HomeMy WebLinkAbout4297RESOLUTION NO. 4297
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, ACKNOWLEDGING AND ACCEPTING
THE 2007 PIERCE COUNTY BUILDABLE LANDS REPORT
WHEREAS, on July 1, 1990, the Growth Management Act (the GMA) became
effective (Chapter 36.70A Revised Code of Washington); and
WHEREAS, the GMA requires Pierce County, in consultation with its cities and
towns, to designate an urban growth area which includes areas and densities sufficient
to permit urban growth that is projected to occur within the twenty-year planning period;
and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.215 was amended in 1997 to require Pierce County, in
consultation with its cities and towns, to establish a review and evaluation program
(Buildable Lands) that results in the submittal of a report (the Buildable Lands Report) to
the State every five years, with the first report due on September 1, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (the
Board) is one of the three administrative appeal boards created by the GMA (RCW
36.70A.250), and the Board has concluded that the buildable lands reports developed to
meet the legislative requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 that are formally adopted by
legislative bodies are subject to a sixty day period in which appeals to the Board may be
made (Seattle-King County Association of Realtors v. King County (CPSGMHB Case
No. 04-3-0028); and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development (CTED) distributed a letter on June 20, 2007, that further
Resolution No. 4297
January 15, 2008
Page 1 of 6
advocates following the Board's recommendation to formally acknowledge completion
of the Buildable Lands Report; and
WHEREAS, the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) are written
policy statements used for establishing a countywide framework from which county and
city comprehensive plans are developed; and
WHEREAS, the Buildable Lands legislation required Pierce County, in
consultation with its cities and towns, to adopt countywide planning policies to establish
a review and evaluation program; and
WHEREAS, proposed amendments to the Pierce County CPP were ratified by
the cities and towns and amended by the Pierce County Council in 2005 to incorporate
policies addressing buildable lands; and
WHEREAS, the Pierce County CPP reference the Pierce County Buildable
Lands Procedures Report for guidance on completing the review and evaluation as
required under the buildable lands legislation; and
WHEREAS, the Pierce County Growth Management Coordinating Committee
(GMCC) is a technical subcommittee to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC),
and the GMCC includes staff representatives from the County and the Cities and Towns
within the County; and
WHEREAS, the GMCC originally recommended to the PCRC the acceptance of
the Procedures Report in 1999; and
WHEREAS, the GMCC recommended to the PCRC revisions to the Procedures
Report in 2004; and
Resolution No. 4297
January 15, 2008
Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, the PCRC is a multi jurisdictional group. comprised of elected
officials who represent the County and the Cities and Towns within the County; and
WHEREAS, the PCRC, based upon the recommendations from the GMCC and
its own discussions, accepted the 1999 and revised 2004 Procedures Report as
guidelines for meeting the review and evaluation requirements of buildable lands; and
WHEREAS, the underlying purpose of the review and evaluation report is to
determine if there is sufficient suitable land to accommodate the countywide urban
population allocation within the adopted urban growth areas; and
WHEREAS, new residential platting data and new multi-family building permit
information representing development between 2001 and the end of 2005 was collected
and reviewed; and
WHEREAS, additional research was conducted to identify employment intensity
associated with new commercial and industrial development; and
WHEREAS, the individual assumptions incorporated into each jurisdiction's
capacity analysis was reviewed and agreed upon by the appropriate jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Pierce County adopted the GMA population allocations for
unincorporated Pierce County and each city and town through Pierce County Ordinance
2003-104s; and
WHEREAS, the total 2022 county urban area population allocation totals
753,300; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 population allocation for the City of Auburn totals 10,500;
and
Resolution No. 4297
January 15, 2008
Page 3 of 6
WHEREAS, the 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report identifies the need
of 1,789 additional housing units to accommodate the 2022 urban population allocation
within the City of Auburn; and
WHEREAS, the total 2022 County urban employment target totals 325,739 jobs;
and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report identifies the need
for 88,642 additional jobs to accommodate the County's 2022 urban employment target;
and
WHEREAS, the 2022 urban employment target for the City of Auburn totals 403
jobs; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report identifies the need
for 132 additional jobs for the City of Auburn to accommodate the City of Auburn 2022
urban employment target; and
WHEREAS, the assumptions incorporated in the residential and employment
capacity evaluation were developed in consultation with the City of Auburn
representative; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report estimates the urban
growth area(s) has an additional housing capacity of 107,866 units; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report estimates the urban
growth area(s) has an additional employment capacity of 136,758 jobs; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report estimates the City
of Auburn has an additional housing capacity of 1,623 units; and
Resolution No. 4297
January 15, 2008
Page 4 of 6
WHEREAS, the 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report estimates the City
of Auburn has an additional employment capacity of 543 jobs; and
WHEREAS, the evaluation of residential and employment capacity as
documented in the 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report concludes that there is
sufficient capacity to accommodate the total 20-year population allocation and
employment target for the entire county; and
WHEREAS, the evaluation of residential and employment capacity as
documented in the 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report concludes that there is
sufficient capacity to accommodate the 20-year employment target and insufficient
capacity to accommodate the total 20-year population allocation for the City of Auburn.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Purpose. The 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report dated
September 1, 2007 is hereby acknowledged and accepted by the City of Auburn to
meet the legislative review and evaluation requirements under RCW 36.70A.215.
Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor of the City of Auburn is hereby
authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry
out the directions of this resolution.
Resolution No. 4297
January 15, 2008
Page 5 of 6
Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full
force and effect upon passage and signature hereon.
t
DATED and SIGNED this ZZt``~day of,~~, ~~ , 2008.
CITY OF AUBURN
~ ~/yGr~ ~s'~ l E? r~
~ PETER B. EWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
~~
Dani E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
iG
D niel B. Heid.
ity Attorney
PUBLISHED: ~ ~~
Resolution No. 4297
January 15, 2008
Page 6 of 6
`"~~
Buildable Lands Report
A Monitoring and Evaluation Analysis
of
Urban Growth and Development Capacity
For
Pierce County and its Cities and Towns
September 1, 2007
Funding provided
by the
Washington State Department
of
Community, Trade and Economic Development
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report, Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), enacted in 1990, requires all
counties with a population of 50,000 or more with a high rate of population growth to designate
urban growth areas (UGAs). The Act requires that these UGAs be of sufficient size to
accommodate the anticipated population growth during the 20-year period following the
adoption of the UGA. In accordance with the Act, the Pierce County Council has adopted UGAs
for Pierce County and its incorporated cities and towns.
In designating these UGAs, the Pierce County Council worked closely with the individual cities
and towns to ensure that the UGAs were consistent with local comprehensive plans, urban
population forecasts, and population. capacity analyses. As a policy choice, each jurisdiction
conducted its own independent residential capacity analysis through their GMA comprehensive
plan. The County's analysis encompassed the unincorporated lands associated with the
Comprehensive Urban Growth Area. The cities' and towns' analyses encompassed the lands
within their respective municipal boundaries. Satellite cities' and towns' analyses also included
the unincorporated lands within their respective urban growth areas. The methods, definitions,
and assumptions incorporated in the analyses differed by jurisdiction and were not uniform or
coordinated.
'The jurisdictional variations incapacity analysis and the lack of specificity in the GMA led to
state-wide debate. Much of this debate focused on determining whether or not there were errors
in the assumptions used by local governments in sizing their UGAs. This debate resulted in the
Washington State Legislature amending the Growth Management Act in 1997 to require certain
counties and their cities and towns develop local programs aimed at improving confidence and
coordination in their capacity analyses. Pierce County was one of the counties required to
develop such a program.
