HomeMy WebLinkAbout1906RESOLUTION NO. /106
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, ratifying the 2014 King
County Buildable Lands Report and amendments of
the Countywide Planning Policies defining
countywide greenhouse gas reduction targets and
establishing greenhouse gas measurement and
reporting commitments adopted by the
Metropolitan King County Council and pursuant to
the Growth Management Act.
RECITALS
A. The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under
the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210.
The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and
other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of
GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans
are consistent.
B. On December 15, 2014, the Metropolitan King County Council
approved and ratified the Buildable Lands Report and amendments of the
countywide planning policies regarding greenhouse gas reduction targets,
measurement and reporting by Growth Management Planning Council
(GMPC) Motion Nos. 14-4 and 14-5 as follows:
1 Countywide Planning
Buildable Lands Report
Resolution
1. GMPC Motion No. 14-4: Approves the 2014 King County
Buildable Lands Report.
2. GMPC Motion No. 14-5: Amends the 2012 King County
Countywide Planning Policies EN-17 and EN-18A defining countywide
greenhouse gas reduction targets and establishing greenhouse gas
measurement and reporting commitments.
Now the 2014 Buildable Lands Report and policy amendments
are presented to jurisdictions in King County for Ratification.
C. Although supporting the new greenhouse gas reduction
target, the City questions the practicality of achieving an increased
greenhouse gas reduction target given the uncertainty about whether or
not even the existing reduction target can be met.
D. The King County Council approved and ratified the report and
policy amendments on behalf of King County pursuant to King County
Ordinances No. 17951 and 17952. The Kent Economic & Community
Development Committee reviewed the report and policy amendments at its
meeting on March 9, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. -Amendment. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the
interlocal agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and
incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the 2014 Buildable Lands
Report and proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies as
2 Countywide Planning
Buildable Lands Report
Resolution
adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council in King County Ordinances
No. 17951, attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A and King County
Ordinance No. 17952, attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit B.
SECTION 2. -Public Inspection. The amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies adopted herein shall be filed with the City
Clerk and placed in the planning services office so they are available for
inspection by the public.
SECTION 3. -Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 4. -Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority
and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and
affirmed.
SECTION 5. -Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, this /'/~ day of ~d , 2015.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this /ytb day of
--7%-L=~'-'----"""-.L ____ , 2015.
ATTEST:
3 Countywide Planning
Buildable Lands Report
Resolution
K
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TO BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
P:\C.vii\R~oo'u~on\CoVntywldopl.nnfn~pollde<raU')'gre<nho"<• GO< Re.hilion_lh"'
4 Countywide Planning
Buildable Lands Report
Resolution
EXHIBIT A
! /
/
"
1
2
3
4
KING COUNTY
Signature Report . ~ .
December 16,. 2014
·.,,: i,,-' ',.'!,I
Ordinance 17951
Proposed No,·2014-0463.1 Sponsors Dembowski
.. Al\f qj.U)Ilift;N\::J;\;ll;dopting and r"\~~fY,in~ Groyvtll . . . .. ' ..... "' '• ..
,, : . _. , .' ' ' ' '. ' _! ~ I I
Management Planning Council Motion·14-4.
1200 Kin'g County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98l04
'·i· ,• _ .. "!'• ·i .\ ,· .. ' - . :' ' -· .'
· .. · . BE. IT oRiiAi:NED BY THE cb:!..JNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
' · ' . ' ', • • • • \ I , ' • , • , ' • "' 1 , ~ i ,, : • . , . 1\ I ' ' • 1 , • •
SECTION 1. Findings: > .
5 A. Growth Management Plimning Council Motion 14-4 recommends approval of
6 the 2014.King ConntycJ3ui1dableJ,~ds·Report in accordance with RCW 36.70A.2.!5,
' • .;ow''-•
i'_ ·'!~:··.--;,1/:\y---"'·~: .. · .\-.. ·: :
7 which J:iqiili;es 'six western Washington counties, including King County, and the cities
i,. ·: ,.,_ ····-~-.._.,:-,., . . . ..... '<: .
.... .t .. ~~~~?Y~Y.T•+;t(;ne~~Y.,fu~~p~~s~pply and land capacity.
~:_·; ··.;.
9 '·: ~ B. On July 23;r2014, the. Growth Management Planning Council urutnimously
CJ
i I'} !'".". ' ' •
.. -10 , .. ,adopted Motions 14-4 recommending appr~val of the King County 2014 Buildable Lands
·' .'•
· 12 .. SECTION 2. The 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report, as shown in ·
: ..
1 .. ,
,.
13
14
15
Ordinance 1795·1
.' ).~ ,'>.,
J • • ' . ,'
Attachment A to this ordinance, is hereby adopted by King County and ratjflecf;on behalf
' . ··' .. ' ..
'-•'-'' of the population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 17951 wa:§\ntr6driced oti 1Zil/20l4 andptis;el'd''b'y;the M~tropo1itanKing
County Council on 12/15/20.1:4, by the following vote: .
• ., . • • • • J''j•
Yes:. 8 -Mr. Phillips, Mr, von Reichbauer, Jv;fr. Go.ssett, Ms. Hague, . · -.. , · . -' ... <. r . , . Ms. Lambert~ Mt. Dunn, Mr: McDermott arid Mr: 'Dembowski
No: 0
Excused: 1-Mr. Upthegrove· . i! ' ..
.· .: 'I
I.; j.JJ ,')!"II· ·I.•'!
·,. '': /I.' ·,''
ATIEST: ("")
§Mi
. :iC'I _,""
......:;::::::;J I
rr~;-
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council g
:z:
"" ~
APPROVED this uU-\"-ctay of DLL~bw': 2014.
Attachments: A. GMPC Motion 14-4
2
= ...,.
c::l ,
CJ
N
0'\ ...,
::c:
w ..,..
0
; , __ :··
"
;;o
tn ·o
r:n
< rn
CJ.
1
'2
3
4
5
'6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.:
:i·
. . ,_ ., ,. 15
~ ..
. ..
'•--..
; .· ~ '
,. 16.
.. n· . )1{ .·
'• )9 ~-
" 2i:l
21
22 ' i3• · .. '
24
25
26
21
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
. 37
38
39
40
.• 7/23/14
'·
. ,.,,
;.
,, ' I
... !1 ... ·i.~
... .... J-6:_ ··3 . .:: ..
-~ .' .... . . . . i?_. !J. .. ~ ..
'
: . ' ._.,· '.· . ' . . -· ... ' ·. : .;::, :· .. r _: ~ •. -· : .• ~
·: Sponst\~~d By.; _,,/, . ExecJ.ltiv~)Conunittee ;.:.-.",
''. '· ::,: -,: '
_ ,PMPC MOTION NO. 14-4 1-.''
-•' :' t:
·A.' MOTION recoinmending approval ofthe 2014 King d~unty
.Bl!ildable Lands Report to the King County Council. .,
. WJ-rEREAS, RCW36.JOA.215 requires six w~~tern Washifi~Dncotinti~s, .
including r<;ing County, ancttlw cities within them to measure 't11eii· l!irvfsuppJY:and I and
capacity; !illd ';; ... : -. . . · · -. -,-;-:' · ·'·
~~AS, the o;o~ ~~age~em Pl~ng 'Co~dl a~~r;ov~d''hod~;rig !U)d
employnieliUai1gets 'for Kirt~(c<iuiity jurisdictions' 'aove.-ii_lg 'ihe 20Q$;2ll3lplimmllg -period in2009;:~J.~'"::~·:._._, _ ~ · .. \';.,: _. _·· ·.i,-· ·.~:.·: .. ,:.· /::_,;:';;·;, , --~ ·:·F ,-., ..
. Wfl':ER'E:A,:S, t)le 2014 ~l)il~able I,ffi.i_d$ Rt;P,ori{J34~) bui1C!{1)~ ilridupdate§ the ·:
strong W\)rk~ppein:tfte 20Q7BL~; and . . -'. ) .:.•·'.;::' 5::;_ · ·.:. ;. : ..
WHE)ffiAS,. all King Co\inty jurisdic'tiops,c_ontribilted to the d!ilfelopmel)t ofihe
2014 BL~~,(d·'. '-.. .. . . "' : .. ·-<~-;::.D_'"• ·,' ·.. . . ,_ ' / '
WHEREAS; zb,J.4 -BL:R: doqumeiwi"_that. t,u;liai:i King :colinty. conffnues· to' have .. •' ,
. .• _.. j;•'· -' . -' . ' ,._ ;.··~ ' \~ .. .. ' ' --~~ ,'· •. ., ,. '.· ' : c :-, . ; -'·
sufficient.capapJty .for poth.ho)1.$ing and·.employqumfgtoWtli to 2031 and:beyop.d; artd-... ,., .~:_'. -<~f·\ --~.:· ::n _;.:_·;·~-.-"·:! ~:,:~: .. ;._,·r~-::.:~. ··.,.~-··_-.. }\···r::'.'.~-_;·'.~,,~f -•':;. --~-.. -:···· ::· .. :'(;.: ..
-vrHEREASi·•:KingCounty submitted the 2014~i3uiiaali'leLands Reihrt ..:Puolic ... ,
... ·\··1·'."·.' . -· .. , •. ,-' . Review Draft. to the Washing{i:il'i Slate Dep!i.rtmept _of Comm.~rce on the de·actline of June\-..• :
30, 2014. ' ' ,, .•· . ' .;·' . . ' . .. ' ...
' '•
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RE$01 VED that tlie d_rq\>li:h M!!IJagerrient. Pla1i~ing ':
Council of King County he.re'by recommends tl1e ~0 14 King:¢ounty Buildab,le Lands Re,pcirt,
included with this mo.tion as Attachment A. TheTnterjurisdiCtional Staff Team iii authorized
to mal<e technical changes to the policies, text, maps, and taples such as fixing grammatical
etTOrs, ccirreding spelling, or aligning policy references without changing the meaning.
\)~ C(J-v,·:dv l_ ~
Dow Constantine, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
Attachment A: 20 I 4 King County Buildable Lands Repmi
THE KING COUNTY BUILDABLE
LANDS REPORT 2014
APPROVED BY KING COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT
•. PLANNING COUNCIUULY 23, 2014
tiKing County
Blank.
Exhibit 1. Map of Regional Geographies for the 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report
N
A
Skyltomtsh -Jb
~e~l:n~a~:::g:::::. ;;u-~:ary I
Metropolitan Cities I
Core Cities i
!
Small Cities
Urban Unincorporated
0 l~ing County
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page i
KING COUNTY BUILDABLE lANDS REPORT, JULY 2014
Acknowledgements:
July 23, 2014
This 2014 Buildable Lands Report was prepared by King County and its cities under
RCW 36. 70A.215 amendment to the Washington State Growth Management Act. Every
jurisdiction in King County has participated in collecting and evaluating development
information to prepare tllls Report. Thanks to the following cities and towns for
participation:
City of Algona
City of Auburn
Town of Beaux Arts Village
City of Bellevue
City of Black Diamond
City of Bothell
City of Burien
City of Carnation
City of Clyde Hill
City of Covington
City of Des Moines
City of Duvall
City of Enumclaw
City of Federal Way
Town of Ilunts Point
City ofTssaquah
City of Kenmore
City of Kent
City of Kirkland
City of Lake Forest Park
City of Maple Valley
City of Medina
City of Mercer T slnnd
City of Milton
City of Newcastle
City of Normandy Park
City of North Bend
City of Pacific
City of Redmond
City of Renton
City of Sammamish
City of SeaTac
City of Seattle
City of Shoreline
Town of Skykomish
City of Snoqualmie
City of Tukwila
City of Woodinville
Town of Yarrow Point
This Report was compiled by the King County Office of Performance, Strategy and
Budget in collaboration with the City of Bellevue, the City of Seattle, and the Sound
Cities Association of King County. Thanks to the following individuals and groups who
contributed greatly to this effort.
City of Bellevue:
City of Seattle:
Sound Cities Association:
King County:
Nicholas Matz, Gwen Rousseau
'l'om Hauger, Jennifer Pettyjohn
Doreen Booth
Chandler Felt, Karen Wolf, Lauren Smith, Nanette
Lowe
Puget Sound Regional Council: Michael Hubner
Community Attributes, Inc:
Seaview Pacific Associates:
Chris Mefford, Mark Goodman, Elliot Weiss, Nan
Darbous
Steven Cohn
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I
Chapter II
Chapter Ill
Chapter IV
Chapter V
Chapter VI
July 23, 2014
Executive Summary
Introduction
Technical Framework and Methodology
Countywide Trends 2006-2011
A. Development Trends
B. Planning Direction in King County
Conclusions and Findings: Growth Targets
and Capacity
Profiles for King County Jurisdictions
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page iii
J3lank.
July 23, ZOH King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page iv
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2014 Buildable Lands Report
The 1997 Buildable Lands amendment to the Growth Management Act requires
six western \Vashington counties and the cities \vithin thcn1, to mcasutc their land
supply (in acres) and land capacity (in housing units and jobs). The intent is to
ensure that these counties and their cities have sufficient capacity -realistically
measured-to accommodate forecasted growth. The amendment requires data
on actual achieved densities during the preceding five years of development and a
snapshot of land capacity.
This 2014 Buildable Lands Report (BLR) builds on and updates the strong work
done in the 2007 BLR. It fulfills requirements ofRCW 36.70A.215 to report on
residential and job changes since the 2007 BLR and to provide an updated picture
of the county's overall capacity to accommodate growth. The 2014 BLR reports
on the six-year period from.Januaq 2006 to January 2012 for King County and
each of the 39 cities. It measures each jurisdiction's land supply and land
capacity and updates those capacities to 2012. The BLR then compares the
jurisdiction's growth capacity to updated housing and job growth targets covering
the period 2006 through 2031 that were adopted in 2009 and ratified in 2010.
The BLR's comparison evaluates whether the jurisdiction has sufficient capacity
to accommodate growth through 2031. This 2014 BLR demonstl'ates that King
County continues to have sufficient capacity to accommodate targeted levels of
growth of both housing units and jobs.
Context of Regional Plans
July 23, 2014
The BLR is one component of implementing the King County Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs), which in turn help to ca1Ty out VTSTON 2040. The
VISION 2040 regional plan, adopted in 2008 by the assembled jurisdictions of
the Puget Sound Regional Council, sets forth the region's Regional Growth
Strategy (RGS). The RGS calls for growth to be focused in (1) the Urban Growth
Areas of the Puget Sound counties; (2) the region's largest and most complete
cities containing designated urban centers; and (3) within those designated urban
centers. To further that goal, this BLR is structured into five "Regional
Geographies" as outlined in VISION covering King County's Urban Growth
Area. Tn the Regional Geography hierarchy, there are four types of cities:
Metropolitan Cities, Core Cities with designated Urban Centers, Larger Cities,
and Small Cities. A fifth Regional Geography is that part of unincorporated King
County within the Urban Growth Area. The Rural Area and Natural Resource
J ,ands outside the UC7A are not intended to accommodate growth and are not
analyzed in this Report.
'l'his BLR covers a volatile and atypical period of growth (and in some regards,
decline). Consequently, the 2014 BLR draws information from the 2007 BLR,
which reported on a robust period of growth. Achieved densities and -for some
cities -land capacity data are brought fOLward from the 2007 BLR into this 2014
BLR. Half of King County's jurisdictions reported sufficient housing and job
capacity in 2007 to absorb even the higher numbers in the new 2006-31 targets.
Those cities, including most of the Small Cities, carried forward their 2007 BLR
density and capacity calculations into this 2014 BLR. The remaining cities
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 1
required new analysis of land capacity to overcome a shortfall of capacity with
respect to the new targets as part of their process of developing new
comprehensive plans. The result of the new analysis prepared for this 2014 BLR
was that all of the cities demonstrated that they now have sufficient capacity to
accommodate their targets.
Summary of Findings -Development Activity
Development patterns changed during the 2006 -2012 reporting period,
including a shift of growth from unincorporated areas and Small and Larger
Cities into the two Metro Cities. Multifamily and commercial development
outside Seattle decreased significantly. This was especially true during 2009 and
2010, the worst of the Great Recession years that saw a precipitous fall-off of
construction and shift out of multifamily construction. Single family
coosttuctioo fell off .s well, hut not as dramatically as apartment and
condominium construction. Between 2008 and 2010, the number of wage and
salaty jobs decreased by 86,000 or so;,,, which represented the biggest decline
since the Boeing Bust of 1971. Recovery had been slow -even by 2012 -with
only half of King County's 40 jurisdictions recovering to the number of jobs they
had in 2006. lt is clear that employment growth is still in transition out of the
Great Recession. Office vacancy rates climbed as jobs disappeared in 2009,2010
and 2011. By the end of the reporting period occupancy rates had not yet
retutncd to pre-Recession levels, especially outside Seattle.
Residentiol growth dutiog this volatile period occurred almost entirely within the
Urban Growth Area, and to a large extent within designated urban centers,
especially in Seattle. Job growth recovered later in this period, and was focused in
Seattle and a few Core Cities.
Summary of Findings-Targets and Capacity
July 23, 2014
The research done for this 2014 BLR shows that Urban King County as a whole
continues to have sufficient capacity for growth to 2031 and beyond. Each of
the five urban Regional Geography groups has sufficient capacity for residential
growth, and all but one (urban unincorporated King County) for employment
growth. The King County UGA has a generous surplus of capacity to contain
growth: more than double the housing target and more than 160% of the job
target. King County also has adequate capacity for other non-residential growth
within the UGA to snpport the forecasted honsing and job growth. lviost of the
county's capacity is contained in the top two Regional Geographies -Metro and
Core Cities. In fact, those two together have 82% of the county's housing
capacity (342,000 out of an urban countywide total of 417,000 housing units).
Metro and Core Cities also have 84% of the county's job-growth capacity
(556,000 of 658,000 job capacity).
This increased capability of cities to absorb gtowth is occuning chiefly in
designated urban centers that focus future employment with housing in mixed-
use zones and districts. Cities ate using a variety of planning tools to increase
capacity and ensure that targets can be met. These tools, such as parcel-specific
development agreements and encouragement of building with multiple uses, are
K:ing County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 2
July 23, 2014
creating dense, vibrant, walkable mixed-use districts in urban and suburban places
formerly dominated by one-story buildings and parking lots.
On the employment side, all four city geographies (Metro, Core, Larger and
Small) have sufficient capacity to meet their new job targets and each of the cities
in those categories also has sufficient capacity. However, urban unincotporated
King County currently has a minot shottfall of job capacity. The 2007 BLR
reported that unincorporated areas together had plenty of job capacity but
annexations over the succeeding six years took av.ray 1nore capacity than the
associated job targets. In the countywide context, the shortfall in urban
uninco1porated ICing County is not a major issue. 'l'he vast majority of ICing
County's capacity to accommodate employment growth is properly located in the
Metro and Core cities.
ICing County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 3
Blank.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 4
II. INTRODUCTION
Regulatory and Policy Framework
July 23, 2014
The Washington State Gtowth Management Act (GMA) requires the largest and
fastest growing counties, and the cities within those counties, to ptcpare
comprehensive plans that direct growth into urban areas, ensure protection of
natural resource lands, and designate and protect critical areas. In 1997, the
Buildable Lands amendment to the GMA was adopted. This provision, RCW
36.70A.215, requires a review and evaluation program to be implemented in six
counties (ICing, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston, Kitsap, and Clark) to ensure
continued supply of urban land to accommodate projected growth. King County
completed Buildable Lands Reports (BLR) in 2002 and 2007. In 2011, the GMA
was amended to extend the reporting cycle from five to eight years. This, the
third King County BLR, is due to the State Department of Commerce by June
30, 2014.
The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) establish the review
and evaluation program for King County and guide the development of the BLR
through policies DP-19 and DP-20. Components of the review and evaluation
program include annual data collection, periodic evaluation repo•·ts, and adoption
of measures, where needed, to ensure sufficient capacity to accomrnocLttc
projected growth within the county's Urban Growth Area (UGA.)
The CPPs establish both the UGA and the growth projections, in the form of
targets, for each jurisdiction. The purpose of the BLR is to provide a periodic
evaluation to make sure that this projected growth can be accommodated within
the UGA. The initial UGA, in accordance with GMA, was adopted in1992 and
then amended in 1994 with the passage of the first Countywide Planning Policies.
The UGA has been amended only slightly in the intervening 20 years.
County housing growth targets stem from population projections released by the
State Office of Financial Management (OFM). King County converted the OFM
2012 population forecast, and employment forecasts from the Puget Sound
Regional Council, into projected housing and employment growth for the period
2006-2031, and allocated that growth by jurisdiction. Table DP-1, in the CPPs,
identifies specific housing and job targets for each jurisdiction, sorted by
Regional Geography, as specified in VISION 2040, adopted by the Puget Sound
Regional Council in 2008. The targets arc policy statements of each jurisdiction
as to how they are expected to grow. The allocations of growth arc consistent
with VISION 2040 focusing growth primarily to the two "Metropolitan" cities
(Seattle and Bellevue), within "Core" cities with designated Urban Centers, and
within "Larger" cities. Job growth targets are based on employment forecasts
prepared by the Pugct Sound Regional Council.
Jurisdictions must plan and provide for both household and job growth to meet
their targets through designation of sufficient land suitable for development in
their comprehensive plans and regulations. The I3LR analysis determines the
cRpRcity of land based on actual achieved densities in recent development activity.
The BLR is a reporting and measurement tool to ensure that counties and cities
can actually meet the adopted targets. Any deficiencies identified in the BLR
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 5
must be addressed by the jurisdiction in their next comprehensive plan update.
The 2014 BLR is to be completed one year prior to the mandated update of
comprehensive plans to give jurisdictions the opportunity to quickly address any
deficiencies.
Countywide Coordination
The 2014 BLR is a collaborative effort of King County and all of the cities with
leadership provided by King County. The BLR program in ICing County is
guided by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC.) The GMPC is
chaired by the ICing County Executive and is a representative body of elected
officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, and the Sound Cities Association of
suburban cities. Oversight of the BLR approach and mechanics is provided the
Inter-jurisdictional Staff Team, a group of senior planning staff that is facilitated
by King County. Staff from each of the jurisdictions provided land development
data to King County staff who then compiled and analyzed the data. I<.ing
County staff provided monthly briefings to the Inter-jurisdictional Staff Team
and periodic updates to the Gl'vfPC.
Staff from King County and tl1e cities met periodically with stakeholder groups
including representatives from the building association, the realtors,
environmental organizations, and housing advocates.
King County retained the services of Community Attributes, Inc. to assist with
the data collection, analysis, and teport production.
Department of Commerce Approach
The \Vashington State Department of Commerce authorized a streamlined
approach to the development of the 2014 BLR in counties where development
activity fell off considerably or where there has been no major change in
comprehensive plan policy in recent years. As these criteria apply to most King
County jurisdictions, and definitely to the county as a whole, the GMPC
approved the use of this streamlined approach. Under this approach, the 2014
BLR carries forwatd data ftom the 2007 RLR.
Changes from the 2007 Buildable Lands Report
July 23, 2014
Four important events resulted in a change in the format and content of the 2014
BLR compared to the 2007 BLR:
1. VISION 2040 was adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council in
2008: The Regional Growth Strategy contained in VISION organized Puget
Sound region jurisdictions into six "Regional Geographies" (four types of
cities, urban and rural unincorporated areas) and specified housing and job
growth targets for each Regional C7eography.
2. Updated CPPs and growth targets: New housing-unit and job growth
targets cover the period from 2006 to 2031.
3. The Great Recession, legislative changes, and the Commerce memo:
Due to local impacts of the Recession, the state legislature changed the BLR
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 6
reporting period from five to eight years and the Department of Commerce
authorized valid data from the 2007 BLR to be carried forward into the 2014
BLR.
4. More information on existing housing units and jobs: This 2014 BLR
contains 2006 base-year and updated 2012 data on housing units and jobs in
each jurisdiction to set-ve as a progress report on growth in the county and
cities.
Report Components and Organization
July 23, 2014
This report is organized into the following components:
• Chapter I. Executive Summary
• Chapter II. Introduction-The Introduction sets the regulatory and policy
framework for Buildable Lands reporting, and explains the Report's
components and organization. It also identifies changes from the 2007
Buildable Lands Report.
• Chapter III. Technical Framework and Methodology-The 2014 BLR
builds on the methodology in the 2007 BLR, as authorized by the
Department of Commerce. This chapter desc1·ibes the comptehensive
methodology developed for the 2007 BLR and how it was used as the
foundation for the 2014 BLR. The chapter further explains the methodology
used by cities to calculate capacity within centers and mixed -use
developments.
• Chaptet IV. Countywide Trends 2006-2011-Following a drop-off in new
construction during the years 2009-2010, growth has rebounded with changes
in development patterns and housing preference. This chapter highlights the
trends in housing and employment at the countywide level. 'l'here was a shift
in growth to the largest cities in the county, Seatde and Bellevue.
Employment growth is still in transition coming out of the Recession with 20
of the 40 jurisdictions losing jobs during the reporting period. There
continues to be sufficient capacity for both housing and employment
throughout King County. Further, this chapter outlines the shift in planning
di1·ection in King County jU11sdictions to accommodate growth in urban
centers and other major mixed-usc areas.
• Chapter V. Conclusions and Findings: Growth Tatgets and Capacity-
This chapter analyzes and summarizes the ability of jurisdictions -and the
entire county UGA -to accommodate the adopted targets for both housing
and employment as reported by Regional Geography. Regional Geographies
are the organizing construct for the VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy,
which categorize the urban area in a hierarchy: Metropolitan Cities, Core
Cities, Larger Cities, Small Cities, and Unincorporated Urban Growth Atca.
Capacity data for both housing and employment is aggregated to the Regional
Geography level to demonsttate consistency with VTSTON 2040.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 7
July 23, 2014
• Chapter VI. Profiles of King County Jurisdictions -This chapter
contains the data tables that were used to calculate housing and employment
capacity for each jurisdiction-the "show your work" section of the report.
The three page data profile for each jurisdiction covers residential
development and capacity and commercial-industrial activity and employment
capacity. For each jurisdiction, sidebar boxes summarize the six-year cha.ngc
in housing units, jobs, updated tatgcts and updated capacity to accommodate
growth. This chaptet also includes a summaty of the development trends in
the Rural Area and Resource Lands, although that is not a requirement of the
Buildable Lands legislation.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 8
Ill. TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
July 23, 2014
The 1997 Buildable Lands amendment to GMA requires six western \Vosbington
counties to measure their bnd supply (in acres) and land capacity (in housing
units and jobs). The intent is to ensure that these counties and their cities have
sufficient capacity-realistically measured -to accommodate forecasted growth.
The Buildable Lands amendment requires reporting on actual achieved densities
during the preceding five years of development and a snapshot of capacity.
Originally, reporting was to be completed evety five years. This provision was
subsequently amended to extend the reporting period to evety eight years.
Tn collaboration with the cities, King County prepared a Buildable Lands
Evaluation Report (BLR) in 2002 and again in 2007. The 2002 and 2007 BLRs
were prepared jointly by King County, the [then] Suburban Cities Association,
and the Cities of Seattle and Bellevue. The 2007 BLR evaluated housing and job
capacity within the King County Urban Growth Area (UGA) compared with
growth targets in place at the time that covered the period 2001 -2022. It divided
King County into four geographic subareas (Seattle-Shoreline; East; South; and
Rural Cities). The 2007 BLR reflected an increasing agreement among
jutisdictions and stakeholders about the desired locations of growth within the
county.
The 2007 BLR measured actual achieved densities of residential and employment
growth during a period of strong growth in all sectors, 2001 through 2005. The
BLR's robust data, carefully measured by all of the county's jurisdictions, found
increasing densities and more efficient use ofland than had been measured in
2002. The BLR concluded that each subarea and the entire King County UGi\
had sufficient capacity to accommodate growth through 2022 and beyond.
Jutisdictions began gathering data for the next BLR, which was scheduled for
2012.
In 2008, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) adopted VISION 2040, a
regionwide plan that strengthened the intended focus of Puget Sound area
growth into the four counties' UGAs and especially into designated Urban
Centers. In 2012, King County updated the Countywide Planning Policies to
implement VISION 2040. This entailed re-structuring the BLR subarea
breakdown into "Regional Geographies" as outlined in VISION 2040. There are
four types of cities (Metropolitan, Core, Larger, and Small Cities) and two
unincorporated subareas (Urban and Rural.) Following VISION 2040, King
County adopted new growth targets in 2009 that were ratified by the cities in
2010. The new targets cover the 25-year period 2006 through 2031 and are
organized by Regional Geography. VISION 2040 and the new targets guide the
great majority of growth-both housing and employment-into the two biggest
city categories, Metro and Core, which are characterized by designated Urban
Centers.
Beginning in 2008, the Great Recession and its aftermath-including collapse of
the housing market, extensive foreclosures, and major job losses -led to
significant changes in I<:ing County's approach to this 2014 Buildable Lands
Report. The state legislature changed the BLR schedule to be required every
eight years, beginning in 2014 (for Puget Sound counties). Data from the BLR
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 9
July 23,2014
ate mote clearly intended to infotrn comptehensive plans, which ate due one yea1·
after the BLR in June, 2015. In November 2012, the state Commerce
Depattment issued a memo tccognizing the impact of the Gteat Recession on
development patterns, jobs, and funding. Commerce authorized a "scaled-back"
edition of the 2014 BLR if development activity feU off considerably in recent
years or if there had been few major changes in planning policy. These criteria
certainly apply to most K.ing County jurisdictions. If the development data
during the Recession were determ.ined to be unreliable, the Commerce memo
al1ows counties to carry forward the more reliable data from the 2007 BLR.
All these changes and conditions called for a modified or streamlined approach
to the 2014 BLR, carrying forward the best parts of the 2007 BLR but adding
new data where necessary. Keys to this hyhrid methodology include:
• Use of the achieved-density data from the 2007 BLR for most jurisdictions,
which had been measured during a period of vigorous growth. Much of the
recent growth had been spotty and atypical of long-range King County
growth !tends.
• Use of already-measured sufficient capacity where it exceeded the
requirements of the new targets.
• Updates to housing and jobs data to ensure that the 2014 BLR is current.
Januaty 2012 was chosen as an update benchmark, entailing six years of trend
data from the J anuaty 2006 benchmark of the 2007 BLR. (I'he year 2012 was
chosen rather than 2013, because data for calendar 2012 were not available
for all jurisdictions.)
• Recognition that the Recession is not over for much of King County: half of
the county's jurisdictions have fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2006 complicating
analysis of en1ployment capacity and what constitutes avacanf' or
"redevelopable" land.
• Undertaking a thorough analysis of revised capacity to analyze development
patterns, permits and comptchcnsive plan changes since the 2007 BLR in
cities with a shortfall of 2007 -BLR capacity with respect to the new targets.
Research has made it clear that cities are implementing more innovative and
intensive efforts to encourage -and indeed ensure-more high-density
development.
o Organizing by PSRC Regional Geographies to be consistent with VISION
2040 and the Counlywide Planning Policies. The scope of this BLR is the
Urban Growth Area within I<.ing County where growth is encouraged. The
Report provides only minimal information about development in the county's
Rural and Rcsoutcc areas.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 10
Methodological Approach
July 23, 2014
Tn order to operationalize the hybrid methodology, ICing County jurisdictions
were divided into "Red" and "Green" categories. See Exhibit 2 on the following
page. Green cities reported enough housing and job capacity in the 2007 BLR
that they can absorb the new targets that extend out to 2031. About half of the
jurisdictions qualified as Green jutisdictions -primarily the Small Cities. In this
BLR, those cities carry forward both the achieved~dcnsity data and the capacity
measurements from the 2007 BLR, updating only to account for housing unit and
job changes .. b'or these jurisdictions, there is no change in methodology and
assumptions from the 2007 BLR.
Red cities reported insufficient capacity in 2007 to meet the new targets, so they
required a new land capacity analysis. However, most Red cities did catty
forward the achievcd~density calculations from the robust 2007 BLR data. Red
cities include most of the Core Cities, one Metro and several Larger cities. (Cities
marked in yellow on Exhibit 2 had only a slight shortfall, but they were lumped in
with the Red cities.)
Red cities -and a few Green cities that chose to undertake new analysis -used a
val'iety of methods to re~measure their capacity. Several identified new centers
with additional capacity that had been authorized by recent plan and zoning
changes. Some cities re~ccnalyzed their downtowns using an alternate method of
measurement of mixed~usc capacity, based on much taller buildings being allowed
than the low buildings currently existing in mixed~use zones. This alternate
method uses a ratio of PARs (floot· a tea ratios), comparing allowed density -
often multiple stol'ics -to existing density of buildings in suburban downtowns.
Based on actual redevelopment experience in Bellevue, Kent and other cities, the
method allowed cities to tap the potential for intense mixed~use development and
bcttet capture the types of development that are happening in the marketplace.
Red cities submitted revised capacity analyses on table forms similar to those
used for the 2007 BLR. Using these table forms, city staff reviewed and in some
cases modified their assumptions regarding set~asides for right~of~way, public
purpose lands, 1narket factors, ratio of residential to cornrnctcial in mixed-use
zones, residential densities and commctcial~industrial FARs. City staff utilized
density data from recent projects, development agreements and zoning changes
in their jurisdiction. Data were compiled into 3~page ptoftles (see Chaptet VI)
and summary findings (see Chapter V).
In all jurisdictions, the emphasis is on an update of housing units and jobs from
2006 to 2012. In a refinement of the 2007 BLR, this BT ,R reports existing (2006)
and current (2012) housing units and jobs in each jurisdiction. Tt teports changes
in those measures due to growth, decline and annexation during the six~year
measurement period.
King County's hybrid methodology was reviewed by stakeholder representatives
and the State Department of Commctce.
Consistent with RCW 36.701\.215, the King County BLR is not intended to
represent 1) a forecast of the amount or rate of future housing ot economic
ICing County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 11
July 23, 2014
growth in the county, 2) an analysis of the market feasibility, attractiveness or
availability of any particular land parcel for development, 3) an assessment of the
current or future affordability of land or housing, or 4) an evaluation of
sufficiency of infrastructure capacity to support growd1. Rather, the J3LR
provides broad technical data and analysis, at a countywide and jurisdiction level,
to support policy review and potential action by the county and cities.
Pot tnore detail on methodology and assumptions in this analysis, the reader is
referred to Chapter III, "Technical Framework and Methodology" of the 2007
BLR at http: I /"our.kinvcounty.g;ov /budr-et/buildland/bldlod07.htt'l
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 12
Exhibit 2. King County Growth Targets {2006-2031} Compared to 2007 Capacity
Cicy I Subare~ Housing Target PAA Housing Housing l•t Target Capacity
N'i~lts Nel New Uols Net New Units
2006·2031 2006, from BlR
i 1 Cities
Bellevue 17,000 290 13,670.
Seattle B6,000 128,900
Total 1>13,000 142,570
Core Cities
Auburn 9,620 9,190 -
Bothell 3,000 B10 2,860 -
Burien 4,440 3,170
Federal Way 8,100 2,390 5,670 .
Kent 9,270 90 9,080
Kirkland 8,570 -6,380
Redmond 10,200 640 8,990 •'
Renton 14,835 3,895 16,250
SeaTac 5,800 s,24o -I
Tukwila 2i.,800 50 3,490 l!il!!l!
Total 1,635 70,320 I
Des Moines 3,000 3,30011"
lssaquah 5,750 290 6,900
Kenmore 3,500 5~ Maple Valley 1,800 ,060
Mercer Island 2,000 1,760
4,000 350
3,740. Shore ~line s.ooo 6,890 '
I II 3,000 2,140 .
Total 28,050 32,130
small itles I
Algona 190 ":~ Beaux Arts 3
Black Diamond 1,900 4,270
~ 330 BOO
10 25
COvlri9tOn 1,470 3,300
Duvall 1,140 2,650
I 1,425 3,250
Hunts Point 1 1
lake Forest Park 475 675
Medina 19 40
Milton so 90 420
I 1,200 1,500
1 Park 120 275
North Bend 665 1,600
Pacific 285 135 560 'i:t
i 10 35
1,615 3,480
Yarrow Point 14 35
Total 10,922 23,241
Urban
Total 12,470 20,190 "'c'lii
[King County UGA Total 233,077 288,451
The base year for these Targets is 2006. As cities annex territory, PAA targets
shift Into Targets column.
Adjustments to Burien, Kent & Kirkland targets have been made to account for
2010 and 2011 annexations.
Kilg County Growth Targets committee, Growth Management Plannhg Counci, August
2009. Adjusted June2011
Employment
Target
Ne~obs
200 )31
53, 100
146, '00
199, 00
19,350
4,800
4,960
12,300
13,280
20,850
23.000
29,000
25,300
15,500
168,340
5,000
20.000
3,000
2,000
1,000
L800
5,000
5,000
42,800
210
3
1,050
370
-
1,320
840
735
-
210
-
160
735
65
1,050
_370
-
1,050
-
8,168
9,060
428,068
PAA Emp. Employment •tl Target capacity
Net New Jobs
2006·2031 I BlR
49,100 -
254,900 :w~.ri
304,000
. 17,760
200 6,040
3,260 .
290 8,860
210 12,540
. 12,600
25,075
470 29,550
17,730
2,050 16,200
149,615 I
I
3,950 Iiiii!
19,1o0 1 -
3,050 !);;;
3,770
820 .
.
3,490 .
3,770
37,950_
580 lii!~!r:l
-?
4,700 1[;;7/f(l
1,570
.
3,330
1,600
,790
-
380
-
2.470
870
170
7,760
350 -
-
900 li~l
-I
26,470 I
I
9,2oo ll'!t~WI
527,235 1
Key: Sufficient capacityiJ!~2r£:j capacity in 2007 BLR
meets target
Slight shortfall Qless than 10% short
of target
Substantial shortfall-more than 10% short
of target
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 13
Blank.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 14
IV: COUNTYWIDE TRENDS 2006-2011
Introduction
Housing Units
As background to the findings and data provided in Chapters 5 and 6, the
following section Jiscusses development and planning trends that have impacteJ
hoth the real estate development anJ construction industries and the way in
which municipalities are planning for growth. The section is split between a brief
review of market indicators and ttcnJs as well as a summary of planning trends
among various cities in King County. The time period analyzed generally reflects
that of the rest of the report, 2006 thwugh 2011. Two commonly referenced
Jcvclopment indicators are housing and employment. Exhihit 3 illustrates
housing development in terms of building permits issued ftom 2006 through
2011. Housing development peaked in 2007 at ahnost 15,000 units in King
County alone. Just two years later fewer than 4,000 housing pctmits were issued
in King County.
Exhibit 3. Housing Development, King County, 2006-2011
16.000 -----·-· ----------· ·-·---·········-·--·-
14.000
12,000
10.000
8.000
6,000
4.000
2,000
0
2006 2007 2008
VeDr
Seattle
l{ing County Remainder
2009 2010
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2014.
Mirroring the decline in housing development, covered employment figures
estimated by the Puget Sound Regional Council illustrate a similar pattern
(Exhibit 4). From 2008 to 2010 King County covered employment decreased by
more than 80,000 jobs.
Exhibit 4. Net Change in Employment, King County, 2006-2012
Covered Employment
1,200,000
1.180,000
1,160,000
1,140,000
1.120,000
1.100.000
1.080,000
1.060.000
1,040,000
2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Sautee: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2014.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
2010 2011
Page 15
2011
2012
A. Development Trends
Housing
From 2006 through 2012 the Puget Sound housing market reflected trends
nationally. In the years leading up to 2008 King County's housing market, much
like the rest of the nation, experienced consistent growth. In addition to single
family development, condominiums accounted for a notable portion of
multifamily development through 2008. These trends impacted municipal
planning policies, lnftasttuctutc investment and government finance.
Since the recession, there has been a realignment in terms of multifamily housing
development. New condominium development in King County came to a halt
after 2008. In addition, preferences evolved among home buyers and renters,
reflected in the current development patterns in Seattle, where apartment
development has gained traction and has catered to an influx of new renters.
Preferences for housing and location have evolved, as evidenced by rapidly
increasing demand for rental housing in dense walkable locations near job centers
and/ or amenities. Exhibit 5 illustrates the relative concentration of development
in Metropolitan and Core Cities ftom 2006 through 2011.
Exhibit 5. Net Permitted Housing Units, King County, 2006-2011
HOLISing Units
35,000 ----·-·-31,208·---·-·-·-·---·-·-
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5.000
--------·---------------------------------------------------~lf1ETROPOL!T/U-J Crncs
0
Metropolitan Cities core Cities Larger Cities
Regional Qeography
Small Cities
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2014.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
Unincorporated Urban
Page 16
Exhibits 6 and 7 illustrate multifamily and single family housing permits issued
from 2006 through 2011, segmented by regional geography. Development of
multifamily housing units outpaced single family development in each yca1·. Both
housing types experienced substantial declines in 2007 through 2009, but the
timing and overall recovery have varied not only between housing types but
regional geography.
Exhibit 6. Multifamily Housing Permits, King County, 2006-2011
Mulltt!lmlly Housing Units
12,000
10,000
8.000
6,000
4.000
2.000
URU!\f~ UNINCORPORl\TI:.O
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Y~111r
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2014.
