LUTC PKT 07-10-2000July 10, 2000
5:30 pm
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
City Hall
council Chambers
2.
3.
4.
MEETING AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
Approval of Minutes of the June 26, 2000, Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Market Analysis
B.
Brief'rog
Draft Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments Action
(chapters 1, 2, 4, 5)
No new copies of the draft comprehensive plan will be distributed.
FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS.
SWM/CIP West Hylebos Channel Stabilization
6. ADJOURN
Clark/45 rain
Clark/1 hour
Committee Members:
Phil Watkins. Chair
Jeanne Burbidge
Dean McColgan
City Staff:
Stephen Clifton, Director, Community Development Services
Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant
253.661.4116
I:~LU-TRANSUuly 10, 2000 LUTC AGN.doc
June 26, 2000
5:30 pm
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
City Council
Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins, Chair, Jeanne Burbidge and Dean McColgan; Deputy Mayor
Linda Kochmar; City Manager David Mosely; Director of Community Development Services Stephen Clifton;
Public Works Director Cary Roe; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Director of Management Services Iwen
Wang; Deputy Director of Public Works Ken Miller; Assistant to the City Manager Derek Matheson; Administrative
Assistant Sandy Lyle.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Watkins called the meeting to order at 5:33 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the June 12, 2000, meeting were approved as presented.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment on any item not included in the agenda.
BUSINESS ITEMS
A. International District - The International District is the area del'reed between South 312th and 316th
Streets on the north and south, by Pacific Highway South on the west and the Educational Service
DistrictJTop Foods properties on the east. Discussion of development plans, signage and
monuments was moved to a future Pares/Recreation/Human Services/Public Safety (PRHSPS)
Committee meeting.
City Center/Downtown Gateway Signs - An identifiable Federal Way Downtown has been
defined as part of the revitalization of the downtown core and frame. Signs have been designed by
Seattle Art Institute students to mark the boundaries at the northwest comer of South 320th Street
at I-5, the northeast comer of South 324th Street and SR99, the southeast comer of South 320th
Street and 11th Place South and the southwest comer of South 312th Street and SR 99. After
reviewing the signage drawings the Committee's consensus was Sign Option A.
Co
Freeway Signage - Debra Coates, Economic Development Executive, reported on efforts to have
improved exit signage to Federal Way placed on I-5. Negotiations between the Department of
Public Works and the Washington Department of Transportation are ongoing.
Olympic Pipeline Safety Consortium Interlocal Agreement - In response to the recent problems
within the Olympic Pipeline Company, a group of cities and counties consisting of Bellevue,
Redmond, Renton, Marysville, Thurston County, Tumwater and Bellingham have formed a Safety
Consortium. The Cities of Seattle, Kent, Seatac, and Pierce County are reviewing the Interlocal
Agreement and considering joining the Consortium. The Committee discussed whether the City
of Federal Way would be interested in becoming a member of the Pipeline Safety Consortium and
pay $5,000 to share resources with other jurisdictions. The Federal government is the ultimate
regulator and until there is more information available from the State of Washington, the
Committee agreed to defer the matter to October for further discussion.
Endangered Species Act- Staff presented a detailed and informative briefing of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) including background, potential effects of ESA on Federal Way, and legal
liability. With no formal action necessary, it was staff's goal to learn what the Committee
recommended as "next steps." The Committee was pleased that Federal Way has a head start over
many other nearby communities. The unfunded cost of ESA to the City was the Committee's
major concern. They were pleased with the work done to date and their advice to staffwas to
"move forward" as outlined in the briefing paper as next steps.
OTHER
At an earlier meeting, Chair Watkins had requested to know the mount of money generated by the
Regional Transit Tax in Federal Way. The amount is $12.8 million from sales tax and $2.1 million from
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) for the period 1997-1999.
FUTURE MEETINGS
The next meeting will be held in Council Chambers at 5:30 pm on July 10, 2000.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:35pm.
Dernier enregistrement par CFW-User
June 19, 2000
Mr. Phil Watkins
Chairman
LUTC
City of Federal Way
Federal Way, Wa 98023
Dear Mr. Watkins;
I am writing this letter in response to the recommendations of the Planning Commission
to deny our application to build a physician's clinic in the comer of Hoyt Road and 340m
,intersection (application # 3). I want to take this opportunity to address the concerns
expressed by the residents during the hearing. I would also like the chance to present
justifications to the LUTC before the final decision is made.
1) First of all, I am sorry that the hearing last April 19, 2000 was postponed and
rescheduled to May 3, 2000 due to lack of quorum. I was present at the scheduled
meeting ready to present our request and answer questions, so the residents would
understand our proposal.
On May 3rtl I was not able to present our case again during the hearing because I was out
of the country. Rescheduling my flight was difficult and was not an option..
I am aware that there is an LUTC meeting that is scheduled on July 10, 2000.
Unfortunately, I will be out of state for a business meeting.
2)
The proposed project has several purposes, which would benefit the city, the
neighborhood and the applicants as well.
a) the area is not suited for residential as researched by the planning staff of the
city of Federal Way (see attached recommendations). Safety issues were cited
by the planning stafffor this area.
b) the architectural design will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood
as shown in the plan. Currently, tall grasses and bushes surround the parcel.
As far as privacy is concerned, the planning staff's recommendation to
address this issue was followed when the architect drew the plan.
Proposed conditions for a development agreement provided to us by the
planning staffwere also met. See attached exhibit.
c) the proposed clinic will have a positive benefit to the community, as this
business will not only cater to the insured population but will also have a
Program to help the needs of the poor and the uninsured:
will serve the needs of the neighboring residents if they
desire to use the services. The convenience of the location is a plus to the
community; there is also a need to provide services to the Filipino-American
community which is increasing in this city. The cultural and educational aspect of
this population will be addressed. The business will help create jobs.
3)
Lastly, I am willing to rework the proposed plan, taking into consideration the
privacy issues. As a homeowner myself, I am sensitive to this concern.
Our architect and myself have worked very closely with the planning staff of the
city of Federal Way. Countless hours were spent on this process and expenses
were incurred because of our desire to see this project succeed. I am willing to
work with them again if given the chance in the future.
Thank for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
/Sally~P. Ramqs
1765 57th St. NE
Tacoma, Wa 98422
Phone # (253) 841-5840 (day)
Phone # (253) 927-4013 (eve)
Cc~
Mike Parks, Mayor
Linda Kochmar, Deputy Mayor
Jean Burbidge
Michael Hellickson
Dean McColgan
Mary Gates
David Moseley, City Manager
SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST//3 - VELASCO REQUEST
IL,,
Parcel:
Location:
Size:
Proponent:
Owner:
Request:
921152-0590.
West of the Hoyt Road SW and SW 340th Street intersection (Exhibit C,
Page 4 of 5).
32,547 square feet (0.75 acres).
Sally Ramos. . -_
Dr. Velasco.
Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from
Single Family High Density and RS 9.6 (one unit per 9,600 square feet) to
Office Park and Professional Office.
Existing
Comprehensive Plan:
Existing Zoning:
Proposed
Comprehensive Plan:
Proposed Zoning:
Single Family High Density.
RS 9.6 (one unit per 9,600 square feet).
Office Park.
Professional Office.
Availability of Utilities & Streets:
Sanitary Sewer:
Public Water:
Storm Drainage:
~/~ccess;
Improved Streets:
Sidewalks:
Provided by Lakehaven Utility District.
Provided by the City of Tacoma.
Existing drainage is via sheet flow off the site, along the side of the
roadway, discharging onto adjacent paved streets.
Access is from SW 340th Street and Hoyt Road SW.
Additional frontage improvements will be necessary along the property
frontage on SW 340~ Street and Hoyt Road SW.
Graveled to edge of paved road surface.
Availability of Public Services:
Police:
Fire/Emergency Medical:
Schools:
Provided by City of Federal Way.
Provided by Federal Way Fire Department.
Not applicable for a business use.
Analysis:
Background
The original request was to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 0.75 acres from
Single Family High Density and RS 9.6 (one unit per 9,600 square feet) to Neighborhood Park and BN
zoning to allow a physician's office. During the June 7, 1999 meeting, when all requests for
comprehensive plan amendments were presented to the Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC),
staff recommended to the LUTC that the request be further analyzed based on a development agreement
to be processed concurrently with the comprehensive plan. The LUTC determined that an Office Park
Page 6 of 9
land use designation and OP (Office Park) zoning with a developmen~ag~'~a~re~J ~
appropriate based on polices contained within the comprehensive plan.
The City Council concurred with the LUTC's recommendation at the July 6, 1999, public hearing, at
which time the City Council determined which projects should be considered further. During staff
analysis, it appeared that it may be more appropriate to recommend a PO (Professional Office) zoning
designation because the PO zone is more restrictive in terms of range of allowable land uses, yet would
still allow a physician's office. Staff review was based on a conceptual plan submitted by the applicant
for the site (Exhibit C, Page 5 orS).
The intent of the conceptual plan is not for site development purposes but to determine whether a
physician's clinic can be developed on this site and meet all bulk and dimensional requirements (i.e.,
required yards and height restrictions) once all required road dedication and on-site detention provisions
have been accounted for. Review is also intended to determine whether all required parking; circulation
features such as aisle width; adequate area, and location for garbage and recycling; and interior and
perimeter landscaping can be provided in support of the building being proposed.