Since 1997, Pierce County and its 23 cities and towns have worked collaboratively in a program
to collect annual development permitting data, inventory developable land, and enhance
information relating to wetlands and steep slopes. Commonly referred to as the Buildable Lands
Program, this collaborative program is aimed at satisfying the 1997 amendments to GMA and
improving accuracy in the information used to determine the capacity of the County's UGAs.
Pierce County published its first consolidated residentiaUemployment capacity analysis in
August 2002. The 2002 report consolidated, for the first time, incorporated and unincorporated
land development data for all urban areas within Pierce County and met the initial reporting
requirements of the Buildable Lands legislation. The conclusion of the 2002 Report was that
while some jurisdictions did not have sufficient housing capacity to meet their individual needs,
collectively, the countywide urban housing and employment need could be met.
-' --- After the submission of the 2002 Report,. Pierce_ County and its cities and towns took actions to
_-
`' evaluate the need for individual jurisdictions to adopt "reasonable measures" to rectify
inconsistencies between the planned assumptions and observed trends. The resulting report,
Pierce County Buildable Lands Program Consistency Evaluation, also identifies potential
effective measures suitable for the various sizes of jurisdictions. Subsequent efforts focused on
September 2007
1
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report
Executive Siunmary
providing education to local elected officials and planning commissions through the presentation
ofA Communityfor a Lifetime, depicting the need for a variety of densities within individual
jurisdictions. This effort assisted in the acceptance of higher density zoning and modifications to
local develo ment re lations in various Jurisdictions.
p ~ ~
Recognizing the substantial staff resources the data collection necessitated, the County's data
collection procedures were reviewed and, after careful consideration, revised. While
jurisdictions were encouraged to report appropriate development activity on an annual basis,
most chose to submit information in the later part of the five-year reporting period. Local
jurisdictions reviewed the summarized information to assist in identifying various assumptions
incorporated in the residential and employment capacity analysis.
The results of the-2007 residential and employment capacity analysis concludes that collectively
among all the jurisdictions there continues to be an abundant amount of vacant, underdeveloped
and redevelopable land to accommodate the adopted urban housing and employment needs for
the County and its cities and towns. This report details the methodology, assumptions, and
calculations that substantiate this assertion.
The report is divided into four sections: Overview of the Pierce County Buildable Land
Program; Data Collection; Residential and Commercial Capacity Analysis; and Conclusions.
Section I provides an overview of the Buildable Land Program, a general description and
historical perspective of state and county legislation addressing development of the program, and
discusses the population and employment benchmarks established for the County's UGAs which
are monitored by the program, and stakeholder participation opportunities. This section also
provides a brief summary of the Pierce County Buildable Lands Program Consistency
Evaluation and- progress achieved by local jurisdictions in adopting "reasonable measures."
Section II of the report details the information collected through the monitoring procedures and
describes the inventory conducted for the capacity analyses. Section III explains the
methodology applied to calculate a residential and employment capacity including the
factors/assumptions incorporated in the calculations. This section also includes individual
chapters for each of the 23 jurisdictions and urban unincorporated Pierce County participating in
the program. These chapters provide detailed descriptions of zoning districts, annual
development data, and capacity calculations. Section IV of the report summarizes the results of
the monitoring and capacity for growth within the designated urban growth areas.
A subsequent report will again address the consequences of this monitoring and evaluation
exercise. Reasonable measures to achieve adopted density goals will be recommended to the
appropriate jurisdictions if discrepancies are evident between the permitted densities and
residential policies.
~~
September 2007
2
Pierce County Buildable Lands
SECTION I
OVERVIEW OF THE PIERCE COUNTY
BUILDABLE LANDS PROGRAM
Section I -Overview
Introduction
Pierce County and its 23 cities and towns began developing the Buildable Lands Program in
1997 in response to amendments to the Washington State Growth Management Act enacted that
same year. The program seeks to establish a coordinated system for collecting and monitoring
data regarding growth and development occurring in Pierce County and its cities and towns..
The program primarily focuses on evaluating two aspects of growth management --
accommodation of projected population growth during the 20-year planning period and the
availability of commercial and industrial land for employment purposes. The program is aimed
at ensuring greater consistency between local planning efforts under GMA and the growth and
development patterns actually occurring in the urban areas of the County and its cities and towns.
Why the Program Was Created
The Washington State Legislature enacted the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990. This
Act required local governments to develop rational policies to manage growth in the state. All
urban counties and their cities and towns were required to plan under the Act. This planning
must address issues in land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities, utilities, and rural
lands, and must ensure that the forecasted growth in population for the next 20 years can be
accommodated in an efficient manner. An essential component of planning under the Act is the
designation of urban growth areas (UGAs).
Each county required to plan under GMA. must designate an urban growth area or areas within
which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which urban growth shall not be allowed.
These urban growth areas are to be based upon the projected 20-year population growth forecast
for the County and its cities and towns as generated by the Washington State Office of Financial
Management. In order to properly size these UGAs such that this population could be
accommodated, each jurisdiction planning under the Act conducted a population capacity
analysis. These capacity analyses sought to determine how much population could be
accommodated in a given area based upon availability of developable land.
The jurisdictional variations in capacity analysis and the lack of specificity in GMA led to
statewide debate on the subject, with much of the debate focused on determining whether or not
~' there were errors in the assumptions used by local governments in sizing their UGAs. In 1997,
-this debate resulted in GMA being amended through Senate Bill 6094, commonly referred to as
(, the "Buildable Lands" amendment. The amendment requires certain counties and their cities and
towns to monitor development activities through five-year periods and conduct a coordinated
housing unit and employment capacity analysis for each owe jurisdictions. Pierce County and
its cities and towns are required by state law to participate in-this- Buildable Lands. monitoring
program.
September 2007
3
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Section I -Overview
In July of 2001, the Pierce County Regional Council responded to Senate Bi116094 by
recommending the adoption of proposed amendments to Pierce County's Countywide Planning
Policies that incorporate monitoring and evaluation policies related to Buildable Lands. These
policies primarily require jurisdictions to abide by the guidelines specified in a report entitled,
Pierce County Buildable Lands, Procedures for Collecting and Monitoring Data, April 1999.
Population andBmployment Projections
Evaluating whether or not sufficient capacity exists in Pierce County's UGAs to accommodate
the 20-year population projection is one of the central components of the Buildable Lands
Program. This population projection provides an essential target used in evaluating the success
of growth management efforts. Pursuant to GMA, this population projection is developed by the
Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). OFM projections are aggregated at
the county level; population is not assigned at the city or town level.
The first 20-year population projections for Pierce County were released by OFM in 1992. At
that time, the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development indicated that the
projections represented the minimum amount of population for which each county must plan
under the Growth Management Act (1992 Growth Management Population Projections, Status
and Variances; January 1995; Forecasting Division, Office of Financial Management).. This
initial interpretation provided local jurisdictions with a considerable amount of flexibility
identifying their 20-year growth projections.
OFM originally projected a total population of 812,104 people by the year 2012 for Pierce
County. This projection included the population expected in the County's cities and towns.
Pierce County and its cities and towns worked collaboratively to determine how this population
should be allocated by jurisdiction. This collaboration resulted in the passage of Pierce County
Resolution R94-153 in 1994. This resolution allocated a projected population growth of 156,104
through the year 2012 as follows: existing municipal boundaries - 78,304; unincorporated UGAs
of satellite cities and towns - 7,993; and Pierce County's Comprehensive Urban Growth Area
(CUGA) - 69,807.
After Pierce County adopted its 20=year projection, the Central Puget Sound Growth
Management Hearings Board (CPSGMHB) ruled the projection prepared by OFM for a county is
the minimum and maximum population for which the county should be planning for, unless an
alternative has been approved by the CPSGMHB. This interpretation requires the allocation for
each city, town, and the county to add up to the specific population provided by OFM.