Exhibit 7. Single Family Housing Permits, King County, 2006-2011
Slngte Family Housing
Units
10,000
8,000
6,000
4.000
2,000
0
2006 2007 2008
Year
2009 2010
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2014.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
Nir:moroUTAI\ \i!n[S
2011
Exhibit 8 emphasizes the geography of multifamily development from 2006-
2011. The approximate locations and year of completion for multifamily
developments in ICing County are shown, highlighting the concentration of
development in existing urban centers. Expectedly, Seatde absorbed the bulk of
multifamily units from 2006 to 2011 and a large majority of development
occutred within incotporated areas.
Exhibit 8. Apartment Development Activity, King County, 2006-2011
N
A
Uptown Queen Anne
SouU1lake Unll< m ---·-··-:
Arst Hill/Capitol Hill
5
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
Multlfaml;y ~e~elo;~~~;-. -~
byYearBullt ,
2006 !
2007
2008
2009
"' 2010
~ 2011
Source: CoStar, 2014:
OJrnmunity Attributes, 2014.
I
I
-~-=-=~-u~::n Growth Bou~dary I
Regional Geographies
. Metropolitan Cities
Core Cities
. Larger Cities
Small Cities
Urban Growth Areas
King County
Page 18
Commercial Development
Commercial development, which includes nonresidential development such as
office, industrial and retail uses, is in part driven by demand generated by
employment. Exhibits 9 and 10 illustrate the net change in covered employment
from 2006-2011 segmented by regional geography. The sharp declines in
employment impacted commercial real estate development across the region. The
decline in employment in 2009 and 2010 not only resulted in declines in
developtnent activity but also an increase in vacant cotntnctcial square footage.
K.ing County also has adequate capacity for other non-residential growth within
the UGA to support the forecasted housing and job gtowth.
Exhibit 9. Net Change in Employment by Year, King County, 2006-2012
Covered Employment
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
(20,000)
(40,000)
(60,000)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2014.
Exhibit 10. Net Change in Employment by Year, King County, 2006-2012
Employment Metropoiit~'i:n Cii:!G's
13,000
11,000
9,000
7.000
------------------------------~ ---------------------------------------------
5,000
3,000
1,000
(1.000)
(3,000)
(5.000)
" i,
D rn
0 § B R ~ if•
l ~ § ffi
§ ~ ro ro ~
~
k'&!
D D c I~ c :£ c c ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ $ i' ~ " "3
~ ~
£ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, 0 0 ~ 0
~ c '5 c & " ~ 0
Ja f, 0 ~ ~ ~ ft" • ~ g. g ~ g E ~ rn ~ ;:;: ~
c :r ~ 0 g ~ 5 8 0 8
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2014.
July 23, 2014 King County Iluildable Lands Report 2014
~ 0 i I !! s " ~ .. c
& c " " .,
E m & " g ~ ~ , -& g 2 0 ~ b c ;, ~ ~ z ~ z 0
f
,_
s z
~
Page 19
Exhibits 11 and 12 ptovidc a cutso1-y ovctview of the commetcial real estate
industry in King County from 2006 to 2011. Commercial construction activity in
King County temaincd stagnant ftom 2010 through 2011, illustrated by the lack
of growth in rentable building area during that time period. 'fhe decline in
dclivcty of new commercial space coincided with a decline in net absorption of
commercial space and increased vacancy rates, illustrating the challenges faced by
the real estate and construction industry.
Exhibit 11. Commercial Rentable Building Area, King County, 2006-2011
Rentable Building
Area (SqFt)
450,000,000
440,000,000
430,000,000
420,000,000
410,000,000
400,000,000
390,000,000
380,000,000
370,000,000
360,000.000
350,000,000
-
-
2006
...
r·~ yy
t
--
--
-
:
----
-----
-... ... ...
---
2007
Source: CoStar, 2014.
~
-----
---· -
2008
; -i.H:H !-H"H~J-
. '. ' ;: i): ;
..
---
------ -
-----
------
-.. -··· "'··-
2009 2010
Year
; •i ,,
!-·····.
--
----
------
-------
II
2011
--
-
-
<;,
\~
-c•::_
--
-
-
v~c:lnt
Occupied SqFt
Exhibit 12. Commercial Absorption and Vacancy Rate, King County, 2006-2011
Total Not Absorption
(SqFt)
(1,000,000)
(2,000,000) -
(3.000,000) ~~~-----------
(4,000.000) ................. ,,,, _____________ ,_ ____ ~-------------------
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Source: CoStar, 2014.
Vacant(%)
10%
3%
2%
1%
0%
f..."' ole: Commercial data for exhibits 10 a uri 11 based 011 CoStar building (y}Je categories col!.ristiJJg q[ q_{ficf, fie:· .. ·,
il!dttstria!, bcalthCttl't!, ntail, hospitrllity and spetitt~ty sqtlarcfoofttge.
July 23, 2014 ICing County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 20
Exhibit 13 illusti'atcs the approximate geography and timing of office and
industrial development from 2006 through 2011. Much like multifamily
development, office development was generally concentrated in and around
urban centers.
Exhibit 13. Office and Industrial Development Activity, King County, 2006-2011
N
A
Uptown Queen Anne---.."it
South lake Union ------·c
First Hill/Capitol Hill
July 23, 2014 K.ing County Buildable Lands Report 2014
Commerlcal Development by Year Built
Office Industrial/Flex
2006 2006
2007 ,-.~";_. 2007
2008 ~ 2008 2009
v,r;, 2010 il!) 2009
4]'0 2011 • 2010
Source: CoStar, 2014;
Community Attributes, 2014.
. ~-=~~m~~~:~~~:~ Boundary I
Regional Geographies j
Metropolitan Cities !
Core Cities
Larger Cities
Small Cities
Urban Growth Areas
King County
Page 21
Jobs to Housing Ratio
6
The ratio of a city's total employment to total housing units (jobs to housing
ratio) provides a framework to better understand a City's role in the t·cgional
economy. The ratio also has implications for land use, transportation and future
growth. Exhibit 14 illustrates the jobs to housing ratio for each city within King
County, segmented by regional geography. The exhibit includes the jobs to
housing ratio from 2006 and 2012, providing further context for changes in the
City's capacity and growth during that time period.
Exhibit 14. Jobs to Housing Ratio, King County, 2006-2012
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2014; Washington Office of f/inancial Management, 2014.
July 23, 2014
Most of the Metro and Core cities have more jobs than housing units, in both
2006 and 2012. Alternatively, most of the Larger and Small cities have fewer jobs
than housing units, in both measurement years. Many cities have a lower ratio of
jobs to housing in 2012 than they did in 2006, reflecting job losses as much as
housing gains.
I<..ing County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 22
B. Planning Direction in King County Jurisdictions
July 23, 2014
This chapter includes a description of some specific actions cities ate taking to
ensure that they have capacity for both housing and employment growth. Cities
included in the review illustrate planning and policy trends that define the
influence of the Growth Management Act as well as the vision set forth by the
Puget Sound Regional Council. Cities across I<Cing County have adopted measures
and strategies to help accommodate growth. In particular, cities are attempting to
facilitate, and in some cases, cstabli~h mixed use neighborhoods to accorrunodate
their growth targets.
The Growth f.!Icmagonwt Att identifies time distinct laHdscapes: 11rba11
lands, mral lands, a11d natm'(J/ resoarce lands (i.e., C(~rimllllra/,fore.rl a11d
fJJinera/ lt!nds). The Act !JJakes dear that the !ong-tmn sastainabilily of mral
and "so11rce land is dependwt on accomtllodating del)c!eptJJe!l! JVitbin the
designated mbcm grmvth area.
-PSRC Vision 2040: Pocusing Growth in the Urban Growth Area
and in Centers
The methods utilized by various cities and the efforts contextualize the capacity
figures detailed in Chapter 5. Key questions include:
• \Vhere is the City concentrating growth?
• What did they change? (allowed uses, density, etc ... )
• \Vhat is the established vision for accommodating growth?
• What role is d1e city playing?
• What's hcen built since adoption?
Cities have utilized a number of tools at their disposal to add tess capacity
shortfalls and/ or anticipated growth. Such tools include the implementation of
high density mixed used zoning districts that often include incentive zoning
policies. Methods employed by cities for implementing such policy have included
development agreement rezones, public private partnerships, infrastructure
investtncnt and incentive zoning, among others.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 23
For reference, Exhibit 15 illustrates the boundaries ofPSRC defined regional
geographies as well as the locations of designated urban centers throughout ICing
County.
Conce11tratinggrowth in centers a!!OJvs cities and other 11rban service providers
to maximize the 11.re of exiJting infi-a.rtmdtm, make more ejjhient and !e.r.r
to.rt!J inve.rtments in!leJJJ infrastntcture, and minimize tbe environmeutal
impad o[11rban .~roiV!h. Cmler.r male improtJed acte.rsibilil)> and mobility.fbr
wa!kin<~' biki11l, and tran.rit, and a.r a re.wlt play a key tran.rportatio11 role in
the ~Wgion.
-PSRC Vision 2040: Pocusing Gwwth in the Urban Gtowth Atca
and in Centers
Exhibit 15. PSRC Regional Geographies and Urban Centers, King County, 2014
N
A
Uptown Qu>e en Anne·-·""''
South Lake Union-----
Firt;t Hill/Capitol Hill
0
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
n:
~-~ ~ ~ Urban Growth Boundary
~ U1bon c'"""
Roglon;~~l Geographlea
Metropolitan Cities
Core Cities
larger ClUes
Srnall Cities
Urban Unincorporated
Page 24
July 23,2014
Capacity in Metropolitan and Core Cities
The following are examples of recent planning efforts related to increased land
capacity in Metropolitan and Core Cities throughout ICing County.
• Seattle: South Lake Union and Downtown-South Lake Union is an
approximately 340-acre neighborhood with anticipated growth of 12,000
households and 22,000 jobs by 2031. In 2013, the City of Seatde approved
zone changes that allow for increased density and greater building heights in
South Lake Union through incentive zoning. Under this program, property
owners are required to provide public benefits such as affordable housing,
child care, open space or historic preservation, to achieve additional building
potential allowed through a rezone.
As part of an inter-local agreement, the City of Seattle modified the new
incentive zoning program for South Lake Union and the existing incentive
zoning program for Downtown to ensure that a portion of the public benefits
achieved through the program resulted in the preservation of regional farms
and forest through the purchase of development rights.
Within South Lake Union, commercial projects in areas with maximum
heights taller than 85 feet, 75 percent of the extra floor area must be earned
by providing affordable housing and child care benefits, while 25 percent
must be earned by purchasing transferable development rights from
farn1s. Residential developtnents in the san1e tnaximutn height range must
earn 60 percent of the extra floor area by providing affordable housing
benefits and 40 percent by purchasing transferable development rights from
farms. \XIithin Downtown, each building must earn a first increment of the
extra floor area equal to a floor area ratio of between 0.25 and 1 by
purchasing transferable development rights.
In exchange for Seattle's acceptance of rural development tights, King
County will partner with the City on infrastiuctute investments and public
improvements that will support the resulting new growth and increased
density. 'l'he partnership agreement is the fust under a 2011 state law that
enables cities and counties to partner on a program that links transfers of
development rights with a form of tax increment financing called a Landscape
Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program (LCLIP).
The City forecasts that these zoning ratifications in South Lake Union will
generate $45 million of affordable housing, as well as $27 million of new
infrastructure investments, and will preserve 25,000 acres of rural farm and
forest land over the next 25 years.
• Bellevue: Bel-Red Corridor-In 2009, Bellevue adopted sweeping changes
to the Bel-Red Subarea, a 912-acre area largely compt1sed of legacy light
industrial and commercial lands. Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code
amendments \.Vill enable the creation of new) mixed use transit-oriented
neighborhoods, focused around three light rail nodes. The area rezone allows
for building intensities up to 4 FAR and building heights up to 150' in the
core of the transit nodes, and helps to create new capacity for millions of
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 25
July 23, 2014
additional square feet of office/ commercial development and thousands of
new housing units. 'l'en thousand new jobs and 5,000 housing units ate
forecast for the area by 2030, with its market location strategically positioned
between Downtown Bellevue and Redmond's Overlake Urban Center. Sound
Transit is considering two sites in the Bel-Red subarea as potential locations
for a light-rail opcr"tions and maintenance satellite facility. Locating a facility
of that type and size in the Bel-Red corridor would eliminate some
redevelopment potential and ultimately tcducc capacity for growth in the
subarea. In the event Sound Transit selects either site, the capacity of the Bel-
Red area should be recalculated.
An extensive system of transportation and parks infrastructure will support
the planned growd1, with a capital facilities financing plan adopted in
conjunction with the rest of the Bel-Red amendments. Already the Bel-Red
Plan is bearing results, wid1 2012 approval of ilie 4 million square foot master
plan for the Spring District, and groundbreaking for its first phase in 2013.
This large master plan is located at one of the three Bel-Red transit nodes.
Other public infrastructute projects ate moving fotward, as ate additional
private sectot investments in this majot nc\v dcvcloptncnt area.
• Redmond: Overlake-Overlake is the third largest employment center in
the King County region, containing approximately 46,000 jobs. At present,
the majority of employees in Overlake commute to work from outside the
area. The City of Redmond wants to modify this reality by creating Overlake
Village, a cote neighborhood with mixed-usc comtncrcial and residential areas
that the City hopes will encourage many employees to live significantly closer
to where they work. The Ovetlake Utban Center is sectioned into three
subareas: an employment area, a residential neighborhood, and the village
portion itself. The City requires between twenty-five and fifty percent of new
floor area in the Village to be used for residential, multi-family units. The City
has also invested over $20 million in stormwater imptovements to support
development of the village area and has identified additional infrastructure
totaling mote than $170 million ovet the next twenty years. The planned
development capacity of the neighborhood consists of almost twenty million
square feet of retail, office, research and development and manufacturing
space, and over 9,000 housing units. The City's effotts are alteady bearing
fruit with the start of construction of Esterra Park on the Capstone site
(former Group Health property). Tltis project will contain approximately
1,400 housing units and 1.2 million square feet of office and retail space, and
include a hotel and 2.67 -acre park.
• Auburn-Since 2010, the City of Auburn has been in the process of
developing an utban center in the downtown cortidor. The zoning for this
area was changed frorn a Central Business District to a Downtown Urban
Center. Under tltis new code, FAR stipulations encourage residential uses
south of Main Street and commctcial uses north of Main St!'ect, ground floor
commercial storefronts are required for all buildings facing Main Street, and
building heights may exceed restrictions if development bonuses are achieved
by adding features that support pedestrian frequency in the area. In order to
support this evolution, the City has invested over ten million dollars of
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 26
July 23, 2014
Pederal and State funds into augmenting the infrastructure in Downtown.
Modifications have included: upgrading the water, sewer, and storm systems
to accommodate growth, street paving and implementation of pedestrian-
hicndly sidewalks, and construction or rehabilitation of Downtown open
space.
• Bothell-The City's 2009 Downtown Plan seeks to stimulate revitalization of
the community's original tuwn center via ambitious public investments as \veil
as form-based regulations promoting attractive mixed-use residential and
commercial development. Key city investments include (1) the realignment
of SR 522, to smooth traffic flow and enhance pedestrian connections to the
riverfront Park at Bothell Landing; and (2) conversion of the former SR 527
(now City right of way) into a multi-way boulevard with cobbled side lanes
and ,vide, tree-lined side\valks. This ·will create a "scam" uniting the historic
Main Street area east of the boulevatd with redevelopment opportunities on
former school district property to the west. The completed 522 realignment
was partially funded through the pilot LIFl' (Local Infrastructure Financing
Tool) program, which is supported by incremental taxing at the state level.
The west portion of the multi-way boulevard is nearing completion, and
funding is being sought to construct the east and central portions. The fotm-
based zoning is tailored specifically to Downtown Bothell, providing for
intensive mixed-use development in the city center and tapering off in scale
and density at the edges into single family neighborhoods. The market
responded almost immediately to the Plan, and to date has invested over $100
million in creating lively and successful mixed use development Downtown.
• Burien-The Downtown Town Square in Burien is at the core of the City's
efforts to revitalize the downtown area. Over $200 million from the City of
Burien and its partners has been invested in the development. Phase one,
completed in 2009, consisted of a condominium development as well as
construction of a combined library, city hall and public park along with public
infrastructure investments including enhancements to the existing street grid.
The do\vntov.rn area is zonctl for mixed-use residential and commercial
development, and the first phase of the Town Square development includes
124 for sale units, as well as 19,000 square feet of retail space. As of June
2014, 100 percent of all housing units within the first phase of the Town
Square development had been sold. Reflecting the evolving real estate market,
the next two phases of Town Square will consist of approximately 228
apartments and a 125 unit senior living facility. Both projects are anticipated
to commence construction in October of 2014.
• Kent: Midway-The City of Kent is in the process of developing a transit-
oriented community in Midway to support future plans for a Sound Transit
light rail extension into the subarea that is tentatively scheduled for 2023
completion. Midway, which borders Des Moines, is less than five miles from
SeaTac International Airport, and only a few minutes away from the Kent
Industrial Valley. Additionally, the completion of the I -5/SR-509 connection
will link the Port of Seattle to Midway. Another goal of the subarea plan is to
reconcile development standards along the border of Kent and Des Moines.
Both cities are hoping that a cohesive zoning code will foster the vision of
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 27
July 23, 2014
Midway with condensed mixed-usc tcsidcntial and commercial areas near rail
stations, and a broadc1· commetcial conidor along the Pacific Highway. To
date, the City of Kent has invested ovct $20 million in sidewallcs and other
infrastructure to support pedcsttian safety along SR-99. Kent continues to
encourage dense redevelopment in its designated downtown urban center.
• Tukwila: South center Urban Center-After an extensive planning process
Tukwila has adopted a subatca plan, design manual and new zoning code for
its urban center at Southcenter. The new tcgulations are intended to foster
denser housing, retail and office development in the northern third of the
area while retaining the existing retail and light industtial employment base.
To support this growth Tukwila is building a new bus ttansit center on the
eastern edge of Southcenter Mall and designing a pcdcsttian btidge across the
Green River to shorten the connection to the permanent Soundc1· station
under construction at Longacres. Tukwila and a local dcvclopct have entered
into a development agreement for a 19 story mixed use building with 189
hotel rooms and 370 apartments in the urban center. In addition Tukwila was
granted state funding to evaluate development of a transfer of development
rights program through the Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure
Program (LCLIP).
Capacity in Larger Cities
Similarly, thete are examples of recent planning efforts related to gtowth
management in Larger Cities throughout King County.
• Issaquah-Major planning and development efforts in Issaquah have include
the Issaquah Highlands development, amendments to the City's Cultural and
Business Distdct as well as the recently adopted Central Issaquah Plan.
Issaquah focused on amending the zoning of Old 'l'own, a 295-acre area that
encompasses the City's cultural and business district (CBD) as well as mixed-
use and residential zones. Issaquah invested in road wideningl \Vater main and
sewer enlargement, and improved pedestrian wallcways in the CBD prior to
the increased development in Old Town. The Centtal Issaquah Plan
encompasses an approximately 1,100 acre atca summnding Interstate 90 and
incl11des a large majority of the City's commetcially zoned properties and
majot employers. The transformative vision for the area consists of an
evolution form auto oriented retail and office developments to a high density
mixed usc town center. The Central Issaquah area is a major component of
the City's overall development capacity.
• Kenmore -The Kenmore Downtown Plan was adopted in 2003 and called
for the cteation of a vibrant pedestrian oriented city center. Moving towards
this vision, between 200.1 and 2005, the Kenmore City Council purchased
8.85 acres of central downtown ptopctty including a former park & ride lot
and commercial property fo1· the fututc Kenmore Village development. The
acquired property was located adjacent to the City Hall (a 0.77 acte patcel
acquired in 1999). A new City Hall (completed 2010), relocated Post Office
in the former City Hall building (completed 2010), and new King County
Library branch (completed 2011) surround the Kenmore Village site. The
City sold 1.5 actes in 2012 to Kenmore Camera which renovated an existing
ICing County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 28
July 23, 2014
building into a new retail store with classroom space. In 2013 the City sold
4.75 acres (former Park & ride lot) to Main Street Property Group LLC for
development of up to 325 multi-family units in two phases (Spencer 68
project). Phase One includes 138 units with ground-breaking in 2014. The
City is working toward a purchase and sale agreement for a portion of the
remaining property where new commercial development is anticipated. 'fhe
City also will develop a signature "Town Green" on the property (presently
being designed).
• Sammamish -SatnmamiHh began planning for its new commetcial mixed
usc center, known as the Town Center, in 2006. The Sammamish Town
Center Plan was adopted in 2006 and makes up a large majority of the City's
overall capacity of commercial and residential development. Being more
recently incorporated than most City's in King County, Sammamish lacked a
historical main street or area for expansion of retail and office uses. The
Town Center Plan provides the zoning framework for high density mixed
used development in several concentrated pockets within the overall planning
area. \V'ith planned capacity for over 600,000 square feet of commercial
development and approximately 2,000 housing units, the Town Center Plan
represents the majority of the City's capacity of housing and almost all of the
City's planned capacity for commercial development.
o Shoreline-In 2013, the City of Shoreline completed its 'l'own Center Plan
after 15 years of planning. ln this process, the City amended its commercial
zoning considerably-eight commercial zones were consolidated into four,
tht·ee separate Transition Areas were unitied, and revised height and density
requirements were adopted. In addition, parking standards were reduced
consistent design guidelines were applied acros. the entire neighborhood. The
adopted sub-area plan for the neighborhood calls for a mix of building
typologies that includes allowances for six story mixed use buildings as well as
smaller-scale one to three story buildings in mixed-use areas.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 29
Blank.
July 23, 2014 I<:.:ing County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 30
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS: GROWTH TARGETS AND
CAPACITY
This chapter analyzes and summarizes the ability of jurisdictions -and the entire
county UG A -to accommodate the adopted targets for both housing and
employment as reported by Regional Geography. Regional Geographies are the
organizing construct for the VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy, which
categorizes the urban area in a hierarchy: Metropolitan Cities, Core Cities, Larger
Cities, Small Cities, and Unincorporated Urban Growth Area. Capacity data for
both housing and employment is aggregated to the Regional Geography level to
demonstrate consistency with VISION 2040.
General Findings
King County has sufficient buildable land capacity to accommodate the
forecasted residential and commercial-industrial growth through 2031 and further
into the future. King County also has adequate capacity for other non-residential
gtowth within the UGA to support the forecasted housing and job growth.
Additionally, each of the 39 cities can accommodate their adopted target housing
and employment growth through at lcost 2031. Urban unincorporated King
County has sufficient housing capacity, but a small shortfall of employment
capacity. Reassessment of land usc plans and tcgulations will not be required for
any jurisdiction in King County except unincorporated King County.
Expressed in terms of Regional Geography, 82 to 84% of all K.ing County
development capacity is in the top two categories: Metropolitan Cities and Core
Cities. The emerging city comprehensive plan updates further focus
development into Urban Centers in the Metropolitan and Core Cities. In
contrast, the Small cities will take a modest share of projected growth.
Unincorporated urban King County is changing from a trend of rapid single-
family growth in the 1970s and 1980s to one of modest growth as it shifts to
become a staging area for annexation to adjacent cities. These development
trends are consistent with VISION 2040.
Growth Targets
July 23, 2014
In accordance with GMA (RCW 36.70A.110) King County and the cities must
adopt comprehensive plans that can accommodate 20 yeats of anticipated
population and employment growth. The state Office of Financial Management
issues population projections for each county in the state as a basis for GM.A
planning while the Puget Sound Regional Council produces the employment
forecasts. The first step in setting growth targets is to transbtc the population
numbers into nutnbcr of households. Based on these ptojcctions, counties and
cities collaborate in dctctmining the allocations of that growth. These allocations
take the form of growth tatgets, which ate statements of planning policy
indicating the minimum number of households and jobs that each jurisdiction
will accommodate dming each 20-year period.
The most recent housing and employment growth targets for King County were
adopted by the GMPC in 2009 and cover the period from 2006-2031. The
allocation of population and employment growth to each Regional Geography
K:ing County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 31
was based closely on the percentage shares set fotth in the VISION 2040
Regional Growth Strategy. The urban Regional Geography categories are:
Metropolitan Cities, Core Cities, Larger Cities, Small Cities, and Urban
Unincorporated. However, VISION 2040 was not the sole determinant of the
target allocations. Other factors were also considered including: recent growth
trends, projected market demand, development opportunities and constraints,
and the housing and employment capacity provided under existing plans and
regulations.
Exhibit 16. Updated King County Growth Targets, Adopted 2009
Regional Geography Housing Target PAA Housing Employment PAA Emp.
City I Subarea Target Target Target
Net New Units Net New Units Net New Jobs Net New Jobs
2006-2031 2006-2031 2006-2031 2006-2031
Metropolitan Cities
Bellevue 17,000 290 53,000
Seattle 86,000 146,700
Total 103,000 199,700
Core Cities
Auburn 9,620 19,350 -
Bothell 3,000 810 4,800 200
Burien 3,900 4,600
Federal Way 8,100 2,390 12,300 290
Kent 7,800 1,560 13,200 290
Kirkland 7,200 1,370 20,200 650
Redmond 10,200 640 23,000
Renton 14,835 3,895 29,000 470
SeaTac 5,800 25,300
Tukwila 4,800 50 15,500 2,050
Total 75,255 167,250
Larger Cities
Des Moines 3,000 5,000
Issaquah 5,750 290 20,000
Kenmore 3,500 3,000
Maple Valley* 1,800 1,060 2,000
Mercer Island 2,000 1,000
Sammamish 4,000 350 1,800
Shoreline 5,000 5,000
Woodinville 3,000 5,000
Total 28,050 42,800
Exbtbtt co!ltttmed 011 fol!oJPtHgpagc
July 23, 2014 King County Iluildable Lands Report 2014 Page 32
Regional Geography Housing Target PAA Housing Employment PAA Emp.
City I Subarea Target Target Target
Net New Units Net New Units Net New Jobs Net New Jobs
2006-2031 2006-2031 2006-2031 2006-2031
Small Cities
Algona 190 210
Beaux Arts 3 3
Black Diamond 1,900 1,050
carnation 330 370
Clyde Hill 10 -
Covington 1,470 1,320
Duvall 1,140 840
Enumclaw 1,425 735
Hunts Point 1 -
Lake Forest Park 475 210
Medina 19 -
Milton 50 90 160
Newcastle 1,200 735
Normandy Park 120 65
North Bend 665 1,050
Pacific 285 135 370
Skykomish 10 -
Snoqualmie 1,615 1,050
Yarrow Point 14 -
Total 10,922 8,168
Urban Unincorporated
Potential Annexation Areas 12,930 3,950
North Highl i ne 1,360 2,530
Bear Creek UrbanPiannedDev 910 3,580
Unclaimed Urban Unincorp. 650 90
Total 15,850 10,150
King County UGA Total 233,077 428,068
The base year for these Targets is 2006. As cities annex territory, PAA targets shift into Targets column.
*Placeholder for footnote conditioning PAA target on approval of city-county agreement (expected Sept 20(
King County Growth Targets Committee, Growth Management Planning Council, August 2009
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 33
Findings by Regional Geography
Tn accordance with VTSTON 2040, growth should be allocated to Regional
Geographies so that the cities with UJ·ban Centers-the Mettopolitan and Core
cities -receive the majority of the county's gtowth. While each of the five
Regional Geographies has sufficient capacity for growth, 81% of the county's
capacity is in the Metropolitan and Core cities. Further, an additional 11% of
capacity can be found in the Larger Cities.
Metropolitan Cities
Core Cities
71,792
67,579
250,394
91,782
60%
22%
178,602
24,203
19,693
12,324
Larger Cities 21,731 41,424 10%
Small Cities
Unincorporated Urban
8,518
7,969
20,842
12,761
5%
3% 4,792
Urban King County Total 177,589 417,203 100% 239,614
TARGET
July 23, 2014
CAPACITY
., larger Cities
1m Unincorporated Urban
The employment capacity can also be found in the Metropolitan and Core cities
at d1e 83% level. Again, an additional 11% of employment capacity can be found
in the Larger Cities.
King County has an abundance of land capacity for both residential and
employment growth thtough 2031. The surplus for housing capacity is 247,130
units and the surplus for employment capacity is 221,960 jobs. Further, the
capacity calculations from which these totals were derived include set-asides for
public purpose lands and rights-of-way acreage as detailed in Chapter III,
Technical Framework and Methodology. Consequently, King County has
adequate capacity for other non-residential growth within the UGA to support
the forecasted housing and job growth.
For further detail, see Chapter III, Technical Framework and Methodology.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 34
Metropolitan Cities
Core Cities
Larger Cities
Small Cities
Unincorporated Urban
182,349
170,686
43,883
5,957
7,720
325,895
230,901
68,714
26,101
6,940
49%
35%
10%
4%
1%
143,546
60,215
24,831
20,144
-780
Urban King County Total 410,595 658,551 100% 247,956
TARGET
July 23, 2014
CAPACITY
!fl Larger Cities
u Unincorporated Urban
Metropolitan Cities
Metropolitan Cities include Seattle and Bellevue.
Metro Cities had 57% of county residential growtl1 during 2006-2012. Seattle and
Bellevue experienced continuing multifamily growth when it stopped elsewhere in
the county. These two cities suffered major job losses, along with most of the
county, but recovered during this period. Bellevue and Seattle are expected to
assume 38% of the targeted residential growth. The two Metro Cities account for
59% of development capacity in the county and 52% of the employment capacity
demonstrating substantial room to accommodate forecasted growth.
Core Cities
Core Cities include Auburn, Bothell, Burien, Federal \Vay, Kent, Kirldand,
Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila.
In accordance with the Regional Growth Strategy, the ten Core Cities each
possess one or more major designated Urban Centers. Most Core Cities either
experienced redevelopment of their downtown or other center during this period
or adopted plans to facilitate the redevelopment. The Core Cities absorbed 20%
of recent residential growth during 2006-2012. The Core Cities are expected to
accommodate 38% of targeted residential growth with 22% of development
capacity and 31% of the employment capacity. \Vhilc there is sufficient nominal
residential capacity within the Core Cities to accommodate the targeted
ICing County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 35
July 23, 2014
residential growth, when the numbers are viewed on a percentage basis, the result
appears othenvise due to the ve1y large capacity numbers within the City of
Seattle.
Larger Cities
Largct Cities include Des Moines, Issaquah, Kenmore, Maple Valley, Mercer
Island, Sammamish, Shoteline, and \'iloodinville.
'l'he eight Latger Cities have substantial population but fewer jobs and do not
have a designated Urban Center, although they may have a thtiving downtown.
Several are undergoing tcdcvclopmcnt similat to the Cote cities.
Small Cities
Small Cities include Algona, Beaux Arts, Black Diamond, Carnation, Clyde Hill,
Covington, Duvall, Enumclaw, Hunts Point, Lake Forest Park, Medina, Milton,
Newcastle, Normandy Park, North Bend, Pacific, Skykomish, Snoqualmie, and
Yarrow Point.
By count, ncady half of all King County cities are "Small Cities" although several
have sizeable populations. 'l'ogether these nineteen cities and towns have 106,600
people, only 5.4% of the county total, and 4% of recent growth. Togcthct, their
2012-2031 growth target share is less than 5% of the countywide total with
sufficient capacity.
Unincorporated UGA
The patt ofUnincotporated King County within the Urban Growth Area had
historically taken a latge shatc of growth -nearly half of countywide housing
growth before passage of the GMA. With full implementation of the GMA,
annexations and incorporations, and shifting development patterns, the urban
unincorpotated share has been reduced to 8% of recent growth and 5% of the
tesidential target. Unincorporated urban King County has sufficient residential
capacity to meet its target, but it has a shortfall of employment capacity.
Annexations in recent years have removed more job capacity than the associated
job targets. In a countywide context, this slight shortfall is not a major issue.
Rural
The purpose of the BLR is to analyze recent urban development and to
determine whether K.ing County and the cities have sufficient capacity with the
UGA to accommodate fotecastcd population and job growth. In accordance
with the GMA and the CPPs, the Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands do not
have a growth target, but tathct an assumption of minimal growth. Since 1995
when the first King County Comprehensive Plan was adopted to implement
GMA, the Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands have expetienced a decreasing
share of countywide growth: down to less than 4% during the 2006-12 pctiod
from a high of approximately 15% in 1995.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 3G
Metropolitan Cities
Metropolitan Cities
Subtotal
Core Cities
Core Cities
Core Cities
Core Cities
Core Cities
Core Cities
Core Cities
Core Cities
Core Cities
Core Cities
Subtotal
Larger Cities
Larger Cities
Larger Cities
Larger Cities
Larger Cities
Larger Cities
Larger Cities
Larger Cities
Subtotal
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Small Cities
Subtotal
Unincorporated
Total King County
July 23, 2014
'fhe following table presents a summa1y of residential capacity data for all
regional geographies.
Bellevue Red/Yellow 12,778 23,165 10,387
Seattle Green 59,014 227,229 168,215
71,792 250,394 178,602
Auburn Red/Yellow 9,004 14,597 5,593
Bothell Red/Yellow 2,729 4,480 1,751
Burien Red/Yellow 4,163 4,910 747
Federal Way Red/Yellow 7,457 8,440 983
Kent Red/Yellow 7,236 10,730 3,494
Kirkland Red/Yellow 7,208 9,715 2,507
Redmond Red/Yellow 8,004 11,240 3,236
Renton Green 11,700 15,350 3,650
SeaTac Red/Yellow 51305 6,545 1,240
Tukwila Red/Yellow 4,773 5,775 1,002
67,579 91~782 24,203
Des Moines Green 2,925 4,446 1,521
Issaquah Green 3,916 11,312 7,396
Kenmore Green 2,980 4,503 1,523
Maple Valley Green 932 1,514 582
Mercer Island Red/Yellow 1,314 2,005 691
Sammamish Red/Yellow 3,379 5,465 2,086
Shoreline Green 3,858 9,358 5,500
Woodinville Red/Yellow 2,427 2,821 394
21~731 41,424 19,693
Algona Green 133 264 131
Beaux Arts Green 1 4 3
Black Diamond Green 1,861 4,231 2,370
Carnation Green 331 800 469
Clyde Hill Green 10 23 13
Covington Green 1,096 2,928 1,832
Duvall Green 930 2,444 1,514
Enumclaw Green 1,283 3,107 1,824
Hunts Point Green 6 6 0
Lake Forest Park Green 431 631 200
Medina Green 23 46 23
Milton Green 18 388 370
Newcastle Green 975 1,278 303
Normandy Park Green 73 228 155
North Bend Green 649 1,582 933
Pacific Green 141 416 275
Skykomish Green 10 35 25
Snoqualmie Green 537 2,399 1,862
Yarrow Point Green 10 32 22
8,518 20,842 12,324
Green 7,969 12~761 4,792
177,589 417,203 239,614
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
Green
Green
Green
Gree'n
Green
Green
Green
Green
Green
'Gr'een'
Gr¢~n
Green
Greei(
'Green
Green
Green
Green
Grii!en
Green
Green
Green
Green
Green
Green
Gree-n
Green
Green
Green
Green
Green
Green
Green
Green
G~en
Green
Gre_en
Green
Green
Green
Green
_Green
Green
Green
Green
Gr'een
Page 37
Blank.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 38
VI. PROFILES FOR KING COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
Organization of the Profiles-
These profiles are organized by regional geography, with a profile fot each City in the
following regional geography categories:
• Metropolitan Cities (2 cities)
• Core Cities (1 0 cities)
• Larger Cities (8 cities)
• Small Cities (19 cities)
• Unincorporated UGA (1 area, see proftle)
• Rural-(not part of the UGA)
Each Metropolitan City, Core City and Larger City Proftle has 3 pages of data:
• Page 1 -Residential Development
• Page 2-Residential Land Supply and Capacity
• Page 3-Commercial-Industrial Development and Employment
July 23,2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 39
Bellevue
Seattle
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 41
------------
Blank.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 42
... --·····-··------·-· ·--·---~-----------------~
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, the City of Bellevue's housing grew by more than 4,000 units. Most of this was through redevelopment, with more than
90% of the residential redevelopment occurring in multifamily structures.
New residential capacity has been added by concentrating the majority of future Bel-Red growth into a series of mixed use, pedestrian-friendly
and transit-oriented development nodes, with higher density and height in them, as enabled through a land use incentive system.
Achieved multifamily density data have been updated from 2007, based on recent multifamily in Downtown and other neighborhoods, but
Downtown continues to receive the lion's share (88%) of multifamily growth. The City's mid-2012 South Bellevue annexations are not included.
Residential Development Activity: 2006-2012
Zoned Density Gross I Critical ROWs Public Net #Lots l Ne~
(max. du/acre) Area Areas Purpose Area . ; I Density
(acres) 1 (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) or Umts (units/ac)
iHousina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012
Single Multi-I Total
Family* family I Hous"g Units
I
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 30,363 21,889 52,252
0-3 du/acre 43.8 13.5 1.5i 3.2 25.6 65 2.5
3-5 du/acre 76.0 11.5 5.0! 8.3 51.2 284 5.4 2006-12 Change** 305 3,917 I 4,222
5-7 du/acre i l
7-9 du/acre 5.4 0.71 0.6j 0.7 3.4 27 8.1 -2012 Units 30,668 25,806 1 56,474
> 9 du/acre 1
Plats Total 125.21 25.7 7.1j 12.2 80.2 376, 4.7 Plus adjusbnt (Census) -340 130 -210
I '
Single-Family Permits Issued Plat and SF data cowr se~.en years through 2012. = 2012 Adj. H. Unit 30 328 2s 936 I ss 264 I
0-3 du/acre 79.2 103 1.5 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 75.5 361 4.7 ** Six years of perm it data -differs from tables to the left.
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable
7-9 du/acre 8.5 391 4.6
> 9 du/acre Growth Targ_et Ue_date, 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total nla I n/a I n/a ; nla 163.2 503! 3.1 : Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 17,000
Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued New density data from 2006-12 Net New SF Units Permitted -3051 !
< 9 du/acre 1 0.3 0.0 O.Oi 0.01 0.3 61 20.7 Net New MF Units Permitted -3,9171 i
.... ....!! .. :]} ___ <!_utac::~~-~1 . ____ 2.8 ____ o.oj ____ OA! ___ Q"~----1~~ ----~~ .......... !§:.2
13-19 du/acre 1.9 0.0 O.Oi 0.01 1.9 28, 14.9
~~~e~_Uni~~~nn~~-~~~--o I
Net New Units (2006-2012) -4,2221 -------~
19-31 du/acre 15.7 0.5 O.Oi 0.0 15.1 3951 26.1 Plus Annexafn Area Target Ol
31 -48 du/acre i I Net Adjustment to Tar11et -4,222
48 + du/acre 18.2 0.0 O.Oi 0.0 18.2 3,3881 186.3 --------------------------1·-------r------"~ ----~~c------· ---------Other zones 1 : I
_____________ ___j _______ ·-----------Net Adjustment to Target I (4,222)
MF Pmts Total 38.8 0.5 0.4i 0.6 37.2 3,845! 103.3 Remaining Target (2012-2031) c. ... 12,778
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 43
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF BELLEVUE
Residential Land Supply and Dwellin~q Unit Capacity (2012
ROW &Public Net Available Assumed Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Density Net Capacity
Discount
Single Family
Vacant Subtotal 402.0! 80.7 50.3 18% 222.7 2.5
" "" Redev Subtotal 250.61 37.5 32.0 19% 147.2 2.5 0
0 Total 652.61 118.2 369.9 ..c:
~ Multifamily 0
.0
41.01 12.71 ..c: Vacant Subtotal 2.8 1.0 13% 31.4 "' ·c;; Redev Subtotal 50.61 5.1 1.0 20% 35.6 12.5! z Total 91.6 1 7.9 67.0
Neighborhood Total 744.2 126.1 436.9 I
I
" Multifamily in Mixed-Use " ::> Vacant Subtotal 16.3 3.6 0.0 10% 11.9 75 " ~ Redev Subtotal 563.1 27.8 19.5 0-20% 422.0 86.0/225.0
:il Total 579.4 31.4 433.9
"' All Housing
~ Vacant Total 459.31 87.1 51.3 10% 266.0
~ RedevTotal 864.3 70.4 52.5 10%-15% 604.8
(3 Total 1323.6! 157.5 103.8 870.8
Note: pipeline development is included in numbers above
ca.
Ca
714
I Vlll;;!lt::""l C:l.IIUIY ua OVIlY in Pipeline I 0 - -r . '
~cu:.r.:._u, __ ....,. 1 608 Almost<:JI!orBc~i!cvtH~S
IVIUIUIC:lllllly vapa.._..ty ill rq.Jt:;IIJIC 0 substantial residential capacity
Mixed-Use Zones-Downtown, Bel-Red 21,843 is in mixed-use zones including
Mixed-Use Capacity in Pipeline 0 Dovmtov-m and the Gel-Red
OtherAdjus~ments 0 area (ofv.rhich Spring District \s
! <J oartl
-··-"• "" I 23,165 ·, ,.