If the requested change is granted by the City Council and the owner desires to develop the site, all then
existing codes and regulations shall be complied with. At that time, more specific standards such as
design guidelines and detailed landscaping, and requirements such as the KCSDWM shall be addressed,
as well as compliance with SEPA. Because this is a conceptual plan, future compliance with City
requirements may result in reduction of building size.
If the request for a change in comprehensive plan designation is granted, any future permits must be in
substantial compliance with the conceptual plan. The Director of Community Development Services may
administratively approve non-substantive changes.
Neighborhood Characteristics
The site lies on the northwest comer of Hoyt Road SW and SW 340~h Street intersection on a parcel
currently zoned RS 9.6 (Single Family/one unit per 9,600 square feet). Based on language on the face of
the underlying plat, Wedgewood West III, access to the existing undeveloped parcel is via a tract (Tract
E) that connects it to SW 338th Street, the current cul-de-sac to the northwest of the site. Also, the
language on the face of the plat states that if the lot is developed for non-residential purposes, then
permission to access onto Hoyt Road must be obtained from the Public Works Department and no access
would be permitted via Tract E.
The recorded plat of Wedgewood West III also shows a 20-foot water easement on the northwestern
portion of the site. Based on a conversation with City of Tacoma staff, there is a six-inch water line
located within this easement. If the request for a change to Professional Office (PO) is granted, city code
requires Type 1 landscaping 10-feet wide (solid screen) adjacent to the western property line when the
property is developed. Type I landscaping consists of a mix of trees and shrubs. City of Tacoma will
replace grass, shrubs, and pavement up to two inches in width if the easement is dug up for repair or
maintenance of the water line; however, they will not replace trees.
Recent development in the vicinity includes Hoyt Road Chevron, a gas station, on the southwestern
comer of this intersection. In addition, the City is presently reviewing an application for a retail
development on the southeastern comer of this intersection.
Page 7 of 9
Environmental Analysis:
PAG
Sensitive Areas
There are no environmentally sensitive areas associated with the site. The site consists of Alderwood
soils on minimal slope with slight potential for erosion.
Drainage
The site is located within the Lower Puget Sound Sub-Basin, in an area identified for enhanced
stormwater infiltration. The applicant submitted a conceptual proposal for a 10,150 square foot office
with the request. Since more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces would be created, when a
land use permit is submitted, surface water runoff and treatment would be required per the KCSWDM,
the Hylebos Basin Plan, and the City's adopted SEPA policies.
Potential Traffic Impacts
Assuming that the request was granted by the City Council, any traffic-related impacts associated with
the development of the site as a physician's clinic would be addressed as part of the SEPA process at the
time that a land use permit was submitted.
Projections for Population and Employment
As presently zoned (RS 9.6), there may be a potential for two to three single-family residences. If the
requested change is granted, and the site is developed as a 10,150 square foot clinic with 8,758 square
feet of office and 1,412 square feet of common area, there is a potential for 35 employees based on the
ratio of one employee per 250 square feet of office space.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
Goal or Policy Comments
LUP 15 Protect residential areas from impacts of
adjacent non-residential uses.
LUP48
The City shall limit new commercial
development to existing commercial areas
to protect residential areas.
I~~"~r :"~*':':: ...... ~ is a minor
I ,---~ - ' ~.~.~?'~'" · ....
.~ . ~ .... ~.~u ,~ a pnnc~pm ~enat), ~e s~te
/ may not be sui~le for sin~l~
add~t,~ *[ ' ~~~ Chewon) on
devel~ ~~:;t~Be
propo~'[fe approye~.~~8 ~ment
a~.~ ;:. ~.,t~'~o s I, 2, 4, ~d 5
below) ~~'~d[~ Compli~ce with
LUP15.
Page 8 of 9
~ _ ....... di,.un~~elopment Agreement:
1. A fence, six feet minimum in height, shall be constructed along the west boundary of the property.
The minimum height of trees within the 1 O-foot wide Type I landscaping shall be eight-feet tall at
planting. Said Type 1 landscaping shall be located along the western bounda~ on the inside of the
fence.
3. Both the City of Tacoma and the City of Federal Way shall approve type of trees within the 20-foot
City of Tacoma water easement.
The City of Tacoma will not replace trees within their easement, if said trees are damaged or killed
during work on the underlying water line. Therefore, the property owner shall be solely responsible
for replacement of these trees.
5. The building shall be no more than two-stories and 30 feet in height.
If the request for a change in comprehensive plan designation is granted, any future proposals shall
be in substantial compliance with the conceptual plan (Exhibit C, Sheet 5 of 5). The Director of
Community Development Services may administratively approve non-substantive changes.
I:\99CMPAMN~Ianning Commission 1999 Site Specific Requests.doc/6/6/00 3:19 PM
Page 9 of 9
S 'G~J .LAOH
· '~ o';
tll O~N
g
LB
0
Z
z
)lJlOYd
'S3AVHZ8~
DR
'.LO
a-8o~
$ 'O~! .L;LOH
E ~'E
0.'- 0
City of Federal Way
Market Analysis
Prepared for
City of Federal Way
by
ECONorthwest
99 W. Tenth, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
(541) 687-0051
July, 2000
Draft
AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE CITY
OF FEDERAL WAY MARKET ANALYSIS
WILL BE PROVIDED PR/OR TO THE JULY
10, 2000 MEETING.
ALONG WITH THE SUMARY, A SEPARATE
TAZ-LEVEL POPULATION ALLOCATION
BASED ON THE PSRC POPULATION
FORECAST WILL BE PROVIDED.
Table of Contents
Page
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... '. .............................. 1-1
PURPOSE ................................................................................................................. 1-1
METHODS ................................................................................................................. 1-1
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................... 1-7
CHAPTER 2 PRELIMINARY FORECASTS OF GROWTH ................................. 2-1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 2-1
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS ...... 2-1
Regional overview .............................................................................................. 2-4
Federal Way estimates and forecasts ................................................................ 2-6
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 2-12
CHAPTER 3 LAND SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ....................... 3-1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 3-1
METHODS ................................................................................................................. 3-1
BUILDABLE LANDS ESTIMATES ................................................................................... 3-4
Within the Federal Way City Limits .................................................................... 3-4
Within the TAZ study area ............................................................................... 3-11
DEVELOPMENT (LAND) CAPACITY ESTIMATES .......................................................... 3-1 1
Within the Federal Way City Limits .................................................................. 3-14
FEDERAL WAY TAZ STUDY (AREA OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS) .................................... 3-16
EVALUATION OF LAND CAPACITY ESTIMATES ............................................................ 3-17
CHAPTER 4 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ................................. 4-1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 4-1
FEDERAL WAY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS .................................................................. 4-2
Residential .......................................................................................................... 4-2
Non-residential ................................................................................................... 4-6
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation July 2000 ECONorthwest Page i
CHAPTER 5 DEMAND ANALYSIS AND GROWTH ALLOCATION .................... 5-1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 5-1
GROWTH FORECAST (CITY-WIDE) .............................................................................. 5-1
Methods ............................................................................................................. 5-1
Preliminary comparison of PSRC forecast to Federal Way development
capacity ........................................................................................................ 5-2
Evaluation of factors influencing development in Federal Way .......................... 5-5
REVISED FORECASTS OF GROWTH IN FEDERAL WAY, 2000-2020 ........................... 5-14
Conversion of population and employment to dwelling units and built
space .......................................................................................................... 5-17
EVALUATION OF LAND SUPPLY AND DEMAND BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT .................................................................. 5-21
GROWTH ALLOCATION (TAZs) ................................................................................ 5-23
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY ................................................................................. 5-26
Terms and Acronyms ........................................................................................ Page
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
CAPACITY STUDY METHODS ............................................... A-1
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ..................................... B-1
GROWTH ALLOCATION BY TAZ ........................................... C-'I
Page ii ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Chapter 1 IntrodUction
PURPOSE
The City of Federal Way Market Analysis updates the previous market
analysis prepared for the 1995 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan.
This Market Analysis covers the City limits and the Federal Way
Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) located outside of the City limits. The
purposes of the Market Analysis are to determine how fast and with what
type of development different areas of the City will grow. Specifically, it
describes:
· The kind of growth to be anticipated in the next 20 years (2000 -
2020), broken down in five-year increments.
· The areas, by City Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) and City
zoning district, that will receive this growth by 2020.
· Future land and redevelopment space needs.
The information in this report will be used:
· To meet requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA);
specifically, to determine whether the City of Federal Way presently
has a 20-year supply of adequately zoned land to meet the anticipated
need. This information will help shape recommendations by City staff
on requests for changes to the comprehensive plan designations and
zoning, or the expansion of allowable uses in a zoning district.
· As a basis for the EMME/2 Travel Demand Model that will be used to
help decide the location of future transportation improvements.
· To update the Economic Development Chapter of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the City Center Chapter.
METHODS
The market analysis and growth allocation has both a supply component
and a demand component.
Supply of land is vacant land available to accommodate development
(buildable land),, i.e, land that is not constrained physically (e.g., by wetlands
or steep slopes)? and is serviceable. Zoning designations determine what uses
are allowed, and at what densities development can occur. Even developed
land can contribute to the supply of land if it is judged redevelopable.
a Or partially vacant, meaning that a developed tax lot has a large enough vacant remainder to permit additional
development.