After this rigid interpretation by the Hearings Board, the Washington State Legislature amended
RCW 43.62.035 in 1995. The new language provided clarification about the flexibility of the
OFM projections. OFM was directed to provide a projection with a range of populations to each
county. The projections provide a low, middle, and high estimate. The middle range estimate
represents the most likely population projection for the County. The County's projections can be
anywhere between the OFM low--and -high range estimates.
_-
On December 29, 1995, OFM officially transmitted the Growth Management Act Population
Projections in accordance with RCW 43.62.035. The projections entail five-year intervals from
September 2007
4
C
r.
~~
r.
r
0
C
~I
r
I'icrcc County Buildable Lands Report Section I -Overview
11)95 through 2010, and annual projections from 2010 through 2020. The range for the 2017
projection was from a low 826,498 to a high of 952,981, with 884,597 as the mid-range estimate.
In 1997, in response to the release of the OFM range and the incorporation of three cities, the
County began a process to update its 20-year (1997-2017) urban population projections.
Through Resolution R97-59, Pierce County allocated the tota12017 population of 914,240, an
urban population of 720,040 and a rural population of 194,200. An allocation for Edgewood. was
not included.
Through Pierce County Resolution R2000-173, the 20-year urban population allocation was
revised to 729,471, resulting in a total County allocation of 923-,671. This revision incorporated
a population projection for the City of Edgewood and an adjustment to the allocation associated
with the cities of Lakewood and Gig Harbor.
After the release of the 2002 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report, Pierce County, in
consultation with its cities and towns, revised and extended-its 20-year population allocation to
the year 2022. Through Pierce County Ordinance No. 2003-104s, the OFM 2022 mid-range
estimate, totaling 912,700, was ,adopted as the County's total population allocation. Of this total,
522,920 is allocated to within the municipal limits (as of 2002),.230,380 is allocated within
Pierce County's unincorporated urban growth area, and 159,400 is allocated within Pierce
County's designated rural and resource areas.
A comparison of the 2017 and 2022 population allocations highlights an intriguing point; the
2017 population allocation is approximately 10,000 people higher than the 2022 allocation
despite the five year extension. A primary reason for this situation is that the 2000 census
information reported a lower 2000 population figure than the 2000 population projection in the
OFM 1995 GMA population series. Consequently, the notion was that because the 2017 total
population allocation was at the high end of the OFM 1995 population projection series, and the
2000 estimate for-the same series was lower than the 2000 census count, the 2017 population
allocation was too high. A closer comparison of the 2017 and 2022 allocations reveals the
dramatic allocation decrease occurred within the designated rural and resource areas.
I+igure 1. ',
2017 and 2022Population Allocation~~Comparisoir
2017 20?2 Difference
_ _
Munici al Allocation 515,087 522,920 +7,833
Unincorporated UGA
Allocation
214,384
230,380
+15,996
Rural Area Allocation 194,200 159,400 -34,800
County Tbtal 923,671 912,700 - x,971
The detailed-2022 urban population allocation for Pierce County-and each of its cities and towns
are provided in Figure 2:
September 2007
5
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report
Section I -Overview
Fibure 2. -
2022 Po elation Yro`ections for~Urban Areas. iii Pierce County'
~~` Mwiieipality Municipai~~1CA
.(Within 2002 Municipal
Lio~its) Unincorporated
U~i~
Auburn 7;950. 3,550
Bonney Lake 18,830 3,180
Buckley 5,200 N/A
Carbonado 830 50
DuPont 9,100 N/A
Eatpnville 2,780 1,340
Edgewood 13,700 N/A
Fife 8,900 680
Fircrest 6,800 40
Gig Harbor 10,800 9,950
Lakewood 72,000 24,900
Milton 7,000 670
Ogg 7,900 N/A
Pacific 0 10
Puyallup 38,600 11,500
Roy 1,000 20
Ruston 1,760 N/A
South Prairie 830 50
Steilacoom 6,900 N/A
Sumner 12,250 2,100
Tacoma 255,240 67,100
University Place 34,000 N/A
Wilkeson 550 N/A
Fife/Milton Overlap N/A 200
Lakewood/Steilacoom
Overlap N/A 2,600
Unincorp. Urban Pierce
County ---- - -
-- N/A
102,440
urban Total 5.22,920 230,3b(}
'Pierce County Council Resolution No. 2003-104s
September 2007
6
Pierce County Buildable Lands
Section I -Overview
Employment Targets
In addition to evaluating population capacity, the Buildable Lands legislation also requires an
evaluation of commercial and industrial land needs for the 20-year planning period. In order to
evaluate these needs, it was essential that an employment projection for the 20-year planning
period be developed. Such employment projections were not originally required by GMA, and
consequently were not developed by local governments.
Fil;ure 3.
Piercc County 2022 Em loyment~Taraets
Municipality ~~' Efi~p~oyment Target
Auburn 403
Bonney Lake 4,420
Buckley 2,066
Carbonado . 64
DuPont 7,370
Eatonville 2,400
Edgewood 1,431
Fife 15,271
Fircrest 1,349
Gig Harbor 8,638
Lakewood 31,210
Milton 1,774
Orting 2,000
Pacific 3,355
Puyallup 25,035
Roy 139
Ruston 392
South Prairie 262
Steilacoom 500
Sumner 9,275
Tacoma 147,092
U.P. 6,699
Wilkeson 146
Unincorporated Urban 54,448
Total 316,033
Total Jobs covered by ESD minus construction/resource sector. Jobs within Fort Lewis, McChord AFB, and Camp Murray are not
included in the Unincorporated Pierce County estimate. °Unincorporated Urban" encompasses all the adopted unincorporated
Pierce County UGAs. The estimates/targets are based on the muniapal boundaries at the end of 2005.
For the 2002 Buildable Land Report, the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) formally
accepted 2017 employment targets for sole purpose of the buildable lands analysis. A similar
process was followed in the identification of 2022 employment targets. It should be noted that
the 2022 employment targets encompass employment covered by the Washington-State
Employment Security Department, excluding the construction and resource sector employment.
September 2007
7
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report .Section I -Overview
Uncovered employment would include, but not limited to, self-employed workers, proprietors,
and CEOs. The 2022 employment target was accepted by PCRC on January 18, 2007.
Local and Regional Framework
While the Growth Management Act was silent on the details of urban density, sizing and
analyzing the sufficiency of urban growth areas, local planning policies and decisions by the
Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (CPSGMHB) have established
specific guidance on some of these issues. Additional guidance is provided through a document
entitled "Buildable Lands Program Guidelines," published by the Washington State Department
of Community, Trade and Economic Development.
Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearing Board (CPSGMHB)
The Washington State Legislature created the three independent boards in 1991 to "hear and
determine" allegations that a city, county, or state agency has not complied with the goals and
requirements of the Growth Management Act, and related provisions of the Shoreline
Management Act'and the State Environmental Policy Act. Because disputes often center on
conflicting views of the meaning of various GMA provisions, a board may need to interpret the
Act, clarifying ambiguities and reconciling apparent internal conflicts. The CPSGMHB oversees
Pierce County and its 23 cities and towns.
The CPSGMHB has decided various cases which involve appropriate urban densities and the
sizing of urban growth areas. The following summarizes a few of their decisions.
The CPSGMHB has concluded that counties must "show their work" when designating UGAs.
The CPSGMHB presumes actions of the local jurisdiction are valid. However, when challenged,
documentation must be provided that supports the actions taken by the jurisdiction, otherwise the
action may be determined to have been taken in error.