12,778
1Q';387
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
~~" ;.,." "'·~ ·-·/·,·.;~.·
::J i'J':\;'\c.ci Usc:
Note: Sound Transit is considering two sites in the Bel-Red subarea for a light-rail maintenance facility. Locating a facility of that type and s!t.e in Bel-Red would eliminate some
redevelopment potenthl and reduce capacity for the subarea. If Sound Transit selects either site, grO\vth targets can still be met, but Bel-Red capacity should be recalculated.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
430
284
714
288
320
608
1,322
346
21,497
21,843
1,064
22,101
23,165
Page 44
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF BELLEVUE
Bellevue added employment capacity by differentiating an economic niche for BeiRed, retaining many el<isting businesses while attracting new
businesses in a form not found elsewhere in Bellevue. Oppcrtunities are afforded by BeiRed's strategic location betv.een Do'M1tOIM1 Bellevue and
Redmond's Overlake, as v.ell as the opportunities brought about by light rail and high capacity transit coming through the area.
-DoiM1tOIM1 Bellevue continues to have substantial capacity for job growth in its mixed-use zones. Together, Do\M1tOIM1, Be~Red and other
commercial centers contain capacity for more than 83,000 jobs, v.ell above the remaining job target. If Sound Transit locates a light rail maintenance
facility in Bel-Red, growth targets can still be met. but some redevelopment potential muld be lost and capacity of the Bel-Red subarea should be
recalculated.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Gross Critical ROWs Public Net Net-net
[§l!Plovment Uodate 2006 i;,-2012
, Comrn'l I lndust. Total Zoned Density Market
{max. du/acre) Area Areas {acres) Purpose Area Factor Area Jobs 1 Jobs* Employment,
{acres\ (acres\ (acres) {acres) (acres) \ I
Vacant I Redev. 2006 Base Year 97,385 20,924 118,309
Commercial 141.8 13.7 0.0! 0.0 128.0 15%-20% 68.0
Mixed-Use 579.3 31.4 0.0; 19.5 528.5 10%-20% 434.0 2006-12 Change I 7,6801 -2,9681 4,712
Industrial 45.1 5.91 0.01 0.0 39.2 15%-20% 21.1 I
Non-Res Land Total 766.2 51.oL 0.0! 19.5 695.7 523.1 = 2012 Jobs I 1os,o651 17,9561 123,021 I
Employment Capacit (2012) Adjustments I i 0 i
Net Land Assumed Existing) ~~loor Area Sq. ft. per' I Job
(mil.sq.ft) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq. ft.) Employee Capacity
I I I i
= 2012 Job Total 1105,065 I 17,956 I. 123,021
Neighborhoods I
! * industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Commercial 2.96 0.26/0.50 0.53 i 0.49 333!4oo 1 1,331 I
Industrial 0.92 0.45 0.03 I 0.39 600 L--~4:!
Nei~hborhood Total 3.881 0.55 i 0.88 , 1,975 I
Growth Target Uedate, 2006 to 2012
Jobs Growth Target (2006-2031) 53,000
Mixed-Use I Urban Center \ in millions of square feet, non-residential uses only.
Mixed Use Vacant 0.521 o.s12.o I I 0.32 333 961 ' Jobs Cham:~e: 2006-2012
Mixed Use Redev'able ---~~-3~to.5g_I_!_!_E>t_?~i?_f---------?~-65 __ 300/400 80,378 ------·--------·-----~-------C-'-'='J~~f.nn_E:>!§!.~-~!~5'-Tar9~_t ________ Q ------···----··-·-·-----
Less Job Gain, 2006-2012 -4712
Mixed-Use Total 18.911 I 5.42 ! 24.97 ! 81,339 Net Adjustment to Target -4,712
-~-~-"!:~!~~------L------1 ____ ------I-----____ j_ ______ _ ______ j__ ______ ~-,
Commercial 2.96io.26/ 0.50 0.53 1 0.49 333/400: 1,331
~et Jl.<:2'!.trne~~!o "G'.!~'----------______ _(~,?:~~L-
Remaining Target (2012-2031) 48,288
Mixed-Use 18.91 0.50/7.76 5.42 ; 24.97 300/400 j 81,339 ' 2012 Job Capacity [rrom table to left] I 83,314 ' Industrial 0.92 0.45 0.03 i 0.39 600 I 644 , I Adjustment to capacity 0
Jobs in Pipeline I 0 Final 2012 Job Capacity 83,314
City Total Capacity 22.791 1 5.98 ! 25.851 I 83,314 Surplus/Deficit Capacity i < 35,026 ----
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Repott 2014 Page 45
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, Seattle's housing stock grew by nearly 27,000 units, or 9%. Seattle had about 45% ofthe entire county's residential growth
during the six-year period. Most ofthis was through redevelopment, with almost all occurring in multifamily structures.
An adjustment is necessary to reconcile permitted unit data with Census and state counts and estimates of2012 housing units.
The 2006-2031 housing target for Seattle was 86,000, but the City has already realized more than one-quarter of the targeted growth. Seattle's
remaining housing target is to plan for about 59,000 units between 2012 and 2031.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005
Gross Critical Public I Net Zoned Density ROWs Net I #Lots
Area Areas Purpose Area j or Units Density (max. dulacre) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (units/ac)
Housing Unit Uedate; 2006 to 2012
I Sinale Multi-Total
Family* family Hous'g Units
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 141,991 146,732 288,723
0-3 dulacre
3-5 du/acre 2006-12 Change 1,041 25,945 26,986
5-7 du/acre No plat data collected
7-9 du/acre -2012 Units 143,032 172,677 I 315,709
> 9 dulacre
Plats Total 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 Ol n/a Plus adjustmt (Census) -100 -2,700 -2,800
Single-Family Permits Issued Plat and SF data are from 2007. = 2012 Adj. H.Unitsi 142 932 169,977 312 909
0-3 du/acre I *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 8.6 331 3.8
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 68.4 382 5.6
7-9 du/acre 169.5 1,450 8.6 -> 9 du/acre 12.7 198 15.6 Growth Target Uedate, 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total n/a I n/a I n/a I n/a I 259.2 20631 8.0 I Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 86,000
Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Finaled Multifamily density data from 2007 Net New SF Units Permitted -1,0411
< 9 du/acre I I Net New MF Units Permitted -25,9451
9-13 du/acre I
I Net New Units, Annex Area 0
13-19 du/acre i Net New Units (2006-2012) -26,9861
19 -31 du/acre 23.8 I 23.8 548 23.0 Plus Annexafn Area Target Ol
31 -48 du/acre 69.5 I 69.5 2,318 33.4 Net Adjustment to Target -26,986
48 + du/acre 67.2 67.2 148.3
I
I
!
----------------------------------------------___ 9,9_~!!. ---------------------------------t---------------------Other zones Net Adjustment to Target (26,986)
MF Pmts Total 160.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 160.5 12,831 80.0 Remaining Target (2012-2031) 59,014
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 46
··----
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF SEATTLE
Residential Land Supply and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2012 Note: critical area and market factor discounts are built in to parcel analysis.
ROW &Public Net Available Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres I Discount
Single Family
" Vacant Subtotal 593.5 n.a. 0.0
" Redev Subtotal 1 447.6 n.a. 0.0 0
0 Total 2,041.1 0.0 .<:
~ Multifamily 0
"' .<: Vacant Subtotal 94.6 n.a. 0.0
"' o:; Redev Subtotal 849.6 n.a. 0.0 z Total 944.2
Neighborhood Total 2,985.3 0.0
" Multifamily in Mixed-Use " ::> Vacant Subtotal 101.0 n.a. 0.0 " " Redev Subtotal 563.1 n.a. 0.0 >< ~ Total 664.1 0.0
I
"' All Housing -0 Vacant Total 789.1 n.a . 0.0 ....
~ RedevTotal 2,860.3 n.a. 0.0
u Total 3649.4 0.0 0.0
Ca,
Ca
11,970
<Jill 11;;:-1-dlilliV VGif.IGII . ..ILV Ill liiJt::"llllt: I Q
•" ... ,. ·· ... 1 47,540 Three-fourths of Seattle's
•v•um•c:tutily_vdOOL.itv ••• r'ipe..u•c 0 substantial residentia]c<Jp:lcity
1\llixed-Use Zones-CBD, S Lk Union+ 167,720 is in mixe.d-usc zones includ inr;
Mixed-Use Capacity in Pipeline 0 the GreaterDovJntown,South
Other Adjustments 0 Lake Union zmd other
' ~~~~~--==t=:= ·-·---~27,~~-<!.-l desir.;nated centers.
59,014
.168:.:2~5
n.a. 593.5
n.a. 1.447.6
2,041.1
n.a. 94.6
n.a. 849.6
944.2
2,985.3
101.0
563.1
664.1
789.1
2,860.3
3649.4
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
. ·-o~ " ,,,,_,,-,
:.:1 iVL;·c~d l.J.'i\.:
July 23, 2014 K1ng County Buildable Lands Report 2014
Assumed
Density Net Capacity
a\IQ. 7.8 4,350
aVQ. 7.8 7,620
11,970
50163 4,853
50163 42,687
47,540
59,510
10.327
157,393
167,720
19,53C
207,70C
227,230
Page 47
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF SEA TTL£
Seattle lost more than 12,000 industrial jobs over the six years, but gained 25,000commercialjobs for a net gain overall of more than 12,000
jobs. The City's remaining job target is to plan for 134,000 added jobs by 2031. Seattle has capacity for almost twice that target-more than
240,000 jobs. The capacity is primarily in mixed use and commercial zones in designated centers and throughout the city.
-Most of Seattle's commercial activity is in mixed-use zones; all non-residential zones allow mixed uses. For this report, "commercial" is folded
into "mixed use" even though it includes neighborhood business areas as well as major centers. Critical-area and market factor discounts are
built in to the determination of which land parcels are eligible for development.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs I Public Net Market Net-net
(max. du/acre) Area Areas ( ) !Purpose Area Factor Area
(acres) (acres) acres (acres) (acres) (acres\
~loyment Update 2006 to 2012
Cornm'l lndust. Total
Jobs Jobs* Employment
Vacant I Redev. 2006 Base Year 387,195 83,486 470,681
Commercial 0.0 n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 0.0
Mixed-Use 1,601.2 n.a. 0.0 0.0 1,601.2 n.a. 1601.2 2006-12 Change 25,2001 -12,5631 12,637
Industrial 416.0 n.a. 0.0 0.0 416.0 n.a. 416.0
Non-Res Land Total 2017.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2017.2 2017.2 = 2012 Jobs 412,3951 70,9231 483,318 I
I
Employment capacit] '(2012) Adjustments I 0 i
Net Land Assumed El<isting Floor Area Sq. ft. per Job I I ' ' (mil.sq.ft) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.) Employee Capacity . -2012 Job Total I 412,395 70,923 1 483,318 1
Neighborhoods *industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Commercial I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Industrial I 18.12 1.0/3.5 3.75 17.72 450 39,365
Neighborhood Total ' 18.12 3.75 17.72 39,365 I
f. Growth Target Update. 2006 to 2012
I Jobs Growth Taraet (2006-2031) l
~
M'IXed-Use and Urban Center• ln millions of square feet, non~residential uses only.
Mixed Use Vacant I 4.40 0.5/3.5 I 4.12 250/300 14,503 Jobs Chanae: 2006-2012 I
Mixed Use Redev'able I 65.35 0.5/20.0 26.12 54.31 250/300 188,713 Plus Annexat'n Area Taraet O!
I Less Job Gain, 2006-2012 -126371
Mixed-Use Total I 69.75 26.12 58.43 203,216 Net Adjustment to Target -12,637!
City Total ! I I I
Commercial I 0.00 -¥6Ql2+-----··--·-s~:~j6o73oo 0 ---------------------r-------------------------Mixed-Use 69.75 0.5120.0 203,216
Net Adjustment to Target r (12,637)
~~~ai~~~!!_Tar~Tt121!_1_~~'?.~i)L ______ t _ _:1_~~.o~.LJ
2012 Job Capaci Jtrom table to left) 242,581
Industrial I 18.12 1.013.5 3.75 I 17.721 avg.450 39,365 Adjustment to capacity 0
Jobs in Pipeline I 0 Final2012 Job Capacity 242,581 I
City Total Capacity I 87.871 1 29.87 1 76.141 242,581 Surplus/Deficit Capacity : ~08,518 I :
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 48
Core. Cities
Auburn
Bothell
Burien
Federal Way
Kent
Kirkland
Redmond
Renton
SeaTac
Tukwila
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 49
"" -0
"'
..>J <G
"' 01
ol % ~
>Q ......,
CITY OF AUBURN
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, the City of Auburn added more than 500 housing units through new construction. Two-thirds of the new units are single
family houses. A larger impact to Auburn's housing stock was the result of annexation of two areas, Lea Hill and Auburn West Hill, in 2007.
These annexations brought more than 5,000 new housing units into the City, most of which are single family homes.
-The new construction reduced Auburn's residential target by the number of new units permitted, but the annexations came with their own
growth target. As a result, Auburn's 2012-2031 target, 9,000 housing units, is higher than the City's original2006-31 target.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 Housinq Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Pubr.c Net #Lots Net
Area Areas (acres) Purpose Area Density (max. dulacre) (acres) (acres) (acres) or Units (unitslac) (acres)
Single Mufti-Total
Family* family Hous'g Units
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 11,104 7,998 19,102
0 - 3 du/acre
3-5 du/acre 2006-12 Change 366 170 536
5-7 du/acre 26.4 13.3 1.2 1.6 9.8 22 2.2
7-9 du/acre 31.4 2.9 4.2 1.6 22.8 1011 4.4 = 2012 Units 11,470 8,168 19,638
> 9 du/acre 23.2 0.0 4.7 3.2 15.3 127 8.3
Plats Total 80.9 16.2 10.1 6.4 47.9 250 5.2 ! Plus anxtn, adjustmt 4,710 485 5,195
I
Single-Family Permits Issued i= 2012 A,dj. H. Unit~ 16,180 Jl,6§3 l m 24,83_3 __
0-3 du/acre 44.4 11 0.2 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre i
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 11.0 291 2.6
7-9 du/acre 27.8 149 5.4
> 9 du/acre 4.2 22 5.2
SF Pmts Total n/a I n/a ! n/a l ___ ~Ia····--87.4 211 2.4
Multifamily Permits Issued
< 9 dulacre
4.31 9-13 dulacre 12.11 o.ol 2.1 5.7 731 12.9
! I Growth Target Update. 2006 to 2012
1 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 8,400 i Housing Unit Chanfl!!.: 2006-2012
i Net New SF Units Permitted -3661 I Net New MF Units Permitted -170
Net New Units, Annex Area -80
13-19 du/acre 18.2 1 2.0 0.0 0.11 16.1 2361 140~
19-31 dulacre I I
Net New Units (2006-2012) -6161
Plus Annexat'n Area Target 1,2201
31 -48 dulacre I I ! I
48 + dulacre I I
Other zones I
1 Net Adjustment to Tar9et 604
! I I ! !
Net Adjustment to Target ! 604
MF Pmts Total 30.3 2.0 2.1 4.4 21.8 3091 14.2 Remaining Target (2012-2031) ! 9,004
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 51
-----------------· ------··------
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY
Residential Land Supply and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2012
ROW &Public
Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose
Discount
Single Family
JfJ Vacant Subtotal 2,018.0 462.3 388.7
"0 Redev Subtotal 1.507.0 226.1 256.1 0
0 Total 3,525.0 688.4 "" h Multifamily 0
J:l
"" Vacant Subtotal 120.0 8.4 16.7 OJ
'iii Redev Subtotal 50.0 2.5 4.8 :z Total 170.0 10.9
Neighborhood Total 3,695.0 699.3 .. Multifamily in Mixed-Use " :::> Vacant Subtotal 16.0 0.0 0.8 "" 1l Redev Subtotal 117.2 0.0 5.9
~ Total 133.21 0.0
'
"' All Housing -{!. Vacant Total 2,154.0 470.7 406.2
"' RedevTotal 1,674.2 228.6 266.8 -u Total 3828.21 699.3 673.0
6,585 i
I V111::fi<;TI Cl.IIUIJ VCl.jJCIVIl.)l Ill I ljJ<:;LUio;:;: J 0 j ' •
I u ...... =-"-·--"·· ""7---l 1,616 i ,1\UDUrrl has G:lpOCityfor
•v•u•u•aniiiVval-'avrtvu•rlpehuc; 0 ! residentialgrcnvthinal!three
Mixed-Use Zones-Urban Core, Village 6,396 l types of zones: single family,
Mixed-Use Capacity in Pipeline 0 \ multifarnily <3 n d tTiixed use.
Other Adjustments 0 ! Th·2 City's cJ p<J.city of 14,600
I
I I •v-• :'':""'-~\t' (~ .... -) I 14 ,597 I housingun.its exceeds its
·2012-2031) 9,oo4 growth t;,rget by S,600 units.
Sc;59;3 I
Market Factor Net Available I
Acres
10% 1,050.1
15% 871.1
1,921.2
10% 85.4
15% 36.3
121.7
2,042.9
15% 12.9
15% 94.7
107.6
10% 1 '148.4
10%-15% 1,002.1
2150.5
Housing Capacity
{in housing units)
~:{:c ~,H, 'i\'
:;:; :,-;> •,_-·)
J
l
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Repon 2014
CITY OF AUBURN
Assumed
Density Net Capacity
1.017.0 3,477
5.017.0 3,108
6,585
8.0/15.0 1,156
15.0 460
1,616
8,201
188 1,822
181188 4,574
6,396
6,455
8,142
14,597 ..
Page 52
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF AUBURN
From 2006 to 2012, the City of Au bum had a net gain of jobs-accounting for the annexation ofthe Lea Hill area and strong commercial-sector
growth. With adjustments for the annexation and moderate overall job growth, the City's target is now 18,600 jobs to be accommodated
between 2012 and 2031. Au bum has substantial job capacity in its industrial and commercial zones, plus added capacity in its downtown
urban center mixed-use zones.
Overall, the City has capacity for more than 19,000 jobs, sufficient to accommodate its 2031 target.
--Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres) Employment Update 2006 to 2012
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs J Public Net Market Net-net
Area Areas !Purpose Area Area (max. du/acre) (acres) (acres) (acres) 1 (< s) ' (acres} Factor
_(acres) ! acres
Comm'l lndust. I Total
Jobs Jobs* I Employment
I
Vacant I Redev. 1 2006 Base Year 21,810 17,253 39,063
Commercial 501.5 16.2 9.01 8.9 467.6 10%-15% 412.4 I
Mixed-Use 133.2 0.0 0.8! 5.9 126.6 15% 107.6 I 2006-12 Change 1,092 -3411 751
Industrial 533.0 115.21 5.31 10.3 402.6 10%-15% 354.9 I
Non-Res Land Total 1167.7 131.41 15.1) 25.1 996.8 874.9 = 2012 Jobs 22,9021 16,9121 39,814
Employment Capacit] '(2012) Adjustments I I 0 I
Net Land Assumed Existing ) I ~loor Area Sq. ft. per
1
I Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.) Employee Capacity
Neighborhoods I
I
Commercial 17.96 0.25/0.3 0.90 I 3.71 3oo t6oo I 7,094
Industrial 15.46 0.00 [ 0.00 460/700 i 9,417
Neiqhborhood Total ' I 16,511 --·-·--[ '
Mixed-Use I Urban Center in millions of square feet, non-residential uses only_
Mixed Use Vacant 0.28 1.5 ! 0.43 400 1,076
Mixed Use Redev'able 2.25 0.3/1.5 0.68 ' 0.71 400/545 1,449 !
-·----------------------r:----lf"-------! --------------------t-·-·-------Mixed-Use Total 2.53 0.30/1.53 0.68 i 1.14 i 2,525
City Total I
Commercial I 17.961 0.25/0.31 0.90 i 3.71j300/6oo! 7,094
----~~~~¥ai~-----+---1 ;'~§f-D:.9.!.1:.?_f--~:~6--I --------H~f-1~5H6~t·----~~~~
Jobs in Pipeline i 0
City Total Capacity 35.96 I 1.58 I 4.85 19,036
I I I
-2012 Job Total I 22,902 I 16,912 I 39,814
Industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Growth Target Update. 2006 to 2012
Jobs Growth Target (2006-2031)
Jobs Change: 2006-2012
Plus Arnexafn Area Target 150
19,200
Less Job Gain, 2006-2012 -750 -----···--·-------------------=·•··--------------·-· Net Adjustment to Target -600
Net Adjustment to Target (600)
Remaining Target (2012-2031) 18,600
.?!1!2 J~b ~~pac!!Y__j!~~~~~_to le!] ___ [___J_!!,O~~---
Adjustment to capacity 0
Final2012 Job Capacity 19,036
_?urplusiDeficit Capacity I 43~~· ~-~
I
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 53
CITYOFBOTH.ELL(King County portion)
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, the King County portion of Bothell gained fewer than 300 new housing units, less than during preceding six-year
periods.
With 7,700 existing housing units, the City has a remaining target of 2,700 added units by 2031.
Bothell's 2013 annexation of neighborhoods south and west of the City is not included in this Report, whose benchmark date is January
2012.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Public Net # Lots Ne~
(max. du/acre) Area Areas Purpose Area U 'ts DenSity
(acres) (acres) (acres) or m (acres) (acres) (unitsiac)
Plats Recorded
0-3 du/acre 15.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 14.0 8 0.6
tJ.o.usiag Unit /.lJ;1riate 20Qii. to 2Q12 l
Single I Multi-I Total
. __ Family* I family ! Hous"g Units!
_."1006 Base Year 4,106-3,312 7,418 I
i
3-5 du/acre 22.0 0.0 2.4 0.6 19.0 74 3.9 2006-12 Change 248 1 23 271 -1
----
5-7 du/acre I
7-9 du/acre 4.7 0.4 1.5 2.8 15 5.5
> 9 du/acre
-2012 Units 4,354 1 3,335 7,689 I I I
Plats Total I 41.6 0.0 3.3 2.6 35.7 97 2.7
Single-Family Permits Issued
Plus adjustment 50 I -50 o I
I I
= 2012 Adj. H. Units 4,404 I 3,285 1,ss9 I
0-3 du/acre 13.5 7 0.5 -single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 21.6 67 3.1
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 0.4 2
7-9 du/acre 2.1 13 6.3
> 9 du/acre Gro.wth Iarget l.l/:1riate 2QQii. to 2012
SF Pmts Total nia ' nia nia n/a 37.5 89 2.4 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 3,000
Housing_ Unit Chang_e: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued Net New SF Units Permitted -248
·-
< 9 du/acre 16.4 4.5 0.0 1.0 11.0 208 18.9 Net New MF Units Permitted -23
9 -13 du/acre Net New Units, Annex Area 0
13-19 du/acre 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 53 15.4 Net New Units (2006-2012) -271
19 -31 du/acre Plus Annexat'n Area Target Oi
31 -48 du/acre
48 + du/acre
Other zones .
MF Pmts Total 19.9 4.5 0.0 1.0 14.5 261 18.0
Net Adjustment to Target -271 I I I
Net Adjustment to Target I (2~
Remaining Target (2012-2031) 2,729
'------
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 54
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF BOTHELL
Residential Land Supplv and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2006 Updated 2012
ROW & Public Net Available Assumed Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Density Net Capacity
Discount
Single Family
Vacant Subtotal 2351 45 30 10% 147 0.617 558 " 23;!1 "" Redev Subtotal 43 35 15% 139 0.617 312 0
0 Total 4701 88 286 870 .<::
~ Multifamily NO DETAILED DATA AVAILABLE FOR THESE CELLS 0
.Q
201 .<:: Vacant Subtotal 7 1 10% 12 9/30 220 "' ·c;; Redev Subtotal 11 1 1 15% 6 9/30 100 z Total 31 8 18 320
Neighborhood Total 5011 96 304 1,190
" M;!!!i!?mily in Mixed-Use " ;;;;) 13 0 2 10%1 11 50/801 656 "" Vacant Subtotal
1l Redev Subtotal 42 7 0 15%1 30 50/801 2,630
::li Total 55.0 7.0 41.0 I 3,286
" ~
All Housing
~ Vacant Total 268 52 33 10% 170 1,434
.i?> RedevTotal 288 51 36 10%-15% 175 3,042
(3 Total 556.0 103.0 69.3 345.0 I 4,476
Note: pipeline development is included in numbers above
870
j Vlli!:JI"'"I CUI LilY VCl.jJCn ... ny Ill r ltJI:iUJio;:; I 285
' • •· -'"'····"· · ~-1 320 Th2 rnajor·ity of 8othci l's
•v•u•ma•uliV val-'cn .... tv 111 r'l!=c;m•c; 265 residential capacity is in mixed-
Mixed-Use Zones-Urban Core 2,736 use zones, in the CBD and
Mixed-Use Caoacitv in Pipeline 0 adjoining areas such as Six
OtherAdjustments 0 oaks.
I
4,476
2,729
1,747.
Housing Capacity
(in housing units}
,itt:f·-.. -~ '~'<"
;··v1 ;;.:<J U:.<;
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
-------·--···-·-"
Page 55
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF BOTHELL
J-rom <!UUo to <!U12, the GJty ot Bothell in King County gained about 1, 700 jobs, while nearby communities lost jobs.
In 2009, Bothell embarked on a major redevelopment of its downtown, potentially creating opportunities for hundreds of additional jobs. The
downtown redevelopment is now underway.
-Including the downtown redevelopment, Bothell has capacity for about 6,000 additional jobs, twice the City's job target.
NOTE: The City of Bothell provided housing and job capacity totals; detailed calculations for residential and commercial lands are not available.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs i Public Net Market Net-net
(max. du/acre) Area Areas (acres) jPurpose Area Factor Area
(acres) (acres) ' (acres) (acres) (acres)
I Emelo[!ment Update 2006 to 2012
Cornm'l lndust. Total
Jobs Jobs* Employment
Vacant I Redev. 2006 Base Year 8,855 2,226 11,081
Commercial 28 5 21 1 21 10% 19
Mixed-Use 123 20 5 4 95 10% 85 2006-12 Change 1,235 468 1,703
Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Res Land Total 151.0 24.5j 6.5! 4.5 115.5 ..... 104.0 = 2012 Jobs 10,090 2,6941 12,784
Employment Capacit •(2012 est) .Adjustments 0
Net Land Assumed El<isting) ~~loor Area Sq. ft. per, I Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.) Employee Capacity
I
.,.:_2012 Job Tot,~._:I_O,O~ 2,694 I_ 12,784
Neighborhoods I * industrial = manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Commercial 0.83 0.50 0.09 I 0.16 545 I 4,700 ·-----I Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
--
I
I
I I
Neighborhood Total I I 4,700
NO DETAILED DATA AVAILABLE FOR THESE CELLS
Growth Targ_et Uedate, 2006 to 2012
4,800 I Jobs Growth Target (2006-2031)
Mixed-Use I Urban Center in millions of square feet, non-residential uses only. I
' Mixed Use Vacant 0.57 1.0/2.5 I 0.65 545 900 Jobs Change: 2006-2012 I
Mixed Use Redev'able 3.28 1.0/2.5 2.66 I 2.76 545 744 Plus Annexafn Area Target OJ
Less Job Gain, 2006-2012 -17031
Mixed-Use Total I 3.84 0.31/1.86 2.66 3.41 ! ________ 1,644 Net Adjustment to Target -1,7031 ' !
City Total I I Net Adjustment to Target (1,703
Commercial I 0.83 0.50 0.09 0.16 545 4,700 Remaining Target (2012-2031) 3,097
Mixed-Use I 3.84 0.31/1.86 2.66 3.41 545 I 1,644 2012 Job Capacity lfi"om table to left] 6,344
Industrial I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Jobs in Pipeline I 0
City Total Capacity i 4.67J _] 2.74 ! 3.571 6,344
Adjustment to capacity o'
Final2012 Job Capacity 6,~
Surplus/Deficit Capaci!Y: I 3.,247
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 56
CITY OF BURIEN
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, Burien issued permits for just over 200 new housing units, all single family.
-In 2010, the City annexed North HighlineArea X, with about 5,500 additional housing units, and its own growth target of 540 units.
·Burien now has 19,800 housing units and a housing target to plan for4, 100 additional units by 2031.
-The City has begun redevelopment of its downtown area with city investment in a new city hall, library and public square to encourage
private investment in downtown.
-· Residential Development Activity: 2001·2005 Housinq Unit Update 2006 to 2012
Single I Multi-Total Zoned Densit Gross Critical ROWs Public Net # Lots ! Ne~
y Area Areas Purpose Area . : Density
(max. du/acre) (acres) (acres} (acres) (acres) (acres} or Umts I (units/ac)
Family* I family Hous'g Units
l
I
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 8,386 5,530 13,916
0 -3 du/acre ! i
3-5 du/acre 2.0 0.0 o.o: 0.0 2.0 a: 4.0 + 2006·12 Permits 2121 OJ 212
5-7 du/acre 14.4 0.0 1.31 0.2 12.9 581 4.5 !
7 -9 du/acre ! I -2012 H.U. (old bdry) 8,5981 5,5301 14,128 l
> 9 du/acre 1.1 0.0 0.1 I 0.0 1.1 13i 12.2
Plats Total 17.51 0.0 1.41 0.2 15.9 79! 5.0 Plus anxtn, adjustmt I 3,8001 1,900 5,700
I I I
Single-Family Permits Issued E__ 201 ~ Adj,J:!, U ni!_~ __ g~ll_8L__l,~~QJ ___ t9,82i1
0 • 3 du/acre "single family includes mobile homes
3 • 5 du/acre 10.4 33 3.2
5. 7 du/acre Not Applicable 16.9 77 4.6
7 • 9 du/acre
> 9 du/acre 0.9 9 10.5 Growth Tar!J.et U12,date, 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total n/a I n/a I n/a ! n/a 28.2 1191 4.2 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 3,900
Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012 I
Multifamily Permits Issued Net New SF Units Permitted -2121
< 9 du/acre Net New MF Units Permitted Ol
9 • 13 du/acre Net New Units, Annex Area -89 I
13-19 du/acre
19-31 dulacre 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 11 16.2
Net New Units (2006-2012) -3011 l
Plus Annexafn Area Target 5401 i
31 -48 dulacre Net Adjustment to Target 239 I
48 + du/acre 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 8 46.6 I I
Other zones 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 101 36.8 Net Adjustment to Target I I 239
MF Pmts Total 3.6 0.0 o.o: 0.0 3.6 120 33.4 Remaining Target (2012-2031l_ ___ j __ 4,139
July 23, 2014 King Connty Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 57
--·"·---____ ,,_,_______ ------------
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY
Residential Land Supply and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2012
ROW & Public 1
Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose
Discount
Single Family
Vacant Subtotal 280.3 163.1 12.2 .,
"0 Redev Subtotal 696.4 197.8 52.3 0
0 Total 976.70 360.90 24% .r:;
~ Multifamily 0
.0 -.r:; Vacant Subtotal 42.9 5.3 13.4 Ol ·a; Redev Subtotal 105.1 8.5 12.4 z Total 148.0 13.8
Neighborhood Total 1,124.7 374.7
" Multifamily in Mixed Use "' :::> Vacant Subtotal 4.8 0.0 0.0 "0 ~ Redev Subtotal 20.0 0.0 0.2
~ Mixed Use Total 24.7 0.0 3%
"' All Housing
0 VacantT otal 328.0 168.4 25.6 1-
.;:;. RedevTotal 821.5 206.3 64.8
(3 Total 1,149.4 374.7 90.4
Ca,
Ca
1,234
0
""" 1 1 593 Burien's residential capacity IVIUIUldllliJV LVIH;;:;:o 1
Market Factor Net Available I
Acres l '
10% 94.5
15%125% 379.4
473.9
15% I 25% 21.8
15% I 25% 75.2
97.0
570.9
25% 3.5
25% 14.8
18.3
10% 119.8
25% 469.4
589.2
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
• • .. -~ •• ...... •• • ...... .. J o exu-:eds iLs r·enJainingt<:lrgc:t by
1,464 neady800units.-!heCity's '""''
........ '-4vlty ... , • '"'"""' J 616 capacity is evenly divided
jotherAdjustments l 0 among single family, &B :+:-c'c:>J Us.:;
1 niuitifarnlly and mixed use.
4,907
2012-2031) 4,139
768
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
CITY OF BURIEN
Assumed Net Capacity Density
4.5 I 5.5 436
4.5 I 5.5 798
1,234
11 I 35 640
11 I 35 953
1,593
2,827
100 279
100 1.185
2,080
1,355
2,936
4,907
Page 58
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF BURIEN
-Burien lost both commercial and industrial jobs between 2006 and 2012, even accounting for the Area X annexation with about 2,000 jobs.
-The201 0 annexation of North High line Area X had capacity for hundreds of added jobs.
-With adjustments for annexation and job losses during the reporting period, Burien's current target is just over 7,500 jobs to accommodate.
-The City's capacity is for more than 8,800 jobs, including refilling vacant spaces and new capacity in downtown and other developments.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Public Net Market Net-net
(max. dul acre) Area Areas (acres) Purpose Area Factor Area
(acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)
Employment Update, 2006 to 2012
Comm'l Indus!. I Total
Jobs Jobs* I Employment
I
Vacant I Redev. 2006 Base Year 12,026 1,993 14,020
Commercial 119.1 0.4 4 0.0 115.2 10%/25% 99.0
Mixed-Use 24.7 0.0 0 0.2 24.4 25% 18.3
Industrial 68.7 5.7 2 0.0 61.1 10%/15% 55.0
Non-Res Land Total 212.5 6.0 5 0.2 200.8 I 172.3
I 2006-12 Change I -1,2191 -738! -1,958
I = 2012 Jobs I 10,8071 1,2551 12,062
i
Employment Capacft. •(2012! Adjustments 0
Net land Assumed Existing ) ~~loor Area Sq. ft. per Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.) Employee Capacity
L:: 2012 Job Total 12,062
... industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Neighborhoods I !
Commercial 4.31 I o.32/o.99 0.28 1 2.41 250/450 5,952
Industrial 2.401 0.34 0.07 ! 0.97 450/1000 176
Neiqhborhood Total I ! 6,128
@rowth Target Update, 2006 to 2012 -~
I Joilsi3r<:l"Wth.'rar9E>U2oo6-2o31 l 4,6oo ·I
~ -· .
! I
' Mixed-Use I Urban Center I I Jobs Chan9!!§_, 2006-2012:
Mixed Use Vacant 0.15 2.50 0.08 2931 253 Plus Annexat'n Area Target 1,010
Mixed Use Redevable 0.65 2.50 0.15 0.15 3001 509 Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 1958
I Net Adjustment to Target 2,968 :
Mixed-Use Total 0.80 2.50 0.15 0.23 2961 762 !
Net Adjustment to Target 2,968 I
~~X !~!~!....... ... -... --·····-·-------------_______ j_ _____ L__ ___ I
Commercial 4.31 0.30/0.31 0.28 t 2.41 2501450 i 5,952
Remaining Target (2012-2031) i---21§!>!.. .... 1 .. _ ................................................... _, ______________
2012 Job Capacity [from table to left] 6,890 I
Mixed-Use 0.80 0.30/2.00 0.15 I 0.23 2961 762 Adjustment to capacity** ! 1,958
Industrial 2.40 0.42/0.40 0.07 ! 0.97 450/1000! 176 Final 2012 Job Capacity 8,848
Jobs in Pipeline 0 Surplus/Deficit Capacity I~
City Total I 7.511 I o.5o 1 3.611 I 6,890 **capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 59
CITY OF FEDERALWAY
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, Federal Way gained new housing units at a slower pace than in the preceding years; multifamily construction fell off.
-The City had about35,500 housing units by 2012, and a remaining housing growth target of about7,500 housing units by 2031.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 Housing Unit Update 2006 to 2012
Zoned Density Gross I Critical ROWs 1 Public Net #Lots Net
(max. du/acre) Area I Areas !Purpose Area or Units Density
(acres} (acres) (acres} j (< s} (acres} I (units/ac} acres
Single Multi-I Total
Family* family I Hous"g Units
i
Plats Recorded I 2006 Base Year 20,099 13,690 33,789
0-3 du/acre 58.5 28.7 5.91 6.8 17.2 551 3.2
3-5 du/acre 93.6 29.1 15.91 8.6 40.1 225 5.6 + 2006-12 Permits 445 1981 643
5-7 du/acre 62.0 3.9 12.1 I 9.5 36.5 2091 5.7
7-9 du/acre 8.5 0.0 2.1 0.7 5.7 471 8.3 = 2012 H.U. 20,5441 13,8881 34,432
> 9 du/acre
Plats Total 222.7 61.71 35.9 25.61 99.5 536! 5.4 Plus adjustmt (Census 670 390 1,060
I
Single-Family Permits Issued -2012 Adi. H. Units 21 214 14,278[ 35,492
0-3 du/acre 56.3 88 1.6 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 dulacre 50.4 258 5.1
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 62.3 291 4.7
7-9 dulacre 5.7 46 8.1
> 9 dulacre 0.7 4 6.2 Growth Targ_et Up_date, 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total n/a I n/a I n/a i n/a 175.2 687 3.9 ! Housing Growth Target (2006-2031} 8,100
Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued Net New SF Units Permitted 445
< 9 dulacre Net New MF Units Permitted 198 I
9-13 du/acre 2.3 1.1 1.2 9 7.5 Net New Units, Annex Area 0
13-19 du/acre Net New Units (2006-2012) 643 -19 -31 du/acre 4.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 4.2 62 14.9 Plus Annexat'n Area Target 0
31 -48 du/acre
48 + dulacre
Net Adjustment to Target 643 j
I I
other zones Net Adjustment to Target I (643) 1
MF Pmts Total 7.0 0.2 0.1 i 1.4 5.4 71 13.2
-·
Remaining Target (2012-2031} 7,457 l
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 60
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Residential Land Supply and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2012
ROW & Public
Net Available I Assumed Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Density Net Capacity
Discount
Single Family
""
Vacant Subtotal 548.031 141.02 122.10 10% 256.42 0.6218.18 888
"" Redev Subtotal 904.5:21 82.08 246.73 15% 489.36 0.6215.06 1,137 0
0 Total 1,452.561 223.10 30% 745.78 2,025 "" ~ Multifamily 0 .c
30.961 10%1 "" Vacant Subtotal 13.22 1.47 14.65 11.5123.0 221 "' ·;; Redev Subtotal 37.64 4.90 2.58 15% 25.64 11.5/23.0 276 z Total 68.60 18.12 8% 40.29 497
Neighborhood Total 1,521.2 241.2 786.1 I 2,522
" Multifamily in Mixed Use "' :::> Vacant Subtotal 155.76 21.16 6.41 10% 115.37 12.0175.0 506 "0
:ll Redev Subtotal 438.631 21.14 28.82 15%/25% 299.23 12.0175.0 3,994
:i! Mixed Use Total I 594.41 42.3 3% 414.6 5,921
J
"' All Housin!l i
~ Vacant Total 734.75 175.40 129.98 10% 386.44 1,615 ,., RedevTotal 1,380.80 108.12 278.13 25% 814.23 5,407 -l3 Total 2,115.61 283.5 ... 408.1 1,200.71 I 8,443
Note: numbers above include housing units in the pipeline.
2,025
l "-''"':::!' ..... -' ......... , '-"<;.<1-''""'-''~1 "'' .,................. 387 -" .
1 Muttifamily zones 1 497 rederal Way's res;clentJal
1 · · ---~ ·· -·· -·· 654 capacitycxcc:cds its remaining . ~ :;~---
I IYIIA<:>u-u~v o<....VIl<:=-'"""'" \.JLJLJ 'IVIIUVVC:O 4,500 target by near!y 1,000 Uil its.
I Mixed-Use Capacity in Pipeline 380 T1:vo-thirds of the City's :1rii:uA !J:o>::
~--· Adjustments 0 c;Jpacityis in mixed-use areas
_ I including downtown and othe(
!Total Capacity (units} 8,443 high-density areas.
-. . .. . -' ·--·------7,457
98".6
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 61
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Since2006,
-the City of Federal Way has experienced a slight job loss, like many South KC cities.
-the loss occurred especially in commercial jobs; there was a very slight gain in industrial jobs during the period.
-the City has capacity for more than 17,000 additional jobs, primarily in mixed-use zones in downtown and adjoining areas. The capacity is
sufficientto meet the City's remaining jobs targetto plan for about 12,900 additioaljobs by 2031.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs 1 Public Net Market Net-net
Area Areas (acres) jPurpose Area Area (max. du/acre) (acres) (acres) I (acres) (acres) Factor (acres)
~~=:~::~-~:~~:~~;-~;~_6 ~~~~~-t __ Tot~l_ __
Jobs Jobs* I Employment
i I
Vacant I Redev. 1 2006 Base Year 27,154 2,952 30,106
Commercial 149.8 35.5 21 2.3 109.8 10%/15% 97.5
Mixed-Use 594.4 42.3 30l 5.2 516.9 10%/25% 414.6
Industrial 0.0 0.0 oi 0.0 0.0 10%115% 0.0
Non-Res Land Total 744.21 77.8 32l__ 7.5 626.7 j _512.1
I
I 2006-12 Chan!:!e I -6901 611 -629
I
' I = 2012 Jobs I 26,4641 3,0131 29,477
I
Employment Capacit (2012) f!\djustments 0
Net Land Assumed Existing) ~~loor Area Sq. ft. per
1
I Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq. ft.) Employee Capacity
= 2012 Job Total 29,477 ---*industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Neighborhoods I I
!
Commercial I 4.25 0.25/0.381 0.01 I 1.51 250j 6,025 !