Referred to in the GMA as critical areas.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 1-1
Estimates of the supply of vacant and redevelopable land can be converted to
development capacity based on allowable uses and density (e.g., number of
housing units, or square footage of office or retail space).
Demand for land is typically characterized through analysis of national,
regional, and local demographic and economic data. For residential uses,
population and households drive demand. For the residential sector, for
example, information about the characteristics of households is used to
identify types of housing that these households would be likely to occupy. For
non-residential uses, an employment forecast is the primary driver of
demand for land, and is converted to estimates of the probable absorption
rates for commercial and industrial lands.
Figure 1-1 shows the relationship between the supply and demand
components of a buildable lands analysis.
Figure 1-1. Overview of methods: market analysis and growth
allocation
Demand Supply
Forecasts
of growth:
people & jobs
(2000-2020)
IConversion of I
growth into acres
· Regional development pattern
· Physical constraints
· Planning and infrastructure
Demand for
development by type,
zoning designation,
and TAZ
J All land in j
Federal Way UGA
Minus land unavailable for
development:
· Fully developed lands
· Critical areas
· Market constraints
Buildable
land
capacity
Allocation of development
by type, zoning designation,
and TAZ
Page 1-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
We began our analysis by developing population and employment
forecasts for Federal Way for the period 2000-2020. Our principal source of
information on City population and employment forecasts was the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC), 1990 Census data, and building permits.
The specific methods used to develop the population and employment
forecasts are described in Chapter 2. Forecasts are preIiminaryin the sense
that they provide a starting point for a final estimate of population and
employment growth that we develop in Chapter 5, where the prehminary
estimates are adjusted based on information presented in Chapters 3 and 4,
and additional market data. The population and employment forecasts drive
the demand side of the analysis.
Federal Way provided ECO with several GIS databases that characterize
the supply of land and the development capacity of land. The strength of the
City database is that it starts with comprehensive assessment data,
crosschecks those data against aerial photographs and site inspection, makes
explicit its identification of critical (i.e., constrained, or non-buildable) lands,
and uses standard procedures for estimating redevelopment potential. ECO
used the City land data to create summary tables of the amount of buildable
land by type (plan/zone classification), by TAZ, and to determine whether
there are likely to be any supply-side constraints on demand for different
types of land. Chapter 3 describes land supply.
To develop a method for allocating future growth in Federal Way, ECO
reviewed development activity over the last 10 years (Chapter 4). The
primary data source for this review was building permit data from the City
and the PSRC. We used the permit data to create summary tables showing
the type and density of development. Specifically, our analysis of building
permits shows, by year, the following information:
· The mix of residential types: single-family (divided by construction
type---conventional site built, manufactured, and mobile homes--and
by lot size); duplex/tri]quad, town houses, and apartments;
· The mix of commercial types: retail, office, industrial;
· Lot size/density, and gross-to-net acre relationships;
· Size of unit per type; and
· Value or price per size and type of unit.
We crosschecked and supplemented this information with secondary real
estate information sources including, CB Richard Ellis, Dupre and Scott, and
the University of Washington's Center for Community Development and Real
Estate, and Multiple Listing Service, as well as discussions with local brokers
and developers.
The final step (Chapter 5) was to allocate future development to City
TAZs and to City zoning districts. The allocation considered the relationships
among demographics, employment growth, market trends, development
activity, and the supply of buildable land in Federal Way. The city-wide
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 1-3
demand forecasts were combined with assumptions about the relationship
between population, employment, development, and land supply based on
existing conditions and expected shifts in the future. These assumptions
cover a range of topics including:
· Household size (persons per dwelling unit)
· Tenure and type of new residential development
· Employment density (employees per square foot)
· Development density (dwelling units per acre, floor area ratios, and
net land coverage).
We also met with a focus group that included realtors, developers,
lenders, and others familiar with the regional real estate market.
To account for the complexity of the real estate market, and the
relationship between public policy and demand, we developed a spreadsheet
to simulate and allocate future development demand by sub-area, type of
unit, tenure, and other key variables. The simulation is designed so key
variables that affect development demand can easily be changed. To perform
the allocation, we created, for each City TAZ and City zoning district in the
Market Analysis Study Area, an index of demand by type that can be
compared to land supply. The simulations required significant hand
allocations of growth at the TAZ level. The complexity of programming every
variable that will affect the location and timing of development in the City
into a spreadsheet simulator was less efficient than developing a simulator
that performs the allocation based on a few variables and then making
adjustments. The simulation provides output in the form of estimates of
future residential units by type and tenure, square feet of commercial and
industrial development by type, and acres of land needed to accommodate
this development by City TAZ and City zoning district.
A key issue in this analysis is allocation of development to areas inside
and outside the Federal Way city limits. Portions of the City TAZ allocation
coverage extend outside the city limits (Refer to Map 1-1). This Market
Analysis covers the City limits and the Federal Way Transportation Analysis
Zones (TAZs) located outside of the City limits. For purposes of this analysis,
we refer to all areas within the city limits as the City Limits and TAZ areas
outside of the city as the TA~ Study Area (Please refer to Map 1-1 -Mar]~et
Analysis Study Area). It must be noted that the City's Urban Growth Area
(UGA) is referred to as its Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and the PAA
boundaries and the City TAZ boundaries do not coincide exactly (Please refer
to Map 1'2- Federal Way Potentia] Annexation Area).
Development and land use data provided by the City are more detailed
and reliable for areas inside the Federal Way city limits. Thus, our analysis
considers these two areas separately. As stated above, for the purpose of this
study, we refer to all areas within the Federal Way city limits as the City
Limits, and areas outside as the TAZ Study Area.
Page 1-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Map 1-1
2000 Federal Way
Market Study
189
Market Analysis
Study Area
13
14
192
193
11
78
197 ~
Tacoma
'~ 33rd ST J~E
138
,cate: 1 to 62040
- 1 Inch equals 5170 Feet
0 1 Mile
Legend:
N
141
Federal Way
TAZ Boundary (Each TAZ is labelled
with its ID number)
Federat Way City Limits
Federal Way TAZ Study Area
180
213
Milton
210
212
216
Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
FederalWay, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000.
This map is intended for use as a
graphical representation ONLY The
City of Federal Way makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
DIVISION
lusers/mikes/land/iden~, ami
Map 1-2
2000 Federal Way
Market Study
Federal Way Potential
Annexation Area
190
13
14
192
= 78
18
Tacoma
Scale: 1 to 62040
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet
0 1 Mile
138
Legend:
N
141
City of Federal Way
Federal Way Potential Annexation
Area (PAA.)
Federal Way
TAZ Boundary (Each TAZ is labelled
with its 1D number)
180
213
Milton
212
216
Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000.
This map is intended for use as a
graphical representation ONLY The
City of Federal Way makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
Gl$ DIVISION
!userslmikesllandlmstaz.aml
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
The rest of this report is organized as follows:
· Chapter 2, Preliminary Forecasts of Growth, describes the regional
forecast of growth and shows how the regional population and
employment forecasts get allocated by PSRC to Federal Way.
· Chapter 3, Land Supply, summarizes the supply of vacant buildable
land by type in Federal Way as of early 2000.
· Chapter 4, Historical Development Patterns, describes development
trends in Federal Way over the past 10 years using building permit
data and other sources.
· Chapter 5, Demand Analysis and Growth Allocation, analyzes factors
that affect demand for land and presents the results of ECO's TAZ-
level allocation and allocation by City zoning designation of new
development between 2000 and 2020.
A list of terms and acronyms used in this report follows chapter five. The
report also includes three appendices:
Appendix A, Capacity Study Methods, describes the methods used by
City of Federal Way Staff to develop capacity estimates for the Federal
Way city limit.
· Appendix B, Regional Growth Trends, describes trends in
development in the Puget Sound Region.
Appendix C, Growth Allocation by TAZ, presents tables showing
population, employment, dwelling units, and built space growth
allocated by TAZ.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 1-7
Chapter 2
Preliminary Forecasts
of Growth
INTRODUCTION
The Growth Management Act (GMA) recognizes the need for population
forecasts in local planning efforts. But the GMA requires population forecasts
to the county level only. The Office of Financial Management (OFM) develops
20-year forecasts for all counties, as well as annual population estimates for
counties and cities. No provision is included in the GMA for OFM or any
other agency to develop sub-county population or employment forecasts.
Local forecasts, however, provide the basis of estimating housing needs, and
need for public facilities.
At a minimum, population and employment projections for jurisdictional
Growth Management Act planning should fulfill two requirements: they
should be (1) consistent with regional Growth Management Act plans, and (2)
realistic (i.e., they should be based on a reasonable evaluation of the
prevailing supply and demand conditions in a given market). To meet the
first of these two requirements, we look to current Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) regional and county-level projections as a starting point for
our Federal Way planning area population and employment forecasts.
We use the PSRC regional forecasts as a starting point for developing
population and employment forecasts first for Federal Way, and finally for
each of the 216 City TAZs, in five-year increments to 2020. In the following
section we briefly discuss the methodology behind the PSRC forecasts,
detailing both the strengths and limitations associated with their projections.