The CPSGMHB has concluded that an oversupply (safety factor) of developable land within an
urban growth area is reasonable. A safety factor helps maintain real estate sales competition and
is intended to assure continued affordability of land. If a safety factor exceeds 25 percent of the
needed capacity and is brought before the CPSGMHB, the CPSGMHB will scrutinize the
justification in its decision..
Buildable Lands Program Guidelines
The Growth Management Division of the Washington State Department of Community, Trade
and Economic Development published a document entitled "Buildable Lands Program
Guidelines"~ in June 2000. The purpose of the guidebook is to assist local governments in
developing a Buildable Lands Program that meet the requirements of GMA. The guidelines
describe types of data to collect, methods in collecting the data, and how to analyze the data.
Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)
-The P-fierce County Countywide Planning Policies are written statements that establish a
__countywide framework for the development of growth management guidelines adopted by the
County and its cities and towns. The framework is intended to ensure consistency among all
September 2007
8
u
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Section I -Overview
jurisdictions in addressing certain growth management issues. Pierce County adopted its
Countywide Planning Policies on June 30, 1992 with additional amendments in 1996 and 2005:
The section of the CPPs entitled "Countywide Planning Policy on Urban Growth Areas,
Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such
Development," includes various policies associated with the Buildable Lands program. The
related policies primarily address the sizing of the. urbar4 growth boundary, the allocation of the
projected population, and appropriate average density within the urban growth area.
'~"" As stipulated in policy 2.1.1, "Urban growth areas must be of sufficient size to accommodate
only the urban growth projected to occur over the succeeding 20-year planning period." This
infers that the urban growth area should not be over-sized. However, in determining the
appropriate size of the urban growth area, various components must be taken into account, such-
as critical areas, open space, and a safety factor, i.e., maintaining a supply of developable land
sufficient to allow market forces to operate.
Policy 6.1 directs the County and cities and towns to plan for efficient land use patterns while
conserving natural resources. The policy further defines efficient land use as .development with
at least an average net density of four units per acre. Associated policies also support the need
for in-fill and compact development in achieving an efficient land use pattern.
Pierce County Comprehensive Plan
The Pierce County Comprehensive Plan contains various policies that address the designated
urban growth areas. Most noteworthy, the policies limit the safety factor (referenced as a market
factor in policy) to no greater than 25 percent for urban Pierce. County. They further state that
the methodology for its calculation shall.be evaluated and adjusted over time, taking into
consideration changes in population projections and land supply in both unincorporated Pierce
County as well as municipal jurisdictions in the County. Through the County's 10-year GMA
comprehensive plan update process, an additional policy was incorporated to clarify that the
expansion of the urban growth area should be evaluated against the collective countywide need,
not the need of an individual city or town.
Annual Data Collection and Monitoring Under the Program
Much of the emphasis in the Buildable Lands Program focuses on the collection and monitoring
of annual development data in order to evaluate whether or not population and employment
targets are being met. Pierce County and its cities and towns provide data regarding new
development that has occurred including information such as the number of dwelling units,
acreage, building square footage, and zone classification. A detailed discussion of data
collection is provided in Section II of this document. The results of the data monitoring between
2001 and 2005 is provided in Section III.
Residential and Commercial Land Capacity Analysis
The methodology used to conduit the Residential and Commercial Land Capacity Analysis is
provided in Section III of this -document. A discussion of the results o~ the capacity analysis is
provided in Section IV -Conclusion. A future report is planned that will provide
September 2007
9
I'u`I~ ~~ 1'~utul~ ItuilJ~lil~> I nrni. It,: (~~~il `:it lti~u I (IvrtvlCW
rccomi~ne~ndations hascd upon this analysis. It is anticipated that such capacity analyses will be
completed every five years throughout the life of the UGAs. .__._
Reasonable Measures ~'
Although much attention is focused on the residential. and employment capacity of the adopted
urban growth areas, the Buildable Lands legislation also .directs local governments to evaluate
whether assumed densities incorporated in the analysis are consistent with the observed densities
realized for in-.the-ground projects during the appropriate five-year period. Where local
governments find that assumed and observed densities differ, measures must be adopted and
implemented that are reasonably likely to increase consistency during the subsequent five-year
period.
"
Pierce County Buildable Lands Program
In A ri12004 Pierce Coun released a re ort entitled
p ty P
Consistency Evaluation. " The report, prepared by EcoNorthwest, is intended to assist Pierce
County and its cities and towns in meeting the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 ,- Buildable
Lands. More specifically, through the conclusions of the report, 13 jurisdictions were identified
which may be required to adopt "reasonable measures" to rectify inconsistencies between
observed densities and density assumptions incorporated in the September 2002 Pierce County
Buildable Lands Report. The study also identified a menu of measures that would.be reasonably
likely to encourage densification and classified the effectiveness of various strategies by the size
of the jurisdiction. It should also be noted that of the remaining 10 cities and towns that were
classified as not needing to adopt reasonable measures, four did not have sufficient development
data post GMA adopted plans to make a conclusion.
In an effort to assist planners in cities and towns identified as needing to adopt reasonable
measures, Pierce County, using CTED grant funds, contracted with EcoNorthwest and AHBL to
provide technical assistance in implementing reasonable. measures. This effort involved various
meetings with local planning staff and public presentations before elected officials and planning
commissions. As a means to defuse local resistance to higher density development the focus of
the strategy and presentations revolved around the context of A Community for a Lifetime. These
efforts were received with a positive reception and resulted in some jurisdictions proposing.
increased density. - ~
In an effort to identify each of the 13 jurisdictions' progress in adopting reasonable measures, a
survey was distributed in the fall of 2006. Jurisdictions provided a favorable response. The
majority of responses indicated that development regulation amendments and rezones may be
categorized as reasonable measures. However, in the majority of instances, jurisdictions did not
indicate the actions were reasonable measures in response to the "Buildable Lands Program
Consistency Evaluation. " It should also be noted that the timeframe in which the reasonable
measures were adopted/effective spanned from 2001 to 2006, with the majority occurring in the
later years. There is not evidence to indicate that any individual jurisdiction established a
monitoring system to annually evaluate the effectiveness of the adopted reasonable measure.
Given the timeframe in which most measures were adopted, it is relatively unlikely that the
density associated with development built between 2001 and the-end of 2005 was a result of any
adopted measures. _
September 2007
10
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Section I -Overview
Jurisdictional and Other Stakeholder Participation
Cities and Towns
Representatives from Pierce County and its cities and towns have had various opportunities to
actively participate in all components of the project. Through a subcommittee of the Growth
Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC), representatives completed a detailed review of
the 2002 capacity methodology, data collection procedures, and land use inventory guidelines.
After three meetings in early 2006; the subcommittee forwarded its recommendations to the
GMCC for consideration and approval.
The majority of representatives were involved in the Buildable Lands discussion through
participation at the monthly GMCC meetings. Throughout the project, the GMCC's monthly
agenda included one or more topics related to the Buildable Lands project. Through a few action
items the GMCC. forwarded recommendations to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC),
such as the 2022 employment targets. Other action items included modifying the data collection
procedures and establishing countywide land inventory guidelines.
Elected officials have been briefed on the progress of the project through several presentations at
the-PCRC. As an action item, they accepted the recommended 2022 employment targets for the
purpose of the Buildable Lands Program and accepted the update to the "Pierce County
Buildable Lands, Procedures for Collecting and Monitoring Data" report.