Industrial I 0.00 0.4210.40 0.00 ' 0.00 -I 0 ' ' Neighborhood Total I I ! ' 6,025 I I '
Growth Target Update. 2006 to 2012 I
I ;io~s~{i~o~h_!,.r.9~J2~~s:~o~1J ___ )_ .. 12,3~o 1
-~~-·--~-· . ,._,",~----------.I . 'i '
Mixed-Use I Urban Center I Jobs Chanaes. 2006-2012: i
Mixed Use Vacant 4.36 0.50/1.50 1.41 4001800 2,175 Plus Annexat'n Area Target 0 1
Mixed Use Redev'able 9.75 0.50/1.50 2.39 3.80 400/800 8,349 Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 629 !
Net Adiustment to Target 629 1
i
Mixed-Use Total 14.11 0.30/2.00 2.39 5.21 296 10,524 '
Net Adiustrnent to Taraet I 629 I
City Total f I ' ' Remaining Target (2012-2031) 12,929 i
Commercial 4.25 0.25/0.38 0.01 ' 1.51 2501 6,025 2012 Job Capacitv [rrom table to left] 17,465
Mixed-Use 14.11 0.50/1.50 2.39 ' 5.21 4001800 ! 10,524 ' Adjustment to capacfiV*• l" 629
Industrial 0.00 0.4210.40 0.00 ! 0.00 -i 0
Jobs in Pipeline 916
Final 2012 Job Capacity 1~~94 I Surplus/Deficit Caoacitv Q,165i
City Total I 18.36 2.40 j 6.72 I 17,465 ' **capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 62
CITY OF.KENT
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, Kent gained new housing units at a much slower pace than the preceding years; multifamily construction fell way off.
-The Panther Lake area annexed in 2010, adding 9,500 housing units and 25,000 people to the City.
-Designation of a new major center at Midway is adding capacity for thousands of additional housing units in mixed-use zoned areas.
-The City's remaining housing target is to plan for about 7,200 housing units by 2031.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012
Gross Critical Net Net Sinr~le Multi-Total Zoned Density ROWs Public #Lots Area Areas (acres) Purpose Area Density (max. du/acre) or Units Family* family Hous'g Units
, (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (units/ac)
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 18,279 16,761 35,040
0-3 duiacre I 38.9 15.1 4.41 2.9 16.5 511 3.1
3-5 duiacre ' 10.1 1.31 0.2 8.6 39 4.5 + 2006-12 Permits 1,164 64 1,228
5-7 duiacre 243.0 41.1 42.41 17.5 142.1 959 1 6.7
7-9 duiacre I 14.2 6.3 1.41 1.7 4.7 48 10.2 = 2012 H.U. (old bdry) 19,443 16,825 36,268
> 9 duiacre 4.8 0.8 0.91 0.2 3.0 20 6.7
Plats Total 311.0 63.3 50.41 22.5 174.9 1,117 6.4 , Plus anxtn, adjustmt 7,680 1,910 9,590
I I
Single-Family Permits Issued 1-2012 Adj. H. Unit~ 27,123 _1E35L __ 45"~5!!
0-3 duiacre 31.8 671 2.1 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 duiacre 14.4 59' 4.1
5-7 duiacre Not Applicable 154.5 933! 6.0
7-9 duiacre 5.7 57 9.9
> 9 du/acre 5.1 37 7.2
,§F_ Pmts Total n/a I n/a I n/a 1 n/a 211.5 1,153 5.5
J Growth Targ_et Uedate, 2006 to 2012
I I Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 7,800
Housina Unit ChanNA: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued I Net New SF Units Permitted ~ 1,1641
< 9 du/acre 97.4 45.61 4.3! 3.0 44.5 477j 10.7 !Net New MF Units Permitted -641
9-13 duiacre 10.7 7.0 0.51 0.0 3.2 361 11.2
13-19 duiacre 9.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 8.8 101! 11.5
19-31 duiacre 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 921 21.6
I Net New Units, Annex Area -806
I Net New Units (2006-2012) -2,0341
I Plus Annexat'n Area Target 1,4701
31 -48 duiacre I i ·Net AdJustment to Taraet -564
48 + duiacre I I I
other zones I I Net Adjustment to Target I (564)
MF Pmts Total I 122.0 52.8 5.2 3.2 60.7 7061 11.6 Remaining Target (2012-2031) 7,236 J
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 63
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY
Residential Land SuiJIJ/v and Dwelling Unit Capacitv (2012
ROW &Public Net Available Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Discount
Single Family
"' Vacant Subtotal 882.711 240.62 144.28 , Redev Subtotal 810.651 109.05 176.59 0
0 Total 1,693.361 349.67 24% .<:
~ Multifamily 0
.lJ
.<: Vacant Subtotal 80.89 19.63 3.28 "' ·;; Redev Subtotal 61.78 5.46 2.09 z Total 142.67 25.09 5%
Neighborhood Total 1,836.03 374.76
" Multifamily in Mixed Use "' => Vacant Subtotal 137.38 3.36 3.29 ,
" Redev Subtotal 105.07 2.16 3.25 >< ::l Mixed Use Total 242.45 5.52 3%
"' All Housing -{3. Vacant Total 1,100.98 263.61 150.85 ,., RedevTotal 977.50 116.67 181.93 -(3 Total 2,078.51 380.3 332.8
3,659
0
IVIUJUiaiJd(V .£...UlU:;;;:;. f 1,153 . . .
Multifamilv Caoacitv in Pipeline i 0 Kent's rE-~Sidentta! cap::.~crty
Mixed-Use Zones-Kent CBD +Midwav! 5,332 exu;cds its rcmai n ingta rget by
Mixed-Use Capacity in Pipeline I 586 3,500 units. More than naif of
Other Adjustments i 0 the Clty's capacity is ln r-r:ixed-
' t 1 use areas inciudingdowntov-;n
Total Capacitv {unitsl I 10,730 and Midwav.
.. .. . ·--·----··' 7,236
3,494
10% 448.03
25% 393.76
841.79
10% 52.18
25% 40.67
92.85
934.64
10% 117.66
25% 74.75
192.41
10% 617.87
25% 509.18
1,127.11
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
... "-.:. ~'""'
-;;1 t-;; :.c::::d U;:;e
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
CITY OF KENT
Assumed
Density Net Capacity
4.79 2,148
5.69 1,511
3,659
16.37 854
12.02 299
1,153
4,812
30.0/112.0 2,854
30.0/112.0 2,478
5,918
5,856
4,288
10,730
Page 64
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF KENT
Kent's employment picture has changed considerably in the years since 2006. Points include:
-2010 annexation of Panther Lake area with 1,800 jobs in 2006;
-job Joss in combined City of Kent (including annexation area) between 2006 and 2012, like many South King County cities;
-loss especially in industrial jobs; slight gain in commercial jobs during the period;
-few major changes in Kent's official Urban Center, downtown Kent, since 2006;
-designation of a new major center at Midway on western edge of City, with capacity for thousands of added jobs.
With capacity for 23,000 additional jobs, Kent has a surplus of capacity over its 14,900-job target.
Non-l'?.esidential Land Supply (Acres)
Zoned Density Gross Critical
(max. du/acre) Area Areas
(acres) (acres)
Vacant I Redev.
Commercial 166.4 32.4
Mixed-Use 242.5 5.6
Industrial 476.9 99.2
Non-Res Land Total 885.8 137.2
Employment CapacitJ '(2012)
Net Land Assumed
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR
Neighborhoods
Commercial 4.94 0.30/0.31
Industrial 13.70 0.42/0.40
Nei~hborhood Total .L
Mixed-Use I Urban Center
Mixed Use Vacant 2.68 0.35/2.00
Mixed Use Rede\lable 1.30 0.30/2.00
Mixed-Use Total 3.98 0.30/2.00
City Total
Commercial 4.94 0.30/0.31
Mixed-Use 3.98 0.30/2.00
Industrial 13.70 o.42/o.4o I
Jobs in Pipeline
ROWs Public Net Market Net-net
( ) Purpose Area Factor Area
acres (; >) (acres) (acres) acres
Oi 1.5 132.5 10%/25% 113.2
o! 6.5 230.4 10%/25% 192.4
ol 13.8 363.9 10%/25% 314.5
O! 21.8 726.8 620.1
Existing
1
~~loor Area Sq. ft. pe~ I Job
Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.) Employee Capacity
I I !
0.22 ! 1.28 3351 3,831
0.34 5.34 7661 6,972
I 10,803
f I !
' 1.66 2931 5,653
0.16 i 1.10 3001 3,649 !
' I '
0.16 ! 2.75 2961 9,302
l I I
I
0.22 i 1.28 3351 3,831
0.16 l 2.75 2961 9,302
0.34 l 5.34 766! 6,972
1,519
I Emolovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Comm'l lndust. Total ·---·-·······---------·-··-·· ---·--·-······-------·-·-----·--........................ .,.
Jobs Jobs• Employment
2006 Base Year 29,016 35,735 64,751
2006-12 Change 8431 -2,502 -1,659
= 2012Jobs 29,8591 33,233 63,092
' ,
Adjustments I o I
= 2012 Job Total I 29,8591 33,2331 63,092 1
* industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012 I
,Jo~s ~ro:-\rill far:Ji~(l.20:()6~IO::i11~ ··-···· i----~1~,2Qo·1
I --::::-'' =:-::--. I '
Jobs Chanqes, 2006-2012:
Plus Annexat'n Area Tar_get 80
Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 1659
Net Adjustment to Target 1,739
Net Adjustment to Tar~et I 1, 739
Remaining Target (2012-2031) I 14,939
2012 Job Capacity [ftom table to left] I 21,624
Adjustment to capa~·· j I 1 ,659
Final2012 Job Capacity 23,283
Surplus/Deficit Capacity I 8;34 I
City Total 22.621 ! 0.72 ! 9.38 I 21,624 ' **capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 65
CITYOFKJRKLAND
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006to 2012, the City of Kirkland issued permits for 1,216 new units in its original2006 boundaries. In 2011, Kirkland annexed the
Juanita-Finn Hiii-Kingsgate area with 11,300 housing units, increasing the City's housing unit count by 50%. Accounting for both the
annexation and the new construction, by 2012 Kirkland had more than 37,000 housing units, almost 60% more than in 2006. About 30% of the
change in housing stock consisted of multifamily units, with the resultthat as of 2012, 43% of Kirkland's housing is multifamily.
Achieved single family densities average about 5 units per acre, and multifamily density is more than 46 du per acre.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 -
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs ! Public Net #Lots Net
Area Areas ( ) !Purpose Area Density (max. du/acre) (acres) (acres) acres 1 (< ) (acres) or Units (unitsiac) 1 acres
J Housing Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012
Sin!lle Multi-Total
Family* family Hous'g Units
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 11,505 11,832 23,337
0-3 du/acre 1.9 0.4 0.0! 0.0 1.5 2i 1.3
3-5 du/acre 5.9 0.5 0.41 0.0 5.0 17 3.4 + 2006-12 Permits 432 764 1,216
5-7 du/acre 89.9 3.5 4.41 0.2 81.9 4081 5.0
7-9 dulacre 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 81 8.8 = 2012 H.U. (old bdry) 11,937 12,616 24,553
> 9 du/acre 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 191 8.4
'
!
Plats Total 101.1 4.5 4.8 0.2 91.6 454[ 5.0 ----
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 9,220 3,390 12,610 i
I
' Single-Family Permits Issued -2012 Adj. H. Units 21,1571 16 0061 3j'.163_j
0-3 du/acre 3.1 41 1.3 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 8.6 201 2.3
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 112.3 542! 4.8
7-9 du/acre 5.0 341 6.8
> 9 du/acre 5.7 64i 11.3 Growth Tamet Uedate, 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total n/a _l n/a J n/a ! n/a 134.6 6641 4.9 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 7,200
Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued Net New SF Units Permitted -4321
< 9 du/acre I 3.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 13 Net New MF Units Permitted -784 l ' 9-13 du/acre I 10.6 1.61 0.2 0.0 8.7 231 26.4 Net New Units, Annex Area -146 I
13-19 du/acre ! 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 10 21.7
19-31 du/acre I 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 41 37.5
Net New Units (2006-2012) -1,362 ! Plus Annexafn Area Target 1,370
31 -48 du/acre I Net Adjustment to Target I 8
48 + du/acre I 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 636 70.4 I
Other zones I
I Net Adjustment to Target I 8 I
MF Pmts Total I 24.7 4.3 0.3 0.0 20.1 931 46.3 Remaining Target l2012-2_0~1L _____ --_],208 J
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 66
-·------
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY
Residential Land SuiJIJiv and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2012
ROW &Public Net Available Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Discount
Single Family
" Vacant Subtotal 130.351 42.68 5.26
"C Redev Subtotal 787.71 i 112.38 67.53 0
0 Total 918.06! 155.06 10% .s:::
~ Multifamily 0 .c .s::: Vacant Subtotal 16.401 5.17 0.22 Cl ·;; Redev Subtotal 57.23 5.21 1.04 z
5% Total 73.63 10.38
Nei!lhborhood Total 991.69 165.44
" Multifamily in Mixed Use " ;;;;) Vacant Subtotal 6.10 2.02 0.08 "C
1l Redev Subtotal 152.54 7.58 2.91
:1i Mixed Use Total 158.64 9.60 3%
" All Housing -0 Vacant T a tal 152.85 49.87 5.56 ...
"" RedevTotal I 997.48 125.17 71.48 -I u Total I 1,150.3 175.0 77.0
•t (2012-2031)
2,398
0
•v•uw•a ... ily L..VII<;;;.;> 648 l<lrk!and's cesidenticd cap3city
Multifamily Capacity in Pipeline 0 exG-~cds its rcm<Jin~ng'.::argct by
I '"'---" • ·--------~-·--· .... ~so 6 004 -, ··c·o ·t 'I' ·t' • ~ , "'-,::. 1 um s. 1· .ore nan lWO-
•vu~-...... .;:> ... vapa •. .-~t.yua•'IPcu••o;:; 664 thirdsoftheCity's capacityis
Other adjustments 0 · -d · 1 d · , 1n nllxe -use are<:~s 1nc u mg
..... , .... 1 .. . .. . 9 714 dovmtown and Totern Lc.ke. ,
7,208
. 2,506
5% 78.40
10% 547.02
625.42
5% 10.46
10% 45.88
56.34
681.76
5% 3.80
10% 127.85
131.65
5% 92.66
10% 720.75
813.41
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
,:•,",(;-? .-:·
;,;1 1'-ith<;-:d u~'-e
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
CITY OF KIRKLAND
Assumed
Density Net Capacity
4.02 315
5.44 2,083
5.26 2,398
13.30 139
16.37 509
648
3,046
7.0/135.0 206
9.0/135.0 5,798
6,668
660
8,390
9,714
Page 67
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF KIRKLAND
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Kirkland had a slight overall gain in covered jobs, from 36,700 to 38,700. The six-year change included a
substantial gain of commercial employment (including retail, services, government and education) while undergoing a loss of 2,200 industrial
jobs (manufacturing, construction, wholesale, utilities, and transportation). These job changes account for the 2011 annexation of the Juanita-
Finn Hiii-Kingsgate area which had 4,500 jobs in 2006.
Kirkland's job capacity was re-measured for this Report, to fully account for the increased capacity for growth in the Totem Lake Urban Center
and other mixed-use areas of the City. With capacity for more than 22,000 added jobs, Kirkland has a surplus over its 18,800 job target.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Zoned Density
(max. du/acre)
Vacant I Redev.
Commercial
Mixed-Use
Industrial
Non-Res Land Total
EmploymentCapacro
Neighborhoods
Commercial
Industrial
Neighborhood Total
Gross Critical
Area Areas
(acres) (acres)
74.9 7.3
158.6 9.6
21.1 1.1
254.6 18.0
•(2012)
Net Land Assumed
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR
2.92 0.30/2.00
0.83 0.65
Mixed-Use I Urban Center
Mixed Use Vacant 0.07 0.65/2.50
Mixed Use Redevable 2.56 0.65/2.50
Mixed-Use Total 2.63 0.65/2.50
City Total
Commercial 2.92 0.30/0.31
Mixed-Use 2.63 0.65/2.50
Industrial 0.83 0.65
Jobs in Pipeline
City Total I 6.381
July 23, 2014
I
ROWs Public
(acres) Purpose
(acres)
1.0! 0.0
3.0! 0.0
0.41 0.0
4.4! 0.0
Net
Area
(acres)
Market
Factor
66.51 1%/10%[
146.01 10%/25%1
19.01 1%110%!
231.61 l
Net-net
Area
(acres)
66.2
131.6
18.9
216.7
Existing ) ~~loor hea
Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.)
Sq. ft. pe: I Job
Employee Capacity
' '
0.56 ! 1.61 250/294 5,695
0.08 ' 0.22 250 867 ' j 6,562
I !
0.12 250/313 i 403
1.56 1.92 250/500 i 6,780
i
1.56 2.03 i 7,183
' I ! '
0.56 i 1.61 250/294 ! 5,695
1.56 1 2.03 250/500 i 7,183
0.08 ! 0.22 250 i 867
8,686
2.19 l
' 3.861 i 22,431
--Emp_lo'i!!J.ent Up_date, 2006 to 2012 I Comm'lilndust. Total
Jobs I Jobs* Employment
I
2006 Base Year 28,820 7,847 36,667 I
2006-12 Change 4,2181 -2,1721 2,046 I
I
= 2012 Jobs 33,0381 5,6751 38,713 _i
Annexation accounted 0
= 2012 ,6.dj..Jo~s 3_3,()3_8 3.§Z§.J 38,713
*industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Growth Target Up_date, 2006 to 2012
Jobs Growth Target (2006-2031)
Jobs Change: 2006-2012
Plus Annexat'n Area Target 650
Less Job Gain in 2006 bdy. -1900
Less Job Gain, Anxln Area -146
Net Adjustment to Target -1,396
20,200
!
!
!
_j
!
_I
I
I
Net Adjustment to Target I (1,396) I
I Jobs Growth Target 2006-2031) 20.200 I
Remaining Target (2012-2031) 18,804
2012 Job Capacity [from table to left] I 22,431
Surplus/Deficit Capacity I ~ 3,627 ,
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 68
----~-----------
CITY OF REDMOND
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, Redmond gained about2, 100 housing units, more than half of which were multifamily.
-A small annexation added about 50 housing units to the City.
-Redmond adopted a new comprehensive plan in 2011, which included residential capacity in two Urban Centers, Downtown and Overlake.
-The City's remaining target under the Countywide Planning Policies is to plan for about 8,000 additional housing untis by 2031. In its new
comprehensive plan, the City has adopted a revised, higher internal growth target.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Pubfic Net #Lots Net
Area Areas (acres) Purpose Area Density (max. dulacre) (acres) (acres) (acres) or Units ' (units/ac) (acres)
Sin!lle Multi-Total
Family* family Hous'g Units
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 11,677 10,939 22,616
0-3 dulacre i I I
3-5 dulacre 207.0 38.4• 40.1 i 9.9 119.1 7031 5.9 + 2006-12 Permits 7931 1,3341 2,127
5-7 du/acre 29.6 8.4 4.5l 1.6 15.2 121 8.0
7-9 du/acre = 2012 H.U. unadjusted 12,4701 12,2731 24,743
> 9 du/acre 51.01 0.01 28.3 9.4 15.7 280 17.9 I
Plats Total 287.5[ 46.81 72.9 20.9 149.9[ 1,104 7.4 I Plus anxtn, adj ustmt 69 0 69
! I
Single-Family Permits Issued 1~ 2012 Adj. H. Unit> 12 539 12,2731 24,81_2__~
0-3 du/acre 1.7 3 1.8 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 112.4 700 6.2
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 8.2 62[ 7.6
7-9 du/acre
> 9 du/acre 28.3 280 9.9
&f'_ Pmts Total n/a I n/a I n/a ' nia 150.6[ 1,045 6.9 I
r I Growth Tamet Uedate, 2006 to 2012
I Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 10,200
Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued 1 Net New SF Units Permitted -7931
< 9 du/acre 7.51 3.01 0.3 0.0 4.1 143[ 34.5 Net New MF Units Permitted -1,3341
9 -13 du/acre 25.41 0.0 4.4 8.7 12.3 4241 34.4 Net New Units, Annex Area -69
13-19 du/acre I I I _____ _[ _______ __________ , ............. ------.. -------i.ar·----o. o ------o.or---a~e ------~
19-31 du/acre 6.4 1341 21.0 l-~~~~~n~~~n~2a~4ir~i _____ -J., 19l---------
31 -48 du/acre I I I ! 1 Net Adjustment to Target -2,196
48 + du/acre 7.01 0.0 0.2! 0.0 6.8 4561 66.9 I
Other zones 7.01 0.0 0.3! 0.0 6.7 230[ 34.2 Net Adjustment to Target I (2, 196)
MF Pmts Total 53.91 3.0 5.21 9.2 36.4 1,3871 38.1 Remaining Target (2012-2031) 8,004
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Repoit 2014 Page 69
---~----~ .. --------~---------·--------------~-----
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY
Residential Land Supply and Dwellinq Unit Capacity (2012
ROW &Public Net Available Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres
Single Family
"' Vacant Subtotal
"0 Redev Subtotal 0
0 Total .<::
~ Multifamily 0 .c
.t: Vacant Subtotal "' ·c;; Redev Subtotal z Total
Neighborhood Total
" Multifamily in Mixed Use "' ::> Vacant Subtotal "0
" Redev Subtotal )(
~ Mixed Use Total
"' All Housing -0 Vacant Total 1-
~ RedevTotal
0 Total
Discount
293.4 95.1 47.1
314.1 60.5 69.3
607.5 155.6 26%
54.5 12.0 11.9
17.6 4.3 0.0
72.1 16.3 5%
679.6 171.9
13.701 0.73 0.00
197.181 3.05 0.00
210.9 3.8 0%
381.60 107.83 59.00
528.88 67.85 69.25
890.51 175.7 128.3
t (2012 • 2031
1,217
211
778 Redmond's residential capacity
exceeds its remaining target by
3,200 units.Moreth~lnthrec·-
,Qther Adjustments o fourths of the Citv's capacity is
! in mixed-use areas including
au\.d• vd dl,n u•u~ 11,239 dovvntown and Over!Jke.
- . . . . - . ·--·----.. 8,004
3,235
10% 136.1
15% 156.7
292.8
10% 27.6
15% 11.3
38.9
331.7
10% 7.681
15% 88.001
95.7 1
I I
10% 171.34
25% 256.00
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
:;;1 .i\1'.1:, d t:,-:e
427.3!
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
CITY OF REDMOND
Assumed
Density Net Capacity
3.68 501
5.49 716
1,217
21.5 592
19.1 186
778
1,995
62.0 476
62.0/140.0 8,456
9,244
1,569
9,358
11,239
Page 70
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF REDMOND
The City of Redmond has sufficient capacity for targeted job growth, partly due to projects already underway. Details:
-State Employment Security job data, compiled by PSRC, shows a reported loss of about 4,300 jobs between 2006 and 2012. However, this
apparent loss is overstated due to inaccuracies of reporting the location of some Microsoft jobs in 2006, compared to 2012 when job locations
were identified more precisely. Redmond did lose some finance-insurance, manufacturing and construction jobs during the period.
-Redmond updated its comprehensive plan in 2007 to provide for more intensive mixed-use development in its Overlake center.
-About half of the City's commercial-industrial capacity consists of projects in the pipeline, including a recent development agreementfor the
Capstone site (former Group Health property).
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres) .. -
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Public Net Ma k t j Net-net
Area Areas ( ) Purpose Area reI Area
(max. dulacre) acres (< s) Factor • ( )
-~=~~:::.::~-~-~~~i~~~;~;o~rEm~~~~nt.J
(acres) (acres) acres i (acres) j acres
Vacant I Redev.
Commercial 6.9 0.8 Oj 0.0 6.1 10%/15%1 5.8
Mixed-Use 210.9 3.8 Oi 0.0 207.1 10%/15%1 179.9
Industrial 216.7 48.0 ol 0.0 184.4 10%/15%1 160.2
Non-Res Land Total 434.4 52.5 O! 0.0 397.5 I 345.8
Employment Capacitj •(2012)
Net Land Assumed Existing
1
~~loor Area Sq. ft. per Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.) Employee Capacity
Neighborhoods I I !
Commercial 0.25 0.27/0.30 0.01 ' 0.06 300 203 I
Industrial 6.98 0.51/0.65 0.64 I 3.38 3001565 9,583 ' Neighborhood Total 7.23 0.64 I 3.44 9,786
Mixed-Use I Urban Center I I ' I I ;
Mixed Use Vacant 0.5111.0011.421 l 0.23 3001 749
Mixed Use Redevable 7.33 1 1.0011.421 0,67 ; 0.70 3oo/35o 1 2,021 ' ' ' I I ' Mixed-Use Total 7.84 1.oo11.42 I o.67 ; 0.92 3oo/35o 1 2,770
City Total I I i
I
Commercial 0.25 0.27/0.30 0.01 ! 0.06 3oo I 203
Mixed-Use I 7.84 1.0011.42 0.67 I 0.92 3001350 I 2,770 ' Industrial I 6.98 0.5110.65 0.64 I 3.38 3oo/s65 I 9,583
Jobs in Pipeline 16,764
City Total I 15.061 I 1.31 1 4.371 ! 29,320
I
2006 Base Year 84,915 17,014 81,929 I
' i
2006-12 Change I -6411 -3,6741 -4,315 I
i = 2012 Jobs I 64,2741 13,3401 77,614 I
'
Adjustments I 0 i = 2012 Job To~al l. !)4,274_l_ 13,340 77,6~~
*industrial = manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
1 Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
I
1 j()iJ5 i3~iiW!t, l'ar9et (2oo6-2oi1) 23,ooo
I ~----~-_:.: ---~ J ·---! . ~ ....
Jobs Chanqes, 20,------
Plus Annexat'n Area Target ol
Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 43151
Net Adjustment to Target 4,3151
Net Adjustment to Target r-----4.315-
Remaining Target (2012-2031) 27,315
2012 Job Capacity ffrom table to left] 29,320
Adjustment to capacity•• I
Final 2012 Job Capacity
Surplus/Deficit Capacity:
4,315
33,635
I !i,~2o
**capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 71
CffYOFRENTON
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, the City of Renton issued permits for more than 3,000 new housing units, adding 11% to the city's housing stock.
These new units were equally divided between single family and multifamily.
-In 2007, Renton annexed the Benson Hill area wtih an additional housing units, and there were other annexations as well.
After adjusting for annexations and new construction, Renton's remaining 2012 -2031 housing target is to plan for 11,700 additional
housing units by 2031.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 .
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Public Net #Lots Net
(max. du/acre) Area Areas Purpose Area or Units Density
(acres) (acres) (acres) (' s) (acres) (units/a c) acres
fio.usiug Unit Un.date 2QQii to 2012
Single I Multi-Total
Family* I family Hous'g Units
I
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 14,373 12,726 27,099
0-3 du/acre 4.4 0.7 0.7' 0.0 3.0 4 1.3
3-5 du/acre 165.7 23.9 23.7i 14.0 104.1 542 5.2 2006-12 Change 1,515 I 1,584 3,099
5-7 du/acre I
I
7-9 du/acre 220.9 19.1 25.71 13.6 162.7 1,095 6.7 -2012 Units (old bd 15,888 I 14,310 30,198
> 9 du/acre 116.2 9.9 15.71 24.8 65.8 523 8.0
Plats Total I 507.3 53.6 65.81 52.4 335.6 2,164 6.4 Plus anxtn, adjustm 6,300 3,870 10,170
Single-Family Permits Issued F 2012 Adj. H. Unit 22188 18180 40,368
0-3 du/acre l i 8.8 4 0.5 single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre i I 89.4 478 5.3
5-7 du/acre ! Not Applicable j
7-9 du/acre I I 189.3 - 1 ,2~§ r----~ > 9 du/acre l i-72.o 666 9.3 Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total nla I n/a I n/a I n/a I 359.5 2,373 6.6 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 14,000
Housing_ Units: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued Net New SF Units Pennitted -1,5161 --<
< 9 du/acre l I -·r---. Net New MF Units Pennitted -1,5831
9 -13 du/acre 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4 10.3 Net New Units, Annex Area -30
13-19 du/acre i 32.5 11.3 0.5 0.4 20.4 262 12.8 Net New Units (2006-2012) -3,1291
19-31 du/acre 61.9 33.1 7.4 1.0 20.4 220 10.8 Plus Annexat'n Area Target 8351
31 -48 du/acre i Net Adjustment to Target I -2,2941
48 + du/acre ! 7.9 0.0 0.01 0.2 7.7 578 74.7
Other zones I 7.5 0.0 1.3 0.3 5.8 193 Net Adjustment to Target I I (2,294)
MF Pmts Total ! 110.2 44.4 9.2 1.8 54.8 1,257 22.9 Remaining Target (2012-2031) I 11,706 I
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 72
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF RENTON
on, • ..,.,~,,.,.,..,._.,.,,.,. ....... ... ............. ,,,~ ................. ...... , ........... ,
ROW &Public Net Available Assumed Residential Capactty Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Density Net Capacity
Discount
Single Family
"' Vacant Subtotal 489.76 201.64 46.32 10% 217.62 1.33/8.44 1,229
1:1 Redev Subtotal 1,602.57 308.60 267.80 15% 872.25 1.33/8.44 3,736 0
0 Total 2,092.33 510.24 1,089.87 4,965 .<:
~
Multifamily 0
"" 0.04! .<: Vacant Subtotal 11.38 9.74 10% 1.44 19.0/84.0 43 Cl
"iii Redev Subtotal I 85.94 20.36 1.66 15% 54.33 19.0/84.0 1,408 z
Total 97.32 30.10 55.77 1,451
Nei!lhborhood Total I 2,189.65 540.34 1,145.64 6,416
" Multifamily in Mixed-Use Zones (/)
=> Vacant Subtotal 52.36 8.69 0.04 10% 40.21 53.1/116.0 1,306 1::1
" Redev Subtotal 170.58 14.87 0.00 15% 132.35 44.5/116.0 5,177 " :1!! Total 222.94 23.56 172.56 8,935
"' All Housing -0 Vacant Total 553.50 220.07 46.40 10% 259.27 2,578 1-
"' RedevTotal 1,859.09 343.83 269.46 15% 1,058.93 10,321 -(3 Total 2,412.59, 563.90 1,318.20 15,351 ..
Note: pipeline development is embedded in mixed-use numbers above
4,965
745
,., 1 451 Residential caoacity in R~::nton IYI'-'U,II<;liii.,J 4-VII<;;;V" 1 '
I u .. •~= ... ---"·· ,.... ___ ,..__ =--,......, __ ,___ ! 93 exn:cds the City's target by
1 •vnAo;:;:u-u.;:>cL..V•·=-.-..c•••u••vuu. 6,483 31600 holjsingunits. !'/lore
I Mixed-UseCapacityinPipeline 1,614 I thanhalfthecapacityisinthe
I Other adjustments Q dovvntOWTI E:~ othc:r mixed -US2
I ! areas. ,_ . '-.. ' .. ' 15,351
11,706
3;545
Housing Capacity
{in housing units)
:d :'·il~.\2'.~ \;:-;,o;
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 73
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF RENTON
From 2006 to 20012, the City of Renton gained jobs, in the face of job losses at nearby cities_ In 2007, Renton annexed the Benson Hill area
with about 3,000 jobs and capacity for more. As of 2012, Renton has capacity for more than 26,000 additional jobs, a surplus over its target of
about 23,200 jobs. Nearly half of that capacity is in projects already in the pipeline, including redevelopment of the Longacres site for office
development.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs I. Public Net
(max. du/acre) Area Areas (acres) (urpose Area
(acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)
Vacant I Redev.
Commercial 258.5 63.6 0.01 0.0 194.9
Mixed-Use 196.1 20.9 1.41 0.0 175.0
Industrial 235.8 79.9 0.01 1.8 154.1
Non-Res Land Total 690.3 164.4 1.41 1.8 524.0
Employment Capacit] . (2012)
Net Land Assumed Existing
1
~~loor Area
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (sJ.) Capac (million sq. ft.)
Neighborhoods !
Commercial 7.34 0.15/0.38 0.69 ! 0.82
Industrial 5.83 0.17/0.37 0.26 I 1.06
Neighborhood Total i
Mixed-Use I Urban Center
Market Net-net
Factor Area
(acres)
10%/15% 168_5
10%/15% 150.4
10%/15% 133.9
452.9
Sq. ft. per Job
Employee Capacity
250/400 2,473
700 1,516
3,989
i
Emolovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Comm'l In dust. Total
Jobs Jobs* Employment
2006 Base Year 29,716 22,773 52,490
2006-12 Change 5,4621 3361 5,798
= 2012 Jobs 35,1781 23,1091 58,287
Adjustments I I 0
= 2012Adj. Jobs I 35,178 I 23,109 I_ 58,287
* industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Growth Target Update. 2006 to 2012
Jobs Growth Target (2006-2031)
Jobs Chanae: 2006-201 '
300
28,700
I
i i I L_ __ ------I Plus Annexafn Area Target -------! Mixed Use Vacant 0.88 0.31/1.86 0.40 250/400 1,493 Less Job Gain in 2006 bdy. -5697 I
Mixed Use Rede\/able 1.84 1.18/1.86 0.91 2.16 250/400 8,172 Less Job Gain, Anxtn Area -100 I ,
Net Adjustment to Target -5,497 I
Mixed-Use Total I 2.71 0.31/1.86 0.91 2.56 250/400 9,665
,
Net Adjustment to Target (5,497)
City Total I ! I Remaining Target (2012-2031) 23,203
Commercial I 7.34 0.15/0.38 0.69 I 0.82 250/400 2,473 2012 Job Capacity [from table to left] 26,090
Mixed-Use I 2.71 0.31/1.86 0.91 I 2.56 250/400 9,664 I ' Adjustment to capacity I 0
Industrial i 5.83 0.17/0.37 0.26 I 1.06 700 1,516 Final 2012 Job Capacity 26,090
Jobs in Pipeline I 12,437 Surplus/Deficit Capacity 1 ....... 2,887> --
City Total I 15.89 I 1.86 I 4.45 26,090
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 74
CITYOFSEATAC
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, SeaTac added about 500 new housing units for a 2012 total of 10,500. Totals have been adjusted to account for Census
measurement of number of housing units.
-SeaTac's housing target is to provide capacity for an additional5,300 housing units between 2012 and 2031.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005
Gross Critical Net Net
IHousina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012
Single Multi-I Total Zoned Density ROWs i Public #Lots Area Areas !Purpose Area Density (max. dulacre) (acres) , (< ) or Units Family* family I Hous'g Units
(acres) (acres) 1 acres (acres) (unitslac) I
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 6,377 3,923 10,300
0-3 du/acre I 38.9 15.1 4.4 2.9 16.5 51 3.1
3-5 du/acre 10.1 1.3 0.2 8.6 39 4.5 , + 2006-12 Permits 62 4331 495
5-7 du/acre 243.0 41.1 42.4 17.5 142.1 959 6.7
7-9 du/acre 14.2 6.3 1.4 1.7 4.7 48 10.2 = 2012 H.U. (old bdry) 6,439 4,3561 10,795
> 9 du/acre 4.8 0.8 0.9 0.2 3.0 20' 6.7
Plats Total 311.01 63.3 50.4 22.5 174.91 1,1171 6.4 !Plus anxbl, adjustmt -300 0 -300
I
Single-Family Permits Issued I= 2012 Adi. H.Un~ 6139 43561 10,495
0-3 du/acre 31.8 671 2.1 -single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 14.4 59• 4.1
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 154.5 9331 6.0
7-9 du/acre 5.7 57l 9.9
> 9 du/acre 5.1 37] 7.2 Growth Target Uedate, 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total n/a I n/a I n/a I n/a 211.5 1,153; 5.5 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 5,800
Housinq Unit Chanqe: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued Net New SF Units Permitted -621
< 9 du/acre 97.4 45.61 4.31 3.0 44.5 477 10.7 Net New MF Units Permitted -4331
9 -13 du/acre 10.7 7.0 0.5i 0.0 3.2 36 11.2 Net New Units, Annex Area 0
13 -19 du/acre 9.61 0.21 0.41 0.3 8.8 101 11.5 _Net !'J~w l!~its (~006-2012) ___ -4951
19-31 du/acre 4.31 0.0 0.01 0.0 4.3 92 21.6 Plus Annexat'n Area Target OJ
31 -48 du/acre I i Net Adjustment to Target -495
48 + du/acre i
' I -
Other zones ! Net Adjustment to Target I (495)
MF Pmts Total 122.0 52.8! 5.2i 3.2 60.7 706 11.6 B_emain!119Iar_g_et __ (2012-2031) I 5,305 J
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 75
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY
Residen6a/ Land Supply and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2012)
I ROW &Public
Residential Capacity Gross acres I Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Net Available
Acres Discount
Sin~le Family .. Vacant Subtotal 99.21 48.1 5.1
"C Redev Subtotal 396.41 45.8 35.1 0
0 Total 495.61 93.9 10% .<::
~ Multifamily 0
-" .<:: Vacant Subtotal 44.7 31.3 0.6 "' ;:; Redev Subtotal 42.8 3.2 0.2 z Total 87.5 34.5 2%
Neighborhood Total 583.11 128.4
" Multifamily in Mixed Use rn => Vacant Subtotal I 43.01 4.9 0.00 "C
" Redev Subtotal ! 342.41 45.8 0.00 >< ~ Mixed Use Total 385.4 50.7 3%
"' All Housin9.
~
0 Vacant Total 186.9 84.3 5.7 1-,.. RedevTotal 781.6 94.8 35.3 ~
i3 Total 968.51 179.1 41.0
Ca.
814
0
I ·-··r·· I .. I . . .. .. .... c ~-., 0 >••.Tacs_r:esiden~I<~Jcapac.·lty ~ y 4,732 exceeds '.'s rernammg targfet by
0 1,100 ur11ts. Most of the Cit'/s
o cap<Jcity is :n mixed-use J~·cas
in and near the city's
designated Urban Center. 6,545
5,305
1,240
10% 41.4
15% 268.2
309.6
10% 11.5
15% 33.5
45.0
354.6
10% 34.3
15%-30% 230.7,
265.01
!
10% 87.2'
25% 532.4
619.6
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
UC'~;,-J ,r,·
::;1 1\/i!zed ~.Jst~
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
CITY OF SEATAC
Assumed Net Capacity Density
2.1/4.7 173
2.1/6.8 641
814
13.3/70.0 193
13.3/70.0 806
999
1,813
15.0/100.0 537
15.0/100.0 4,195
4,732
903
5,642
6,545
Page 76
~------------
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF SEATAC
In the years since 2006:
-SeaTac lost both commercial and industrial jobs during the 2006-2012 period, largely due to Recessionjob-lossesat the Airport.
-SeaTac has about27,000 jobs as of 2012, with capacity for an additional34,500 jobs (including space to replace the 1,800 lost jobs).
-Most of SeaTac's capacity for additional jobs is contained in the City's designated Urban Center area.
-Some of the City's mixed-use zones are in areas outside the Urban Center, but were counted with the Center in this tabulation (CH zone).
-Similarly, some of the AVC zone within the downtown area is tabulated with industrial land in the "neighborhoods" ouside the Urban Center.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
2bned Density
(max. dulacre)
Vacant I Redev.
Commercial
Mixed-Use
Industrial
Non-Res Land Total
Employment Capacit]
Neighborhoods
Commercial
Industrial
Neigl1borhood Total
Gross Critical
Area Areas I (acres) (acres)
3.0 0.4
285.5 40.2
213.5 42.6
502.0 83.2
'(2012)
Net Land Assumed
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR
0.09 0.65
6.59 0.33/0.35
Urban Center & Mixed Use
Mixed Use Vacant 1.20 0.4/3.0
Mixed Use Redev'able 5.58 0.4/3.0
Mixed-Use Total 6.78 0.4/3.0
City Total
Commercial 0.09 0.65
Mixed-Use 6.78 0.4/3.0
Industrial 6.59 0.33/0.35
Jobs in Pipeline
ROWs Public Net
(acres) Purpose Area
(acres) (acres)
1 Net-net
Market i Area
I
Factor i (acres)
0.1 I 0.0 2.51 15%1 2.2
o.o! 0.0 245.31 10%/30%1 188.6
1.51 1.5 167.91 10%115%! 151.2
2f 1.5 415.71 l 342.0
El<isting
1
1;1oor Area
Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq. ft.)