In the rest of this chapter we discuss the first three levels of our analysis,
beginning with a discussion of regional and county-level expectations for the
future, then detailing our methods and findings for preliminary control totals
for the Federal Way Market Analysis Study Area.
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL POPULATION AND
EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS
The Puget Sound Regional Council has developed forecasts of population,
households, and employment for the central Puget Sound region for the years
2000, 2010, and 2020. The process of PSRC's 2001 Update of the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan includes a refinement of the forecasts. Regional Council
staff prepares the forecasts under federal guidelines, with the assistance of
local planners to ensure a general consistency with local comprehensive plans
that are developed under state guidelines. The local review process serves a
critical role in the usefulness of the forecasts.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 2-1
The Regional Council prepares these forecasts to meet its responsibilities
as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) under federal law, and the
Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) under state law for
the central Puget Sound region (King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish
Counties). PSRC develops small-area forecasts of population, households and
employment to meet the requirements of federal legislation and data needs
for land use and transportation modeling. These small area forecasts are
based on 219 Regional Forecast Analysis Zones (FAZs). The PSRC's most
recent forecasts (revised in 1997 using 1996 data) are an interim product and
will be updated in 2001 (after the decennial Census).
PSRC small-area forecasts (PSRC FAZs) are an allocation of regional
totals generated by the PSRC's regional econometric model (STEP97),
updated in 1997 by Conway and Associates. PSRC staff initially allocate the
regional forecasts to 219 Forecast Analysis Zones (Regional FAZs), utilizing
the DRAM/EMPAL gravity model, the Regional Council's travel demand
model, and post-modeling adjustments that reflect extensive local review.
The Regional FAZ forecasts are then allocated to a finer zone structure,
PSRC Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) for use in the Council's travel
demand models (also subject to local review). The City of Federal Way is
covered by three PSRC (FAZs) (Please refer to Map 2-1) and approximately
15 PSRC TAZs.
The PSRC publishes the forecasts along with the following caveat, "The
Regional Council strongly suggests that when using the forecasts, other
sources of similar data, in particular data found in local or county
comprehensive plans, should be considered."' The process of applying the
PSRC forecasts to local projects should include applying more detailed and
current data from city staff and local land use studies. In addition, an
adjustment of the overall forecast growth may be useful to reflect new
economic trends that had not yet been revealed by the end of 1996 (the last
year of input data for STEP97).
~ http://www.psrc.org/datapubs/data/datapage.htm#forecasts
Page 2-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Map 2-1
2000 Federal Way
Market Study
PSRC FAZ and
TAZ Boundaries
4CC
393
394
Federal
395
391
392
387
Kent
386',
388
401 o ~
403
398
402
Tacoma
Milton
Scale: 1 to 62040
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet
0 1 Mile
Legend:
N Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
TAZ Boundary [Each TAZ is labelled
with its ID number)
~ FAZ 3010
FAZ 3020
__~ FAZ 3030
~ FAZ 3045
'-- FAZ 3505
404
Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000.
This map is intended for use as a
graphical representation ONLY. The
City of Federal Way makes no
warrant'/as to its accuracy.
GIS DIVISION
/users/mikes/land/psrc.aml
REGIONAL OVERVIEW
According to the Puget Sound Regional Council's forecasts, between 2000
and the year 2020 total population in the central Puget Sound region is
expected to grow by roughly 920,000, from 3.4 million in Year 2000 to almost
4.3 million two decades from now. King County is expected to receive roughly
40 percent of this projected increase, or slightly greater than 375,000 people,
representing a 21 percent total increase over the 20-year period. (See Figure
2-1.)
Coincident with its forecast of population growth, the PSRC also forecasts
a general decrease in the typical size of households. In the Puget Sound
re,on as a whole, the PSRC estimates that from 2000 to 2020 the average
household size will fall from 2.50 to 2.34 persons. For King County, PSRC
anticipates an even larger drop, with the average household expected to fall
from 2.40 to 2.17 persons. (See Figure 2-2.)
Figure 2-1. Historic and projected population, PSRC Region and King
County, 1990-2020
5,000,000
4,000,000
REGIONAL
KING COUNTY
3,000,000 ~-.
2,000,000
1,000,000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Note: Estimates for 1996 through 1999 are generated by the Washington State Office of Financial Management
(OFM). Upon receipt of OFM countywide estimates, PSRC staff disaggregate and report annual estimates of
population by jurisdiction and census tract. Year 2000 to 2020 forecasts originate with the PSRC and, unlike the
current-year estimates, are not required to be consistent with OFM figures. The relatively large difference
between estimated 1999 and projected year 2000 populations are at least partially a result of differences in
estimation methodologies.
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts and Annual Population Estimates by Census
Tract for 1990 through 1999.
Page 2-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Figure 2-2. Average household size, 1990-2020
2.60
2.50
2.40
2.30
2.20
REGIONAL
KiNG COUNTY
2.10
2.00
1990 1999 2000 2010 2020
Persons per Household
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts.
The PSRC projects that employment in the central Puget Sound region
will grow from roughly 1.8 million jobs in 2000 to 2.3 million in 2020. PSRC
expects King County to receive 40 percent of the region's total growth in
population, but 60 percent of the region's new jobs.
In a continuation of the Puget Sound region's widely acknowledged shift
towards a service-oriented economy, the PSRC anticipates that employment
gains in the Puget Sound region as a whole will be heavily weighted in the
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services (FIRES) sectors. Specifically,
the PSRC anticipates that growth in FIRES employment will account for 59
percent of total job growth in the Puget Sound. The PSRC anticipates that
King County will be at the forefront of this regional shift, forecasting that
over the next 20 years, within King County's boundaries, 68 out of every 100
new jobs created will be in the FIRES sectors. (See Figure 2-3.)
Figure 2-3. Regional employment growth, 1990-2020
2020
2010
2OO0
2,261,100
2,075,592
1,799,208
1990 ~ 1,445,243
1,000,000 2,000,000
Total Employment
Source:PSRC July1999 Population and EmploymentForecasts.
BI Retail
·FIRES
[;3 Manu
· Gov/Edu
r'l WCTU
3,000,000
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 2-5
FEDERAL WAY ESTIMATES AND FORECASTS
In generating our preliminary population and employment forecasts for
the Federal Way area, we focused on two geographic levels of analysis: (1)
Federal Way City Limits - Yederal Way's existing city boundaries; (2)
Market Analysis Study Area - a lar§er area that coincides with l~ederal
Way's Transportation Analysis Zones, which, in addition to the City limits,
includes a portion of Federal Way's Potential Annexation Area (PAA), a
portion of unincorporated King County that is not included in l~ederal Way's
PAA, and small portions of the cities of Des Moines, Kent, and Milton. The
Study Area boundaries were defined by l~ederal Way staff. The problem for
forecasting is that it is desirable for a city transportation model to look
beyond its boundaries to a larger region, but that adds the complication of
having growth forecasts for areas that the City does not yet have planning
responsibility for.
Table 2-1 summarizes the different geographic identifiers we use in our
discussions. In general, our analysis includes five different levels of
geographic detail, shown in Table 2-1 from largest to smallest.
Table 2-1. Geography of forecasts
Geographic Identifier Description
PSRC Forecast Analysis The City of Federal Way comprises roughly 3 PSRC
Zone FAZs.
Census Tracts The level of geographic detail for which the U.S. Census
Bureau provides the greatest level of detailed data.
Census tracts are, on average, roughly one third to one
half the size of one PSRC FAZ.
Regional Transportation The finest level of geographic detail used in Puget Sound
Analysis Zones (regional Regional Council population and employment forecasts.
TAZs) In some cases a regional TAZ is identical to a census
tract, in others two TAZs may make up one census tract.
Federal Way Federal Way TAZs are, on average, roughly one-sixth the
Transportation Analysis size of regional TAZs and are used for transportation
Zones (city TAZs) planning on a finer city level.
Census blocks Census blocks are the finest level of geographic detail
the United States Census Bureau uses, and in dense
urban areas these blocks often correlate to actual city
blocks. On average, one census tract may encompass 40
or 50 census blocks.
Source: Compiled by ECONorthwest.
FORECAST METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
In generating our preliminary control total projections for the Federal
Way Market Analysis Study Area, we relied on four primary data sets: (1)
PSRC TAZ-level forecasts for 2000, 2010, and 2020; (2) Census 1990 block-
Page 2-6 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
level population estimates; (3) PSRC geocoded housing unit permit data from
1991 through 1998 [augmented by data from the 1999 King County Annual
Growth Report]; and (4) estimates of covered employment for 1998 as
reported to the Department of Employment Security, geocoded by the PSRC.
Our estimates of historical and current population are based on PSRC
tract-level estimates, which are ultimately constrained by Washington State
Office of Financial Management county-level estimates for each given year.
By statute, these tract-level allocations are based on OFM county totals.
Therefore, the PSRC allocations for all census tracts in a county must sum to
the OFM estimate for the county as a whole.
In contrast, our estimates of future population are based on PSRC 1999
TAZ-level forecasts: The Federal Way Market Analysis Study Area estimates
reflect an aggregation of PSRC TAZ or tract-level estimates. Estimates for
census tracts or PSRC TAZs with boundaries that did not correspond with
the Market Analysis Study Area boundaries were allocated inside and
outside of the study area based on the 1990 distribution of population within
those tracts/PSRC TAZs, as reported in 1990 census block-level statistics. As
a check on this assumed distribution, we analyzed building permit data to
ensure that population distribution within the split tracts/PSRC TAZs had
not undergone substantial shifts in the 10 years since the 1990 census.