Local staff was instrumental in identifying jurisdictional assumptions and criteria to be
incorporated in the residential and employment capacity calculations. After initial text and
calculations were completed local staff had the opportunity to review their individual
jurisdiction's section of the draft 2007 Piece County Buildable Lands Report. In addition, as a
stakeholder of the project, individual jurisdictions had an opportunity to review and comment on
the entire draft report prior to its submittal a final to the Washington State Department of
~ Community, Trade, and Economic Development on September 1, 2007.
Other Stakeholders
Other stakeholders associated with the Buildable Lands project include representatives of the
residential building industry, residentiaUcommercial developers, environmental organizations,
and real estate industry. A core group of individuals representing -these interest groups were
identified and invited to participate in three meetings. Invited organizations included, but were
not limited to, the Pierce County Master Builders Association (MBA), Tacoma/Pierce County
Realtors Association, Friends of Pierce County, and Futurewise. During the scheduled meetings
participants were briefed on the overall project as well as specific components. In addition to
follow-up discussions with individual organizations, the stakeholder group had an opportunity to
review and comment on a draft report prior to the submittal of the final Report to the Washington
State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development on September 1, 2007.
September 2007
11
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Section III -Auburn
City of Auburn
The City's 2006 population and employment estimates and 2022 population allocation and
employment targets are provided below:
Population in Pierce County Employment in Pierce County
2006 5;135 t 2714
2022 7,9502 4035
Adjusted 20223
10,500
1 April 1, 2006 OFM Population Estimate
2 Pierce County Ordinance No. 2003-104s.
3 Adjusted to incorporate property annexed since 2001.
n Covered Employment estimate from Washington EDS, minus resource/construction jobs.
s Employment Tazget accepted by PCRC on January 18, 2007. Represents ESD covered employment, minus resource/construction
jobs.
The City's GMA Comprehensive Plan was adopted in April 1995. The first annexation by
Auburn within Pierce County occurred in 1998. Auburn contains area in both King and Pierce
counties, with the majority of the city's area and population located in King County. The City of
Auburn recently completed the 2007 Buildable Lands analysis for the King County portion of the
city, which demonstrated adequate residential capacity including a surplus of 784 households.
The majority of the area within the City limits in Pierce County is associated with the Lakeland
Hills South Planned Unit Development (PUD). The maximum density allowed in a planning
area is calculated on a net "usable" area basis. Non-buildable areas and land set aside for non-
residential .land uses are subtracted from the gross area of the site to determine net usable area.
Non-buildable areas do not include public and private roads and driveways. The net usable area
acreage within a planning area is then multiplied by the residential densities allowed by the
Comprehensive Plan designation to produce the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in
that planning area. Remaining areas are zoned Light Commercial (C-1), Terrace View (TV),
Public Use (P-1), and Single Family Residential (R-1). The City's GMA Comprehensive Plan
contains seven land use designations for properties within Pierce County. These designations are
as follows:
Auburn I,aud`Use Designations Specific to Pierce County J
Auburn Land Use'Designations ~ lmplcruentng Zones ~
Single Family Residential
Designates and protects areas for
single-family dwellings.
R-1
This zone creates a living environment of optimum standards for
single-family dwellings and limits development to relatively low
degrees of density. This district provides for the development of
single-family detached dwellings, not more than one such
dwelling on each lot, and for related accessory uses. In
accordance with Auburn City Code Section i 8.02.050, property
that is not zoned by the City of Auburn prior to annexation shall
assume the R-1 designation upon annexation.
September 2007
21
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Section III /~ i i l ~i u, i
Auburn Land Use Desil;nations Specitlc to Pierce County
~..-.._~
AuburrrLand UseDes' nafions [tip len~entin z Lones
Single Family Residential PUD
Designates and protects areas for The Lakeland Hills South PUD is zoned "Planned Unit
single-family dwellings. Development (PUD) District -Lakeland Hills South Special Platt.
Area" (Auburn City Code Chapter 18.76). The PUD is divided
into planning areas with varying densities and development
standards. Allowable residential densities include 6 units per acre
for.single family. The Lakeland Hills South Development
Agreement, as amended, allows the developer flexibility to
choose densities in planning areas within the PUD, so long as the
overall density limitations provided for by the Comprehensive
Plan are adhered to and the maximum number of dwelling units
for the entire PUD is not exceeded. The maximum allowable
number of residential units within the PUD development is 3,408.
Moderate Density Residential PUD
Provides a transition between The Lakeland Hills South PUD is zoned "Planned Unit
single-family residential areas and Development (PUD) District -Lakeland Hills South Special
other more intensive designations. Plan Area" (Auburn City Code Chapter 18.76). The PUD is
divided into planning areas with varying densities and
development standards. Allowable residential densities include
14 units per acre for moderate density. The Lakeland Hills
South Development Agreement, as amended, allows the
developer flexibility to choose densities in planning areas
within the PUD, so long as the overall density limitations
provided for by the Comprehensive Plan are adhered to and the
maximum number of dwelling units for the entire PUD is not
exceeded. The maximum allowable number of residential units
within the PUD development is 3,408.
Hi Density Residential PUD
Provides for the most economical The Lakeland Hills South PUD is zoned "Planned Unit
forms of housing. Development (PUD) District -Lakeland Hills South Special
Plan Area" (Auburn City Code Chapter 18.76). The PUD is
divided into planning areas with varying densities and
development standards. Allowable residential densities include
19 units per acre for high density. The Lakeland Hills South
Development Agreement, as amended, allows the developer
flexibility to choose densities in planning areas within the
PUD, so long as the overall density limitations provided for by
the Comprehensive Plan are adhered to and the maximum
number of dwelling units for the entire PUD-is-nat exceeded.
The maximum allowable number of residential units within the
PUD develo meat is 3,408.
September 2007
22
r
r
r
r
^
r
^
7
Pierce Coun Buildable Lands Re ort
h' P Section III -Auburn
- --
Auburn Land Usc llcsignations Spcciiic to Pierce. Count~~
Auburn Land Usc Designations [ail ~lcmentin' ;Zones
Light Commercial C-1
Provides pedestrian oriented This zone represents the primary commercial designation for
commercial areas with a wide small to moderate scale commercial activities developed in a
range of services. consistent manner which attracts pedestrian-oriented activities.
This zone encourages leisure shopping and provides amenities
conducive to attracting shoppers. Several properties located at
the western end of the city limits off of East Valley Highway
are zoned Light Commercial (C-1).
PUD
The Lakeland Hills South PUD is zoned "Planned Unit
Development (PUD) District -Lakeland Hills South Special
Plan Area" (Auburn City Code Chapter 18.76). The PUD is
divided into planning areas with varying densities and
development standards and certain areas planned for
commercial uses.
Heavy Commercial TV
Provides automobile oriented This zone establishes zoning. requirements for the property
commercial areas, areas- commonly known as "Terrace View", which reflect zoning
designated for the most intensive provisions allowed by Pierce County and project submittals
commercial uses. made to Pierce County. The zoning district is a modified
version of the City of Auburn C-3 (Heavy Commercial) zoning
district, with the major modification being that the zone allows
multi-family units as a permitted use. Several properties
located at the western end of the city limits off of East Valley
Hi wa are zoned Terrace View
Open Space PUD.
Provides for undevelopable land The Lakeland Hills South PUD is zoned "Planned Unit
due to environmental constraints Development (PUD) District -Lakeland Hills South Special
and protects resources and land Plan Area" (Auburn City Code Chapter 18.76). The PUD is
for public purposes. divided into planning areas with varying densities and
development standards.
I R-1
This zone creates a living environment of optimum standards
for single-family dwellings and limits development to
relatively low degrees of density. This district provides for the
development of single-family detached dwellings, not more
than one such dwelling. on each lot, and for related accessory
uses. In accordance withAuburn City Code Section 18.02.050,
___.
.property that is not zoned-by the City of Auburn prior to
annexation shall assume the R-1 d~si anon u on annexation.