Sq. ft. pe: I Job
Employee Capacity
I
I
: 0.06 450j 126
0.04 2.42 550/800! 4,291
I 4,417
I
1.66 450/800 3,617
1.41 14.41 450/800 24,701
1.41 16.07 450/800 28,318
I I ! I
0.00 I 0.06 450! 126
1.41 ' 16.07 450/8001 28,318 I
0.04 i 2.42 550/800! 4,291
0
City Total I 13.461 _L 1.46 1 18.551 ' 32,735 I
Emolovment Ue.date, 2006 to 2012 I
-----·---·-·---·---~-~orr~!!!'! I ~'!~~-s~o-__ _!~~~!_ .. ···J
Jobs Jobs* Employment
2006 Base Year 13,817 14,977 28,794
I
2006-12 Change -8121 -972 -1,784
-2012 Jobs 13,0051 14,005 27,010
Adjustments I 0 ' = 2012 Job Total I 13,0051 14,0051 27,010 1
*industrial;;; manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Growth Target Ue.date, 2006 to 2012 I ' I
1--, ---• --------------.· ..... ·· -··· --1
Jobs Growth Target (2006-2031) i . 25,300 1
~~~~--~ ····-····-·· .... -······ -~. -. ---r --. -----
Jobs Chanaes, 2006-2012:
Plus Annexat'n Area Target 0
Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 1784 I
Net Adjustment to Target 1,784 I
I
Net Adjustment to Target 1,784
Remaining Target (2012-2031) 27,084
2012 Job Capacity [from table to left] 32,735
Adjustment to capacity** I 1,784
Final 2012 Job Capacity 34,519
Surplus/Deficit Capacity !< 7;~35-•. ·.·•·
**capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 77
CITY OF TUKWILA
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, the City of Tukwila gained fewer than 1 DO new housing units, all single family_ The annexation of the Tukwila South
area in 2010 included a small increase in the City's residential target
As of 2012 the City's remaining target is mere than 4, 700 housing units.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005
2loned Density Gross Critical ROWs Public 1 Net #Lots Net
(max. du/acre) Area Areas (acres) Purpose J Area or Units Density
(acres) (acres) (acres) 1 (acres) (units/a c)
tlaiJ.Siag !lllit 11J;lrtam zooli ta 2Q12
Single Multi-i Total
Family* family i Hous'g Units
i
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 3,804 4,107 7,911
0-3 du/acre j
3-5 du/acre 2006-12 Change 77 I 0 1 77
5-7 du/acre 23.8 2.1 2.2 0.7; 18.8 107 5.7
7-9 du/acre j = 2012 Units 3,881 I 4,107 ; 7,988
> 9 du/acre l j
Plats Total 23.8 2.1 2.21 0.71 18.8 107 5.7 Plus anxtn, adjusbn -100 -100 -200
!
Single-Family Permits Issued ~ 2012 Adi. H.Uni!l 3.781 4.007 7.788
0-3 du/acre *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 dulacre !
5-7 du/acre ! Not Applicable 37.8 226 6.0 -· __ 7_ __ -9 du/acre i
> 9 du/acre ' 1.9 2 1.0 Gm'ill.th Iar:get IJjlriate, ZQQ!i ta 2Q12
SF Pmts Total l n/a I n/a I nla 1 n/a 39.7 228 5.7 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 4,800
Housing_ Unit Change: 2006-2012
Multifalt)!_l)l:_ Permits ssued Net New SF Units Permitted -771 ·---··-·------
< 9 du/acre Net New MF Units Permitted 01
9 -13 dulacre
13-19 du/acre
~ew Units, Annex Area 0
Net New Units (2006-2012) -77·
19-31 dulacre Plus Annexat'n Area Target 50
31 -48 du/acre Net Adjustment to Target -27
48 + du/acre I I
Other zones Net Adjustment to Target I (27)
MF Pmts Total 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0 n/a
--.L_
Remaining Target (2012-2031) 4,n3
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 78
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF TUKWILA
Residential Land Suool d Unite, .. (2012) Q"IJU ....,U<HIOII::I ........ .., ... ,.. ... ._IL.Y (MU'I~_/
i ROW &Public
Residential Capacity j Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Net Available Assumed Net Capacity Acres Density
! Discount
~g~f.'!!"J.I¥ __ --·-··--o::-:---
Vacant Subtotal f 229.81 102.0 12.5 10% 103.6 5.7 590 " i 3868! , Redev Subtotal 145.5 24.1 15% 184.7 5.7 573 0
0 Total ! 616.6• 247.5 288.3 1,163 .c
0 Multifamily .c Vacant Subtotal I 6.31 0.4 0.00 10%1 5.2 16.8 201 .c
"" i 14.0! ·;; Redev Subtotal 0.0 0.00 15%~ 13.6 16.8 212 z Total i 20.21 0.4 18.8 413
Neighborhood Total I 636.81 247.9 I 307.1, 1,576
" Multifamily in Mixed·Use :!!! Vacant Subtotal 1 108.11 6.5 4.8 10%! 87.71 21/67j 561 ,
Redev Subtotal i 87.9 3.1 4.2 15%! 68.51 21/67! 2,938 " )(
:i1 Total i 196.0 9.6 ' 156.21 I 4,199 !
l I I I
s All Housinq ! ' I !
0 Vacant Total j 344.2 108.9 17.3 10% 196.5! ! 1,352
1--I 28.3 10%-15% 266.81 i -"=' RedevTotal 488.7 148.6 3,723
0 Total I 832.8 257.5 45.6 463.3[ I 5,775
Note: pipeline development is included in numbers above
1,163 Housing Capacity
eline 0
_ 413 j Three--fourths ofTukwila's
l lviuluJc:u,,u va "''-''l ,,, r1 t::ILILt:: i 0 residential capacity is in
~·---~i_J<_~~:!ol:S.~.?!l~~s-~ .. !':'!<.'!0.L~-l!!P~!:' .. 9.rJ ________ ~'""i:§l. __
1
rn ix ed-us ·2 zones i ncf ud i ng the
___ ca~~ity in_~ieel1ne-Tukwila South ! 700 Tukvv'il<:t ur-ban Center and ·~h<;; -~~~c~L~-1_!rl1-~-~~----·---··--·---------·-·--i 0 : Tu;<wila South recent
ITotaij Cap~city (units) i --5.-775-j annexnticn orca.
!:'j
:';1 i\ ;:x::.d :Jso:
'Remaining Housing Target(2012-2031)! 4,773 '
surplustDefi-~itc;;-p~-~ity ! t;oo2
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 79
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF TUKWILA
From 2006 to 2012, the City of Tukwila lost 1,800 industrial jobs but gained 2,200 commercial jobs for an overall slight net gain.
In 2010, Tukwila annexed 260 acres south of the city and began planning the Tukwila South development. This mixed-use development will
add 700 housing units and up to 22,427 jobs in the area immediately south of Parkway Plaza. The annexation also came with a target of 2,050
additional jobs. Overall, the City has capacity for more than 38,000 jobs, a surplus of 21,000 over its updated target.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres) -- --
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Public Net Market Net-net
Area Areas ( ) Purpose Area Area (max. du/acre)
(acres) (acres) acres ( ) (acres) Factor (acres) acres
I
.En1Piovment Update 2006 to 2012 l
. Comm'l Indus!. Total I
I Jobs Jobs* Employment I
I I
Vacant I Redev. I 2006BaseYear 24,411 19,704 44,115 I
Commercial I 41.6 6.7 2.41 0.0 32.6 10% 29.7 ' I_
Mixed-Use 195.9 9.5 9.11 0.0 177.3 12% 156.2 i 2006-12 Change 2,1961 -1,7791 417
Industrial 344.6 35.3 16.61 0.0 293.4 10% 258.9 I
Non-Res Land Total 582.1 51.5 28.1! 0.0 503.3 444.8 = 2012 Jobs 26,6071 17,9251 44,532
Employment Capacffc (2012) Adjustments I I 0
Net Land Assumed Existing )~~loor Area Sq. ft. per Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.) Employee Capacity I I :;' 2012 Job Total I 26,607 I 17,925 -44,532 __
Neighborhoods ! * industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
1----~o'!'mer'::~al 1.29 0.50 0.09 ! 0.64 545 1,800
I -------Industrial 11.28 0.60 0.63 I 6.09 8,884
Neighborhood Total I 10,684
~----------I Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
Mixed-Use I Urban Center in millions of square feet, non-residential uses only.
Mixed Use Vacant I 2.30 0.75 ! 1.24 500 2,481
I Jobs Growth Target (2006-2031) 15,500
i Jobs Chanae: 2006-2012
Mixed Use Redev'able I 2.39 0.5/0.75 o.79 I 0.82 500 1,667 r Plus Annexat'n Area Target 2,050
I I
' 1 Less Job Gain, 2006-2012 -417
Mixed-Use Total I 4.68 0.31/1.86 0.79 ! 2.06 I 4,148 Net Adjustment to Target 1,633
City Total I I Net Adjustment to Target 1,633
Commercial i 1.29 0.50 0.09 0.64 545 1,800
Mixed-Use I 4.68 0.31/1.86 0.79 2.06 545 4,148
I Remaining Target (2012-2031) 17,133
I i 2012 Job Caoacitv [from table to left[ 38,621
Industrial I 11.28 0.63 6.09 8,884
Jobs in Pipeline I Pipeline includes Tukwila South with potential for 22,427 jobs. 23,789
City Total Capacity I 17.251 I 1.51 ! 8.791 38,621
1 Adjustment to capac11y 0
1 Final 2012 Job Capacity 38,621
i Surplus/Deficit_(;~~c;ity _____ __j-----2:!~4.?!:_
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 80
Des Moines
Issaquah
Kenmore
Maple Valley
Mercer Island
Sammamish
Shoreline
Woodinville
July 23, 2014
--------------------
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 81
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Between 2006 and 2012 the City ofDes Moines issued 80 permits for single family houses, and no multifamily permits.
-The 2010 Census counted about 500 more housing units than had been estimated previously, so that adjustment was made. The City now
has about 12,600 housing units, about 60% single family (inclduign mobile homes).
-The updated residential growth target for Des Moines is for the City to plan for about 2,900 additional housing units by 2031.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Public Net #Lots Net
Area Areas Purpose Area Density (max. du/acre) (acres) (acres) (acres) (< s) (acres) or Units (unitslac) acres
Plats Recorded
I uuu&ing_ Unit Update 2006 to 2012 I
Single Multi-Total I
I Family* family Hous'g Units
I 2006 Base Year 7,563 4,396 11,959
0-3 du/acre I 38.9 15.11 4.4 2.9 16.5 51 3.1 I
3-5 du/acre 10.1 ' 1.3 0.2 8.6 39 4.5 I i + 2006-12 Permits 801 0 80
5-7 du/acre 243.0 41.1 1 42.4 17.5 142.1 959 6.7 I
7-9 du/acre 14.2 6.3 1.4 1.7 4.7 48 10.2 1-2012 H U (unadjusted 7,6431 4,396 12,039
> 9 du/acre 4.8 0.8 0.9 0.2 3.0 20 6.7 l
Plats Total 311.0 63.31 50.4 22.5 174.9 1,117! 6.4 ! Plus adjustmt (Census) 230 320 550
I
Single-Family Permits Issued 1~ 2012 Adj. H. Unit• _1&?~ --4,716 --12,5~-
0-3 du/acre 31.8 671 2.1 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 14.4 59! 4.1
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 154.5 9331 6.0
7-9 du/acre 5.7 57\ 9.9
> 9 du/acre 5.1 37[ 7.2 Growth Tamet Ue_date, 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total n/a I n/a I n/a i n/a 211.5 1,153! 5.5 I Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 3,000
HousinCI Unit Change: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued Net New SF Units Permitted -801
< 9 du/acre i 97.4 45.6 4.3 3.0! 44.51 477 10.7 Net New MF Units Permitted Oj
9 -13 du/acre I 10.7 7.0 0.5 0.0 3.21 36 11.2 ' Net New Units, Annex Area 0
13-19 du/acre ! 9.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 8.81 101 11.5 Net New Units (2006-2012) -801
19-31 du/acre I 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.31 92 21.6 Plus Annexafn Area Target I I
' 31 -48 du/acre I Net Adjustment to Target -80 I
48 + du/acre !
other zones Net Adjustment to Target l (80)
MF Pmts Total 122.0 52.8 5.2 3.2 60.7 706 11.6 R.emainiJ1!!_ l"arget 1201;!-~031) 2,920 __
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 83
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF DES MOINES
Residential Land Supply and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2012
I Gross acres
ROW &Public Net Available Assumed Residential Capacity Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Density Net Capacity
Discount
Sinale Familv
Vacant Subtotal 209.21 87.1 36.6 10% 76.9 2.5016.50 368 "' 381.01 "0 Redev Subtotal 161.8 65.8 15% 130.4 2.50 I 6.50 437 0
0 Total 590.11 248.8 24% 207.3 805 .r;;
~ Multifamilv 0 .c .r;; Vacant Subtotal 15.8 1.3 1.5 10% 11.80 12.7 I 50.0 169 "' ·;; Redev Subtotal 52.5 5.9 4.7 15% 35.67 12.7 I 50.0 1,410 :z Total 68.3 7.1 5% 47.47 1,579
Neighborhood Total 658.4 256.0 254.8 2,876 .. Multifamily in Mixed Use "' :::J Vacant Subtotal 14.9 1.2 1.4 10% 11.1 30.0 I 34.0 255 "0
65.81 6.31 .. Redev Subtotal 3.2 15% 47.8 30.0 I 34.0 979 X
~ Mixed Use Total 80.7 4.4 3% 58.9 1,570
I
"' All HousinQ
0 Vacant Total 239.9 89.5 39.5 10% 99.8, 792 t-
>. RedevTotal 499.2 170.9 76.7 25% 213.9 2,826 -0 Total 739_:!..__ 260.4 116.1 313.71 I 4,446
Note: data above include housing units in the pipeline.
805
'-'111:::11\;,.-o I;;<IIUIJ VQtJQVIlJ Ill I ltJ-.;;;1111... ! 424 : ! . , . ,
Multifamily zones 1 1,579 Des f'ilo1n2s s res1dem1al
·· ···• ·· -·· · -· ·· 1 68 cJpacit';2xceed.s its rernaining
IViiA<:;:U-v<:><:; "-VIII;;.;:)-vuv • , a ....... \Jag.;:; 1,234 target bv J,sc::o units. lhe
Mixed-Use Capacity in Pipeline 336 City's c2pacity is evenly sp!it
Other Adjustments 0 a mons; n 2igh borhood singl·2
; family I rnultifarnilyand
t 1uLdl "-'diJdl.iitv (liiiii.S) 4,446 mixed·-usc~ a reGs.
-' . '' ' . ·--·----·· 2,920
1;S'26
Housing Capacity
{in housing units)
lJ 7v'i)y.:~c~; iSS
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 84
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
There have been changes since the 2007 Buildable Lands Report. Points include:
CITY OF DES MOINES
-Des Moines had a small loss of jobs between 2006 and 2012, but the City's job base is fundamentally sound.
-The City's job growth target is to plan for 5,000 additional jobs by 2031, almost doubling the number of jobs in the city.
-Des Moines has capacity to accommodate 15,000 jobs, almost triple the target.
-Des Moines has job capacity in commercial, industrial and mixed-use zones. The City's strongest potential for job growth is in the Pacific
Ridge development near Pacific Highway South, with growth planned in both commercial and mixed-use zones.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Gross Critical Public Net I
Zoned Density ROWs Market : Net-net
Area Areas (acres) Purpose Area Factor I (Area ) (max. du/acre)
I (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 1 acres
Ernolovrnent Update 2006 to 2012 !
Comm'l lndust. Total i ----------............. ___ ...... _ _...... ................ --::.-----·· ................ !
Jobs Jobs* Employment•
Vaca11t I Redev. 2006 Base Year 5,120 597 5,717
Commercial 61.2 0.7 31 3.0 54.4 10%115%! 47.5
Mixed-Use 80.7 4.4 41 3.8 68.6 10%/15%1 58.9 2006-12 Change -1011 -581 -159
Industrial 169.1 13.4 a: 7.8 140.1 10%/15%1 122.7
Non-Res Land Total 310.9 18.5 15! 14.6 263.2 I 229.1 = 2012 Jobs 5,0191 5391 5,558
Employment Capac~ (2012) Adjustments I 0
Net Land Assumed Existing I ~~loor Area Sq. ft. pe~ I Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.) Employee Capacity
, = 2012 Job Total I 5,0191 5391 5,558
* industrial = manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Neighborhoods I
I
Commercial I 2.07 0.15/4.0 0.13 3.17 35o /45o 1 7,148
Industrial 5.34 0.27 0.00 1.44 450j 3,208
Neighborhood Total I i 10,356
Mixed-Use I Urban Center I I
Mixed Use Vacant I 0.21 3.0/4.0 0.81 4501 1,797
Mixed Use Redev'able 0.46 3.0/4.0 0.31 1.43 I 4501 3,175
I Growth Tamet Update, 2006 to 2012
l}ob~_§ro~h_J:ar:gft {20!6:2
1
()3_1L__ . ___ .§,0()0..
' ' Job5 C"hange5;2oo6-2012: 1 I Plus Annexat'n Area Target Oj
Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 159 1
' I
Mixed-Use Total 0.67 3.0/4.0 0.31 2.24 4501 4,972
Net Adjustment to Target 159!
I
I Net Adjustment to Target ' 159 !
City Total I I I I
I
Commercial 2.07 3.o/4.o 1 0.13 i 3.17 35o 145o I 7,148 '
I Remaining Target (2012-2031) 5,159
12012 Job Ca ac· [from table to left] 15,328
Mixed-Use 0.67 3.o 14.o 1 o.31 i 2.24 4501 4,972 . Ad"ustrnent to ca aci .. 159
Industrial 5.34 3.o /4.o 1 o.oo l 1.44 4501 3,208 ' Jobs in Pipeline 0
, Final 2012 Job Capacity 15,487 I Surplus/Deficit Caeacity l 1~,323
City Total 8.09' I o.44 i 6.851 I 15,328 **capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 85
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, the City of Issaquah ...
-had an increase of 4,800 housing units, through both new construction and small annexations;
-gained single family and multifamily units in approximately equal numbers;
-designated several new master plan developments;
-adopted the Central Issaquah Plan which now includes a designated Urban Center.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005
Zoned Density i Gross ! Critical 1 ROWs Public Net #Lots Net ! Area ! Areas ! Purpose Area Density
(max. du/acre) I : ) 1 (acres) <• s) or Units (acres) : (acres ; acres (acres) (units/a c)
tlaiLsing llnit Upcta.m 200fi ta ZQ1Z
I Single Multi-Total
'Family* family Hous'g Units
!
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year ' 4,729 4,708 9,437
0-3 du/acre I 4.01 1.1 i 0.0 0.01 2.9 6 2.1
3-5 du/acre I I I I 2006-12 Change 774 I 1,060 I 1,834
5-7 du/acre I 9.71 1.1i 0.0 o.ol 8.6 32 3.7
7-9 du/acre I 5.81 1.41 0.5 0.21 3.7 201 5.4 = 2012 Units 5,503 I 5,768 1 11,271
> 9 du/acre i 831.91 35.21 61.8 522.01 212.9 1,7351 8.1
Plats Total I 851.41 38.71 62.3 522.2j 228.2 1,793 7.9 Plus anxtnl adjustmt 1,86o 1 1.120 2,980
I I
Sing~e-Family Permits Issued -2012 Adj. H. Units 7,363 I 6,888 • 14,251
0-3 du/acre I j 4.2 4 1.0 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre I 1 8.8 26 3.0
5-7 du/acre I Not Applicable I 20.0 86 4.3
7-9 du/acre i 4.5 22 4.9
> 9 du/acre i 145.1 1 344 9.3 Grawth Ta.r;et Upcia.W ZQQ6 .. ;;;;Q1Z I
SF Pmts Total n/a i n/a I n/a I n/a i 182.5 1,482 8.1 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 5,750
Housing Unit Chanru>: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits _Issued . . , -I
f-..... 9-::~£~~~~:~ .... 1 .. ----· .. ·1.1: --o:al---o:al---aai--"T·iF--izl-....... _11:2 Net New Units, Annex Area 0
Net New SF Units Permitted -7741 ~!!,l_~~~-tlil F .LJ..~:i!.~J:~r:t:nitted___ -~1 . 061!_j__ ___ ____ _
1---1_3 -1_9 d::;u:::/;::ac:::r;;:.e-+--::-+
19-31 du/acre 7.4 o.oi 0.01 0.5 6.8 321 47.0
Net New Units (2006-2012) -1,834
Plus Annexat'n Area Target 0
1
31 -48 du/acre ; ___ , I
48 + du/acre I •
Other zones 47.6 0.91 3.0 4.51 39.2 -·----zz:a
Net Adjustrnentto'farget -1,834
Net Adjustment to Target ! {1,834)
MF PmtsTotal i 56.oj 1.4j 3.~ 4.5[ 47.11 1,2251 26.0 Remaining Target (2012-2031) 3,916
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 86
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF ISSAQUAH
,, ........ ~ ..... ~ ................... 'WOIIW,_,rf'lf'<,llll!::f'""'"l. ...,..,,.,.., ... , .. )' \'"'"'""'/
ROW &Public Net Available Assumed Residential Capac~y Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Dens~y Net Capac~
Discount
Single Family
Ul Vacant Subtotal 322.87 171.02 22.59 10% 116.34 3.3 382
"" Redev Subtotal 294.21 92.83 27.48 15% 147.82 3.8 356 0
0 Total 617.08 263.85 264.16 738 .<:
~ Multifamily 0 .c I 24.651 .<: Vacant Subtotal 4.43 3.03 10% 15.47 10.3 159 C>
'iii Redev Subtotal I 13.66 5.34 1.25 15% 6.01 10.3 30 z Total I 38.31 9.77 21.48 189
Neighborhood Total ! 655.4 273.6 285.6 927
" Multifamily in Mixed-Use Ul => Vacant Subtotal 82.471 46.54 8.08 10% 25.07 35/85 574 "" 1l Redev Subtotal 265.5:'!1 66.42 45.81 10% 136.17 35/85 4,893
:ll Total 348.01 115.0 161.2 10,385
"' All Housing -429.991 33.70 10% {!. Vacant Total 221.99 156.88 1,115 ,_ RedevTotal 573.40j 166.59 74.54 10%-15% 290.00 5,279 -l3 Total 1003.41 388.6 108.2 446.9 11,312
Note: pipeline development is included in numbers above
738
VII J~lt7"1 Cll I Ill UCltJCl\....1~ Ill r I CHill:< 1 0
•• ... ,. •• -. 1 189 J\lrnostall of !ssaquah's
~substantial residential c::pacitv
5 467 I is in rnixecl-use wnes such as
Dovmtovvn ancJ Centred
0 Js.zaquah, and in pipeline
projects.
11,312
3,916
7;396
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
:'::l :" :t:h:: e ·~·
i:c'd •. !i_c:;.· J
July 23, 2014 I<Cing County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 87
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF ISSAQUAH
I-rom 2006 to 2012, the City of Issaquah gained commercial jobs, primarily in services, butlost some industrial jobs. The net gain of 2,500 jobs
may be overstated because some 1,800 Microsoft jobs were properly counted in Issaquah in 2012 but not in 2006.
Issaquah is planning for a major development, Central Issaquah, with expanded capacity compared to that measured in the 2007 Buildable
Lands Report. Other developments already approved and underway, including Issaquah Highlands, Rowley, and Costco, contribute to a
pipeline capacity of more than 20,000 jobs occupying land that is not counted in this analysis.
Issaquah has a sizeable surplus of commercial-industrial capacity to accommodate job growth to and beyond 2031.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres) IEmolovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs i Public Net Market Net-net
Area Areas Area Area (max. dufacre) (acres)
(acres) !Purpose
(acres) Factor (acres) i (acres) (acres)
Comm'l In dust. Total
Jobs Jobs* Employment
Vacant I Redev. 2006 Base Year 13,949 4,330 18,280
Commercial 15.3 2.3 0.41 0.2 12.5 10% 11.3
Mixed-Use 348.0 115.0 23.31 30.6 179.2 10% 161.2 2006-12 Change 3,6521 -1,169 2,483
Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-Res Land Total 363.3 117.2 23.71 30.8 191.7 172.5 = 2012 Jobs 17,6011 3,161 20,762
Employment Capaci~ (2012) Adjustments I 0
Net Land Assumed E><isting Floor Area Sq. ft. pe~ I Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.) Employee Capacity
I
= 2012 Job Total 17,601 I 3, 16_1 20,762 .. ,
Neighborhoods industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Commercial I o.49 0.50 0.09 i 0.16 545 I 292
1 --o:oo ------·o.oa--r· I Industrial 0.00 0
Neiqhborhood Total ! I 292
----·~-~-
Growth Target Update. 2006 to 2012
Jobs Growth Target (2006-2031) 20,000
Mixed-Use I Urban Center in millions of square feet, non-residential uses only. I
Mixed Use Vacant 0.57 1.0 I 2.5 i o.65 I 545 1,189 Jobs •Chanrse: 2006-2012
Mixed Use Redev'able 3.28 1.0 I 2.5 2.66 ; 2.76 I 545 5,066 I Plus Annexafn Area TarQet 0
i I Less Job Gain, 2006-2012 -2483
Mixed-Use Total I 3.84 0.3111.861 2.66 ! 3.41 I 6,255 Net Adjustment to Target -2,483
City Total I Net Adiustment to Target (2,483)
Commercial i 0.49 0.50 0.09 0.16 545 292 Remaining Target (2012-2031) 17,517
Mixed-Use 3.84 0.3111.86 2.66 3.41 545 6,255 2012 Job Capacity [from table to left] 26,711
Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Adjustment to capacity 0
Jobs in Pipeline 20,184 Final2012 Job Capacity 26,711
City Total Capacity 4.331 1 2.74 3.57j 26,711 1 Surplus/Deficit Capacity I 9,194
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 88
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006to 2012, Kenmore had moderate growth of residential units, primarily single family. There were fewer new housing units than in the
preceding 5-yearperiod.
-The city had no annexations during this period.
-Kenmore reported sufficient residential capacity in the 2007 Buildable Lands Report to acccmmodate the newer 2009 growth target of 3,500
housing units and to carry over its capacity data from the 2007 BLR.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012
Zoned Density Gross I Critical ROWs Public Net #Lots Net
(max. du/acre) Area Areas (acres) Purpose Area or Units Density
(acres) 1 (acres) (acres) (acres) (units/ac)
Sinr~le Multi-Total
Family* family Hous'g Units
I
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 6,074 2,091 8,165
0-3 dulacre 8.61 4.5 0.11 0.0 4.1 41 1.0 I
3-5 dulacre 21.5 7.5 1.4! 3.5 8.5 461 5.4 + 2006-12 Permits 387 1331 520
5-7 dulacre 91.81 21.2 12.71 3.3 54.4 3861 7.1 I
7-9 dulacre ! = 2012 H.U. (old bdry) 6,4611 2,2241 8,685
> 9 du/acre 0.2 I 0.2 3 15.8
Plats Total 122.1 33.3 14.2! 6.9 67.2 4391 6.5 Plus OFM adjustmt 10 40 50
I
Single-Family Permits Issued -2012 Adj. H. Units 6 471 2,2641 8 735
0-3 du/acre 14.8 111 0.7 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 29.6 1051 3.5
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 62.2 3561 5.7
7-9 du/acre I
I
> 9 du/acre I
,------
Growth Target Ue_date 1 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total n/a I n/a i n/a ! n/a 106.5 4721 4.4 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 3,500
.· Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued Net New SF Units Permitted -387!
< 9 du/acre i i I Net New MF Units Permitted -1331
9 -13 du/acre 4.4 1.1 i 0.1 0.0 3.2 sal 18.0
13-19 du/acre 5.1 1.81 0.0 0.0 3.2 sol 15.5
19-31 du/acre 0.4 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.4 101 23.8
I Net New Umts, Annex Area 0
·520! Net New Un1ts (2006-2012)
ol Plus Annexal'n Area Target
31 -48 du/acre 1.4 0.01 0.0 0.0 1.4 461 33.7 Net Adjustment to Target -520
48 + du/acre 1.8 O.QI 0.0 0.0 1.8 90i 50.9 I !
other zones I ! Net Adjustment to Target I i (520)
MF Pmts Total I 13.1 2.9[ 0.1 0.0 10.0 254! 25.4 Remaining Target (2012-2031) ' 2,980 I
I
I
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 89
~~~~~~---. -----
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF KENMORE
---------------------------------v -----------,-------· ----
ROW &Public Net Available Assumed Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Density Net Capacity
Discount
~ingle Famil)r
Vacant Subtotal 240.55 93.61 33.81 10% 101.82 1.24/7.00 592 <II
601.861 "' Redev Subtotal 213.14 92.72 15% 251.60 1.50/7.00 1,147 0
0 Total 842.41 306.75 24% 353.42 1,739 ..::: -Multifamily 0
J:!
2.601 ..::: Vacant Subtotal 0.53 0.03 10% 1.84 15.0123.8 34 01
'iii Redev Subtotal 51.32 12.34 0.46 15% 32.74 15.0145.5 841 z Total 53.92 12.87 5% 34.58 8751
Neighborhood Total 896.3 319.6 388.0 2,614 .. Multifamily in Mixed Use <II => Vacant Subtotal 5.64 0.28 "' 0.00 10% 4.83 24.0145.0 94
~ Redev Subtotal 59.16 7.04 0.00 15% 44.30 24.0/45.0 647
::E Mixed Use Total 64.8 7.3 0% 49.1 2,341
"' All Housing
0 Vacant Total 248.79 94.42 33.84 10% 108.49 720 >-
.<:-RedevTotal 712.34 232.52 93.18 25% 328.64 2,635
(3 Total 961.1 326.9 127.0 437.1 4,955
Note: development in the pipeline is included in numbers above.
1,739
0 I
IVIUIU1c:UIIIIV4.VIIo;:;;::o 875 '
Multifamilv Capacitv in Pipeline 0 i Kenmore's residential capacity
Mixed-Use Zones 741 ~exceeds its rE!Tlt:~iningtr.nget by fj~ tZ;
Mixed-Use Caoacitv in Pipeline, other 1,668 ! 2,000 units. Neady haif of the ,_j i -i! •,_:,,-; ( ;,; ;~
Total Caoacitv, 2006 !units) 5,023 ! City's upacity is in mixed-use
Less development, 2006-2012 -520 I at'20S n:car s:' 527.
Total Capacity, 2012 (units) 4,503
2012-2031) ! 2,980
1,523
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 90
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF KENMORE
Replace2007 text with brief summary of changes since 2007 BLR and explanation of how additional job capacity was identified. Points
include:
-Kenmore was hit hard by the Recession, losing more than 20% ofthe city's 2006 job base.
-Making up for the lost jobs adds to the City's target, but also adds to capacity (vacant job spaces to be refilled).
-Kenmore continues to have a slight surplus of job capacity over its updated target of 3,900 jobs.
-To ensure capacity for growth beyond 2031, the City may have to seek additional job-growth opportunities.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres) Emolovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Public Net Market Net-net i
(max. du/acre) Area Areas
(acres) ~~~:t Area Factor Area
(acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)
Comm'l lndust. Total .......... ,., ______ ,_ ..................... ·----·-·---------···--·-····---········ Jobs Jobs* Employment
Vacant I Redev. 2006 Base Year 3,332 959 4,291
Commercial 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 10%/15% 0.0
Mixed-Use 64.81 7.3[ 0 0.0 57.5 10%/15%j 49.1 2006-12 Change I -584 -313[ -897
Industrial 10.51 0.0 0 0.0 10.5 10%/15%1 8.9
Non-Res Land Total 75.3 7.3 0 0.0 67.9 ' 58.0 '
I = 2012 Jobs I 2,7481 6461 3,394 !
Employment Capacit] '(2012) I Adjustments 0
Net Land Assumed Existing) ~~loor Area Sq. ft. per
1
I Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.) Employee Capacity
-2012 Job Total 3,394 --*industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Neighborhoods ' I ' Commercial 0.00 NA 0.00 ' 0.00 NA i 0 ! ' Growth Targ_et Ue.date, 2006 to 2012
Industrial 0.39 0.35 0.10 ! 0.04 BOO ' 46 !
Neiqhborhood Total 0.39 0.10 ' 0.04 ' 46 ' ' ~_o_b_s_~Gi~"it"h__T<tE9~tJ~()()~:;os_1) ··········· · · -··· •. 3;ooo ~
Mixed-Use I Urban Center ; I ' ' !·Jobs Chanaes. 2006-2012:
Mixed Use Vacant I 0.11 0.50/1.00 i 0.09 350 257 Plus Annexafn Area Target 0
Mixed Use Redell able I 0.96 0.30/1.00 0.22 ' 0.39 350/500 i 1,112 ' Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 897
I ' i ' Net Adjustment to Target 897
Mixed-Use Total I 1.07 0.30/1.00 0.22 1 0.48 350/500 I 1,369
Net Adiustrrent to Tar~et 897
City Total I l I i Remaining Target (2012-2031) 3,897
Commercial ' 0.00 NA 0.00 i 0.00 NAi 0 ' 2012 Job Capacity (from table to left] 3,048
Mixed-Use I 1.07 0.30/1.00 0.22 ' 0.48 350/500 i 1,369 ' Adiusbnent to capacity** I 897
Industrial I 0.39 0.35 0.10 I 0.04 800 ! 46 Final2012 Job Capacity 3,945
Jobs in Pipeline 1,633 Surplus/Deficit Capaci~ t ·.· •... ·· .. 4-8 .····••·.
City Total 1.461 I 0.32 ' 0.521 ' 3,048 I ' i **capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
I
I
!
I
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 91
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Maple Valley experienced a substantial amount of single-family growth during the six years, and a small increase in number of multiamily units,
defraying its 2006-31 growth target by half.
In 2010, the City annexed Maple Ridge with about 600 housing units and nearly 2,000 people. The Maple Ridge area did not have a growth
target.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005
Gross Critical ROWs~ Public Net Net ZOned Density Area Areas ( ) :Purpose Area # Lo~ Density
(max. du/acre) (acres) (acres) acres 1 (• ) (acres) or Umts (units/ac)
1 acres
Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012 I Sin!lle Multi-Total
Family* family Hous'g Units!
i
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 6,307 463 6,770 I
0-3 du/acre ; i I i
3-5 du/acre 112.4 8.2 22.0! 13.4 68.8 4681 6.8 + 2006-12 Permits 8041 641 868 I
5-7 du/acre I 179.9 1.2 37.91 36.2 104.7 8071 7.7 '
7-9 duiacre I 32.3 0.0 13.9! 2.1 16.2 1321 8.1 = 2012 H.U. (old bdry) 7,1111 5271 7,638
> 9 duiacre 10.0 0.4 1.61 0.8 7.2 691 9.5
Plats Total 334.6 9.8 75.41 52.5 196.9 1,476! 7.5 Plus anxtn, adjustmt 650 0 650
Single-Family Permits Issued = 2012 Adj. H. Units 7 761 5271 8 288
0-3 duiacre 3.4 81 2.3 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 duiacre 73.7 4681 6.3
5-7 duiacre Not Applicable 107.8 7731 7.2 -·-7-9 duiacre 17.7 2011 11.4
> 9 du/acre 4.2 391 9.4 1 Growth Target Update. 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total n/a I n/a I n/a ] n/a 206.7 1,489; 7.2 I Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 1,800
l I Housinq Unit Chanqe: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued 1 Net New sF unitsF'eimitteci ···· ....... -8041
< 9 du/acre 5.0 1.1! 0.21 3.6 53! 14.6 Net New MF Units Permitted -64
9-13 duiacre I 0.4 0.0 i 0.4 41 11.1 ' 13-19 du/acre l ' ;
19-31 du/acre I l I i
' 31 -48 du/acre j i
l
48 + du/acre j i •
I Net New Units, Annex Area 0 j
; Net New 'dnits (?006-2012) -8681
1 Plus Annexat'n Area Target ---a] ,
1 Net Adjustment to Target -868 I
i ! I !
Olherzones i l
I Net Adjustment to Target (868)
MF Pmts Total I 5.3 0.0 1.1 i 0.2 4.0 57! 14.3 ~!!:!_!ng Target (2012-2031) 932 I
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 92
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY C/TYOFMAPLE VALLEY
.. ·--··--· ··----··--··-·····~ ...... u --
-·~ , ____ ...........................
ROW &Public Net Available Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Discount
SinQie Family
Ill Vacant Subtolal ' 177.7 12.7 49.5 ., Redev Subtolal 329.3 9.7 95.9 0
0 Total 507.0 22.4 30% J::
0 Multifamily
.0
J:: Vacant Subtolal 16.8 0.0 3.4 Cl
"iii Redev Subtolal 4.0 0.0 0.4 z Tolal 20.8 0.0 5%
Neighborhood Total 527.8 22.4
" Development in Mixed Use ..
::> Vacant Subtolal 28.7 0.0 1.2 .,
!l Redev Subtolal 1.2 0.0 0.1
:E Mixed Use Total 29.9 0.0 4%
" All Housin!! -0 Vacant T olal 223.2 12.7 54.1 >--
~ RedevTolal 334.5 9.7 96.4
(3 Total 557.7 22.4 150.4
1,754
Single-Family Capacity in Pipeline I 181
Muttifarnilv Zones 144 I Multifamily CaoacitVin Pipeline 12 MCJp!cVailey's rc:sid2ntie1i
Mixed-Use Zones 291 capacity exceeds its rem a
I Mixed-Use CapadtVin Pipeline I 0 target by more th2n 500 units.
Less 2006-2011 Units Permitted -868 Most oft he City's c.apacitvls in
' , singlefarn!ly zones.
1,514
932
582
15%
20%
15%
20%
15%
20%
10%
25%
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
'''i-t?,:o·:~"
'ill ~
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
98.4i
179.Qj
277.41
12.8
2.9
15.7
293.1
23.4
0.9
24.3
134.6
182.8
317.4
Assumed
Density Net Capacity
1.0/8.0 666
6.0/8.0 1,088
1,754
9.5 122
9.5 22
144
1,898
12.0 280
12.0 11
484
1,068
1 '121
I 2,382
Page 93
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY
The City of Maple Valley had only modest changes in employment during the 2006 -2012 period. Points include:
-The City experienced very little net job change between 2006 and 2012; a slight gain of commercial jobs was countered by a slight loss of
industrial jobs.
-As of 2012, Maple Valley has about 3,200 jobs and a remaining target for about2,000 more jobs by 2031.
-The City's job capacity for 3,800 added jobs is essentially the same as reported in the 2007 BLR; the capacity exceeds Maple Valley's target
by about 1 ,800 jobs.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Public Net Market I N:-net
(max. du/acre) Area Areas (acres) Purpose Area Factor I ( ea) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 1 acres
\Em Jovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
[---------····--······· ·--~-'1>.!!!.!!!:.1 ..... !~!:!.ll.~.,.J. .......... !!?.~<o:.l ..........
• Jobs Jobs* I Employment
I
Vacant I Redev. 2006 Base Year 2,550 667 3,217
Commercial 142.91 9.8 2.9 2.9 127.4 15%/20%! 104.3
Mixed-Use 69.71 0.1 1.4 1.4 66.8 15%/20%1 56.6 2006-12 Change 601 -441 16
Industrial 44.51 0.0 0.9 0.9 42.8 15%/20%1 35.1
Non-Res Land Total 257.11 9.9 5.2 5.2 237.0 i 196.0 -2012Jobs 2,610 6231 3,233
EmploymentCapacft (2006) Adjustments 0
Net Land Assumed Existing J;loor Area Sq. ft. per' I Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq. ft.) Employee Capacity
= 2012 Job Total I 2,6101 6231 3,233
*industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Neighborhoods I
'
Commercial 4.55 0.20/0.30 0.09 ' 1.00 400/850 i 1,768 -:;::-·~-------~-Growth Targ_et Ue_date, 2006 to 2012 1 ' Industrial I 1.53 0.2 0.07 i 0.24 850 i 277 ' Neighborhood Total I • 2,045 I
I ~()b_s_~r<>YJ!hfari.!!i~o_o:s~~~3~f-J ~.?-;Do_() 1
i
Mixed-Use Zones I I I
__ ,. """'"""~"0""-~
! Jobs Chanaes. 2006-2012:
Mixed !Jse Vacant I 2.38 0.35 ! 0.83 500' 1,662
Mixed Use Redev'able I 0.09 0.35 0.00 I 0.03 500! 65
I Plus Annexafn Area Tarset 0
·Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 44
I i i ' Net Adjustment to Target 44
Mixed-Use Total I 2.47 0.30/2.00 0.00 j 0.86 2961 1,727
, Net Adiustrnent to T ar~et 44
City Total I ' I I ' Remaining Target (2012-2031) 2,044
Commercial 4.55 0.30/0.31 0.09 I 1.00 4oot85o 1 1,768 2012 Job Capacity [from table to left[ 3,772
Mixed-Use 2.47 0.30/2.00 0.00 ! 0.86 500 ' 1,727 ' ~ustment to capacity** I 44
Industrial 1.53 0.42/0.40 0.07 i 0.24 s5o I 277 ' Jobs in Pipeline 0
I Final 2012 Job Capacity 3,816 I Surplus/Deficit Capacity I · :1,772 .
City Total I 8.541 1 o.16 ! 2.091 i 3,772 **capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 94
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Since the 2007 Buildable Lands Report, there have been changes in Mercer Island:
-From 2006 to 2012, Mercer Island permitted nearly700 housing units. The2010 Census resulted in an adjustment adding 250 units, for a
2012 total of nearly 10,000 housing units.