Year 2000, 2010, and 2020 estimated employment in the Federal Way
Market Analysis Study area represent PSRC projections as reported in the
1999 PSt{C TAZ-level forecasts, checked against geocoded Department of
Employment Security 1998 reported covered employment (augmented by
1995 estimated government/education employment). Forecast non-
government employment in PSRC TAZs whose boundaries did not correspond
to Federal Way Market Analysis Study Area boundaries was allocated inside
and outside the planning area boundaries based on the 1998 distribution of
covered employment for each PSRC TAZ. (Forecast government and
education employment were each allocated based on their 1995 distribution,
which reflect the most up-to-date data available for those sectors.)
FORECAST CITY LIMIT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Population
Based on our aggregation of PSRC TAZ-level population forecasts, we
estimate Year 2000 population in within Federal Way's city limits of 81,150.
The PSRC forecasts suggest that, between 2000 and 2010, population will
increase at a rate of slightly more than 1,200 people per year, which
represents an average growth rate of 1.5% per year. From 2010 to 2020, the
PSRC forecasts growth at a rate of slightly more than 1,500 persons per year,
representing an average growth of 1.6% per year. Ultimately, our aggregation
of the PSRC projections suggests that, by 2010, Federal Way will reach a
population of 93,431, and by the year 2020, it will reach 108,547. (See Figure
2-4.). This assumes that no major annexations occur within these time
periods.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 2-7
Figure 2-4. Projected population for Federal Way city limits, 2000-
2020
120,000-
'110,000~
100,000,
90,000~
80,000~
70,000-
--a-- Historic 1 08,547
· _ _PSR~C Projectio~n . .~..~r-A~
81,150
60,000
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Note: Estimates for 1996 through 1999 are generated by the Washington State Office of Financial Management
(OFM). Upon receipt of OFM countywide estimates, PSRC staff disaggregate and report, annual estimates of
population by jurisdiction and census tract. Year 2000 to 2020 forecasts originate with the PSRC and, unlike the
current-year estimates, are not required to be consistent with OFM figures. The relatively large difference
between estimated 1999 and projected year 2000 populations are a result of differences in estimation
methodologies.
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts by TAZ and Annual Population Estimates by
Census Tract for 1990 through 1999. For details of allocation mechanisms see accompanying text.
Employment
Our aggregation of PSRC TAZ-level employment forecasts indicate that
Year 2000 employment within the Federal Way city limits is slightly more
than 29,000 jobs (29,055) employment which is dominated by the retail,
i~mances, insurance, real estate, and services sectors. As is true of forecasts
for all of King County, the PSRC anticipates that growth in these sectors will
also be the primary driver of employment growth in the coming decades.
Ultimately, our aggregation of PSRC forecasts suggests that employment in
the Federal Way City Limits will increase by roughly 4,800 in the decade
between 2000 and 2010, to a level of 33,867 jobs, extending to 37,232 jobs by
2020. Increases in employment in the FIRES sectors is anticipated to
represent a full 71 percent of the total 2000 to 2020 growth, with increases in
retail making up an additional 14%. (See Figure 2-5 and Table 2-2.)
Page 2~8 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Figure 2-5. Projected employment for Federal Way city limits, 1990-
2020
2020
2010
2OOO
1990
~ 37,232
33,867
29,055
26,955
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Total Employment
[] RET
[]FIRES
13 Manu
[] WTCU
[]EDU
[] GOV
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts and Washington State Department of
Employment Security data.
Table 2-2. Projected Federal Way city limits employment by sector,
1990-2020
RET FIRES MAN WTCU EDU GOV Total
1990 8,424 11,125 3,862 930 629 1,985 26,955
2000 8,641 11,213 3,962 1,584 2,124 1,531 29,055
2010 9,236 14,650 4,103 1,924 2,308 1,645 33,867
2020 9,787 17,018 4,253 1,956 2,491 1,726 37,232
2000 to 2020
Change 1,146 5,806 291 373 367 195 8,177
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts and Washington State Department of
Employment Security data.
FORECAST FOR MARKET ANALYSIS STUDY AREA POPULATION AND
EMPLOYMENT
The following sections present population and employment forecasts for
the Market Analysis Study Area, which is the combined city limits and TAZ
study area (TAZs outside of the city limits). The discussion concludes with a
table, which presents forecasts for all three geographic areas (city limits, TAZ
study area, combined city limits and TAZ study area [Market Analysis Study
Area]).
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 2-9
Population
Based on our aggregation of PSRC TAZ-level population forecasts, our
preliminary- estimate of Year 2000 population in the Federal Way Market
Analysis Study Area is 109,397. The PSRC forecasts suggest that, between
2000 and 2010, population will increase at a rate of approximately 1,400
people per year, which represents an average gTowth of 1.3% per year. From
2010 to 2020, the PSRC forecasts growth at a rate of slightly more than 1.675
persons per year, representing an average growth 1.4% per year. Ultimately,
our aggregation of the PSRC projections suggests that, by 2010. the Federal
Way Market Analysis Study Area will support a population of 123,355. and
by the year 2020, it will reach 140,126.
Figure 2-6. Projected population for Market Analysis Study Area (city
limits + TAZs outside city limits), 2000-2020
150,000-
140,00~
130,000-
120,0001
110,000-
100,000-
Historic 140,126
-- PSR__~_C
123,355
109,397
90,000-
80,000
1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
Note: Estimates for 1996 through 1999 are generated by the Washington State Office of Financial Management
(OFM). Upon receipt of OFM countywide estimates, PSRC staff disaggregate and report annual estimates of
population by jurisdiction and census tract. Year 2000 to 2020 forecasts originate with the PSRC and, untike the
current-year estimates, are not required to be consistent with OFM figures. The relatively large difference
between estimated 1999 and projected year 2000 populations are a result of differences in estimation
methodologies.
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts by TAZ and Annual Population Estimates by
Census Tract for 1990 through !999. For details of allocation mechanisms see accompanying ~e~.
Employment
Our aggregation of PSRC TAZ-level employment forecasts indicate that
Year 2000 employment in the Federal Way Market .Analysis Study A_rea is
31,346 jobs - employment which is dominated by the retail, finances,
insurance, real estate, and services sectors. As is true of forecasts for all of
King County, the PSRC anticipates that growth in these sectors will also be
the primary driver of employment growth in the coming decades. Ultimately,
our aggregation of PSRC forecasts suggest that employment in the Federal
Way Market Analysis Study Area will increase by roughly 5,000 in the
Page 2-10 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
decade between 2000 and 2010, to a level of 36,333 jobs, extending to 40,071
jobs by 2020. Increases in employment in the FIRES sectors is anticipated to
represent a full 70 percent of the total 2000 to 2020 growth, with increases in
retail making up an additional 15 percent. (See Figure 2-7 and Table 2-3. ~
Figure 2-7. Projected employment for Market Analysis Study Area
(city limits + TAZs outside city limits), 2000-2020
2O2O
40,071
2010
2000
[] RET
36,333 []FIRES
[] MAN
[] WTCU
[]EDU
31,346
[] GOV
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Total
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts and Washington State Department ot
Employment Security data.
Table 2-3. Projected employment by sector Market Analysis Study
area (city limits + TAZs outside city limits), 2000-2020
RET FIRES MAN WTCU EDU GOV Total
2000 9,323 11,771 3,905 1,663 3,147 1,537 31,346
20t 0 9,997 15,327 4,044 2,023 3,291 1,651 36,333
2020 10,636 17,883 4,196 2,053 3,571 1,732 40,071
2000 to 2020
Change 1,313 6,112 291 390 424 195 8,725
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts and Washington State Depa~ment of
Employment Security data.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 2-11
SUMMARY
Table 2-4 summarizes population and employment forecasts for the
Federal Way city limits, the TAZ study area, and the Market Analysis Study
Area (combined city limits and TAZ study area). The results show that the
PSRC forecasts anticipate a slower rate of growth outside the city limits than
inside.
The PSRC forecasts allocate more than 27,000 new persons (108,547
minus 81,150) and 8,000 new employees (37,232 minus 29,055) to areas
within the Federal Way city limits between 2000 and 2020. By contrast, the
PSRC allocates 3,332 persons and 548 employees to the TAZ Study Area
between 2000 and 2020.
Table 2-4. Summary of population and employment forecasts for
Federal Way city limit, TAZ study area, and Market Analysis Study
Area, 2000-2020
Population Employment
Year City limits TAZ Market City limits TAZ Market
study Analysis study Analysis
area study area area Study area
2000 81,150 28,247 109,397
2010 93,431 29,924 123,355
2020 108,547 31,579 140,126
Change 2000- 27,397 3,332 30,729
2020
Percent Change 34% 12% 28%
2000-2020
AAGR 2000- 1.47% 0.56% 1.25%
2020
29,055 2,291 31,346
33,867 2,466 36,333
37,232 2,839 40,071
8,177 548 8,725
28% 24% 28%
1.25% 1.08% 1.24%
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts b' TAZ and Annual Population Estimates by
Census Tract for 1990 through 1999. For details of allocation mechanisms see accompanying text.