September 2007
23
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report
Section III -Auburn
Auburn Land Use Designations Specific to Pierce County
AuburrrLand Use Designations Im lcmentin Zones
Public and Quasi-Public
Provides areas needed for public
and quasi-public community
services such as parks.
P-1
This zone provides for the appropriate location and
development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational,
recreational, and public service needs of the community.
Several properties located. at the western end of the city limits
west of East Valley Highway are zoned Public Use (P-1).
. Table l - Cih~ of AuUurn: :~
Summai• r o~Buildiri Permits for Nrulki-Fami1 bevelo merit .
`Land llse
De$igrtation ZonSing
~' District DcnsitvltJnits 2001 ~ 2002 ~ 21)03 2004~~ 2005,
Gross N/A N/A N/A N/A 17.20
High Density PUD Net 17.20
Residential
Units 16
derate
M Gross 10.46 9.88 9.04 32.90. 13.53.
o
Density PUD Net 10.46 9.88 9.04 32.90 13.53
Residential Units 95 124 35 81 195
Gross N/A N/A N/A N/A 19.94
Heavy ~ Net 19.94
Commercial
Units 430
Table 2 - City of Auhr~rn:
Summary of 1't-7rcel-Specific Residential 1'Iatting~Activity;
Land'Usrr
Designation Toning
District DensityfLots 2001 2002 2003 2004' ` 2005'
Gross N/A 0.05 N/A N/A N/A
Heavy ~ Net 0.05
Commercial
Lots
2
derate
M Gross N/A .81 N/A N/A 4.89
o
Density PUD Net 1.22 6.12
Residential Lots 187 ~
le
Si -Gross N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.40
ng
Family R-1 _-Net _. _ . 4.89
Residential --Lots 74
September 2007
24
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Section III -Auburn
Table 3 -City of Auburn:
Summary ofParcel-S ecific Commercial and IndustriaLDevclo ment Acti~~ity
Land Usc %oning 2001 2002 ,2003 2001 20U~
Designation District
Gross N/A 12.48 N/A 1.57 N/A
Acres
Light pUD Bldg.
Commercial 125,602 14,560
Sq. Ft.
FAR 0.23 0.21
Table 4 -City of Aulaurn: :-
De~~clo meat Assum ifions and Trends
200]-2005 Average 2022'Assumptons~
People~per Household 2.37 2.6
R-1:5.4 du/na
Residential Density Refer to tables 1 and 2. TV: 36.3 du/na
mixed Usc Designations:
Percent of Residential and 100% / 0% N/A
.Commercial development
Percent of Land Used 1 73% 7%
[ for; Roads
0
w
o
'Percent of Land
; Designated: Critical 27.53% 5%
Areas (Constrained)
°'~ Percent of Land Used N/A 2%
for: Recreation /Park
Percent of Land Used for:
PublicFacilitics / ~ N/A I%
Institutions
Percent of Land in
Residentially 7oncd
Districts fur non- N/A N/A
residential uses (i.e.
churches)
Per. cent of Land
Dnavailable for N/A 1%
Development
3Manufacturing/Warehousing: tI:15 CommerciaUServices:
Employees per Gross Acre CommerciaUServices:-14.37 ~ 19.37
' The assumptions are not applied to projects wim me Laxeiana rims ~outn ruli.
2 2000 Census
3 Pierce County Employment Intensity Survey
September 2007
25
Pierce County Buildable Lands
Section III -Auburn
Tablc 5 -City of Auburn:
Assumptions f'or Vacant, Vacant Single Unit Lots, Underdeveloped
.and Rerlevclo ableComtneeciaUlndustrial Parcelst
Zoning t
~ avant Vacant (Single '2
Underdeveloped ` Redevelopablc
~~'
ll' trict Unit} Commercial/~ lndustrial
Greater than or Less than .46 Greater than or
R-1 e ual to .46 acres acres a ual to .46 acres
TV No Acreage
Threshold
Land value greater than
C-1 No Acreage or equal to improvement
Threshold value
'T'he assumptions are not apptieu to projects wttn the La~cetana Wins ~oum ruL.
ZException: Improvement value greater than $500,000.
3Exception: Condominium ownership.
September 2007
26
d
a
0
.J
a~
b
.4:
b
'~
a~
a~
a
I
a~
b
b
w
a
jY ~
CC ~ ..+'r
vi
J..1
c~
C U
G7.
O
~
c
J
J O
y ~
A
~
~
v
^o
`~
u
a
b o
~, ~,
~° b
o
a
~ _
z
'd +-' _N O
ec! ~ ~
~
~ .
w 7 ~
O
/+ ^~
~ ~ i
rc. •-~
C/) N
i
~
~ \ O
~.
c
~ z
~
~ ~
w
o
py ~
U
> _
O
N _
oo
M
Obi
M
O
O
O
~
~
~
~
~ O O~ ~--~ l~ l~ ~O ~
`p N .-~ .--~ .-~ .--~
q '~
~ ~ '~ O
rn
L'A ~
"ou ~' O
i `~~~
V' 00 ~ O M l~ tt ~ [~ I~
l~ ~p ~p V •"' r}' ~ M
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~.
v
'd +-~ ~.;
• r •~ ~
V~ CJ V CV ~ ~ ~ L ~ CVQ b /-' '~ ~ ~
C
0.~ ~
-o ~ ~ a v ~ ~
v, ~ ~ -o
Q d'
c ca `` UA E
~
. SUOI ^ ^
L 3
c ' y ~
~ ,.
o
N c~
:7 ~
U c d
w {z, q u
Q `'~ .,~pj~ ~Y.IIpIA~pUj v
~ o~
`C, ~ b u
d~ ~ G
F.,7 w _
a,
W ~ o a~
~'I~~' c q .
~ ;G7 ~ A
x
b
a
~~
U rr~~
U y
cd (~
~ b
~_
m ~
yam, O
N ~
o
N ~
o
~~
~~~
b ~
a~ o
., ~
o ~
~oQ
~~
~~~~
~,~~
~ H
o ~ ~
~ •D ~
~ vi
a~
q 3~ ~
Y ~Y
~ "~~ b
o ~~'
°~'
a
p
~ ~
°n .~
y ~ ~
~b
~ a~
o '~ w
~ ~ o
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ti
~ M ~
~' "'" N
3 ~ 'Y
~~ c
U ~
ob a
a. ~, ~;
o~ N
o ~ ~
~ ~
R' a
O
~ 4¢~. d0
O ~
U ~ ~
U o
n y N
~ ~
y~
3 ~ k
dw~.
~ ~ o
mow
~~
r
O
O
N
N
~ ~
N
:~
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Section III -Auburn
Table 7 -City of A~t~i t`ii:-Housing Unit Needs
Assumed 2022=:'~~ Additional ~ ~Totaf°
2006 Adjusted 2022 Housing :Housing Plus Displaced [Idusing
Housing 2022.. ~ Ilouschold -Units Needed ~Units~ Units~~ '=
Units Nopulatioit Size :Needed. ~ '06 -'22)- Nceded~ '~
2,250 10,500 2.60 4,038 1,788 1 1,789
' Source UNM Apnl 1, 1(106 estunate
z Existing housing units associated with underdeveloped and. multi-family redevelopable parcels adjusted down to reflect
"unavailable to develop" assumption.
s Total housing needs associated with allocated population assuming 100% occupancy.
Table 8 ~ CityofAuburn l.lotxsiilg Unit Capacity .;
._::z„
Plus l x:;.
