and
Committees will hold in-person meetings starting in July. However, the decision was made that
Commission meetings will still be virtual; at least through July. Manager Niven reviewed the Commission’s
schedule. He discussed the two proposed citizen initiated comprehensive plan amendments. He also noted
that staff is working on seven to eight code amendments that have not yet been added to the calendar.
Commissioner Carlson asked if there is a way to include these minutes with the LUTC/City Council
packet. He also requested the minutes be provided to the Planning Commissioners beforehand so they can
review them and ensure no information is missing. Assistant Piety commented that draft versions of
Planning Commission minutes have been included with the LUTC/City Council packet in the past.
Director Davis stated the Commission could meet on July 7th (which is currently cancelled) in order to
review and adopt the minutes. The Commissioners present said they are willing to meet to review and
adopt the minutes. Commissioner Couture will also be available to attend.
Commissioner Carlson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked when the Sound Transit proposed route to Tacoma will be made
public. She wants to know what the plans are for relocating the BPA towers. Manager Niven will ask our
city’s Sound Transit representative about this issue.
The meeting was closed.
NEXT MEETING
July 7, 2021, 6:30 p.m. – Cancelled
July 21, 2021, 6:30 p.m.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:56 P.M.
K:\Planning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 06-16-21.doc
188
185189
186190
187191
188192