The PSRC forecasts are a regional allocation of population and
employment growth in the Puget Sound area. The methods applied to develop
the PSRC allocations, however, suggest that consideration of local factors
may suggest local modifications to the growth forecasts. Chapter 3 describes
land supply and Chapter 4 describes recent development trends in the City of
Federal Way and the TAZ study area. In Chapter 5, we consider regional
market trends, along with the local data presented in chapters 3 and 4 to
evaluate the PSRC allocations of population and employment for the Federal
Way city limits and the TAZ study area.
Page 2-12 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Chapter 3
Land Supply and
Development Capacity
INTRODUCTION
Amendments to the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1997 require
certain cities, including Federal Way, to collect data on buildable lands and
analyze how planning goals are being achieved. The amendments, often
referred to as the Buildable Lands Program, require local governments to
monitor the intensity and density of development to determine whether a
county and the cities within its boundaries are achieving urban densities to
meet state growth projections. If development does not occur at planned
levels, jurisdictions must consider measures other than expanding urban
growth areas (UGAs) to accommodate development.
This chapter presents the results of inventory of the supply of vacant,
buildable land within Federal Way~ and our estimates of development
capacity on those lands. Comparing the buildable land and capacity analysis
to the demand analysis allows us to determine whether there are supply-side
constraints on demand for different types of land.
METHODS
Federal Way provided ECO with several GIS databases that characterize
the supply of land and the development capacity of land. ECO used the City
land data (a summary of the methods used by Federal Way in their capacity
analysis is presented in Appendix A) to create summary tables of the amount
of buildable land by zoning designation and by City TAZ (detailed tables on
land supply are presented in Appendix B).
The definitions used to classify land are critical in any land supply analysis.
It is important to use clear definitions that allow classification of land into
mutually exclusive categories. Following are definitions used for the purposes
of this study. Definitions applied by the City in their buildable lands
inventory are consistent with state codified definitions as presented in the
CTED BuHdable Lands Program Guidelines.2
Lands SuJtable for Development: Vacant, partially-used, under'
utilized, and redevelopable land that is (a) designated for commercial,
industrial, or residential use; (b) not intended for public use; (c) not
~ Focusing on its city limits, but also looking at it Potential Annexation Area, which has the same boundaries as its
Urban Growth Area.
~ Buildable Lands Program Guidelines, Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development,
1998.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-1
constrained by critical areas in a way that limits development
potential and makes new construction unfeasible.
Vacant Land: Land that has no structures. For the purposes of the
City's analysis, parcels with improvement values of $0 were classified
vacant.
Rede~'eIopable Land: Parcels that are not constrained physically and
has services available, including the following categories:
· Partial]y-UsedLand: Parcels with development (improvements)
that contain enough land to be further subdivided without need of
rezoning and where there is a large enough vacant remainder to
permit additional development). For instance, a single house on a
1-acre parcel where urban densities are allowed is partially
developed.
· Under-UtiEzed Land: Parcels of land zoned for more intensive use
than that which currently occupies the property. For instance, a
single-family home on multifamily-zoned land will generally be
considered under-utilized. This definition also includes land on
which development has already occurred but on which, due to
present or expected market forces, there exists the strong
likelihood that existing development will be converted to more
intensive uses during the planning period.
The definitions for redevelopable land applied by the City in their
capacity analysis are:
· Parcels zoned for residential use that are 2.5 times or larger than
the minimum lot size in the district
Parcels zoned for commercial use with an improvement-to-land
value ratio of 0.5 or less. Note that (1) reasonable differences in the
ratio or measurements would yield different estimates of
redevelopable land, and (2) classifying a parcel as potentially
redevelopable means that it has a higher probability of
redeveloping than other parcels, but does not mean that all parcels
so classified will redevelop during the planning period, or that
other parcels will not redevelop.
Critical Areas (Constrained Land): Land subtracted from Total Vacant
Land to get Buildable Land (which is further divided into totally
vacant and partially used based on parcel boundaries and existing
development on parcels). There are several categories of constraints:
· Wetlands
· Floodplain
· Streams
· Geologically Hazardous Areas - Erosion Hazard Areas,
Landslide hazard areas, Seismic Hazard Areas, Steep Slope
Hazard areas
Page 3-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
· Lakes
· Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
· Aquifer Recharge Areas
· Wellheads
The GMA defines critical areas to "include the following areas and
ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically
hazardous areas" (RCW 36.70A. 170). Moreover, the GMA requires
communities to classify critical areas and to regulate development in
these areas (RCW 36.70A.050; RCW 36.70A. 060).
The City of Federal Way has mapped wetlands and streams, therefore,
for purposes of this study; critical areas were taken out at the parcel
level.
Gross Vacant Acre: A Gross Vacant Acre is an acre of vacant land
before land has been dedicated for public right'of-way, private streets,
or public utility easements. For example, a standard assumption is
that about 20% of land in a subdivision is used for streets and utilities:
if so, then a gross vacant acre will yield only about 35,000 sq. ft. (80%
of a full acre of 43,560 sq. ft.) for lots.
Net Vacant Acre:An acre of vacant land after land has been dedicated
for public right-of-way, private streets, or utility easements. If a
development had 10 single-family lots, each at 4,356 square feet, then
it would have a density of 10 units per net acre. But because streets
are needed to get to all those lots, those 10 lots would cover more than
an acre.
With respect to an evaluation of land capacity, the distinction between
gross acres and net acres is important because some vacant land is in large
tracts and some is in unbuilt, platted lots. The tract land is in gross acres;
part of it must still be used for roads. The platted land is in net acres: roads
have already been provided. Thus, at any given residential density a net
vacant acre always accommodates more housing units than gross vacant
acres because all the land is going to lots.
The Federal Way database also tracks pending development as indicated
by approved building permits. This information on the development
"pipeline" is important from both a land supply and land demand perspective.
For the purpose of its buildable land inventory, Federal Way deducts pending
development from the buildable land inventory.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-3
BUILDABLE LAND ESTIMATES
The City's database classified all tax lots into one of 11 categories (Please
refer to Table 3-1). For the purpose of the buildable land inventory, tax lots
are classified as vacant or as redevelopable. The inventory is presented for
two geographic areas: tax lots within the city limits, and tax lots in TAZs
outside the Federal Way city limits (referred to as the "TAZ study area").
WITHIN THE FEDERAL WAY CITY LIMITS
Table 3-1 shows land in tax lots by classification. In February 2000, the
City had approximately 19,983 tax lots on 10,997 acres. The majority of land
(16,917 parcels/tax lots) inside the city limits (85%) was classified as
developed. About 1,379 acres were classified as vacant buildable, while
approximately 1,097 acres were classified as buildable redevelopable.
Table 3-1. Land in tax lots by classification, Federal Way city limits,
February 2000
Classification Number of Total Developed Critical Buildable
Parcels Acres Acres~ Areas IRedev.
cms
Parcels included in land supply analysis:
Vacant Parcels 1,326 1,803 424 428 1,379
Under-developed/Redevelopable Parcels 1,123 1,339 1,097 242 1,097
Sub-total 2,449 3,142 1,621 670 2,476
Parcel excluded from land supply analysis:
Fully Developed Parcel 16,917 6,159
Associated with Fully developed parcel2 53 28
Fully Developed, Part of Larger Parcel3 3 100
Open Space4 112 169
Park 67 865
Pending Project 25 117
Public Lands 37 147
Special Cases 9 89
Tract7 311 181
Sub-total 17,534 7,855
Total 19,983 10,997
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Database, analysis by ECONorthwest, 2000.
Included roads, sidewalks and paved areas as well as built space.
Parking lot or other use closely associated with another developed parcel
Single parcel divided by ROW. Shows up as 2 records in the database, specially coded to prevent over-counting
Publicly owned open space
Non-open space land owned by government agency (city, county, state, school district, fire district, utility district)
Parcels, such as BPA corridor, cemetary which are technically vacant or redevelopable, but in fact are extremely unlikely
to develop.
Private open space areas associated with subdivisions.
Page 3-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Map 3-1 shows vacant land by plan designation. Table 3-2 summarizes
land classified as vacant by plan designation. The data show that Federal has
a relatively small amount of buildable vacant land compared to the city's
total land area: about 552 acres designated for commercial/office uses, and
823 acres for residential use.
Table 3-2. Vacant land by plan designation, Federal Way city limits,
February 2000
Cons-
Number of Vacant trained Buildable
Plan Designation Tax Lots Acres Acres Acres
Commercial/Office
Business Park 59 203 71 132
Central City Core 9 9 0 8
Central City Frame 7 8 0 8
Commercial-Business 90 112 10 102
Commercial-Retail 2 9 4 5
Corporate Park 20 120 27 94
Neighborhood Commercial 36 29 2 27
Office Park 75 209 35 175
Subtotal Commercial 298 699 149 552
Residential
Rural Residential 13 53 22 31
Suburban Residential 334 379 149 232
Urban Residential 619 569 83 486
Multiple Family Residential 57 98 24 74
Subtotal Residential 1,023 1,099 278 823
Total 1,325 1,802 427 1,379
No Designation Available 4 4 0 4
Source: City of Federal Way, analysis by ECONorthwest.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-5
Map 3-1
2000 Federal Way
Market Study
Vacant Land .by
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
192
Tacoma
138
141
Scale: 1 to 62040
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet
0 1 Mile
Legend:
~ City Center Core
~ CityCenter Frame
~ Corporate Park
_._J Office Park
~ Professional Office
~ Commercial/Recreation
~ Business Park
180
213
~llilton
!