~ Adjusted ~ Assumed... ~ Unit Dwelling Unit ~ Ilousiil~
Lonin~ District
b :Net Acres Density Capacih~. per Yacattt . Capacity `
net Lot
R-1 90.58 5.4 489 0 489
Lakeland Hills South PUD N/A N/A 1,134 0 1,134
Totalllousing 1,623
Ca aci
Table 9 -City of Auburn: Supply of Landwfor CommerciaVlndustrial Employment
~Z~-ning Uistrict ~ Cl PUDI
Redev. Redev.. Redev.
Land 'Type Vacant Underdev. Com'U acant Com'U ~,
Industrial ndustrial
Gross Acres ~ 11.92 ~~ 0 0 211.81 0 0
`~'uturc Capital 0
haclities
Gross Acres with 11.92
Facilities Deduction
Land Unavailable for .11
Develo ruent
Adjusted Gross Acres 11.81
Total Adjusted Cross 11.81 N/A
Acres
Displaced Unit
'The assumptions are not applied to projects wtm the Latcelana titles aoutn ruli. i ne tota- Hamner or~oos reiaiea to me
remaining commercial lands within the Lakeland Hills PUD is estimated at 145.
z For Mixed Use Zones, gross acres represent the percentage of land assumed for commercial uses. See Table 5 "Development
Assumptions and Trends."
September 2007
28
.
1
N
M
N
r
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Section III -Auburn
`I'ablc 9 -City ofAt~hurn: 5i~pply of Landfor Cainnlercial/Industrial Employment
7ouing District TV
Redev. Redev.
land `Type Vacant Underdev. Com'1/ Vacant Underdev. Com'1/
Industrial Industrial
Gross Acresl 8.84 0 0
Future Capital ~
Facilities
Grnss Acres with ~ 8 84
Facilities Deduction
Land Unavailable for .09
Develo ment
Adjusted Gross-Acres .8.73
,Total Adjusted Cross 8 75
Acres
Displaced Unit
'For Mixed Use Zones, gross acres represent the percentage of land assumed for commercial uses. See Table S "llevelopment
Assumptions and Trends: '
Table 10 -City of Auburn: Employment Needs
2006
2022
Employment Plus Displaced.
Additional
Employment
~ T+;mployment Grawth
~ Employees froul
Rede~relopable Employment
Estimate Target (2006-2022) r
_ Conl e ci~ 1 Needs
271 403 132 0 132
" Source J/Sll Apr11 1, ZllU6 covereti~obs estimate minus resourceiconstrucnon~ons.
z Displaced employees associated with redevelopable lands aze adjusted down to reflect `~inavailable to develop" assumption.
Table ll. -City of Auburn: Employment Capacity
Commercial /
Adjusted Net
Employees per ~
Employment
Tndustrial loving District Acres Acre Capacih'
Desi nation ~
C-1 11.81 19.37 229
Commercial
TV 8.75 19.37 169
Lakeland Hills N/A N/A 145
South PUD
Total' ''
Employment 543
__
Ca achy __
September 2007
29
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Section IV -Conclusion
SECTION IV
CONCLUSION
General Overview
The 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report is a milestone project in an on-going
monitoring and evaluation program. The development data collected and reviewed in this report
represents a changing urban environment in Pierce County and its cities and towns since the
adoption of GMA comprehensive plans. The adopted 2022 population allocations and
assumptions applied in the housing and employment capacity analyses reflect a redirection of
growth through redevelopment and achieving higher density residential projects in cities and
towns. While some may be skeptical of the assumptions and the ability for local jurisdictions to
meet their future population allocations, it must be understood that the urban growth area(s) is
sized fora 20-year planning horizon. This timeframe provides local jurisdictions and the
opportunity to influence a change in historical development patterns and characteristics through
adopting "reasonable measures" and implementing other community investments. The on-going
monitoring program. will reveal if these types of efforts are successful. If not, modification of
assumptions will be warranted in future reports.
Development Activity
The five-year development activity generally indicates that urban density housing is being
constructed within the urban growth area. As to densities in the designated rural areas, the
subdivision characteristics are not representative of accepted rural densities, this is likely due to
development activities of pre-GMA development applications. For various- zoning districts with
the County and cities and towns, it is impossible to conclude whether r not there is a trend that
indicates an increase or decrease in density due to a low number of projects in certain zones
permitted during the five-year period.
As indicated in Table 16, an average of 76 percent of the residential housing permits were issued
in the urban area. The lots associated with formal plats and short plats recorded between 2001
and 2005 also indicate a decrease in housing activity in the designated rural and resource lands.
While the average split of 87 percent urban and 13 percent rural, for the year 2005, roughly 93
percent of the recorded lots were located in the urban areas. It should be noted that an unknown
component of this data is the percentage of units and lots that are intended for seasonaUvacation
homes, as opposed to permanent year-round residence.
September 2007
335
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report ~ Section N -Conclusion
Table 1G -1'iel-ce County
Ruxal/Urban i~~velopment Split
Net Housm `I7nits Permits)'
Average 2001 20Q2 , 2003`:. 200 2005 Total
Urban 4,829 4,765 4,193 3,893 5,387 5,908 24,146
Rural 1,491 1,448 1,400 .1,487 1,390 1,730 7,455
Total 6,320 6,213 5,593 5,380 6,777 7,638 31,601
%Urban/Rural 76%/24% 77%/23% 75%/25% 72%/28% 79%/21% 77%/23% 76%/24%
Recorded Lots
Urban 3,297 2,843 3,107 2,552 4,122 3,864 16,488
Rural 471. 669 408 359 640 281 2,357
Total 3,768 3,512 .3,515 2,911 4,762 4,145 18,845
Urban/Rural
n.___. a____~ r 87%/13% 81%/19% 88%/12% 88%/12% 87%/13% 93%/7% 87%/13%
r u~c~ ovuuu iccgiunai ~.ouncn Hnnua- nousing tiull(ling Permit Data, 'O1 - 'O5.
z Recorded lots associated with short plats and formal plats. The total number of lots may not equal the total lots in Table 2
associated with each jurisdiction. Plats were excluded from Table 2 if not all necessary data was obtained associated with the
development. Plats were identified via Pierce County Auditor files.
Residential and Employment Capacity Analysis
The collective results of the analyses demonstrate that the adopted urban growth area
encompasses more area than necessary to accommodate the 2022 urban population allocation
and 2022 employment target for the County and its cities and towns. While the individual
residential analyses indicated a few jurisdictions fall short of accommodating their allocated
growth, the excess capacity in many other jurisdictions more than compensate for the individual
deficits. As illustrated in Table 17, a Countywide total of 64,176 additional housing units. are
needed to accommodate the urban 2022 urban population allocation. The estimated housing
capacity equals 107,866. This difference accounts for an excess of dwelling units at
approximately 68 percent. Applying a healthy 5 percent vacancy rate only decreases the total
urban countywide capacity by 3,203 residential units, maintaining an excess housing capacity of
approximately 64 percent.
- Table 17
Summary of 2022 Residential Housin ~ Need Vs. Capacity
2022 2022 2022
Munici all
P ~ Ad'ustcd
J ` Additional
Adjusted Housing Estimated
~
Housing
Difference
Allocated
Populativni z
Needs
Capacity (d~~'elling units)
dwellin ~ units) _ dive lines units)
Aubum 10,500 1,789 1,623 -166
Bonney Lake 20,510 2,216 2,061 -155
Buckley 5,200 392 350 -42
Carbonado 830 62 113 51
September 2007
336
r
0
0
f.
r~
I. '= 1
Pierce County Buildable Lands
Section IV -Conclusion
Tab1~17 --
Summar~~ of 2022 Rcsiden ~o~usin * Need Vs. Ca aci
lanicipality~~ 2022
.Adjusted
~ ~
~~Allo~ated
=Populations Zf~ ~ ~'.