-Mercer Island's updated housing growth target is to plan for an additional 1,300 units by 2031.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs ! Public Net Net
Area Areas ( ) :Purpose Area # Lo~ Density
(max. du/acre) (acres) (acres) acres 1 (< s) (acres) or Unots (units/ac) 1 acres
I" ___ .;ing Unit Update 2006 to 2012
Single Multi-Total
Family* family Hous'g Units
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 6,991 2,025 9,016
0-3 du/acre 3.0 0.3 0.4! 0.0 2.3 7i 3.1
3-5 du/acre 3.0 0.0 0.21 0.1 2.6 111 4.2 + 2006-12 Permits -12 6981 686
5-7 du/acre 3.5 0.8 O.Oj 0.0 2.6 81 3.1
7-9 du/acre ' I I ~ 2012 H.U. (old bdry) 6,979 2,7231 9,702
> 9 du/acre I I I
Plats Total 9.4 1.1 0.61 0.1 7.5 26! 3.5 Plus anxtn, adjustmt 400 -150 250
I
I
I
Single-Family Permits Issued -2012 Adi. H. Unit! 7,379! 2,~~-!!,~
0-3 du/acre 13.6 28! 2.1 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 12.2 361 3.0
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 7.7 28! 3.6
7-9 du/acre I
!
> 9 du/acre 1.7 11i 6.7 Growth Targ_et Uedate, 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total nla I nla I n/a I nla 35.2 1031 2.9 I Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 2,000
Housinq Unit Chanqe: 2006-2012
Multifamily Permits Issued Net New SF Units Permitted OJ !
< 9 du/acre ! Net New MF Units Permitted -6981 i
9 -13 du/acre Net New Units, Annex Area 0 i
13-19 du/acre I Net New Units (2006-2012) -6981
19-31 du/acre 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 23 48.5 Plus Annexat'n Area Target Ol I
31 -48 du/acre 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 93 34.8
48 + du/acre 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 457 97.1
Net Adjustment to Target -698 I I
Other zones I Net Adjustment to Target I (698) I
MF Pmts Total 8.4 0.51 0.0[ 0.0 7.9 573 73.0 Remaining Target (2012-2031) _________ 1 .. 1,302
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 95
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF MERCER ISLAND
Residential Land Supply and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2012
ROW &Public Net Available Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Discount
Sin!!le Family .. Vacant Subtotal 102.01 0.0 10.8 .., Redev Subtotal 263.3! 0.0 29.0 0
0 Total 365.25! 0.00 .<:
~ Multifamily 0 .<:>
1.21 .<: Vacant Subtotal 0.2 0.0 "' ·;; Redev Subtotal 8.9 0.7 0.0 z Total 10.1 0.9
Neighborhood Total 375.4 0.9
" Multifamily in Mixed Use .. ::> Vacant Subtotal 0.01 0.0 0.0 ..,
~ Redev Subtotal 19.41 0.0 0.0
:E Mixed Use Total 19.4 0.0
"' -All Housing
0 Vacant Total 103.2 0.2 10.8 1-,., RedevTotal 291.6 0.7 29.0 -u Total 394.8 0,9 39.8
I ~~ffit~~ij~ ~~~~~ity in Pipefine I ·-;, I Mercer Island's residential
786 capacii'f2Xceeds 1ts (emalning
j 1 vu..._ ..... -...,..,...,.'-"ap&....,,zy,,,,~lfX. .. ,,.,. 1 461 t;Jrgct[]'j}00units.iV1oreth:Jn
!Other Adjustments 0 half o-f theCitis capacity is in
! ! mixed-usc Jre:as in vr near
I Total Capacity (units} 2,004 downtown.
I-• • " , -'·--·----" I 1,302
7.02
20% 73.0
20% 187.5
260.5
20% 0.81
20% 6.61
7.41
267.9!
10% 0.0
20% 15.6
15.6
10% 73.8
25% 209.7
283.5
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
·/f ·,~( ~: '7 ·,; ;rr i >.,
Wl,
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
Assumed
Density Net Capacity
2.0/4.0 213
2.0/4.0 401
614
38.0 30
14.3/38.0 107
143
757
0
99.0 786
1,247
. 243
1,294
2,004
Page96
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
In the years between 2006 and 2012:
-Mercer lost about200 jobs, and has about 6,600 jobs in 2012.
-Redevelopment has been underway in downtown Mercer island.
-Several mixed-use projects are in the pipeline.
CITY OF MERCER ISLAND
-The City has capacity for nearly2,400 additional jobs, twice the remaining 2012-2031 job growth target
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Public Net Market I Net-net
(max. du/acre) Area Areas ( ) Purpose Area Area
(acres) (acres) acres (< s) (acres) Factor 1 (< s) acres 1 acres
'I Employment Update 2006 to 2012
Comm'l Indus!. Total
~-----.... .. .... ____ --·:ioiis·-· .... :Jails*--EriiiliOvliieirt
Vacant I Redev. 2006 Base Year I 6, 082 727 6,809
Commercial 6.0 0.0 Ql 0.0 6.0 20% 4.8
Mixed-Use 19.4 0.0 a: 0.0 19.4 20% 15.6 2006-12 Change I 101 -238 -228
Industrial 0.0 0.0 Oi 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-Res Land Total 25.4 0.0 Oj 0.0 25.4 20.4 = 2012 Jobs I 6,0921 489 6,581 I
Em~ovmentcapac~ (2012) Adjustments I 0
Net Land Assumed Existing ) ~~loor Area Sq. ft. per' I Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft) Em p!oyee Capacity
= 2012 Job Total I 6,092 489 6,581
*industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Neighborhoods I
!
Commercial I 0.21 0.50 I 0.55 0.01 i 0.10 4001 245
Industrial i 0.00 0.00 i 0.00 I 0
Neighborhood Total
, I l ,
245 I I
' [;:~:0:~~::::;::~;:::1:0 2012 --~-1,000--
, I
Mixed-Use I Urban Center I I
Mixed Use Vacant 0.001 I 0.00 i 0
Mixed Use Redev'able 0.33 2.66 i 0.15 0.73 4001 1,833
I ' I I
Mixed-Use Total 0.33 0.3012.00 0.15 0.73 2961 1,833
t""""-'' '"' ·-----'" ---· ----~-~ ..... ~. ---I Jobs Chanaes. 2006-2012: '
I Plus Annexat'n Area Tar9et 01
I Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 2281
I Net Adjustment to Target 2281
I Net Adjustment to Target I 228
City Total I ' I i ' I ·Remaining Target (2012-2031) 1,228
Commercial 0.21 0.50 I 0.55 0.01 I 0.10 4001 245 2012 Job Capacity [from table to left) 2,145
Mixed-Use 0.33 2.66 0.15 ! 0.73 400! 1,833 Adjustment to capacity** I 228
Industrial 0.00 0.00 i 0.00 Of 0 Final 2012 Job Capacity 2,373
Jobs in Pipeline 67 !_Surplus/Deficit Capacity I 1,.145
City Total I 0.541 I 0.16 l 0.831 ! 2,145 **capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 97
--~-----·----------
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, the City of Sammamish gained more than 600 housing units, almost all single family.
There were several small annexations that added about 400 housing units, and an adjustment was needed to correct old estimates, in order to
reach the 2010 Censuscountand OFM estimate of housing units in the City-more than 16,000 in 2012.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs ! Public Net #Lots Net
(max. du/acre) Area Areas ( ) !Purpose Area or Units Density
(acres) (acres) acres (acres) ! (units/ac) 1 (acres)
Sinqle Multi-Total
1 Family* family Hous'g Units
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 13,057 1,258 14,315
0 · 3 du/acre I 4.0 1.1 0.01 0.0 2.9 6 2.1
3 · 5 du/acre I i
I 1 2006-12 Change 611 I 10 I 621
5-7 du/acre I 9.7 1.1 0.01 0.0 8.6 32 3.7 I
7 • 9 du/acre I 5.8 1.4 0.5! 0.2 3.7 20 5.4 I -2012 Units 13,668 1,268 I 14,936
> 9 du/acre I 831.9 35.2 61.8! 522.0 212.9 1,735 8.1 I
Plats Total I 851.4 38.7 62.31 522.2 228.2 1,793 7.9 j Plus anxtn, adjusbnt 1,700 1 -300 1,400
I I I
Single-Family Permits Issued 1~ 2012 Adj. H. Unit• 15 368 I 968 I 16 336
0-3 du/acre 4.2 4 1.0 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 8.8 26 3.0
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 20.0 86 4.3
7-9 du/acre 4.5 22 4.9
> 9 du/acre 145.1 1.344 9.3
SF Pmts Total n/a I n/a I nla I nla 182.5 1,482 8.1
Multifamily Permits Issued
.---·--·--
1 Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
I Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 4,000
, Housin9. Unit Chan!!!.: 2006-2012 _ -------------
(Net New SF Units Permitted -:.ei1T
< 9 du/acre I I I I I I ;-;-;:;j
9-13 du/acre 11.11 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.11 12r-11.2
~-New MF Units Permitted -10j
Net New Units, Annex Area 0
13 • 19 du/acre I I I ! Net New Units (2006-2012) -6211
19-31 ctu/acre I 7.41 0.51 o.ol o.ol 6.81 3211 47.0 Plus Annexafn Area Target ol
31 -48 du/acre r~~-~~~r~-=]==~~~~~~-=l I ~-~----48 + -;:iu/acre_T ______ r___ 1 1 ~-et A51j_tJ~_tme!l_l_ to ~<l.t:.~-~--621
i
I
i
i
Other zones I 47.61 0.91 3.01 4.5 39.2 8921 22.8
T 3.0: MF Pmts Total I 56.01 1.41 1,2251 26.0 4.5 47.1
wet Adjustment to Target I
~---~-~ (621) -i Remaining Target (2012-2031) .. 3,379
July 23,2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 98
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF SAMMAMISH
Residential Land Supply and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2012
ROW & Public Net Available J Assumed Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres ' Density Net Capacity
Discount I
Sin!lle Family
"' Vacant Subtotal 1,334.001 664.00 227.80 15% 375.87 1.0/8.0 1,375
"0 Redev Subtotal 2,211.001 746.00 498.10 20% 773.60 1.0/8.0 2,314 0
0 Total 3,545.00[ 1,410.00 1,149.47 3,706 .c
~ Multifamily 0 .c .c Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 10% 0.00 0 Cl ·;;; Redev Subtotal 8.00 4.00 1.36 20% 2.11 11.0 18 z Total 8.00 4.00 2.11 18
Neighborhood Total 3,553.0 1,414.0 1,151.6 3,724
"' Multifamily in Mixed-Use "' :::J Vacant Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 10% 0.00 0 "0
"' Redev Subtotal 229.00 74.00 35.70 10% 107.42 7.3/41.7 1,742 >< ~ Total 229.0 74.0 107.4 1,742
' I
.fi All Housing
{2. Vacant Total 1,334.00 664.00 227.80 10% 375.87 1,375
3-RedevTotal 2,448.00 824.00 535.16 10%-15% 883.13 4,074
(3 Total I 3782.oL_ _ _148s.o 763.0 I 1259.0 5,466
:apac~ty (20~~). vs Housing Growth Target (2012;:,-_,2,03,_1'-'-r----------------------------------,
3,706
0
18
,y, .... ,.,,o;o,,,!_OC ..... ~ ....... ~.!Y_ ,,, , , ............ 0 !'v1ost of Sa rnmamish 's
Mixed-Use Zones-Town Center 1,742 re:,iclent 1a! capacity is in single
Mixed-Use Capacity in Pl_g_eline 0 family zones but also \Nith a
OtherAdjustments 0 substantialnumberinthe
! Tovvn Center mixed--use ;:;rev.
5,466
3,379
2,08"1
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
~-j _.;::>!';;,';'(''
n t/;]" :~-::l ;_:::::""
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 99
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF SAMMAMISH
From 2006 to 2012, Sammamish lost about300 industrial/construction jobs, but gained 400 commercial jobs for an overall slight net gain.
-The City has limited commercial areas, and limited growth potentiaL
-Town Center development proposal was approved in 2011 and is proceeding with development. Town Center will have capacity for nearly
2,000 jobs as well as multifamily housing in a mixed-use area. With the Town Center development in place, Sammamish's capacity exceeds
its job target. Much of Sammamish's employment capacity and job growth is in the education sector.
........... ................... L...o ................. rt:''.T ,..--.. ........... Emolovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs II Public Net Market Net-net
(max. dulacre) Area Areas (acres) Purpose Area Factor Area
(acres) (acres) ! (acres) (acres) (acres)
Comrn"l In dust. Total
Jobs Jobs* Employment
Vacant I Redev. 2006 Base Year 4,213 683 4,896
Commercial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10% 0.0
Mixed-Use 64.0 11.0 5.8 6.4 40.8 10% 36.7 2006-12 Change 3871 -271 116
Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-Res Land Total 64.0 11.01 5.81 6.4 40.8 36.7 = 2012 Jobs 4,6001 412 5,012
Employment Capacit] '(2012) I Adjustments i 0
Net Land Assumed Existing I ~~loor Area Sq. ft. per Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.) Employee Capacity
I i I ' I = 2012 Job Total 4,6oo 1 412 I 5,012 1
Neighborhoods i * industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Commercial 0.00 0.50 0.00 I 0.16 0
Industrial 0.00 0.00 ! 0.00 0
Neighborhood Total j I 0
Mixe<II-Use I Urban Center in millions of square feet, non-residential uses only.
Mixed Use Vacant I 0.00 I o.oo I 0
I Growth Target u~~.~~:·;~;;-;;;;·012
I Jobs Growth Target (2006-2031) 1,800
I Jobs Chancre: 2006--2-0_1_2----~-------l
Mixed Use Redev'able I 0.32 1.84 0.00 1 0.59 I 300 1,958 1 Plus Jl.nnexafn Area Taraet 0
I ' I ' Mixed-Use Total I 0.32 0.31/1.86 0.00 ! o.59 I 1,958
City Total I ! I
Less Job Gain, 2006-2012 -1161 1
I Net Adjustment to Target -1161 I
i I I Net Ad-ustrnent to Tar et
Commercial 0.00 0.50 0.00 j 0.00 0 Remaining Target (2012-2031)
Mixed-Use 0.32 1.84 0.00 l 0.59 1,958 2012 Job Ca acit [from table to !eft]
Industrial 0.00 0.00 ; 0.00 0 ' Adjustment to capacity
Jobs in Pipenne 0
City Total Capacity 0.321 I 0.00 i 0.591 1,958
Final2012 Job Capacity
~urplus/Deficit Caeacit~ I .274'
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 100
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
During the six years from 2006 to 2012, the City of Shoreline issued permits for 1,100 net new residential units, almost all multifamily.
The City's remaining residential target for growth by 2031 has thus been reduced from 5,000 to fewer than 3,900 units.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 HousinCJ Unit Update 2006 to 2012
Gross Critical Net Net Single Multi-I Total Zoned Density ROWs Public #Lots
(max. dulacre) Area Areas (acres) Purpose Area or Units Density Family* family I Hous'g Units
(acres) (acres)
Plats Recorded
0-3 dulacre I I
I
3-5 dulacre I ' I
5-7 dulacre 20.4 0.4 1.51
7-9 dulacre '
> 9 du/acre 4.1 0.0 0.11
Plats Total 24.6 0.4 1.61
Single-Family Permits Issued
0-3 du/acre
3-5 du/acre
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable
7-9 du/acre
> 9 dulacre
SF Pmts Total nla l nla I n/a I
Multifamily Permits Issued
< 9 du/acre I 5.1 2.11 0.2
9-13 du/acre I 2.9 0.0 0.0
13-19 du/acre I 0.2 0.0 0.0
19-31 du/acre I 3.0 0.0 0.4
31 -48 du/acre I 0.6 0.0 0.0
48 + du/acre I 1.1 0.0 0.0
Other zones ! 3.3 0.0 0.0
MF Pmts Total ' 16.1 2.1 0.6 ' '
July 23, 2014
(acres) (acres) (units/ac)
0.9 17.6 105 6.0
0.3 3.8 45 11.9
1.3 21.4 1501 7.0
I
8.1 131 1.6
38.7 222! 5.7
1.0 16\ 16.3
2.0 151 7.6
nla 49.8 2661 5.3
0.1 2.6 26! 9.9
0.0 2.9 331 11.3
0.0 0.2 31 17.4
0.9 1.7 51 I 30.9
0.0 0.6 17i 27.3
0.0 1.1 1091 101.8
0.0 3.3 139! 41.5
1.0 12.4 378[ 30.5
I
2006 Base Year 16,129 5,527
+ 2006-12 Permits 921 1,0501
= 2012 H.U. 16,2211 6,5771
Plus adjustmt (Census) 180 -20
I
-2012 Adi. H. Units 16 401 _§257j
*single family includes mobile homes
J Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
I Housing Growth Target (2006-2031)
1 Housma una <,;nanl12; :.tuuo-:.tuu
Net New SF Units Permitted -92
' Net New MF Units Permitted -1,0501
Net New Units, Annex Area 0
Net New Units (2006-2012) -1,1421
Plus Annexafn Area Target Ol
Net Adjustment to Taraet -1,142
I
Net Adjustment to Target !
Remaining Target (2012-2031)
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014
21,656
1,142
22,798
0
22 958
5,000
i
(1, 142) i
3,858 I
Page 101
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY
Residential L """
"' ,
0
0 .<::
0
-" .<::
"' ~
ill :::> ,
1l
:ili
1!1
{:.
~
i:3
Residential Capacity
I Single Family
Vacant
Total
ltifamily
/acant
'edev
lo\2
j Total
r in Mixed Use
Vacant
Redev Subtotal
I Mixed Use Total
~!
Vacant Total
RedevTotal
!Total
Unit V(201:
Gross acres
882.7
810.6e
1,693.36
J.8i
1.71
142.6~
1,836.0
0.0(
221.07
221.1
963.6(
2,057.1
Critical Areas
240.62
109.05
349.67
19.63
5.46
25.09
374.8
0.0(
0.00
0.0
260.25
114.51
374.8
ROW & Public I I Net Available
Purpose Market Factor Acres
14
171
0.00
8.10
3%
147.56
186.78
334.3
10%
25%
10%
25%
10%
25%
10%
25%
448.03
393.76
841.79
5
1
9
934.6
O.OC
160.34
160.3
500.21
594.77
1,095.0
CITY OF SHORELINE
Assumed
Density
4.79
5.69
16.37
12.02
Net Capacity
222
1,253
1,475
38
46
1,935
c
7,424
7,424
29E
9,061
9,359
Growth Target(2012-2031).,----------------------------------,
1,475
0
IVILU<II<..llll!ly L...UII"'.;:J 1 460
Multifamily Capacitv in Pipeline l 0 Shoreline's residen t!JI c3p3city
Mixed-Use Zones-Aurora, N.Citv, otherl 7,424 exceeds its rcmalningturget by
• •· · · · ~ · ·· ' o 5 .. 500 units. Most of the City's
Other Adjustments 1 0 G:Jpacityls in rnixed-us2areas
1 i indudingtheAurora corridor
1:_:"'"'-.C"?. =:" .. ~'-':'=_:!-----:.-:.-::_-::_ -:-. _c-:c_-:: __ :-:: .. -+---:::,;•:::~0'=~ and ;\J o rth City.
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
!'J
'>.-;:.,:> -;c,-
N ;>-~>>'
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 102
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF SHORELINE
The City of Sshoreline lost about 300 jobs during the 2006 -2012 reporting period.
-Commercial and residential capacity was added in Downtown by rezoning area along Aurora Ave to permit taller structures and greater FAR.
-The majority of commercial capacity increase occurred along Aurora, though smaller amounts of additonal capacity were added in
commercial areas in the Ballinger, Richmond Beach, Ridgecrest and North City neighborhoods.
-With a capacity oformore than 7,200 jobs, Shoreline's capacity for employment growth exceeds its target by nearly 2,000 jobs.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Zoned Density
(max. du/acre)
Gross Critical I ROWs I Public Net
Area Areas (acres) 1 Purpose Area
I (acres) (acrru;LL ......... 1 (acres) (acres)
Vacant I Redev.
Commercial 0.0 0.01 oi 0.0 0.0
Mixed-Use 221.1 0.0 81 0.0 213.0
Industrial 0.0 0.0 ol 0.0 0.0
Non-Res Land Total 221.1 0.0 8! 0.0 213.0
EmploymentCapacff (2012)
Net Land Assumed Existing J~loor Area
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.)
Neighborhoods I
!
Commercial i 0.00 0.30/0.31 0.00 I 0.00 I
Industrial I 0.00 0.42/0.40 0.00 I 0.00 I
Neighborhood Total ' I ; I I
Mixed-Use I Urban Center I
Mixed Use Vacant 0.00 0.00
Mixed Use Redev'able i 4.21 1.0 1.19 2.54
I
Mixed-Use Total I 4.21 0.30/2.00 1.19 2.54
City Total I ! I I
Commercial 0.00 0.30/0.31 0.00 ! 0.00
Mixed-Use 4.21 0.30/2.00 1.19 ; 2.54 '
Industrial 0.00 0.42/0.40 0.00 ! 0.00
Jobs in Pipeline
City Total I 4.21 I 1.19 I 2.54 '
Emplovment Update 2006 to 2012
T Net-net
Market I Area
I
Factor ! (acres)
Comm'l lnd ust. Total ---------·-·· ....... _, ... _ . .......................... ........................... ·-·-------,
Jobs Jobs* 1 Emplovment
I
2006 Base Year 15,213 1,123 16,336
10%/25%1 0.0
10%/25%[ 160.3 2006-12 Change I -137 -1921 -329 '
10%/25%1 0.0
I 160.3 = 2012 Jobs I 15,076j 9311 16,007
Adjustments I I 0 i
Sq. ft. per
1
I Job
Employee Capacity
'-'= 2012 Job~ 15,0761 _ ... 9}1] .. _ _16,007 .. I
*industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
-I 0
.. i 0
I 0
I
[Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012 1
IJotisGrowth i'ar9E!i(2oo6:2o31i 1 5,ooo l r-~~----~:=:::·· -:··--r .. -··········!
'Jobs Chanqes, 2006-2012: I ! '
2931 0 Plus Annexat'n Area Target 0 I
3001 7,256 Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 329 l
' ! Net Adjustment to Target 329 I
2961 7,256 L I
Net Adiustment to Tarqet I 329 I
' ' Remaining Target (2012-2031) 5,329 !
-i 0 ' 2012 Job Caoacity [from table to left] 7,256 i
296! 7,256
' 0 -I
0
0,9justrnent to capacity•• ' o I I
I I Final2012 Job Capacity 7,256 I
Surplus/Deficit Capacity [ 1,927 I
j 7,256 **capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 103
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
From 2006 to 2012, Woodinville issued permits for about 570 new housing units. An adjustment based on the 2010 Census count added
another250 units fora total of about 5,000 housing units in 2012.
-Woodinville's achieved residential densities were updated for the 2006-11 measurement period using GIS analysis.
Woodinville's housing target is to plan for about 2,400 housing units to be added by 2031.
Residential Development Activity: 2006-2011 Housinq Unit U/Jdate 2006 to 20f2
Zoned Density 1 Gross Critical ROWs Public Net 1 Net i Area Areas (acres) Purpose Area # Lot_s ; I Density (max. dulacre) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) or Units I (units/ac)
Single Multi-Total
Family* family Hous'g Units
'
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 2,903 1,276 4,179
0-3 dulacre I 21.0 0.0 2.91 0.0 18.2 171 0.9
3-5 dulacre I 0.0 0.0 o.o: 0.0 0.0 Oj + 2006-12 Permits 98 4751 573
5-7 dulacre 3.8 0.0 1.1! 0.0 2.8 161 5.8
7-9 dulacre ' I ! I= 2012 H.U. (old bdry) 3,001 1,7511 4,752
> 9 du/acre I
J I I
Plats Total I 24.8! 0.0 4.0J 0.0 21.0 33j 1.6 !Plus adjustment 40 210 250
I I
Single-Family Permits Issued I= 2012 Adi. H. Units 3 041 .1,9611 __ J'j,002
0-3 du/acre 18.0 161 0.9 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 3.5 431 12.4
5-7 dulacre Not Applicable 24.8 86! 3.5 ·-· ---~-"-~·~
7-9 du/acre 0.7 51 7.1
> 9 du/acre 0.0 01 Growth Tar:g_et Ue.date, 2006 to 2012
SF Pmts Total nla I nla I n/a l nla 47.0 1501 3.2 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 3,000
Multifamlly_ Permits Issued
1
HousinfJ. Unit ChanfJ!t.: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted -981
< 9 ctutacre I o.ol o.ol o.oi o.ol 6.6] ---oi Net New MF Units Permitted -475
9-13 du/acre I I I I -~ ------~ Net New Units, Annex Area 0
-~~-~-~~~~:--F---+--~==-=====-t-----+-------------t------~~t New U~its (?_qo6-?.Q12) _____ _:§7~!-----------
Plus Annexat'n Area Target O!
31 -48 dulacre I 22.61 15.6 0.01 0.01 7.0 4581 65.4 Net Adjustment to Target -573
48 + du/acre I I i I I I
Other zones 0.0 0.0 29.0 Net Adjustment to Target I (573)
MF Pmts Total 0.0 0.0 63.9 Remaining Target (2012-2031l _ ___ 2,427
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 104
-··~---·-
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY CITY OF WOODINVILLE
Residential Land Supply and Dwelling Unit Capacity (2012
ROW &Public Net Available Assumed Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Acres Density Net Capacity
Discount
Single Family
., Vacant Subtotal 217.1 74.6 29.9 14% 97.1 0.9/7.2 310
"0 Redev Subtotal 453.6 92.8 54.1 15% 260.7 0.9/7.2 669 0
0 Total 670.7 167.4 24% 357.8 979 "" 0 Multifamily .c I 0.01 "" Vacant Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 10% 0 Cl ·;; Redev Subtotal I 1.1 0.7 0.2 15% 0.21 10 I 65 25 ' :z
Total 1.1 0.7 5% 0.21 25
Neighborhood Total 671.8 168.1 358.0 1,010
"' Multifamily in Mixed Use .,
:::> Vacant Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 10% 0.0 0 "0
~ Redev Subtotal 45.4 22.3 2.3 15%1 17.7 36/90 1,592
~ Mixed Use Total 45.4 22.3 3% 17.7 1,811
"' All Housing
~
0 Vacan!T otal 217.10 74.60 29.85 10% 97.10 310 ....
.i':' RedevTotal 500.13 115.74 56.62 25% 278.61 2,286
u Total 717.2 190.3 86.5 375.7 2,821 '------
Note: Numbers above include projects in the pipeline.
! ':._af:Jd'-'.~Y '."v ~~~. v~ nuu;:o111y o..7t uwut 1 at y=f {2012-2031J..,...------------------------------------------,
979
6
I "'"'"'~'""' ~"~ I 25 I ' . . . I ' . .
••••• r .. -• -· •• 0 ·Noodmv!l.t~ s re:>~dentJal
.v .. ..-...-.... -.... ..,v ~~~ .. ;;>-..... vvv11 lvvv11 , vu'"''" 1,592 capacity exc22ds its remaining
Mixed-UseCapaci inPipeline 219 targetby400units.fV1o(ethan
10therAdjustments 0 halfofth<2 capacity is in
rnixed-use areas
IIUI.d.l vca.pCl\,ll,.y {uun.~) ! '2,82n downto•,,vn.
-. . .. ' -·--·-___ .. 2,427
394
Housing Capacity
(in housing units)
"-if,_,;~;. {2":~ ~
~~'l ;-,-;;:~,;;_1 =,.> .,,
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 105
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF WOODINVILLE
Woodinville experienced a substantial job loss during the 2006 to 2012 period, almost entirely in industrial jobs. As of2012, the City had about
11,800 jobs.
-As a result of the job loss, there are vacant work spaces that can accommodate about2,000 workers to bring the City back to its 2006 job
total. Together with Woodinville's 2006 job target, the City's curreoJjob target is to plan for 7,000 additional jobs.
-With downtown redevelopment planning underway, Woodinville has capacity for more than 7,100 new jobs, a slight surplus over the City's
updated target
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres) Emo/ovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWs Public Net Market ! Net-net
(max. dul acre) Area Areas (acres) Purpose Area I Area
(acres) (acres) Factor (~ >) (acres) (acres) acres
Comm'l lndust. Total ,_, __ .,.., ______ , .. ________ ,_ ...... ·····--.. ----------einploymeii"t Jobs Jobs*
Vacant I Redev. 2006 Base Year 6,607 7,261 13,868
Commercial I 59.3 20.5 0.3! 1.9 33.3 15% 28.3
Mixed-Use I 181.6 26.8 8.01 7.7 139.0 15% 118.4 2006-12 Change -7 -2,0141 -2,021
Industrial 105.0 25.1 3.81 4.1 68.9 15% 58.5
Non-Res Land Total 345.9 72.4 12.11 13.7 241.2 ! 205.2 = 2012 Jobs 6,600 5,2471 11,847
Emp{oymentCapacm (2012) Adjustments 0
Net Land Assumed Existing )~~Iocr Area Sq. ft. per
0
I Job
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft) Employee Capacity
= 2012 Job Total I 6,60.!JL s,~£L. 11,847
* industrial = manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
Neighborhoods I
!
Commercial i 1.23 0.30 o.o1 I 0.37 325/550j 683 Growth Targ_et Uedate, 2006 to 2012
Industrial I 2.55 0.30 0.14 l 0.62 7001 909 !
NeiQhborhood Total I 3.78 0.22 I 0.99 I 1,592 I
...........•. ····· ..... . . . .. , .. ..•. ";;;··
~o~s ~r()~h!a_~getJ200~-.21()_31).. . J... . .5.,000
i i
0 A-0 ,_, __ ,. ~.--.-"_,,_._,,_,
Mixed-Use I Urban Center I I Jobs Chanaes. 2006-2012:
Mixed Use Vacant I 0.13 0.60 0.07 4001 172 Plus Annexafn Area Target 0
Mixed Use Redev'able I 3.75 0.60 1.10 1.15 4001 2,608 Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 2021
i ' ! Net Adjustment to Tar<Jet 2,021
Mixed-Use Total i 3.87 0.48/0.60 1.10 1.22 4001 2,780 r:-Net Adjustment to Tarqet 2,021
City Total I i I ! I Remaining Target (2012-2031) 7,021
Commercial I 1.23 0.30 0.07 i 0.37 325/5501 683 • 2012 Job Capacity [from table to left] 5,144
Mixed-Use i 3.87 0.48/0.60 1.10 ' 1.22 400! 2,780 i Adjustment to capacity** I 2,021
Industrial I 2.55 0.30 0.14 : 0.62 700i 909 Final2012 Job Capacity 7,165
Jobs in Pipeline 772 §_urplusl[)<>ficit~"P.i!<:ity _____ •. 144 ...
------~-------··
City Total I 7.65 1 1.32 l 2.21 ! 5,144 **capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
I
i
l
I
I
'
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 106
Algona
Beaux Arts
Black Diamond
Carnation
Clyde Hill
Covington
Duval
Enumclaw
Hunts Point
Lake Forest Park
Medina
Milton
Newcastle
Normandy Park
North Bend
Pacific
Skykomish
Snoqualmie
Yarrow Point
Urban Unincorporated King County
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 107
Blank.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 108
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Algona gained an average of ten housing units per year. The City has sufficient capacity to accommodate
its updated target of 133 additional housing units between 2012 and 2031.
-Algona reported sufficient job capacity in the 2007 BLR and gained more jobs than its 25-yeartarget. K continues to have job capacity.
l~~~~ina U=~~ U:d~~~n;~of ~u!~:2=-!~~! .......
Fami • i family Hous'g Units
Emolovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Comm'l In dust. Total -------~--..... .......... ,. ____ ----------···-Jobs Jobs* Employment
' 2006 Base Year 946 39 985 ' 2006 Base Year 383 1,481 1,864
+ 2006-12 Permits 48! 91 57 2006-12 Change -237 500 263
~ 2012 H.U. 994i 48 1,042 -2012 Jobs 146 1,981 2,127
Plus anxtn, adjustmt Oi 0 0 Adjustments I 0
I I L = 2012 Job Total I 146 I 1,981] 2, 12_7_
F 2012 Adj. H. Units 994[ 481 1,042 1 *industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
*single family includes mobile homes
r:-· . . . '-:-1 Growth Target Up_date, 2006 to 2012
Housing Growth Target {2006-2031) 190
I Growth Target Up_daie, 2006 to 2012--------
~~li:S:§.rowth ·fa.!iJ~fJ2~os:2031I_.,. -~-~--·-···--~1 r•.·
Housina Unit ChanQe: 2006-2012 i '
Net New SF Units Permitted -481 JOl15cili;n~.2doG-2ot2:
Net New MF Units Permitted -91 Plus Annexafn Area Tarciet O!
Net New Units, Annex Area 0 Minus Job Gain, 2006-2012 -263
Net New Units {2006-2012) -571 Net Adjustment to Target -263
Plus_,l\!:!_~~xat'~j<rea Target___ OJ I ·····-·····--Net Adjustment to T arqet -57 f.:-,-,-_--------······-····------··-·--.. ···--···-·--·-··----~"' Net Adiustmentto Target (263)
Net Adjustment to Target ! I {57) Remaining Target {2012-2031) {53
Remaining Target (2012·2031)_~_-j___J33 2006 Job Capacity (fium 2D07 BLR) 580
~~~-
Six-year adjusbnent to capacity (263)
Housing Capacity {units, 2006) 320 Final 2012 Job Capacity 317
Less 2006 -2011 Units Permitted -57 ,§IJr(liU_s/DeficitGapacity_ __ I . · ____ :"~370
Total Capacity {units, 2012) i 263 JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY:
Remaininq Housing Target {2012-203 133 Algona has already met its 2031
~iju_s!Defic~t_<:;f}p_a_cit)' __ .. L . _ .. _ l'c' 1:30 job target, but continues to have additional job-growth capacity.
i
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 109
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, there was little change in the housing stock of Beaux Arts Village. Beaux Arts has capacity to accommodate its
modest remaining housing target. The Town lost a few jobs during the 2006-2012 reporting period.
-Beaux Arts nominally has a growth target of 3 jobs, but with no commercial zoning, a target of zero jobs would be appropriate.
~ina Unit Update 2006 to 2012
I Single ! Multi-Total
Employment Update 2006 to 2012
Comm'l In dust. Total
1 Familv* I familv Hous'g Units Jobs Jobs* Employment
I
2006 Base Year 124 0 124 2006 Base Year** n.a. n.a. 19 ............ ,,, __________________ , .. ______ r-------zr·----.............
+ 2006-12 Permits Oi 2 2
' I
= 2012 H.U. 124! 2 126
I· iiios:·.;Tch~-,;-g-er··-~:-ar--n:ar-------------------:6·-j
I I I -2012 Jobs I n.a. I n.a. I 13 I
Plus anx:tn, adjustmt O! 0 0
! I I Adjustments I I ~ i = 2012 Job Total --L _____ 13
!= 2012 Adj. H.Units 12L _ _&_ ___ 12!___J *industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
*single family includes mobile homes ,.... employment data by~ype are not available
Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012 Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012 I
I
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 3
Housino Unit Chanoe: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted Ol
I
1-- --------------------------------------------I
Jo_bsGrowth _TargftJ2Q06:~0~1L _ -~ l)ee Note __
1 ~·~~~L'---r'--Jobs ch~;,-~~2006~2012:
Net New MF Units Permitted -21 Plus Annexafn Area Target 0
Net New Units, Annex Area 0 r.:----------~-----------------------Net New Units 2006-2012) -21
Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 6 '----------·--------·-----·-------···--·-···· .. •··· .......... _,_, _____ _
Net Adjustment to Target 6
Plus Annexafn Area Target Ol
Net Adjustment to T arqet -2 Net Adjustment to Target 6
Net Adjustment to Target i I (2) Remaining Target (2012-2031) J
Remaining Target (2012,2031) I 1 2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR) i 0
~?:':1~?:~-~-~i!l~_!me~t_l_?_~~P!.<:i.ty*~: ......... .JI ______ ....::.J
Final 2012 Job Capacity Housing C~p~-~ity (u~its, 2006) 5
Less 2006-2011 Units Permitted -2 Surplus/Deficit Capacity 1
Total Capacity (units, 2012) i 3 JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY: *"'*capacity created by job loss: empty job spaces can be refilled.
Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031) 1
~,!IS/Deficit Capacity ' 1---. 2 . I
' Beaux Arts has no commercial zoning and no formal capacity for job growth.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 110
-------
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Black Diamond issued permits for about 40 housing units.
-Black Diamond has capacity for more than 4,000 housing units, primarily in two master-planned developments.
-The City lost industrial jobs during the 2006-2012 reporting period. There is sufficient remaining capacity for job growth.
Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012 Emolovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Single I Multi-Total Comm'l In dust. Total
Family* I family Hous'g Units Jobs Jobs* Employment
!
2006 Base Year 1 1,541 37 1,578 2006 Base Year 317 163 480
+ 2006-12 Permits 1 32! 71 39 2006-12 Change I 111 -821 -71
I
= 2012 H.U. I 1,573! 44 1,617 I -2012 Jobs 3281 811 409
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 1 70! 0 70 Adjustments I 0
I ! -2012 Job Tot~ 3281 811 409
[= 2012 Adj. H. Unit' 1,643j 44L ___ 1,687 *industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
*single family includes mobile homes
Growth Target Update. 2006 to 2012 Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
-· '~-"-~" -· ·-·· ----·· --~------, __ ,
1,900 J()I:>S GrowthTarg~t (2006:2,~31) _ ~ _ _ _ _1,0(;0
-32 Jobs chimO..S. irios-2o12: I
Net New MF Units Permitted -7 Plus Annexafn Area T arqet Ol
l~~t_~~-~-~IJ.n.lts, ~-~~~.f..!~~--0 ----------I Net New Units (2006-2012) -39 ~!);l-X~i~~~.:n~~~~~~~t-·----~*----------·-·-·-
1 Plus Annexafn Area Target 0
Net Ad·ustment to Tar et -39 Net Adjustment to T aroet 71
Net Adjustment to Target I (39) Remaining Target (2012-2031) 1,121
I Remaining Target (2012-2031) 1,861 2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLRJ 4,700
.§':'~:t.~§lr adjuslme'2_1_~<_;§1p~~!Y..:.__ __ 71
Final 2012 Job Capacity 4,771
Surplus/Deficit Capacity I ,: .. -. 3,650
I Housing Capacity (units, 20061 4,270
1 Less 2006 -2011 Units Permitted -39
T~al Capacitl( (units, ~Q!~lJ ----~~~~.!._-JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY: *"'capacity created by job loss: empty job spaces can be refilled.
Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031 1,861
Surplus/Deficit Capacity I 2,~10 Black Diamond continues to have sufficient job capacity to meet the updated job target
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 111
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Carnation had no net change in housing units. Its residential target remains the same at 330 units.
-Carnation continues to have sufficient residential capacity-800 housing units-to meet the updated target.
-Exact data on jobs by type are not available, but Carnation had a substantial job loss between2006 and 2012.
~ina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012 Emp.fo'{.ment Uf!.date, 2006 to 2012
Single I Multi-Total I Comm'l In dust. Total
Family* I family Hous'g Units I Jobs Jobs* Employment
i I
2006 Base Year 595 63 658 2006 Base Year** I 641 222 863
+ 2006-12 Permits I O! Ol 0 2006-12 Change I -191 -142 -161
I
= 2012 H.U. I 5951 63 658 -2012 Jobs I 6221 80 702
Plus anxtn, adjustmt I 10! 0 10 Adjustments I I 0
I i = 2012 Job Total I 622 sol. 702
~?Adj. H.Unitsj 605! 63 668 *industrial::: manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
*single family includes mobile homes **2006 employment numbers by type are approximate.
1 ;;:::0:::.::~::::::::1~:20 ~~ .. ·---37QJ
I • '
-·-----.-------i
-
Growth Target Uf!.date. 2006 to 2012
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 330
Housing Unit Change: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted Ol Jobs Changes, 2006-2012:
Net New MF Units Permitted ol Plus Annexat'n Area Target 0
Net New Units, Annex Area 0 Plus Job Loss, 2006--2012 161
Net New Units (2006-2012) ol Net Adjustment to T ar!i!et 1611 I
Plus Annexat'n Area Target ol '
Net Adjustment to Target 0 Net Adjustment to Target I 161
Net Adjustment to Target l I 0 Remaining Target (2012-2031) I 531
! Remaining Target (2012-2031) I 330 2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR) I 1 ,570
,-:-:---:--~--.
Housing Capacity (units, 2006) 800
Less 2006-2011 Units Permitted 0
Six-year adjustment to capacity*** I 161 J
-~ Final2012 Job Capacity 1,731
, Surplus/Deficit Capacity I 1,200
Total Capacity (units, 2012) I 800 JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY: **'capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
~ining Housing Target (2012-2031 330
! · ........ 4'70 Surplus/Deficit Capacity j
Carnation continues to have sufficient job capacity
to meet its updated target. Some of the City's job capacity is in its UGA outside city limits.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 112
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, there was no change in the City of Clyde Hill's housing stock.
-Clyde Hill has capacity to accommodate its modest housing target.
-The City lost jobs during the 2006-2012 reporting period. Clyde Hill has no job target, but has capacity to replace lost jobs.
Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012 Employment Update 2006 to 2012
Single i Multi-Total I Comm'l Indus!. I Total
Family* i family Hous'!l Units Jobs Jobs* I Employment
I i I ' I
2006 Base Year I 1,065 2 1,067 2006 Base Year"'"' 600 84 684
+ 2006-12 Permits 1 -21 2 0 2006-12 Change -321 -531 -85
I
= 2012 H.U. I 1,0631 4 1,067 = 2012 Jobs 5681 311 599
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 301 0 30 Adjustments I 0
i _-: 2012 Job Total I 56BL -~1L__ __ ........ 599
i= 20t2 Adi· H. Units 1,093! 4L_ 1,097 *industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
* single family includes mobile homes -2006 employment numbers by type are approximate. -eh Target Update. 2006 to 2012
ing Growth Target (2006-2031) 10
Housincs Unit Ghanese: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted 21
I Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
IJol>s_Gr(),.ih']"arg~tJ2_(lo~:2931L _ .... 0 -·--· --' I I . ;c,t;;;·cha"ii;;;.; iilos-2o12: I
Net New MF Units Permitted -21 ·Plus Annexafn Area Taraet 0
Net New Units, Annex Area 0 Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 85
Net New Units (2006-2012)" Ol NetAdj-;_.stment to Tar<let 85
Plus Annexafn Area Target O!
Net Adjustment to Target 0 I Net Adjustment to Taraet 85
Net Adjustment to Target i I 0 Remaining Target (2012-2031) 85
! Remaining Target (2012-2031) _ _L_..!Q_ 2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR) 0
Six-year adjustment to capacity-85 I Final 2012 Job Capacity 85
I Surplus/Deficit Capacity I 0
! Housing Capacity (units, 20061 25
I Less 2006 -2011 Units Permitted 0
I Total Capacity (units, 2012) l 25
1 Remammg Housm9 Target (2012-2031 10
I Surplus/Deficit Capacity i I·, · .~5.
JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY: -·capacity created by job loss: empty job spaces can be refilled,
Clyde Hill has no job target; empty job space in existing buildings can be refilled.
--
. .
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 113
---~ .. ----------
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Covington added nearly 400 housing units to reach a 2012 total of about 6,200 units. Covington
continues to have sufficient residential capacity to meet and exceed its 2031 housing target.
The City had substantial growth of commercial jobs during the 2006-2012 period.
Housina Unit Update 2006 to 2012 I Sim1le I Multi-Total
Employment Update 2006 to 2012
Comm'l In dust. Total
Family* I family Hous'g Units Jobs Jobs* Employment
!
2006 Base Year 5,567 243 5,810 2006 Base Year 2,969 479 3,448
+ 2006-12 Permits 2481 126 374 2006-12 Change 1,110 38 1,148
= 2012 H.U. 5,8151 369 6,184 -2012 Jobs I 4,079 517 4,596
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 100! -120 -20 J\djustments ! I 0
;
I = 2012 Job Total 4,079 5171 4,596
-2012 Adj. H.Units 5,9151 249! 6,164 *industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
"'singre family includes mobile homes
Growth Target Update. 2006 to 2012 Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 1,470
Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
i ;·; --. .,.,,.,,, .. ., .. -, ----~~ •> -
===G:()~_Ta!gt(2_oo_6~2~~!L 1,320
Net New SF Units Permitted -2481 Jobs Chanaes. 2006-2012: I
Net New MF Units Permitted -1261 Plus Annexafn Area Target 0
~et New Units, Annex Area 0
Net New Units (2006-2012) -3741
Minus Job Gain, 2006-2012 -1148 --Net Adjustment to Target -1,148
Plus Annexafn Area Target o!
Net Adjustment to Tarqet -374 Net Adjustment to T arqet (1.148
Net Adjustment to Target i I (374} Remaining Target (2012-2031) 172
~ernaillin_~I_Targ~t (2012-20:11) . j_ _ _!,Q!l§__ 2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR) 3,330
Six-year adjustment to capacity** (1 '148)
Housin<! Capacitv (units, 2006) 3,300 Final 2012 Job Capacity 2,182
Less 2006-2011 Units Permitted -374 Surplus/Deficit Capaci(L ____ -• ....•. ·_.······ 2,0c!!J
Total Capacity (units, 2012)! 2,926 JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY:
Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031 1,096
Surplus/Deficit Capacity i I ·-J;S'~O Covington continues to have sufficient job capacity to accommodate job growth.
I
I
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 114
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Duvall issued permits for about200 new housing units, mostly single family.
-Duvall reported sufficient residential capacity in the 2007 BLR; it continues to have sufficient capacity to meet the updated housing target.
-Between 2006 and 2012, Duvall gained commercial jobs and lost a few industrial jobs. The City continues to have capacity to
accommodate targeted job growth ·----Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012 Emolovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Single i Multi-Total Comm'l Indus!. I Total
Family* ! family Hous'g Units Jobs Jobs* I Employment
' 2006 Base Year 1,977 139 2,116 2006 Base Year 853 180 1,033
+ 2006-12 Permits 1911 191 210 2006-12 Chan<Je I 285 -661 219
= 2012 H.U. 2,1681 158 2,326 -2012 Jobs 1,138 1141 1,252
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 70! 0 70 Adjustments 0
! -2012 Job Total 1,1381 114L 1,252
~012 Adj. H. Units 2,23~1 158 2,396 * industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
*single family includes mobile homes
1,140
Net New SF Units Permitted
I Growth Targ_et Up_date, 2006 to 2012 ··-·-·
lJolls<>i:~Wfhf~r9~tJ2oos=2o31f. r: · ······ __ ·s41l_
bo"b:S-cilaiJ;;.;;;~2~6-2012: 1
:
1 Net New MF Units Permitted Plus Annexafn Area Tarqet 0
Minus Job Gain, 2006-2012 -219
Net Adjustment to Tarqet -219
1 Net Ad·ustrnent to Tar et -210 Net Adiustment to Target (219]
Net Adjustment to Target I (210) 1 Remaining Target (2012-2031) 621
I Remaining Target (2012-2031) 930
--~---~
2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR) 1,600
~~~Xj'-~r a~justr:':'<ont !~£.''.P.~~!!L.. (219)
lFinal 2012 Job capacity 1,381
Surl'lusl[)"fi"it_(;_aj)acit}r _ _ . _L2.:2::..:L __ __760
! Housing Capacity {units, 2006) 2,650
Less 2006-2011 Units Permitted -210
Total Capacity (units, 2012) I 2,440 CAPACITY SUMMARY:
1 R<!maininlj Housinlj Tarljet (2012-2031) 930
! Surpl~!l~[).,fi«i! <:;apa.,Ity L ___
••···. ~~;510 Duvall continues to have sufficient job capacity to meet its updated target, 600 jobs.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 115
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Enumclaw gained about 140 housing units and about 140 jobs.
-Enumclaw reported sufficient residential capacity in the 2007 BLR; it continues to have sufficient capacity to meet the updated target.
Housina Unit Update 2006 to 2012 Emp/ovment Update 2006 to 2012
Single I Multi-Total Comm'l Indus!. Total
Family* i family Hous'g Units Jobs Jobs* Employment
!
2006 Base Year 3,351 1,241 4,592 2006 Base Year 3,762 649 4,411
+ 2006-12 Permits 122! 20 142 2006-12 Change I -451 187 142
= 2012 H.U. 3,4731 1,2611 4,734 = 2012Jobs 3,717 8361 4,553
Plus anxtn, adjustmt soi 20 100 Adjustments 0
I I = 2012 Job Total 3,717 8361 ___ 4,553._
= 2012 Adj. H.Units 3,553! 1,281 4,834 *industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
*single family includes mobile homes
I Gr.;wth T~rqet Update, 2006 to 2012 --Growth Target Update. 2006 to 2012
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 1,425 ~<>.il~i:;r<iVrth.!<t!9~J~Q~:~.3!L ~~T .:~:~ _. __ n5.
Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted -1221
I . .. . ......... ·····'
Jobs ChanCIPs 2006-2012: l
Net New MF Units Permitted -201
Net New Units, Annex Area 0
Plus Annexafn Area Target -14~1 Minus Job Gain, 2006-2012
Net New Units (2006-20121 -1421 Net Adiustrnent to Taraet -1421
Plus Annexafn Area Target Ol
Net Adjustment to T arqet -142 Net Adjustment to Target I (142:
Net Adjustment to Target I I (142) Remaining Target (2012-2031) I 593
~.rnaining Target (2012-2031L__L~_,?~~-2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR) I 1,790
Six-year adjustment to capacily I (142)
Final 2012 Job Capacity 1,648 'Hou~ing Capacity (units, 2006) 3,250
Less 2006 -2011 Units Permitted ·142 &_urplus/Deficit_Ca~acity
_j___ ··-·· .
.1,1)§§
TotaiC~acity(units,2012)f ____ _]J.~g_l! ___ CAPACITY SUMMARY:
Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031) 1,283
§IJrp~us/I)E!ficit C~l'_acity __ L . ___ L. _1;825,c._ Enumclaw continues to have sufficient job capacity to meet its updated job target.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 116
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between2006 and 2012, there was little change in the housing stock of Hunts Point. The Town has capacity to accommodate its modest
remaining housing target. Hunts Point lost a few jobs during the 2006-2012 reporting period.
-Hunts Point has no commercial zoning and no job target.
Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012 Emolovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Single ! Multi-Total Comm'l Indus!. Total
Family* I family Hous'g Units Jobs Jobs* Employment
I I
2006 Base Year 192 0 192 2006 Base Year** n.a. n.a. 36
+ 2006-12 Permits -5[ Ol -5 2006-12 Change I n.a.l n.a.l -7
'
= 2012 H.U. 187i Ol 187 = 2012 Jobs I n.a.l n.a.l 29
Plus anxtn, adjustmt -10[ 0 -10 Adjustments I 0
! I -2012 Job Total I -I -I 29
c 2012 Adi. H. Unit• -177\ Ol 177 *industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
""single family includes mobile homes
Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012 1 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031)
Housing Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
** employment_c:l_?l~--~ytype are not available
Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
,J()bs GroW!~:rar_9 et:I2iiQ"s:i@1) . -~. 0
1 i \
Net New SF Units Permitted 51 :i;,bs-Cha;.;;,;;-2oos-2o12:
Net New MF Units Permitted Ol Plus Annexarn Area Taraet 0
Net New Units, Annex Area 0 Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 7 --Net New Units (2006-2012) 51 Net Adiustment to Target 7
Plus Annexat'n Area Target Dl
Net Adjustment to Target 5 Net Adjustment to Target
Net Adjustment to Target i I 5 Remaining Target (2012-2031)
Remaining Target (2012-2031) I L 2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR)
Six-year adjustment to capacity*** I
Housl,;g Capacity (units, 2006) 1 Final2012 Job Capacity
Less 2006-2011 Units Permitted 5 Surplus/Deficit Capacity
Total Capacity (units, 2012) i 6 JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY: ***capacity created by job loss: empty job spaces can be refilled.
Remaining HousinQ Target (2012-2031 6
Surplus/Deficit Capacity i .. •.•·.· .·· () Hunts Point has no commercial zoning and no formal capacity for job growth.
!
I
i
I
7
0
7
7
7
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 117
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Lake Forest Park had slight gains in housing units and jobs.
-Lake Forest Park reported sufficient residential capacity in the 2007 BLR; it continues to have sufficient capacity to meet the updated targets.
Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012
i Single I Multi-Total
EmgJoJt.ment Uedate, 2006 to 2012
Comm'l I lndust. i Total
' Family* I family Hous'g Units Jobs I Jobs* I Employment
i ' ' ' I
2006 Base Year I 4,449 778 5,227 2006 Base Year 1,339 282 1,621
+ 2006-12 Permits 361 81 44 2006-12 Change 1971 -1021 95
= 2012 H.U. 4,485i 7861 5,271 -2012 Jobs I 1,5361 1801 1,716
Plus adjustment 10, 0 10 Adjustments I I 0
I -2012 Job Total I 1,5361 1801 ---1,716-
I= 2012 Adj. H. Units 4,495i 7861 ---~~-8.!._ * industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
*single family includes mobile homes
c---
1 Growth Target Uedate. 2006 to 2012
I Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 475
Housinq Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted -361
Growth Taraet Ued~te~ 2~~6to 201~ _ _ . -· . -··
i Jobs Gro~hiargrt _(2.Q06-2i031} _ ~ . _ . . :!1.Cl
1 Job5ciian;;,;;. ioo6-2o12:
Net New MF Units Permitted -81 Plus Annexafn Area Taraet 0
Net New Units, Annex Area 0 Minus Job Gain, 2006-2012 -95
i Net Nlew Units 12006-2012) -441 Net Adiustment to Taraet -95
Plus Annexat'n Area Target Ol
Net Adjustment to Target -44 Net Adiustment to Taraet f95
Net Adjustment to Target I I (44) , Remaining Target (2012-2031) 115
Remaining Tar9et (2012-2031) I 431 -2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR) 380
Six-year adjustment to capacity** (95)
-c·
Housinq Capacitv (units, 2006) 675
Less 2006-2011 Units Permitted -44
Final2012 Job Capacity 285
Surplus/Deficit Capacity l 170
Total CapacitY (units, 201211 631 CAPACITY SUMMARY: **capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
Remaining Housin~et (2012-2031 431
~ 200 Surplus/Deficit Capacity i Lake Forest Park continues to have sufficient job capacity for its updated job target.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 118
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Medina had very little change in housing stock. tt continues to have sufficient capacity to accommodate
tts small residential growth target.
-Medina had essentially no net change in jobs during the reporting period, and a commercial-industrial breakdown was not available in 2006.
Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012
Single I Multi-Total
Emolovment Update 2006 to 2012 I
Comm'l Indus!. Total I
Family* I family Hous'g Units Jobs Jobs* Employment
' ' I
2006 Base Year 1,169 0 1,169 2006 Base Year n.a. n.a. 283
i
+ 2006-12 Permits -6l 21 -4 2006-12 Change I n.a. n.a.! -1
-2012 H.U. 1,1631 21 1,165 = 2012 Jobs I 265 171 282
Plus adjustment 10! 0 10 Adjustments I I 0
' I I ~ 2012 Job Total I 265 171 282 -I= 2012 Adj. H. Units 1,173! -21_ 1,175 * industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
*single family includes mobile homes
Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012 !-Growth Taraet Uodate. 2006 to 2012 -~
--.. ··-·. . .•.. . . . -.. .• . -·. ·-···
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 19
Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted 61
i . ".bs _ _!>_l"o~h T<trllft (2006:2]031L _ .. ... • o
Jobs Chanaes. 2006-2012:
Net New MF Units Permitted -21 Plus Annexafn Area TarQet 0
Net New Units, Annex Area 0
Net New Units (2006-2012) 41
1 Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 1 1
Net Adiustment to Tar~et 1 I
Plus Annexat'n Area Target Ol I
Net Adjustment to Target 4 Net Ad'ustment to Taraet 1
I Net Adjustment to Target I I 4 Remaining Target (2012-2031) 1
~aining Target (2012-2031) I 23 , 2006 Job Capacity (rrom 2001 BLR) 0
Housing Capacity (units, 2006) 40
~year adjustment to capacity** 1
Final 2012 Job Capacity 1
Plus 2006 -2011 Units net change 4 _Surpi!J!;/D_eficit Capacity I · ·· ·. _.• · _ 0,
Total Capacity (units, 2012)' 44 CAPACITY SUMMARY: **capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031 23
Surplus/Deficit Capacity I .·_·· .. ·.·.·.·._. 21 Medina has no job target, and no reported job-growth capacity in 2007 or at present.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Repmt 2014 Page 119
-----------
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, Milton gained about 30 multifamily housing units. The City has capacity to accommodate its King County housing
target. There are very few jobs in the King County portion of Milton.
-Milton has a sizeable job capacity, more than enough to accommoate its 2031 job target.
Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012
Single ! Multi-Total
Family* ! familv Hous'g Units
l l
2006 Base Year 339 2 341
+ 2006-12 Permits 2! 30 32
-2012 H.U. 341 i 32 373
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 10! -10 0
;
I
~ 2012 Adj. H.Units 351! 22 373
*single ~amily includes mobile homes
Growth Target Update. 2006 to 2012
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 50
Housinct Unit Chanqe: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted -21 ' Net New MF Units Permitted -301 I
Net New Units, Annex Area 0 l
Net New Units-/2006-2012) -321
Plus Annexat'n Area Target ol
Net Adjustment to Target -32
Net Adjustment to Target ! I (32) I
~e.!!'_aining_T_"'=get_ (~0_1~-2()31_L_ ___ I 18 I
Housing Capacity (units, 2006} 420
Less 2006-2011 Units Permitted -32
Total Capacity (units, 2012) I 388
Remaining Housing Tar9et (2012-2031 18
Surplus/Deficit Capacity i . > .370. !
July 23, 2014
JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY:
Employment Update 2006 to 2012 I Comm'l lndust. Total
Jobs Jobs* Employment I
I
2006 Base Year** n.a. n.a. 24 i
I
2006-12 Change n.a. n.a. -17 !
i
-2012Jobs n.a. n.a. 7 I
I
I Adjustments 0 I
1 -2012 Job Total I -I --
* industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
**employment data by type are not available.
Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012 1
Jol:ls_Gro_l'ltf1T"riJeiJ2_c)Oil_:2o~jj -r -~=--16_(1 J
i'Jo/J5ct,a;,;;es-:zoo6-2o1z:
1 I I
Plus Annexafn Area Target 01 1
Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 1f'l_
Net Adjustment to Target 111
Net Adjustment to Target
Remaining Target (2012-2031)
, 2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLRJ
Six-year adjustment to capacity***
Final 2012 Job Capacity
Surplus/De.ficit Capacity
I 17
_1 177
i 2,470
1 17
2,487!
' ~;311)1
Milton has sufficient employment capacity to accommodate its job target.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 120
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Newcastle issued permits for 225 additional housing units. Accounting for a Census adjustment, the City
now has more than 4,200 housing units. ij continues to have sufficient capacity to meet its updated housing target.
-During the reporting period, Newcastle gained about400 jobs, to a total of more than 2,000.
Housing Unit Update 2006 to 2012
Sinqle I Multi-Total
Emp}o"i_ment Uedate, 2006 to 2012
1 Comm'l I lndust. Total
Family* ! family Hous'g Units Jobs l Jobs* Employment
2006 Base Year 2,850 943 3,793 2006 Base Year 1,386 242 1,628
+ 2006-12 Permits 163! 62 225 2006-12 Change I 4691 -66 403
= 2012 H.U. 3,0131 1,005 4,018 = 2012 Jobs 1,8551 176 2,031
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 130! 120 250 Adjustments I 0
! = 2012 Job TotaiL. 1,8§§.L __ _!lli _____ 2,031
[= 2012 Adj. H. Units 3,1431 1,125 4,268 ... * industrial:::;; manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp .
* sing~_f~TY'tily includes mobile homes I Growth Target Uedate. 2006 to 2012
I
Growth Target Uedate, 2006 to 2012 --...,
I
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031} 1,200 1
Housin.<t Unit Chanqe: 2006-2012 I
Net New SF Units Permitted -1631 I
-~--""''~"~------·-. ---~-"·-~-.--,-" ''"--' "--.. ---"--------. "-~ . ~ -.. !
Jobs Growth Target (2006-2031} 735 ' I. ------_-----,--. ---I
' I
Jobs chi,-Ti<ieS. "2iio6-2o12:
Net New MF Units Permitted -621 ' 1 Plus Annexafn Area Tarqet 0 I
Net New Units, Annex Area 0 I I Minus Job Gain, 2006-2012 -403 !
Net New Units (2006-2012} -2251 I ! Net Adjustment to Target -403
Plus Annexat'n Area Target Ol I !
Net Adjustment to Target -225 I 1 Net Adjustment to T arqet (403)
Net Adjustment to Target I I 12251 I I Remaining Target (2012-2031} 332 I
Re_!Tiaining Target {2()1_2-203_1} I 975 I 12006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR) 870 -· .. . . .. (403)
rFinal 2012 Job Capacity
1 Surplus/Deficit Capa<:i!!'
4671 Housin!l Capacity (units, 2006} -1,500
Less 2006-2011 Units Permitted -225 j . 13:Sl
Total Capacity (units, 2012) I 1,275 JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY:
Remaining Housing Taroet (2012-2031) 975
Surplus/Deficit Capacity ! > 300 Small City continues to have sufficient job capacity to meet the updated job target.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 121
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Normandy Park had a small increase in housing stock, primarily multifamily.
-Normandy Park continues to have sufficient residential capacity to meet the updated target.
-The City had a slight job loss during the reporting period.
Housina Unit Uvdate 2006 to 2012 Emolovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Single ! Multi-Total Comm'l In dust.
Family" I family Hous'g Units Jobs Jobs*
I
2006 Base Year 2,238 545 2,783 2006 Base Year 608 139
+ 2006-12 Permits 17! 301 47 2006-12 Chanqe I 311 -901
-2012 H.U. 2,255! 5751 2,830 -2012Jobs I 6391 491
Plus adjustment 101 10 20 Adjustments I I
I I = 2012 Job~~-6391 491
I
Total !
Employment
747 l
:
-59 ' ' I
688 I
' ' o I
68~J
= 2012 Adj. H. Units -2,265] ssst ..... 2,850 "'industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
*single family includes mobile homes ---:l Growth Taraet Update, 2006 to 2012
Housing Growth Target {2006-2031) 120
Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012 :
Net New SF Units Permitted -171
Growth Targ_et Update, 2006 to 2012
1-.--.------..... ----------· -------------· -,. -_,Jo_b~_G!I)'I>f!I!.Ia!gE>t _{200~~2_1)31)_ _ 65_,
--------------, I
Jobs Chanqes, 2006-2012: :
Net New MF Units Permitted -301 Plus Annexarn Area Target 0 :
Net New Units, Annex Area 0 Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 59
Net New Units {2006-2012) -471 Net Adjustment to Target 59 .
Plus Annexat'n Area Target Oj
Net Adjustment to Target -47 Net Adjustment to Target 59'
Net Adjustment to Target I I {47) Remaining Target {2012-2031) 124 i
Remaining Target {2012-2031) I 73 I 2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR) 170•
.. Six-year adjustment to capacity .. 59'
Final 2012 Job Capacity 2291
Surplus/Deficit Capacity I -10~
Housing Capacity {units, 2006) 275
Less 2006-2011 Units Permitted -47
Total Capacity (units, 201211 228 JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY: **capacity created by job loss: empty work spaces can be refilled.
Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031) 73
Surplus/Deficit Capacity I .. _ .... ·. 155. Normandy Park continues to have sufficient job capacity to meet the updated job target.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 122
-----·-------------··--
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, North Bend issued permits for 17 new houses, and annexed about 480 housing units for a 2012 total of2,400 units_
-The City of North Bend continues to have sufficient capacity to meet the updated residential target
-Exact data on jobs by type are not available, but the City had a job gain between 2006 and 2012.
Housina Unit Update 2006 to 2012
Sin!lle ! Multi-Total
Familv* i familv Hous'q Units
I
2006 Base Year 1,325 581 1,906
+ 2006-12 Permits 17! 0 17
-2012 H.U. 1,342! 581 1,923
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 440 40 480
I
-201~ Adj. H.Unit~ 1,782 621[ 2,403
*single family includes mobile homes
Growth Target Up_date, 2006 to 2012
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 665
Housinq Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted -171
Net New MF Units Permitted 0[
Net New Units, Annex Area 0
Net New Units (2006-2012) -171
Plus Annexafn Area Target o!
Net Adjustment to TarQet -17
Net Adjustment to Target I I (17)
~emaJ~ii1JJ.l<l!!le! J20g-2031). I 648
Housinq Capacitv (units, 2006) 1,600
Less 2006 -2011 Units Permitted -17
Total Capacity (units, 2012) I 1,583
Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031 648
Surp~us/Deficit Capacity ' --9'35 __ _!_ __ ----
July 23, 2014
Emp/ovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Comm'l Indus!. Total
Jobs Jobs* Employment
2006 Base Year** 1,968 475 2,443
2006-12 Change 243 198• 441
-2012 Jobs 2,211 673' 2,884
Adjustments ! 0
= 2012 Job Total i 2,211 6731
' 2,884
*industrial;:;;; manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
4VVVVIII IV IIICII~IIUIIIV';I:;)I..Il_ l,l1:!'5:CUCCI~!:::IVAIIIICUV.
Growth Target Up_date, 2006 to 2012
--------------------------------------·-----I---
,l()bs_G•()vvtll.Iarg~t(,2()0~:~()31_) __________ --1,0_50
I ,
:Jt:Jf,5i:;i,-iliraes 2oo6-2012:
Plus Annexafn Area Target 0
Minus Job Gain, 2006-2012 -441 j
Net Adjustment to Target -441
Net Adjustment to T arqet (441
Remaining Target (2012-2031) 609
2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR) 7,760
Six-year adjustment to capacity** (441)
Final 2012 Job Capacity 7,319
Surplus/Deficit Capacit~ L > ..• • ·s,no
JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY:
North Bend has a substantial job capacity, more than enough for its updated job target
Some of North Bend's job capacity is in its UGA outside the city limits.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 123
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Pacific issued permits for 144 housing units during the 2006-12 reporting period, halfway to the City's 2031 residential target.
-Pacific continues to have sufficient capacity to accommodate its housing target.
Between 2006 and 2012, the City of Pacific lost many wholesale/transportation jobs (may be a geographic location data error).
Housinq Unit Update 2006 to 2012
Sin!lle ! Multi-Total
Familv* i family Hous'!l Units
I I
2006 Base Year 1,386 830 2,216
+ 2006-12 Permits 115! 291 144
= 2012 H.U. 1,501 i 8591 2,360
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 40! -20 20
I I I
F 2012 Adj. H.Unit. 1,5411 8391 2,380
*single family_ includes mobile homes
Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 285
Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted -1151
Net New MF Units Permitted -291
Net New Units, Annex Area 0
Net New Units (2006-2012) -1441
Plus Annexafn Area Target ol
Net Adjustment to Target -144
Net Adjustment to Target i I (144)
!Remaining Target (2012-2031) __ I 141
I Housing Capacity (units, 2006) 560
I Less 2006 -2011 Units Permitted -144 I
!Total Caeacitz: (units, 2012)! 416
l Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031) 141
l§.ll~piiJ_slDeficit Capacity l ··.···275
July 23, 2014
JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY:
Employment Update 2006 to 2012 I Comm'l In dust. Total I
Jobs Jobs* Employment
2006 Base Year 488 1,113
2006-12 Change I 11 -7991
= 2012 Jobs** I 499 3141
Adjustments I
-2012 Job Total I 499_L_ ___ 314I ---
*industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
** 2012 employment numbers ~y_1:ype are approximate
Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
~ ---·--· ··---·-----""'" ·-·'1··--
Jobs Gro_\Nt_h_!argf)(21)0~-:!l031) j _______________
I I
Jobs Chan,;;.. 2006-2012:
1 Plus Annexafn Area Target 0
J Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 788
788 Net Adjustment to Tar!let
Net AdJustment to Target
Remaining Target (2012-2031)
2012 Job Capacity (from City of Pacific)
Six-year adjustment to capacity***
1,601
-788
813
0
813
---
370
788
1,158
400·
788
. ·--1 1,188, tnal 2012 Job Capacity
Surplus/Deficit_(;apa<:ity c_ ...•. _.· __ L, .. 34J
"**capacity created by job loss: empty job spaces can be refilled.
With zoning changes in 2011, Pacific now has sufficient capacity to meet job target.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 124
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, there was no change in the housing stock of Skykomish. The Town has capacity to accommodate its modest
remaining housing target. Skykomish gained a few jobs during the 2006-2012 reporting period.
-Although Skykomish has commercial uses and zoning, it has no formal job target.
Housina Unit Update 2006 to 2012
Single I Multi-Total
Family" i family Hous'g Units
I I
2006 Base Year 159 3 162
+ 2006-12 Permits Oi ol 0
-2012 H.U. 1591 31 162
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 5, 0 5
i I
F 2012 Adj. H.Units 164\ 31 167 --···--·-·--·-
*single family includes mobile homes
Growth Taraet Update, 2006 to 2012
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 10
Housing Unit Chanae: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted Ol
Net New MF Units Permitted Ol
Net New Units, Annex Area 0
Net New Units (2006-2012) Ol
Plus Annexafn Area Target Ol
Net Adjustment to Target 0
Net Adjustment to Target l I 0
Remaining Target (2012-2031) I 10 -
lHousing Capacity (units, 2006} 35-
Less 2006 -2011 Units Permitted 0
Total Capacity (units, 201211 35
Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031 10
!surplus/Deficit CapacitY i I __ :._____g_L
July 23, 2014
JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY:
Emp/ovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Comm'l In dust. Total
Jobs Jobs* Employment
i
2006 Base Year** n.a. n.a. 56
2006-12 Change I n.a. n.a. 7
I
= 2012Jobs I n.a.l n.a. 63
i
Adjustments I I 0
= 2012 Job Total I --63
*industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
-employment data by type are not available. I Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012 ---~
IJ:o~s~~o~h~~~9 rc..t_J_2_~~~-·~_:::2.J.f_·3_11_. _.--+!_~=-·-=·_· -_-___ ... _ .. __ o--JI
Jobs Chanaes. 2006-2012:
Plus Annexafn Area Target
, Minus Job Gain, 2006-2012
1 Net Adjustment to Target
Net A_djustment to Target
'Remaining Target (2012-2031)
2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR)
Six-year adju§fment to capacity***
Final 2012 Job CapacitY
Surplus/Deficit Capacity
0
7
7
---
7
0
7
7
I 7
Skykomish has commercial zoning, but no formal capacity for job growth.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 125
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, Snoqualmie issued permits for 1,078 new housing units, more than any other Small City, to a total of 4,000 units.
-With a remaining capacity for 2,400 units, Snoqualmie continues to have sufficient capacity to meet the updated housing target.
-Snoqualmie gained more than 700 jobs during the 2006-2012 reporting period.
Housina Unit Update 2006 to 2012
SinQie I Multi-Total
Family* i family Hous'q Units
' ' 2006 Base Year , 2,407 490 2,897
+ 2006-12 Permits 1,0201 58 1,078
-2012 H.U. 3,4271 548 3,975
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 20 0 20
'= 2012 Adj. H. Units ~-3,447 548 3,995
*single family includes mobile homes c-..: -Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 1,615
HousinQ Unit Chanoo: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted -1,0201
Net New MF Units Permitted -581
Net New Units, Annex Area 0
Net New Units (2006-2012) -1,0781
Plus AnneJ<at'n Area Target ol
Net Adjustment to T arqet -1,078
Net Adjustment to Target I I (1,078)
~"rnainil19.!~1"getj2_1112-2031 l ... ]_ __ 537
,.-:-----
Housin!l Capacity (units, 2006) 3,480
Less 2006 -2011 Units Permitted -1,078
Total Capacity (units, 2012)! 2,402
Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031 537
~Jus/Deficit Capacity _L. ___ ·-··----' 1,86-5
July 23, 2014
Employment Update 2006 to 2012
Comrn'l In dust. ' Total
Jobs Jobs* Employment
2006 Base Year 1,663 600 2,263
2006-12 Change 341 396 737
-2012 Jobs 2,004 996 3,000
Adjustments I I 0
-2012 Job Total I 2,0041 996L 3,000
* industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
1 Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
I ~--'""'---~----··---·-------_____ ,
_,J£b<o.C>!o\llft~ Tal"g;tJ~Q0§~_21Q31L ...... l 1,050
. ·""'" I ' Ia/JS cilall;.,;, 2oo6-2o12:
Plus Annexafn Area Taraet 0
Minus Job Gain, 2006-2012 -737 --
Net Adjustment to Target -737
I
Net Adiustment to T araet l737
Remaining Target (2012-2031) 313
2012 Job Capacity (from City, 2014) 1,993
Six-year adjustment to capacity 0
Final2012 Job Capacity 1,993
Sul"p!usl[)e_liclt_<::~pa_city . . _ . r , .> 1 ;ss.o_
JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY:
Snoqualmie had sufficient job capacity in 2012 to accommodate updated job target.
(Later in 2012, the City annexed Mill Site with capacity for additional1 ,089 jobs.)
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 126
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UPDATE
Between 2006 and 2012, there was little change in the housing stock of Yarrow Point The Town has capacity to accommodate its modest
remaining housing target Yarrow Point gained a few jobs during the 2006-2012 reporting period.
-Yarrow Point has no commercial zoning and no job target
--Housina Unit Uodate 2006 to 2012 Emolovment Uodate 2006 to 2012
Single I Multi-Total Comm'l I lndust. l Total
I
' '
Family* ! family Hous'g Units Jobs I Jobs* l Employment
' ' 2006 Base Year 385 3 388
+ 2006-12 Permits 4! Ol 4
= 2012 H.U. 3891 3 392
Plus anxtn, adjustmt 40. 0 40
' ' '= 2Q! 2 Adj. _i:i,[J_nit>; -42_9! JL_. __ 432
* singl~_!_amiOCjQ_~I!:!~~~'!I_C?b\1~ homes ------
Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012
Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) 14
Housina Unit Change: 2006-2012
Net New SF Units Permitted -41
Net New MF Units Permitted Ol
Net New Units, Annex Area 0
Net New Units (2006-2012) -41
Plus Annexafn Area Target Oj
Net Adjustment to Target -4
Net Adjustment to Target I I (4)
1 Remaining Target (2012-2031) I 10
~""Hou;ing Capacity (units, 2006) 35
Less 2006 -2011 Units Permitted -4
Total Capacity (units, 201211 31
Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031 10
Surplus/Deficit Capacity j •. ···.·.·•·· 2.1
July 23, 2014
JOB CAPACITY SUMMARY:
I I
2006 Base Year** n.a. n.a.
2006-12 Change n.a.l n.a.l
-2012 Jobs n.a.l n.a.l
Adjustments I
I = 2012 Job Total ____ :L _ __:!.._
* industrial::: manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
**employment data by type are not available
[GroWili-iarC/eTui?date. 2oo6 to 2012
~~~-~t3,:~~-lli:arij~tJ2oo6:_2o31L _ 1: -·
I I I ,
1 Jobs Chang<>S, 2006-2012: '
Plus Annexafn Area Target
Minus Job Gain, 2006-2012
Net Adjustment to Target
Net Adjustment to Target
Remaining Target (2012-2031)
2006 Job Capacity (from 2007 BLR)
i Six-year adjustmentto capacity
1 Final 2012 Job Capacity I Surplus/Deficit Capaci!}'
0
11
11
Yarrow Point has no commercial zoning and no formal capacity for job growth.
80
11
91
0
91
11
0
0
0
0
King County Buildable Lands Repon 2014 Page 127
UNINCORPORATED KJNG COUNTY(Urban)>'
1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Between 2006 and 2012, about 4,500 new housing units were authorized in urban unincorporated King County. Most of that construction
occurred in 2006 and 2007, then development fell off with the Recession.
-More important during the 2006 to 2012 period were five major annexations, to Auburn, Renton, Burien, Kent and Kirkland (and some small
annexations), subtracting 43,000 housing units, more than 45% of the housing stock.
-Unincorporated housing growth target was reduced by both residential construction and shifting annexation-area targets into annexing cities.
Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 .
Zoned Density Gross I Critical 1 ROWs Public Net # Lots Ne~
Area Areas Purpose Area U 't Dens1ty (max. du/acre) (acres) (acres) I (acres) (acres) (acres) or m s! (units/ac)
Housing Unit Update, 2006 to 2012
1
Single Multi-I Total
Family* family i Hous'g Units
j
Plats Recorded 2006 Base Year 70,160 19,540 89,700
0-3 du/acre-R1 366.7 207.8 22.5 29.6! 106.8 346 3.24
3-5 du/acre-R4 460.8 56.3 75.4 69.81 259.4 1,579 6.09 + 2006-12 Permits 3,234 1,2671 4,501
5 - 7 du/acre-R6 343.3 40.0 55.2 38.21 209.8 1,528 7.28
7 - 9 du/acre-R8 103.7 10.6 18.1 2.01 63.9 607 9.50 ~ 2012 H.U. ('06 bdry) 73,3941 20,807[ 94,201
Other (UPDsl 663.4 269.0 72.0 110.5j 211.8 1,619 7.64
Plats Total 1,937.9 583.7 243.2 250.11 851.71 5,679 6.67 I Minus annexations -32,1001 -10,840 -42,940
i I
Single-Family Permits Issued 1-2012Adj. H.Unit' 41,2941 9 967 51 261 __
0-3 du/acre 173.6 353 2.03 *single family includes mobile homes
3-5 du/acre 410.2 1,773 4.32
5-7 du/acre Not Applicable 343.1 2,169 6.32
7-9 du/acre 95.21 785 8.25
> 9 du/acre 262.3! 1.795 6.64
SF Pmts Total n/a I n/a I nla I nla 1,284.4 6,875 5.35
~--1= Target Update, 2006 to 2012
, Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) J 17,9051
I Housina Unit Chanae: 2006-2012 ... ... -··-... -. ---..
Multifamily Permits Issued I Net New SF Units Permitted -3,234
< 9 du/acre 14.1! 6.7 0.81 0.1 6.5 74 11.38 1 Net New MF Units Permitted -1,267
9-13 du/acre-R12 48.9! 8.7 3. t" 2.4 34.8 656 18.85 Net New Units, Annex Area 0
13-19 du/acre-R18 33.71 3.6 2.5 0.6 26.8 767 28.62 Net New Units (2006-2012) -4,501 i i
19-31 du/acre-R24 42.4" 11.9 0.7 2.8 27.1 709 26.16 Minus Annexat'n Area Target -5,435~! I
31-48 du/acre-R48 2.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.5 94 37.60
48 + du/acre
Net Adjustment to Target -9,936 I I
Other (UPDs) 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 281 13.44 Net Adjustment to Target I (9,936)
MF Pmts Total 162.7 30.9J 7.2 6.01 118.61 2,581 21.76 Remaining Target (;!012-2031)
'
7,969.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 128
2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY
Residential Land_§IJpply_and
"' "' 0
0 .<::
~
0
-" .<::
Cl ·;;
:z
" "' "' '0
~
iii!
~
_;:;.
i3
Residential Capacity
!Single Family
Vacant S11htnt:::~l
~edev S••htnt:::
fatal
Vacant~
Redev
Tala
l Total
·· , in Mixed Use
vacant
Redev Subtotal
I Mixed Use Total
I All
vacant Total
RedevTotal
I Total
Unit --'(201:
Gross acres
733.
2,782_
160.84
~
179.73'
? ~~? ~
0.00
0.00 -.
0.0
2,210.11
752.53'
2,962.6
t (2012 -2031
Critical Areas
457.27
65.63
522.90
28.18
____l,§g
29.77
552.7
O.OC
O.OC
0.0
485.45
67.22
552.7
ROW &Public
Purpose
579.50
233.80
36%
1!:
c
0.00
0.00
3%
595.42
234.70
830.1
-.)Ill lt::""IGIIIIjiV LVII= 8140 -_. _.. .
Sinole-Family Capacitv in Pipeline ,701 I he reSidential cap:oe~ty of
Multifamily Zones 3 058 unincorporated Urban
Multifamily Capacity in Pipeline '230 County 2xceeds [\:--; rernaining
Mixed-Use Zones-Greenbridge 0 t.:11·gr~t by-'1,800 un1ts. Mcstof
••• ••• ~ •• • ...... •• 1 ~~~ ltscapJcityisin.s!nglcfamily
..... , ....... ,, ""'l""'~"'"""'"' ..., zone.:;, 'Nith 1,500 units in the
at GreE:r:bridge ~Jnd
l•v .. a• .... apcu ..... y \ .... ~~ .. ~) ~--~--·-w61-j ,~Edmond FUdge.
-.. .. . -____ ._ ___ _. I 7 969 ,
. 4,192
UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY (Urban)
Market Factor • Net Available
Acres
10%
10%
18%
18%
10%
25%
10%
25%
1,012.50
403.78
1,416.28
108.60
37
121.97
1_5~R?
0.00
0.00
0.0
1,
417.14
_!_,538.2
Housing Capacity
(in housing units}
\'l': ::· "'";/:~ ;'~·
!~\l :··.f,i ;.,e>.·J Ls2
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 129
3. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY (Urban)
Unincorporated urban King County lost about 1,100 jobs during the Recession.
-2007 and 2010 annexations removed 12,400 jobs and capacity for some thousands of jobs, but only a job target of 3,980. Therefore, the
unincorporated areas together have a shortfall of job capacity-the only jurisdiction in King County with such a shortfall. Most of the job
capacity reported in 2007was annexed away during the reporting period.
Non-Residential Land Supply (Acres)
Zoned Density I Gross Critical ROWs II Public Net
(max. dulacre) Area Areas Purpose Area
1 (acres) (acres) (acres) I (acres) (acres)
Vacant I Redev.
Commercial I 66.1 7.9 Ol 1.5 56.7
Mixed-Use I 0.0 0.0 oi 0.0 0.0
Industrial I 163.8 44.6 ol 12.0 107.2
lll_on-Res Land Total[ 229.9 5~ --Oi 13.5 163.9
EmplovmentCapacm (2012)
Net Land Assumed Existing I ~~Ioor Area
(mil.sq.ft.) FAR Floor (s.f.) Capac (million sq.ft.)
Neighborhoods I
!