Neighborhood Business
Community Business
Parks and Open Space
Multi-Family
Single Family-High Densit7
Single Family-Medium Oensit~
Single Family-Low Density
212
216
Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000.
This mac is intended for use as a
rachical representation ONLY. The
ity of Federal Way m~kes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
GIS DIVISION
luserslmikes/landltazavac.aml
Table 3-3 shows land classified as vacant by city zoning district. According to
City staff, comprehensive plan designations and zoning districts are
consistent with each other.
Table 3-3. Vacant land by zoning district, Federal Way city limits,
February 2000
Cons-
Number of Vacant trained Buildable
Zoning District Abbrev. Tax Lots Acres Acres Acres
No Zoning Available 3 2 0 2
Commercial/Office
Business-Commercial BC 90 112 10 102
Neighborhood Business BN 36 29 2 27
Business Park BP 59 203 71 132
City Center Core CC 9 9 0 8
City Center Frame CF 6 7 0 7
Corporate Park CP-1 20 120 27 94
Office Park OP 42 106 27 80
Office Park 1 OP-1 21 89 7 82
Office Park 3 OP-3 1 6 0 6
Office Park 4 OP-4 2 9 4 5
Professional Office PO 12 12 1 11
CommlOffice Subtotal 298 702 149 555
Residential
Single-Family
Single-Family 15 RS15.0 291 258 75 184
Single-Family 35 RS35.0 46 122 74 49
Single-Family 5 RS5.0 6 40 17 23
Single-Family 7.2 RS7.2 354 289 31 259
Single-Family 9.6 RS9.6 258 239 35 204
Suburban Estate SE 14 53 22 31
Subtotal Single-Family 969 1,002 254 750
Multiple Family
Multiple Family 1800 RM1800 15 9 1 8
Multiple Family 2400 RM2400 6 18 7 11
Multiple Family 3600 RM3600 35 69 16 54
Subtotal Multiple Family 56 97 24 72
Res Subtotal 1,025 1,099 278 822
TOTAL 1,326 '1,803 428 '1,379
Source: City of Federal Way, analysis by ECONorthwest.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-7
Redevelopment potential, as defined by the City, deals primarily with
parcels with developed structures that are judged as likely to be demolished
and new buildings constructed in their place.3 The City considers any parcel
with an improvement to land value ratio of 0.5 or less (the improvement
value is no more half of the value of the land). There is no consensus in either
planning practice or real estate development about a simple measure that
defines redevelopment: ratios of improvement value to land value used for
the purpose are usually between 0.5 and 1.5. But not all, or even a majority of
parcels that meet this criterion for redevelopment potentia]will actually
redevelop during the planning period. The issue of how much of the
potentially redevelopable land will be assumed to redevelop over the planning
period is discussed in Chapter 5.
Federal Way classifies partially-used (see page 3-2) lands as residential
lands that can be divided 2.5 times or more.4 For example, a 12,500 square
foot lot in an RS-5000 zone (5000 square foot minimum lot size) would be
considered partially-used because its size is 2.5 greater than the minimum lot
size for the zone. Consistent with the definitions CTED uses in the Buildable
Lands Program Guidelines, Federal Way includes partially used, land as a
subset of redevelopable land. The City considers lands with improvement'to'
land value ratios of 0.5 or less (improvements are 50% or less of land value)
as redevelopable.
Map 3-2 shows redevelopable land as classified by the City's definitions.
Table 3-4 presents land classified as redevelopable in the City's capacity
database. The City classified 1,123 lots on 1,097 acres as redevelopable.
3 An alternative approach to estimating redevelopment potential is to analyze the relationship of parcels to other
surrounding parcels. For example, some jurisdictions define redevelopment potential as parcels that have improvement
values significantly lower than surrounding parcels in similar designations. This approach, however, requires a
property'by-property analysis using advanced GIS tools; it is not used in this study.
Yet another approach to estimating redevelopment potential is to analyze land value as a function of parcel size. In
general, one would expect larger parcels with lower improvement values to have higher redevelopment potential. Large
parcels with low to medium improvement values may be under-developed.
4 As for the ratio of improvement to land value that defines redevelopment, this measure is reasonable. Other cut'off
points could also be justified, but there is no overwhelming technical or political reason for choosing 2.5 instead of, say,
2.25 or 3.75. But 2.0 is the lowest factor justified (otherwise the lot could not be legally divided, and 3.0 seems to require
too much land before a remainder is classified as buildable: 2.0 to 2.5 seems about right.
Page 3-8 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Map 3-2
2000 Federal Way
Market Study
Redevelopable Land by
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
192
193
180
Scale: 1 to 62040
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet
0 1 Mile
Legend:
City Center Core
CityCenter Frame
Corporate Park
Office Park
Professional Office
Commercial/Recreation
Business Park
213
Neighborhood Business
Community Business
Parks and Open Space
Muiti-Family
Single Family-High Density
Single Family-Medium Density
Single Family-Low Density
212
216
Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000.
This map is intended for use as a
graphical representation ONLY. The
City of Federal Way makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
DIVISION
luserslmikesllandltazared.aml
FEDERAL WAY TAZ STUDY AREA
The focus of this market analysis is in the Federal Way city limits. The
TAZ-level allocation of development, however, is necessary for transportation
planning and includes areas outside the city limit (the TAZ study area). Data
available for areas outside the Federal Way city limits are less detailed than
for areas inside the city limits. As a result, our analysis of areas outside the
city limit is more general.
Table 3-7 shows land in tax lots by classification. In February 2000, the
TAZ study area outside the city limits had 9,506 tax lots on about 5,304
acres. The majority of land inside the TAZ study area (55%) was classified as
developed. About 2,909 acres were classified as developed, while 1,800 acres
were classified as vacant buildable.
Table 3-7. Land in tax lots by classification, inside TAZ study area
but outside city limits, February 2000
Number of Total Develop. Critical Buildable
Classification Parcels Acres Acres' Acres2 Acres
All land in city limits 19,983 10,997 9,376 1,626 2,477
Land in TAZ study area
(outside city limits)
Fully developed 7,322 3,072 2,697 375 0
Park 3 5 3 2 0
Public Land, Not in study 19 68 46 22 0
U nder-developed/Redev 332 503 152 68 437
Tract 76 0 12 12 0
Vacant 1,754 1,655 0 293 1,363
Total TAZ study area 9,506 5,304 2,909 772 1,800
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Database, analysis by ECONorthwest, 2000.
~ Includes roads, sidewalks, and paved areas as well as built space.
2 Some overlap exists between critical acres and developed acres. Thus, Developed+Critical+Buildable does
not sum to Total Acres.
DEVELOPMENT (LAND) CAPACITY ESTIMATES'
In February 2000, the City of Federal Way revised its land capacity
analysis for areas within the city hmit. The capacity method used by the City
in this analysis was used by all cities in King County. Land capacity is an
estimate of the amount of development that land can accommodate given
land uses.
5 Land capacity and development capacity get used interchangeably to talk about the same question: how much
development (measured, for example, as housing units or square footage) can vacant and under-utilized land support?
What capacity does the Iandhave to support deveIopment?
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-11
Several approaches are available to estimate capacity. A starting point is
generally an estimation based on the maximum intensity a site could be
developed at give~ policy corstrairts (e.g., plan designation, zoning,
minimum service requirements, and so on). For example, ff a one-acre site
has zoning regulations that allow 100% lot coverage and up to three floors,
the theoretical maximum capacity on that site would be 130,680 square feet
of built space (43,560 sq. ft./acre x 3 floors). Planners commonly describe
capacity or intensity of development in terms of floor area ratios (FAR). FAR
is simply the amount of built space on a site divided by the area of the site.
The example above equates to a (FAR) of 3.0 (130,680/43,560=3.0).
It is typical for capacity analyses to make deductions from the maximum
capacity allowed by pubhc policy for public uses, right-of-way, and other land
uses that reduce the buildable area of a lot. This approach recognizes real-
world factors that affect the amount of buildable area on any given tax lot.
Taking deductions for specific factors is one variation on estimating
theoretical capacity. FARs based on zoning then allow estimations of the
maximum amount of built space that could be built.
Development, however, frequently occurs at densities that are less than
the maximum allowed under existing zoning. Using adjusted FARs based on
recent development, one can develop market-based estimates of capacity. The
method used by Federal Way is a combination of a maximum, policy-based
capacity approach and a market-based approach.
The City's methods to estimate residential capacity differentiated
between lands zoned for residential use and lands zoned for mixed-use. The
City essentially has two categories of zoning and plan designations: zones
that allow only residential uses, and zones that are primarily intended for
commercial uses, but also allow residential uses outright. Determining
capacity in mixed-use zones require assumptions about the mixture of
residential and non-residential uses.
For all uses, the City applies the following deduction factors:
· RigI~t-of-wayfactormakes deductions for local streets to service
the development.