Addifional
Adjusted Housing
~ ~
Needs`
(d--~ellin~ units ~ =.2022
Estimated
~ Housing
Capacity
(dwelling units)
Difference
(d-vellinl; units)
-~
DuPont 9,100 953 5,220 4,267
Eatonville 2,780 257 1,837 1,580
Edgewood 13,700 . 1,918 2,763 845
Fife 8,900 1,008 1,849 841
Fircrest 6,800 357 418 61
Gig. Harbor 11,675 2,503 2,787 284
Lakewood 72,000 6,865 9,299 2,434
Milton 7,250 790 398 -392
Orting 7,900 1,215 2,280 1,065
Pacific 0 0 0 0
Puyallup 39,600 1,744 2,801 1,057
Roy 1,000 105 157 52
Ruston 1,760 479 1,078 599
South Prairie 830 115 105 -10
Steilacoom 6,900 437 734 297
Sumner 12,250 1,604 2,327 723
Tacoma 255,240 26,671. 19,629 -7,042
University
Place 34,000 1,609 3,199 1,590
Wilkeson 550 26 83 57
Unincorp.
Urban Pierce
County
199,125
11,061
46,755
35,694
Urban Total 728,400 64,176 107,866 43,690
Pierce County Ordinance No. 2003-104s adjusted to incorporate property annexed since 2001.
2 Additional dwelling units needed between 2006 and 2022, including displaced housing units associated with
underdeveloped and redevelopable multi-family properties. _ __.
As illustrated in Table 18, a countywide total of 121,583 additional jobs are needed to meet the
2022 total employment target. The estimated employment capacity equals 136,758, representing
an excess of approximately 12 percent of total needs. As noted previously, the accepted
September 2007
337
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Section IV -Conclusion
employment targets not do include covered resource and construction employment or
employment not covered by the Washington Unemployment Insurance Act, such as self-
employed workers, proprietors, and CEOs. While the resource/construction sectors do not have
a direct relation with land consumption, because the majority of employees work in the field, i.e,
construction sites, the non-covered employment does. Applying an acceptable inflation figure of
1.12 to the additional covered employment needed to reach the employment target would result
in 136,172 total additional employees. Comparing this total figure with the employment
capacity still displays an excess of less than one percent.
.....Table 1K
Summary of 2022 Em loyrnent Need Vs. Ca aci
~Munici~ali
1 tY 2022_
Em 1o went
P Y
Target ~ ~ 2022
Additional
~~ Employment
Needs" 2022
Estimated
~
Emplo3~menf
Ca aci
Difference
Auburn 403 132 543 411
Bonney-Lake 4,420 1,390 2,472 1,082
Buckley 2,066 199 2,244 2,045
Carbonado 64 4 4 0
DuPont 7,370 4,673 7,983 3,310
Eatonville 2,400 1,112 1,147 35
Edgewood 1,431 264 1,065 801
Fife 15,271 5,005 3,974 -1,031
Fircrest 1,349 250 256 6
Gig Harbor 8,638 2,444 8,011 5,567
Lakewood 31,210 8,538 5,057 -3,481
Milton 1,774 529 454 -75
~rting 886 1,023 983 -40
Pacific 3,335 1,908 1,866 -42
Puyallup 25,035 5,352 6,790 1,438
Roy 139 0 272 272
Ruston 392 220 683 463
South Prairie 262 163 98 -65
Steilacoom 500 0 515 515
Sumner 9,275 .3,205 12,217 9,012
Tacoma 147,092 50,945 31,610 -19,335
University Place 6,699 1,062 946 -116
Wilkeson 146 57 131 74
September 2007
338
'~
Pierce County Buildable Lands Report Section IV -Conclusion
- Table 18 ---
Summal: ~ of 2022 Eitt to merit Need Vs. Ca achy
zozz~~ ~. Zozz
Municipality, ~o2z
~ Cmployment Additional
..Employment Estimated
Employment pifferencc
' Tar et Needs Cx acit
Unincorp. Urban 54,448 33,108 47,437 14,329
Pierce County
Urban Total 324,625 121,583 136,758 15,175
' Employment Target accepted by PCRC on January 18, 'lQU"/. represents L' JU coverea empioymeni, minus
resource/construction jobs.
z Includes displaced employees associated with redevelopable lands are adjusted down to reflect "unavailable to develop"
assumption.
Housing Production
This report focuses on local jurisdictions' ability to accommodate adopted population allocations
and employment targets. Various assumptions are made regarding densities, critical areas and
other characteristics of development. These types of assumptions can be more directly
influenced through development regulations adopted by local jurisdictions. However, it should
be recognized that despite a theoretical ability to accommodate the growth, housing construction
may not be on pace to meet the future housing needs.
Table 19 illustrates the housing production for the years between 2000 and 2005 and the housing
production necessary to accommodate the 2022 allocated population. Collectively, there has
been adequate housing built on an annual basis to indicate that the combined housing needs to
accommodate the 2022 population allocation can be met. Individually, however, the trend
implies nine jurisdictions must experience a significant increase in annual housing production to
have sufficient housing units to accommodate their individual allocations.
'Cable 19 -Annual. Housing Production
Jttrisdietidu 2000
lfausinb
Units April ?Q06
::Housing
Units (OPM) Tota}
Additional..:
Clrban hauling
units needed' ~ Average. Annul
~ Urban'Hotising.
Production
('00 - '06) ~ AvcragC Total
Annual~~ousing
Production Needed
to Accoir-z~iiodate
Allocated Urban
Population
Auburn 70 2,250 1,789 363 112
Bonne Lake 3,404 5,411 2,216 334 139
Buckle 1,472 1,675 392 34 25
Carbonado 210 217 49 1 3
DuPont 977 2,702 965 287 60
Eatonville ~ 805 958 257 26 16
Ed ewood 3;562 3,759 1,918 33 120
Fife 2,232 2,879 1,008 108 63
Fircrest 2,573 2,774 357 34 22
September 2007
339
Pierce County Buildable Lands
Section IV -Conclusion
--
Table 19 -.Annual Housing; Production
Jurisdiction ?000
IIOL1Sln~
Units April?006
ll0using
Units (OFM) Total
Addltloll~ll
Urban housing
u~iitsnccdcd' Ai~erage, Annual
Urban 1'lOUSlne
P,rU<iuction
('00 -'06) Average Total
A7lnllal IIOUS1Ab
Production Needed
to Accrnnzuodate
A1lacatcd Urban-
Populatid~i
('O6 --'22)~
Gi Harbor 3,085 3,210 2,501 21 156
Lakewood 25,449 26,001 6,865 92 429
Milton. 2,173 2,519 790 58 49
Ortin 1,382 1,998. 1,215 103 76
Pacific 65 54 0 0 0
Pu allu 13,468 15,267 1,744 300 109
Ro 114 309 105 33 7
Ruston 355 359 479 .6 30
South Prairie 138 161 131 4 8
Steilacoom 2,674 2,764 437 15 27
Sumner 3,689 3,958 1,604 45 -100
Tacoma 81,102 84,129 26,671 505 1,667
University
Place 12,684 13,290 1,609 101 100
Wilkeson 150 171 24 4 2
Urban P.C. 56,047 68,866 11,061 2,137 691
Total 217,880 245,681 64,246 4,636 - 4,015
Y1JYlo~.VLL FIl UD ALLLL1l1Vll({7 tJGl 1JV~/UlillNll QllVGdC1VII
z Total Additional Urban housing units needed (additional + displaced)/16 years.
September 2007
340