Commercial I 2.10 0.30/0.31 0.00 I 0.63 I I
Industrial i 3.97 0.1010.20 0.00 i 0.79
Nei~hborhood Total I
Mixed-Use I Urban Center :------~NM ____ _l ______
Mixed u89vacaril_T ___ D.iio -------0.35/2.00 ! 0.00
Mixed Use Redevable i 0.00 0.3012.00 0.00 I 0.00
' 1 I
Mixed-Use Total I 0.00 0.30/2.00 0.00 i 0.00 I
Jurisdiction Total i i I I
Commercial i 2.10 0.30/0.31 0.00 1 0.63 I
Mixed-Use ! 0.00 0.30/2.00 0.00 l 0.00
Industrial I 3.97 0.42/0.40 0.00 i 0.79 !
Jobs in Pipeline
Jurisdiction Total I 6.071 -j . 0.00 I 1.421 I I
Market Net-net
Factor Area
(acres)
10%/25% 48.2
0.0
10%/25% 91.1
139.3
Sq. ft. per Job
Employee Capacity
350 1,800
450 1,760
3,560
-·----·-··-··------------0
0
296 0
350 1,800
296 0
450 1,760
2,280
I 5,840
Ema/ovment Uadate. 2006 to 2012
Total ~?_'!'!f!~~(j_IJ_s.!:_ -----·-···-··----------·-· -E:-rri;;ieymelii-Jobs 1 Jobs*
I
2006 Base Year 21,300 6,900 28,200 I
i
2006-12 Change -9,1001 -4,400 -13,500
= 2012 Jobs 12,2001 2,500 14,700
Changes include job losses & annexations 0
I = 2012 Job Total I 12,2001 2,5001 14,700
*industrial= manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp.
~h Taraet Uadate. 2006 to 2or ' "
I Jobs c.; • . ~ • r()V/t6-f~iiJ~f@io~=-2~3i)~~-I.:=~_1o;t;o~-:
1 I < ~·--~--·-_,_, ,_. -·-·"-~---' I 1
Jobs Chan~, 2006-2012: ------·--------·-· =------------·---Minus Annexarn Area Target -3,980
Plus Job Loss, 2006-2012 1,100
Net Adjustment to Target -2,880
I Net Adjustment to TarQet
Remaining Target (2012-2031)
2012 Job Capacity [from table to left]
J'.cljustment to capacity**
· Final 2012 Job Capacity I Surplus/Deficit C~(l~city
!
··--------·----..1
I
(2,880) i
1,12o 1
5,8401
1,100
w:;•:¥;J1~tJif~~~~~
**capacity created by job loss: empty cubicles can be refilled.
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 130
--·-~-----------
Rural Areas and Resource Lands
July 23, 2014
The purpose of the Buildable Lands Report is to analyze recent urban
development and to determine whether King County and its cities have sufficient
capacity within Urban Growth Areas (UGA) to accommodate the county's
forecasted population and job growth. In addition, RCW 3G.70A.215 (2) requires
some information about land uses and development outside the UGA. Such
information can be useful in analysis of residential trends and to assist the County
in directing its programs such as the Rural Economic Strategies to areas of
greatest need. Tt is also helpful in analyzing linkages between urban and rural
growth trends. The 2002 and 2007 Reports included data on 5 years of
residential permits in Rural areas. This 2014 Report expands on this work to
include a limited measurement of developable lots in rural areas and resource
lands.
Rural Areas and Resource Lands in King County
The landscape of King County's Rural and Resource areas is characterized by
extensive forests, small-scale farms> free-flowing streams, and a wide variety of
residential housing mostly at very low densities. There is no growth target for
rural or resource areas. Their 1'olc is as supplict of resources including timber
and agricultural products.
Rural areas cover approximately 290 square miles of King County (13% of
the land area) including all of Vashon Island and a band of territory cast of
the contiguous Urban Growth Area.
Resource lands, including designated Forest and Agricultural Production
Districts and Mineral Lands, covet about 1,380 square miles or nearly 65% of
I:Jng County's total land area.
• The entire King County UGA, by contrast, covers 460 square miles, less than
22% of the county's land area.
• Together, the rural-and resource-designated areas cover more than three-
fourths of the county's land area but contain only 140,000 people, less than
8% of the county's total population.
• The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) assume only a small fraction of
l<:Jng County's residential growth will occur in tural-and resource atcas; staff
projected about four percent of countywide growth for the 2001 -22
planning period.
Growth Trends outside the UGA
A major goal of the King County Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning
Policies is to focus growth into the UGA. As Chapter V demonstrates, King County's
UGA does have sufficient capacity to accommodate its entite growth target based on
OFM's 2012 population forecast. During the 1980s, prior to the adoption of the
Growth Management Act, about 10% to 14% of each year's new residential units were
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 131
built outside the UGA. Following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1994, the
percent of growth in mral areas has generally declined each yeat; since 2005, less than
four percent of new units have been developed outside the UGA, as shown in Table
6.1 below. Together, these findings demonstrate that King County is succeeding in
directing growth to, and accommodating growth within, the Urban Growth Areas.
Major Findings
The major findings regarding land uses and activities in the mral areas and on resource
lands are as follows:
The total number of existing housing units is approximately 51,800 (46,100 in
mral areas, 5,700 in resource lands).
The number of permits for new residential units in rural and resource areas
has declined to a steady average of about 500 houses per year since 2000, and
fewer after 2007.
This small amount of growth is expected to continue, consistent wid1 the
assumption in the CPPs of a small fraction of tesidcntial growth occurring in
rural areas and resource lands.
• Of approximately 63,000 total parcels in rural and resource areas, about
52,000 are developed with residential, commercial, public or open space usc.
Another 11,000 parcels are vacant or could be subdivided undct existing
county zoning regulations.
• Many parcels in rural areas ate smaller than the minimum lot size, because
they were created long ago, before current zoning was in place.
• Approximately 14,300 additional housing units could be developed in rural
and resource areas if all theoretically possible development occurred.
• The maximum number of housing units that could be built on vacant parcels
is about 12,400, and there is potential for a maximum of 1,900 housing units
on parcels that could be subdivided.
• In the five years since this analysis was done in 2007, fewer than 1,000 new
housing units have been added in 1·ural and resource ateas, leaving a
remaining potential for about 13,300 additional housing units as of 2012.
At current rates of residential permitting, the rural area will still have
undeveloped lots at the end of the planning period in 2031.
With tegard to commercial and industrial uses, the majot· finding was as follows:
July 23, 2014
Rural and resource areas have approximately 215 vacant parcels zoned for
commetcial or industrial uses, covering 3,200 acres. More than half of those
parcels are in the "M» Ivlining zone classification, covering about 2,500 acres.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 132
July 23, 2014
No data are available on commercial construction potential or employment
potential of the rural and resource areas at this time.
Methodology and sources
The measurement of rural and resource land-uses tclics on the sarne data sources as
the Urban capacity analysis, but uses a different approach that reflects the unique
development pattern and different policy expectations in rural areas. Land records
and critical areas data are maintained at a finer level of detail in urban areas; data on
rural and resource lands are sometimes incomplete. While every attempt was made to
produce the most accurate information possible, the precision of the rural lot estimate
reflects the limitations of the data soutces available.
'l'his measurement began with geographic information system (GIS) files from the
King County Assessor's land records. GIS layers included Assessor real property and
building flies, zoning and UGA flies from the Department of Development and
Environmental Services (DDES), and critical areas files from the Department of
Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP). Government-owned parcels (including US
Forest Service), utilities and community open space parcels were removed. Critical
areas were identified from DNRP slope and wedand flies taken from the National
\Vctland Inventory, and appropriate buffers were applied. The analysis did not
account for DDES's authority to reduce critical area buffers in certain circumstances.
However, the analysis did recognize that vacant parcels below the minimum lot size
could be allowed one housing unit; on parcels more than twice the minimum, the lot
size factor was applied. Parcels with a housing unit were identified as subdividable if
they were more than twice the minimum lot size. The maximum number of housing
units was tallied for both vacant and subdividable parcels.
King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 133
Exhibit 18. Residential Building Permits in Rural and Resource Areas, 1996-2011
Rural Resource Total Residential Permits Percent of King
Year Areas Lands (Outside UGA) County Total
1996 878 37 915 8.0%
1997 886 33 919 7.6%
1998 829 38 867 6.1%
1999 705 25 730 5.0%
2000 549 29 578 3.9%
2001 476 37 513 4.3%
2002 453 20 473 4.1%
2003 451 30 481 4.2%
2004 484 43 527 4.6%
2005 412 31 443 3.5%
2006 423 20 443 3.7%
2007 392 19 411 2.7%
2008 n.a. n.a. 213 1.9%
2009 n.a. n.a. 153 3.9%
2010 n.a. n.a. 108 1.7%
2011 n.a. n.a. 103 1.5%
Source: I<:ing County, 2014
July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 134
EXHIBITS
-~:
1
2
3
4
····tQ
.. JqngCo\lnty
KING COUNTY
-
Signature Report
,,:
Decembe.r 16, 2014
. '}.,!:_:· . . ! .
Ordinance 17952
Proposed No. 2014-0464.1 Sponsors Dembowski
. '· AN ORDINANCE ado11ting and rati,fying Growth
.-'· · · -;-' _, .' ·, · · ·, , 1 .• 1.h · : . 1.. : . ~ .!-: .• . .:',_","-''•·: ~1-.
--··"! ···--1 ' . .. .. l
Management Planning Council Motion 14~5: · ·
1200 King CoUntY CotirthOus'e·
516 Third Avenue
StatUe, WA98104
.. '··
, I ," . . ; ) I • ~ f~ , , , , ·t , _; t 1 .'. .• • • ,. ',
BE IT QRDAINEb BY tHt;,c;:bw¢r(bF K.iNocpt!Nr¥:,
, , _ _, , .•_1..._. _ ,_ , io. .-•, · • "-''-~---' • i • ,-· , .. , ._ ' , · -.
SECTION 1. Findings: . f.:. · !
s A. Growth Management Planning Council Motion 14-5 recommends that King
6 County CountywideJ'lwmii1K.P:oli\l:>~JlN~!7. be amended to define countywide '• .-_-.. _._, -.. • .. · ..
. : /'=·· _:.::'_.:_-.· ,..·! ,.:·.--; .. ·:·.-<··.~.-·~~>_'.··
greenhouse gas i~du6tion targets-!p}d that EN-18A be added to establish greenhouse gas
-~:~=.<':~~-··~_., r'. :,;· \ . ··--~ ..... :~~-J:/'
s ni~~stit-eni'e.nt.art'~ ·repPJ:;\it?.g c,qn:imi~ln~nts;
.-·~ ; -~·.,',!<:·::•.).:~~ ,;?~'-~->•~:"\~;/.'. '-,~>;~~::;-~l'n:~ c~~st > .. :~~·-.;~_;, -·'\.. . ' . '
9 , e.. . . B. On July 23, zo)1, the, yrpwth, ~ai1agemen~ Planning Council unanimously
7
.. · ~! ' .
'ii.o . ' . ' ~
;~~opte~fMotion 14-5, which recommends amendment of the 2012 K:ing County . .. .
11 · 'dou.itykde Planning Policies.
.,.,.-~. . --~·
tl''
-:·--. . ' .. ' .·,_,,. l '··· ,'
12. SECTION 2. The amendments to the 2012 King County Countywide Planning
.!-.
·.' -.
1._ .!
1
Ordinance 17952 '·.-
·:,-.,-•.
13 Policies, as shown in Attachment A to this ordinanc~, are hereby adopted 6§ rGng •Cottnty
.· . ·'
14 and ratified on behalf of the popuiati~~ of~incorporated King County.
15
Ordinance 17952 was iritrociuced on f2tlt2014(ltidpasseii bytli~·Ivfetr~politan King
County Council on 12/15/2014, by the following vote: ···'
\ ; ·• . I •. !•.
Yes: 8-Mr. Phillips,)\.fr. von Reichb1!uer, Mr .. Gossett, Ms. I;!ague,
Ms. 'Lambert, 'Mr: Durin; Mr. :rv!dr:lerinott and Mr. Dembowski ·
No: 0
Excused: I -Mr. Uptbegrove ..... :: i ;I .·I
... •· ::r' ... ,/
. ·. . • ' ' • .· R:JNG COUNTY COUNCIL ' '' "''
KINGCOU)'lTY WASHINGTO
.... ·
A TrEST:
··•r· . : ~) ·: . . '· ..
Anne Noris, Clerk ofthe Council
; ' L• · .•. t•'
APPROVED this au\" day of O<i tmbU=. 2014.
~a~ roo: =::c:unty ExecUtiVe
Attachments: A. GMPC Motion No. 14-5
2
....•...• 1
2
... ;3 :.·
4
5
6
7
"·:8:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
'·"·
7123/14 ·'· ·-.,··:-.
· .. 2C:.J
. ; : ~. . '
'·· -_ ... ,_·
. ', ..
Sponsore4By: ..
'! ]_._:_,,. ·--_,_i
·. '--~ '•
, .. ,'·-:·,.
' ·-~ . . ; ':··, :
. :,,.
I·
A MOTION ameni!ing the 20li.King County Countywide
.Plaimihg·Palic_i\ls;·crefini!lg i:ou)l.ty:wiqe greenhouse gas reduction
targets·and iireenhouse gas mea~urement and reporting ,•
commitments.
WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy EN-17 calls for the establislunertt of a
countywide greenhouse gas reduction target that meets or exceeds the statewide re.duction
' , , :I reqmrement; and . · \,
. . '
WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy EN-18 calls for the establislunenf of a
greenhouse gas emissions inventory and measmement framework; and
I
WHEREAS, increasing air temperatures, ocean acid,ification, rising sea lev.~ls,
decreasing snow pack, and changing river flows are examples of climate change iniwacts
that are already occurring; and :::
:i:
WHEREAS, jurisdictions will choose from a menu of strategies and actions!to
implement within their own boundaries· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that ,
collectively will result in significant cmmtywide emissions reduction; and ' ·
WHEREAS, the proposed greenhouse gas reduction targets are ambitious but
achievable; and ·
WHEREAS, King County government has agreed to accept responsibility f&
' implementing and maintaining a countywide greenhouse gas inventory and measurement
framework.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Growth Management Plauning
Council of King County hereby reconunends that King County Countywide Plruming
Policy .EN-17 be amended and that new policy EN-18A be added, as follows: '
EN-17 ((Establish a eountywiee)) Reduce countywide somces of greenhous~ gas
((reeluetien target that-meets or elEseeels the statewide rBeluetktn-l'll(j{l~
stateel as the 2050 goal of a 50 persent'reeluetion below 1990 leve-ls)) emissiohs,
compared to a 2007 baseline, by 25% by2020. 50% by 2030, and 80% by 2060.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51.
52
53
54
' ·. '"
. •'
.,;
:.'.--,,_
'''•). ·'
I• ·• ·J
Assui:ningJ% annual population growth, these targets translate·to per capita
emissions of approximately 8.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent • i ·
(MTC02e) by 2020, 5 MTC02e by 2030, and 1.5 MTC02e by 2050.,
EN lSA King cdJllty shalriissess and report countywide greenhouse gas:
emissions associated with resident. business. and other local goverinnent'llbildings,
on road vehicles and solid wasfe at least every two years. King County shall also
update its comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions inventory that guantiflbs;au
direct local sources of greenhouse gas emissions as well as emissions associated
with local)cdrlsuirtption'at 'Jfa~t ever§ five years. ·.: . 6 c ' ..~ .. ·. ···.·.·.....::1.··~-A·,·-·.<< .. • rr~ t : .. ·~ ·~:~~~~-t: ... : .. ~ .. ~-D'Vt:.:/L ~ --,...·:i;; ···
'Dow'Goilstantjtre';'Chait, cii-oWtii'Mahag~ment Planning CoUr\~il
I ... • :.~ '-··: •I
!,,,
i
'
'
i' •I ' -'
I.
(I.
•I
il ·) ! /ri~; -ii.-_;:,r< ., .. 1·d -· ·::~ •'·'j .'·· :i-'· ;jiF,• l·, ./",t/_1 : i
1/ l: . . -i . ·: -.~;-..•.. __ , : :~. \ r· -~_ .. 'i ·
J i ~-;_ .. ·._-.:, .. ._, : .• • ' • ; J ~
.... · ·,·,
'; .,._.
,,
. '.-. , ...
·'·' . -·>· ·-
··;·· .. ;··\· '.•' ,.
. :·;I ':1 ..
-,_,-
':.·
·•''
',._,.·
-· ; . -~ ' ~ .-,-. :'··
._.-, .. . ,,.-··:.--
.,__
. f . • i. -; . .,f"
,,
,,,· I
• ,. -1' .:·-·
','.
. ... •('"' ',-_
.1\"1 •
... ~;
l
.. ---·.'' ., ;'".
·· .. .·, .
.• .. -: , . i:_
''
,,
'· ..
'·
' '
r '
,,
',!
" ;
' •' ) -~ ;
'
' . '
I'!.
-,,,
( '
,, ...
-,·_., ,, . '.
w
King ~ounty ·
,-·,;·1 ,-_: \ :;~: :;_-..
.·. ·. Transp,ortation,Economf;and .. !:mrironment, comrriitt~e · . . ' -'' - -, ' ., . .. .. --~ - --·, .,
!'I.
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: 12 Name: Christine Jensen
Proposec!·No:: 2014-0464'; ,,,
. ,_, __ .
'Date:
.• ,. •,' ... ' ··.. . .. . ..... ,,!
PecetT1ber.2.,'2014
1·;. . ·;:,•'
. -... ,. ,.-.
SUBJECT
,.-It'
., ...
t\.prop~sed, O\dipariee adopting .and n:itlfying Growth Ma11E~gement Planning Council
'Mbtlq!l :4:.13 .. :'; . ·••· ·.. ·.. , .. . . . . ,, . . ··., . , ,
-,•;_ . -.. =. :.: .-
. ,. -~-1] ': .. .-.·.~:~ .•. -. ;., '. ,,_-,' ·sUMMARY= --~-:~.< -'"· · · . ,
L ' '"'' • • ~-~; , , • .... , , 0 <'.>_',
.. :;-._-;.·! ___ ,.~ .~_.:·,.·>'-:·._;·:::·.;;>-::_·:;_i ,··-,_., .... '>"""-<-!--_,·.· ... ~-;~::_,~·:;-:.~-·<:..-~·---.: ,·._' ,l·":.i.i:::.~,--, , .. ·;-,:.,;, ----.-) ___ ;;-
Proposed· Ordinance· 2014-0464 would· air) end Countywide Planning Policy EN-17 and
•.l!8c;!, anc:~w pqJip~.l;N:;~ ~A, _b(?,threla!€lcf tq_ ~(E!~nhouse Qa,f;.anq, ,as ceCo(llme.f:lded by,;the
, .Q~ow.th,,MfJ,riagen;ient.;PiannirJ9 :Cou:ncil, .. , and .. ·rfltlfy . ,,th\3,c,cp~nges, .. on, pehalf. ,qf)he
.populatlonp{; \llliQPoi'R()r1lt!39 Kirrg_ c;,ountY. · If .appJove.t1 •. this .ord.[riance')i!ould .be9ih, the
t<jttiflc~tlori prod~~>.:;; by t6e~liies., , ' ·· . , · · , , ·"· .• ·. · v . ,, , , ·
,_.-,; •· • < ' ' ·'' •
~',·~--·~,.-.,.-,·:\:r .--.-;·!i . :_:_ic~ .. i~,'i'-
_.,_,-:-.-:_ •:,-,•-. ' . \• _._f·, •
BACKGROUND,,' . ' ' . . ' :-,1 .. ·f. ... _,_:_,,. . I
,--.,--,. -.,_,. '.
<J. :.-.. ,o _: :·~~·.:,-, :.J_ ~.:);:.; /---~_;:):; .. _ .. .-;.' i· !,-:.:' :.-,.-, ; .:, ... : •. ' __ ·,,_ , ' :<)·:_,.,. ::· ·-. _-. ','·' .. : ~·--' _.,-; .. ·!·'\-~ ;· ·_;~ . -.':'-' . . ; \:'1 i ·\:·;;::.(.')';:::
,l!!i¢/SlrPWt!;lJiylari<)Qy£tl\lnt,.Pia.hl!),iJlg Cc!pn¢11 CGtl(lP,G) Is; fl.fottT1\JI, p.pllY · oornpri§ed; ,pf
·l?.l~cted t?ff,i~).C)!~1 from KJ.~g Couno/;"SeaWt?,.l?.e,lley\1~ •. Pthl'lr,c:iJi.~~· and .. town~,J[l):<,i.r\g
you,nty, a11d ,special ,pur.p9se ,dl~tQ!Jis.;.Th~LGMPC, was or~atl'J,cJ .m .1_992,by mter[Gpal
~grl'lern(;lht~ ln.r.e,~pOI1St?,:!() a, prmii$iop)ri the washington, st~te ,Gr()Wtb. M~n~gero.f'lnt
}\qt (GMAl re~:~u.iri~gplttes, and c,ophtle~Jo worl<. together to.adppt .Countywide f?laD.Qing
Pr;>lio:;ies.(PPPs).~ Wnder t~e (31\11A, th19 CPPs SE)[V\l as the ft;;ttT1ewonk.for each iridiXic;!Lial
jurisdictjpn:s cornprehensil/e plan •. and 1;1n5ure countywide ccm~>istency with respect to
land use plar/ning efforts. . . . . ' . . .
As prl;)videilfor ir\ the ·iliterlbca:l agreement; the GMPC developed and recommended.
the origitii31 CPPs; 0hich Were adopted by the King County cO'un'6H 3 and r~tlfied by,the
cities jn 1992. subseque[lt amendments to the CPPs follpw the sanie adcipiioh
proces~:. which is outlined in CPP G-1 :. recommendation by the GMPC, adoption.by the
._ -' ---.• .. :; ..
1 • . Motlon.8733 ,
2 RCW 36.70A.2io
' Ordinance 1 0450 ..
King County Council
1 of 5
December 15, 2014 177
-~\}!.>!\L;~?: -
King County Council, and ratiflca(iol'] l:!x)Be~gJJJes. Amendments to the CPPs become
effective when ratified by ordina.nce 6r' 'rllsaliit!Cin by at least 30% of the city and county
governmElnts reprlil~Elnting [lt least}Q% Qfthe population of King,Qpunty ... A.city.shall be
deem'Sd tbh'a)le ratlfiEiCi a'il:alilen'dnieAt •h:t'the di"P§'uiiless, Wlihln ··go 'days O'fadoption
by King County, the city disapproves it by legislative action.
ANALYSIS ..
.. _ __ ·:·r··:::}:-;.':-.. :'. :j_~i.ti!0 _-·-:£)~-·if!~l-·; . -;: · l . >-':~.,ri.P.-
F/egional greenhouse ga.s -emissions reduction requirements .. . ·· ,. . •.. . ;· · .:. . :
E:roposed· ''&rd lriab'b'~: ,::2'tH'4:0464 WiluiCi ~.amend the cppi;r•iby ;·rnakirig-"l~ii''ftlrt'owing
changes to policy EN-17, which currently calls for establishment of countywide
greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets:
EN-17 ((Establish a ee~o~Atywi~e)) Reduce countvwide sources of greenho~se
. ' -gas 'Hf:Ei~ioJ~tllii'i'fat'gel'thiii'fiteetS' 9cF 1 0lt~'ti1:ids 1 ll4e 1 state11iJa0're'dt!E:tiol1 re'EJ'uirtimont
that is stated as ti'le 2050 geal ef a 50 FlereeAt redwetieFJ be lew 1990, levels)}'·' : ·
emissions, compared to a 2007 baseline, by 25% by 2020, 50% by 2030, and
80% by 2050. Assuming 1% annual population growth, these targets translate to
't . I . f . t I 8 5 t ' t f b d' 'dL'.•i 'l. •V"'1'iJi per cap1 a em ss1ons o · approx1ma e y . me nc ens o car on IOXI e. ··-·-'·'·''··· .. ~
equivalent (MTC02el by 2020, 5 MTC02e by 2030. and 1.5 MTC02e by.2050 ..
--;)h r: __ -~." , -''Vi~-, \1 ',_~\k'>l g:n_· :~HJI<.l-ebi\~,:_v~:".•JO~-l·-bn•~_,. .. ~~.· 1:_1.<: .. 0'-!, .. ' i::_(/-'."Y: :·· t·r_r.:~ :::.;::J,'\F~~_i'l: ~-"1l>·t:~: ·:_:;:< ~-_,·:' ·\
•'. ''fifi"B'{ce~Jstfn~i"fi£:1\J~i'v i:Janmli'a@'e[)' .Jso ~~bhsi§fehf' With; ''clirY.efit , 'Wa~h i~ gfdll·<:israfe, r :io'Sb
· efii i&siohs' : re'd Uc!io r.i''\~eqUireii'i'eni!lliiG0nl~il'ledi ~ifluq'~CW' ';zafl2§5:i!l'2"0~' '"')!fi\'6''11 'pr8p·as'eia
· iei1gtia~EltW6i!IItl"eilahie• cuj~rlki~§veel!i'r'it~l 20'5BJ'ee\11i'tyWitrl"er'rl:li:fUcftBh1 1fafrge'('fromi'5Cl
percent below 1990 levels to 80 percent below 2007 iev'gl~!iwf.lioh'.:is<a~·i\'io'i'e' a!figH:is'~hie
requirement. This proposed countywide 80 percent reduction is in line with the
countywide target in the 2012 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAp).4 .•
. : (::.: .. ·t·j.Jc .... ~·~. ·';?(.·;·.~~·.c ..
· Sin;Jilar to the.c:~rrent EN-17 policy, Klnfl__9?U':ItypomP,r~hensiye Pia~ (K<;:C~) pqlicy ~.
, 2iOJ requires dollaboti'.iffon'Viiilfi' "Cities+alid' otlii3r paf!'riers to meet' or 'e~t:eed tlie state
· •. fequlte'rrfehtsJbflSO ·p~H:ienrbeloi.iP•1·i99h'ieve'ls''6i"2Q$o:''''l-ia\~.Ei~ef,''in! poll6y.•Ec211;'til'e
'kcep':gaeSJdrf'tb'· recii:Hr~;ihat ·fHBI c'etihfy·coliib of~f~ J,\iiih''cities' and' parthi'!r~· to aelielbp
i'heaf:tefiti·largl<!tli''-'to eiichfevei'i tfilil lh!l]h'ef;' 1 8~ 1perdgf1t . re~lcil'i<rP'rediJ ~fio'r\s bei,(Jyf20'Q7
. lal/~15· Eiy'2060: ~: r1 n ·lir\'e(with~pdl~y E~211·~·ooflon ly· iJo~~ ~h'e ·pro~·aself E t\1~17 lifrt9 uage
·· 'Umizl¥'the Yiio' ·p~rc~i'it'B'Eilaw··?6di'•' 1Eilieis 'tnfe'Sfibltr;1· bi!Fit'wiloid ·also aCid ~fa. tlie'djiiPs
' near~tEi fm emlsstonii ·r~dlictio·n' ffiile5tonettif '2'5 'percellfbY 2b2d'Ein d '5b bY2b3tl:'·' S'taie
, . , _, .·. • .. ', .. ·. • '·' i,' , • __ , • • '!--, I'·:·-\' ~
t':Ad 0pted by lhe Councll)n Motlon 13777/CommunltyiNiGfe target: King CountY shalf. partner. with Its
, residents; businesses; local 99verilments and other partners to reduce countyWide greenhouse•gas. ·, ,.,
eml~slolls by~tleas!ao percent below 20071evels'by!iol;i0." .. · . . · .•. · .. ' . . .. · .. · .. ·•.... •
• KCCP 'polity E;211:}'Kin9. County shall call aboral~. with Its cities,!'lnd other p~rtnersto,(ievelop hear, ....
• tefni 'targets to'" achieve' gni>enf\ouse gas ·emission retluctlons fhroilghout the region to 80 perbentbelow · ·
20071evels by 2050." In response to this, the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) was formed
as a regional, voluntary partnership to collaborate on climate and sustalnablllty Issues; Membership .. · ·
currently Includes King County and eleven cities: Bellevue, Burien, Issaquah, Kirkland, Mercer .. l\liimd,
Redmond, Renton, Seattle, Shoreline, Snoqualmie, and Tukwila. More information can be found here:·
http://www.klngcounty.gov/envlronment/cllhlale/other-governments/cllmate-pledge.aspx' ·
Page 2 of5
King County Council · DecemberJ5, 2014 17B
law also includes near-term requirements (reduction to 1990 levels for 2020 and 25
percent below 1990 levels by 2035); however the propo'sed milestones in EN-17 \'JOUid
'bl'l t:nqre a:mbiti.ous thah state law. The SCAP does not include near-term·tai"gets. ·
The following is a table that compares the some of the adopted emissions targets in the
region:• , . .. . · ... . . . ·
, _:,_., .·
. ,• .. .. . .... :· . ;..._·.· _ .. ·: .•..:.,,.-;· ··:-.-.
, ·Jurisdiction. I'" '" · N«rar-term reduction·s· '' · . ·:2050· redu'ctions
curre·ntEN-17'•·'· :--"" :. "·· • '-· .· ·: · :.;' , "'50% below 1990·Ievels
Proposed E!N~17. 25%'below 20071evels by 2020, 50% 80% below.2007 levels
f:ly,203Q
• • • c\JI/ashington
. st~t~ .. .
. At 1990 levelsby'2020, 25% by 2,035 · .
!1,:, .... ''!, . .
KCS.CAP '-
·; ,K~.ce: ·· ·
. "'.: 1 ~1rkl_~n9 • , . '
-·~ •• · ·' • • 1,
. , l~sa,quah ,., , .
, , M!:'lrc~r Island ..
•. se!Jttle ,J:,,;,
Shqr'eline · · ·
_.1 0% l:l~t.IPW 2bOp.levels by ,2010, 2Q";'o
by 2040
·' · .... .. -:.
·: ... ,_,
,, i .-i:~-. ~.··::;/.
25% below 2007 fei:tels 1by 2020,' •50%
by 2030
50% below 1990 levels··
.·, ... ..· ',.'-'· . . .. . ·• .
]~.% below ~007 levels ·
5Q% bele>W 19~0 leV,<JIS .
80% .. below 4Q.Q5Ievels: ·
'.,,·, :
so.% below 2Q.o7 lev,elg:
.BQ'Yo bel6w~007..1evels. · ·
Carpon:neutral · . · ·<'. •
· B0%"below 2b'07 leVels •
·;._:~~-;~!.:~:;::.: i:: .. "1~·,;· ;'.• •.':-<J ::-~•~· '(f.:,., -~· .>·;,.,·.· I ··: ·,;_",. (
·111 addltlb.ri 1io setting' IT\'ore ambitious emissiohs'•h3ductions, ·the proposed·ar'nendm'ehts
to the EN-1 ?:·l~l'igtJal:je;wo\lld' also•tra:r\sition' to ·a more'i'ormai"reduction'"reqtiire·meht.
.Th.~. _curr~nt ~~li~y_on,lx:ans, ~or ~st~bli.~hm~~t of _countywide "tar~.~t_s" f~[ ,r~d~.ctiori. of
:g~eenllouse•gas; wh~reas·; the proposed language .. calls 'for1 ~ctual'reouctlbn. of'r)'ot·only
Fgfeenhouse gas''a!Hde'ntified: in mefrlc tcills of carbon dioxide, 'blit' also redOction"·iri
·sourdes ofgreeritii.J·use gas' emissions,,.,_ · ·1' • · • ·• ., •
."::.-:::: .:::-,t_ · .. ,-.,.,:-··, ,} -~' !~:.'·.'. )• ;· '· .. ' .
On average, the reductions required In the proposed language could be achi·eved by-: a
slightly less than two percent reduction in emissions each year from 2007 to 2050.
However, actual implementation may not follow this average trajectory. ·. Additidn.ally,
because!· some time h'Elif passed since the 2007" baseline, aggre'ssllie early actions may
oe•needed in order toiEHlliiEive the 'initial 2020 milestone. . .. : . ~ ,_,. . ' -. :r
-lf:adcipted, the emissions. reduetlons would be measured on a counzywid~ basis. ::f\s a
·result, individual jurisdictions• could have varying levels of reductions that stilkollectively
add Lip to the·. percentages in the proposed policy. · Additibnally, strategies for
Implementation wo'uld vary fbr each jurisdiction within the county. Actions could be
dependent on factors such as location and development history.
King County Council
Page 3 of 5
December 15, 2014 179
.. , ., " ....
.'Regional greenhouse·gasinventory ·. -' . . . • .. \. ..·. , ' .· : ....
Proposed. Ordiflance '20i4"0464'W6dld ~lso ·.add•a new climate· chan'gei policy.; to the
CPPs:
(_. i; ·;. '. '''·d,.-' ,·' ''."· ."·.·.I' ',• .. : . 'ie ; : '' ·,~·;J ..
EN 18A King County shall assess and report countywide greenhou~~qas · · ·
emissions associated with resident business. and other local government
. buildings, on road vehicles and solid waste at least everv two years. King
· . Cour.Jtif,sli:ill-aJso update its cbrffpr.eliensiVe meenhouse gas ernissiQtiS,Inyentorv
· , ... tfiat'guanti!]es all:.directlocal sources of greenhouse gas emisSiGlnS:Mwell·as.
eltllssioris"assoi:lated with local consumption at leasf every five:yeiiirs: ;, '',' .; -: :'
i. :=t· .. __ ·· ........... (..·., ;.· .. • .·•·· •.· ·~-: .... ,::.. ··, ···.~/n-.:(.;:~~· .. ··~:·1.· _, .... ; ... ; .. _.._ ... ··.: · .·
Tpi~ ~~\1\f,PPii.cy .\1\ffl,Lif,cj; .ri3quife)h'e,.Co!Joly,Jq ,1(!1Pieme~t ,i;!Di:l ~maintain.; ;;~:·,c;p!.JQty).yide
greenhouse gas inventory and 'rrfeasurerilehrframewori<. Til is Wiil allow l'6r'the,[.$gion
to track: pr.ogress · tqWatds meeting· 'the emissions· reduction milestones·; , · Thi(·KC.GP
c;url"i:iritly d~ils, fbr th~ gd(mty to work with cities and partners to establish thi{typ~ of
in\l~'ntory:·~~d ll)13,a's~r~ir,Jen~ f[~m~\I{Qr~~-"': b~t .•. t~e_,,KCCp, .??.!3~ not specify ";'h~t~~t:the
Countf would -be ·solely responsible -for thiS' worll'.-· Proposed· policy EN-~ 8fli· woUld
further deJine the .Co_unty's role as· the 'responsible parf\tfdr'the inventory .. · This,
however, lj(;i)iJid'~l'tilt l:ie(a big_ ch~nge, as the County b.as already beeri;motilfoting
greenhouse::gtls'(emfssions and preparing associated reports since :200@.• .iflheiprcipbsed
EN~ 18A-pQfjQ~~W,QQiq i_sef: ouf req-uirements ''for the frequency ~rid .. content;;Qb§ubh
eiil;il~iQP~ct~~,bi\1~1-2-;'l'i.bii;ili-is ¢.~.t@~sJeritlf!!fiJ@~;~oi:l~!y·:s(~i;~vl9w§ work iii-f~j~;~r~~\8 i
· t'Jif::t;c\,~~~~·-i · GMPCattio7f--------··· · · --·· ·-· · · · '
On July 23, 2014, the GMPC unanimousJy approved Motion 14-5, which re.commends
· app_r,oy,~?l ,c~f, b.qJIJ/,;; f..P •'?haiJQBFl:;f!I)J~tl_cjlgg(pp,lireY.c.!=N-,~. ?•:.<In~ -~d<;l ing)pq)i_cY.E-NrJ Mb,Jht3
:lj?fvlf1,C •1lR~lpfi,i,;>.,iUe.c_9,Jl11Jil,E\lf1da!i()n,to,tl;it3 G,owp!YG,OL!/l§ii;~D@)s n"otdiijr.i,i,J.in~;k 1:·:· i ·~ ·:1 :~.;
: k.l ·: ... .-~~\::· :·::J:r:·.i·:·:~--~·tn · ·.o -:~i-~:~-~<~' .:l : .. ~ .. ::1\v iV~·{.-.:.-)-:'\\, 1 •·, r:·>':'~t_._,~·.:=:i:,_< 1·::·> · -~~di.>.} · ... ;n:J ,·.-:: ~~::.q: !·,+~. ~~:.i_:·.·.., ·.="· i ·:·
·.Qol)si~.~ef)J V\(it,~:.9?J'l~r.fi~9P.ti(,l,r;i :f!;l,q\1 i r:~r:n.~n~~~.:P:rRI;J<d~~g · Qrr~ iqgl1<i:E.lrf?P 1:~bQ4131.li fqr\"-~JqJl :Jv i~;; ,GI\'189. n~99i\1.\Tlem:til.\ig,t1. · t~:.Jfte, ~poQntf : G9u~ ell;', fqr, iJqpnskd€lf.Pt1~~:· · f.RJ:.i :P!'if?§i!:l~
approval. If adopted by the Council, the ordlnanc~:WRl!li;l .. tP.tlfY;)b~r..G.~~hg~1pQ, bE;l,Q~?,I;f0Qf ·
the population of unincorporated King County, and would begin the ratification process .
. ·ik:~~:·';;u+,b;~ji:. '';~·~·;~~~~~,,·~ \;,~:iK;fl';.,~·~t.:ii:::.:~ ··-:)·:/.~~-••.:.!~·;·,··,·,t~~')1:.:4 ;N.:::,;' 'r,~.~!~~. ··i; :;·~~~;; .. ~)~~:
R~~9l?!)l/7flif!f?ls:· ~1:-::t:·:;~1.U31i · ·_0~:s:·,s·~· r.~ .. :;~'fHt _:~~~f6~~~~} i: _J;: ~.n ·;{.~:iTt {1i~) \h:.th_;i: rf·i_B_lc:_il: i. ~JS OJd .E.· .• ~.~~vp\:~{H:l
1JJ;l,E.l,'!,i,!l§~hn !j\t;~F.;::,IIl_.HI!IJ!t~¥i;lit)l! .. J:l.~ ii§Jo),'iQtiG)Q.~I~ g,>§l:;.lfflpa§t:,fC!fq ai:l,G>P!mg: . m ~,Jgr,§t!li1<l.IT\l.t?.·
Executive staff have Indicated th~Mb!:l!'}il~~1Jtl'i§l::l:fNlifrP.Pii9Y;,W,().i;l;IQ.,Jri,q,ltltiJ;f!l<i!foJlJS:i:i~ritY
costs, as the County is already working towards this reduction target as a result of the
·· § Q~.P ,.,,§p,§!cJnc.vMhl!iE3:J q_,oiil~'i• ihR;Wi1,¥~f, WJih)lJ:l ;J¢!3ntifi §g(t.~r/!l):l,1Jh,,&hf:l3a,~tl p(l_j;~t!')~tir!ii:!il
qgi;I,J;~,ty, !9hP.ill:i!3j;i ,tg <ll:l!5~b ,!ft'{f}r \tin\!':; acPC/1 .q9n~Jstf} nt< with) :JH.~i c_str$.t(l9[~s r;l:l;t;!,\li~·~q ;in:ij!Je
·~!;:AP,i:bfuN!fl qR;Iiltl:lF!1!1~Yi;~ang~~t.mrn··ml~!lr,\:]~l;,~ys~rnemdiD9;:trr!in~p_Q,(\ati9o :ouid,~)Jil@lrig
. r,~fl~ l);lt.iP.Jl!> rl@: !1J ere ~l?,s~<lnt)<ll i:lY. riiiTl plei:Q!UJli~gi_e.li~!lri9~¢;or~~.$Wipmgrl:1m~:Jth~: .imR,~?¢1
----------''tc~L: r .. -~\~!rl '{r··:t:;·, ;f1·.:~.:!:; . ~·,·~·u.;f-3 · ;-~t:.. 'W·: :·:~! ·;::1Dbnl ··h6 !;:.:..t,~itii(::~q:r..:~·
6 E-212 "King County will work with Its cities and other partners to establish a greenhouse gas emissions
inventory and measurement'framework·for use'by-aii-King County jurisdictions to efficiently and effectively
measure progress toward countywide targets."
l':'!!~e 4, o)i-5
King County Council '· ;;Dtilt:~mb~h-~5. 2o14
of which could be mitigated by partnerlng with other jurisdictions or utilities). Some
costs could also potentially be off-set due to reduced resource costs and the avoided
costs· of climate change impacts.
Similarly, there would be no additional fiscal impact to the County if EN-18A is added to
the CPPs, because the County has already been doing this work. According to.
Executive staff, it costs approximately $1 0,000 to update core greenhouse gas
emissions for all King County cities and unincorporated areas·. If the policy is adopted,
this work would be done on a biennial basis, which Is consistent with the County's
previous work. The more comprehensive update of all geographio:based greenhouse
gas emissions, which would be required once every five years (also consistent with
previous efforts}, costs approximately $30,000-$40,000, with potential additional costs
for Including consumption-basecj emissions data. For past inventories, the County has
cost shared these efforts with partners such as the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and
the U.S. Department of Energy.
ATTACHMENTS: . "; '' . '
1 .. Proposed Ordinance 2014-0464, with attachments
A. GMPC Motion 14-5
2. Transmittal letter dated October 31, 2014
3. Fiscal Note ·
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Countywide Planning Policies:
http://www.kingcountv.gov/property/permits/codes/growth/GMPC/CPPs.aspx
King County Council
Page 5 of 5
December15, 2014 181