· PubIicpurpose £actor makes deductions for tracts to be used for
drainage, open space, utility easements, substations, etc.
· Market factor makes deductions for land that will be unavailable
for development for various reasons (most of them related to a
landowner unwilling to sell at prevailing prices) during the
planning period.
To estimate capacity on lands zoned for residential use, the City classified
residential land into four categories: vacant, redevelopable, parcels not
subdividable, and recently platted lots (vacant with no deductions). This
approach recognizes that vacant tract land requires deductions to estimate
Page 3-12 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
capacity as opposed to a vacant lot in a subdivision, where all deductions
have occurred by virtue of it being platted.
To estimate capacity on mixed-use lands, the City applies four additional
factors:
· Builcb'ngfootprint factor accounts for the amount of the lot that will be
covered by a building.
· AIlowable height (in 17oors) accounts for the maximum height allowed
under the zoning district.
· Percentage of built space in residentia! accounts for the amount of
buildable capacity that will be allocated for residential uses.
· Average s/ze ofres/dent/a! un/ts converts floor area capacity to
multiple family units.
The city's method is as follows:
Lot net square feet
$ ROW factor
$ Pubhc purpose factor
$ Market factor
5 Building footprint factor
= Subtotal of buildable square feet
5Number of floors
= Total buildable square feet
The method then breaks out land by use (residential and non-residential)
and applies a residential area factor (expressed in square feet per dwelling
unit) to arrive at the total residential capacity and an employee per acre
factor to arrive at the total employment capacity.
The overall logic of this approach is sound and consistent with standard
practice and state requirements. The assumptions used, however, are not
based on observation of market trends. The City's discussion of methods and
results of those analyses are presented in Appendix A.
The following sections describe the results of that analysis, and makes
comparisons with the land supply data described in the previous sections as a
cross-reference. Like the land inventory, the capacity analysis is presented
first for areas within the city limits, and then TAZ study area (outside the
city limits).
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-13
WITHIN THE FEDERAL WAY CITY LIMITS
RESIDENTIAL LAND
Table 3-8 shows estimated residential land capacity for areas within the
city limits. The City estimates that capacity for about 4,839 new dwelling
units exists on land zoned for residential uses. The City has about 823
vacant, residential buildable acres (Tables 3-2 and 3-3) available within the
city limits, and another 827 acres classified as redevelopable (Table 3-4). If
we consider just the vacant acres, dividing development capacity by vacant
acres (4,839/823) yields a derived net residential density of 5.8 dwelling units
per net residential acre. If redevelopable acres are added in, the overall
density decreases depending on the density increases assumed to occur on
redeveloped land.
The City estimates additional capacity for 7,329 dwelling units on non-
residential lands. All capacity on non-residential lands is assumed to be for
multiple family dwellings. Estimated residential capacity in non-residential
zones is a substantial portion of the City's total estimated residential
capacity.
The methods applied by the City to estimate residential capacity in
mixed- use zones are based on a theoretical floor area, and assumptions
about the percentage of non-residential land that will develop in residential
uses.
Table 3-8. Estimated residential
capacity, Federal Way city limit,
February 2000
Zoning
Number of
Dwelling
Units
RM 1800 247
RM2400 213
RM3600 535
RS15.0 825
RS35.0 80
RS5.0 188
RS7.2 1,878
RS9.6 870
SE 4
Residential Zones 4,839
Mixed Use Zones 7,329
TOTAL 12,t 69
Source: City of Federal Way Land Capacity Analysis, February 2000.
Page 3-14 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
The assumptions about residential development in mixed-use zones are
critical because the mixed-use zones (non-residential) zones are anticipated to
accommodate a large percentage of the City's future residential population.
We address this issue in Chapter 5. As a very rough estimate, at an average
of 2.8 persons per household for single-family dwelling units and 2.15 persons
per household for multiple-family dwelling units, based on the City's capacity
estimates for residentially-zoned land (4,839 new units), that land can
accommodate about 12,900 people. Those 4,839 units would be about 79%
single-family and 21% multiple-family (based on the underlying zoning).
Based on the City's capacity estimate for mixed-use zones (7,329 units) and
assuming it is all developed over a 20-year period with all multiple-family
units, then the total dwelling unit growth in the City limits would be about
12,168 units (68% multiple-family units) and would accommodate about
25,365 additional people (at 2. lpersons per household). This compares to
PSRC's forecasted 20-year growth of 27,397. Chapter 5 evaluates some of
these assumptions in more detail.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LAND
Table 3-9 shows capacity for lands zoned for commercial and office uses.
The method the City applied to determine capacity begins with total area
(within tax lots) less critical areas, then a right-of-way factor is applied to
deduct for internal streets and other right-of-ways. The method also applies
deductions for public purposes and the market. The area left is then
multiplied by a lot coverage factor, which provides an estimate of the area of
the lot that can be covered by a building. The final step in the analysis is to
multiply the building coverage by the number of floors allowed. This provides
an estimate of theoretical floor area on any given tax lot and represents close
to an upper bound on the amount of development that is allowable on lands
zoned for commercial and office uses.
The method then allocates a percentage of capacity to residential uses in
those zones that allow residential uses. All residential capacity is assumed to
be for multiple family units. Using these methods, the City's analysis
estimates capacity for about 23.4 million square feet of floor area in
commercial and office zones. Applying assumptions about the split between
residential and commercial uses yields the estimate of 7,329 residential units
and about 18 million square feet of commercial and office floor area.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-15
Table 3-9: Estimated dwelling-unit and commercial capacity of land
designated for employment, Federal Way city limits, February 2000
# of M.F. Buildable
Building total % resi- Residential Size of units dwelling sq. ft. left for
Zoning sq. ft. dential sq. ft. sq. Ft. units commercial
BC 4,662,258 0.33 1,538,545 1,000 1,539 3,123,713
BN 938,512 0.33 309,709 1,000 310 628,803
BP 4,386,306 0.10 438,631 500 877 3,947,675
CC 4,236,465 0.50 2,118,233 700 3,026 2,118,233
CF 1,225,173 0.50 612,587 700 875 612,587
CP-1 640,756 0.00 0 Na 0 640,756
OP 3,509,995 0.10 350,999 500 702 3,158,995
OP-1 3,156,967 0.00 0 Na 0 3,156,967
OP-2 0 0.00 0 Na 0 0
OP-3 212,890 0.00 0 Na 0 212,890
OP-4 126,933 0.00 0 Na 0 126,933
PO 317,597 0.00 0 Na 0 317,597
TOTAL: 23,413,850 7,329 18,045,147
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Analysis, February 2000.
FEDERAL WAY TAZ STUDY (AREA OUTSIDE OF C~TY LIMITS)
The boundaries of the Federal Way PAAs do not match those of the TAZ
study area. The PAA database contains data on 7,116 tax lots; the TAZ study
area contains data on about 9.500 tax lots. An analysis of the two databases
indicates that nearly all tax lots in PAAs area also in the TAZ study area, but
the TAZ study area includes 2,884 tax lots not identified in PAAs.
No reliable capacity estimates exist for the TAZ study area. To assess
whether enough capacity existed to accommodate the PSRC population
forecast, ECO developed a rough capacity estimate based on zoning and
assessment data.6 ECO estimates capacity for about 4,569 dwelling units as
of February 2000 within the TAZ Study Area. About 80% of the dwelling unit
capacity in the TAZ study area is for single-family units.
Developing capacity estimates for the TAZ study area was not a part of ECO's work program.
Page 3-16 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 3-10. Estimated residential capacity in the
Federal Way TAZ study area, February 2000
Vacant Redevelop Total
-able
Single-family 2,801 840 3,641
Multiple family 650 279 928
Subtotal 3,451 1,119 4,569
Source: Estimates by ECONorthwest, 2000
ECO did not develop any capacity estimates for non-residential uses for
the Potential Annexation Area or the TAZ study area. Non-residential
capacity outside the city limits are relatively limited by zoning that does not
allow commercial uses.
EVALUATION OF LAND CAPACITY ESTIMATES
The methodology used by the City to estimate capacity is based on a
methodology used by all of the cities within King County and is not based on
historical market trends. The estimates are probably closer to a
representation of theoretical capacity than what the market will produce.
ECO's review of the City's estimates of capacity on residential land indicates
the methods apphed and deduction assumptions are reasonable, however, it
may underestimate residential capacity because it makes conservative
assumptions about densities and lot divisions. As a result, ECO has made
some adjustments to the City's capacity, and these assumptions and
conclusions are discussed in Chapter 5.
The City's method for mixed-use zones begins with an estimate of
unconstrained land in tax lots by zone (this includes both vacant land and
lands with improvement to land value ratios of 0.5 or less). The City's method
then apphes the following deduction factors to get to a revised buildable area
estimate:
· Right-o£-way£actormakes deductions for local streets to service
the development. The ROW factor is assumed at 0.95 for all zones
except the CC and CF zones, which assume 0.85.
· PubIicpurpose factor makes deductions for tracts to be used for
drainage, open space, utility easements, substations, etc. The
public purpose factor is assumed at 0.98 for all zones except for the
CC and CF zones, which are assumed at 1.0.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-17
Market £actor makes deductions for land that will be unavailable
for development for various reasons during the planning period.
For vacant land, the market factor is assumed at 0.90 except in the
OP-1 zone, which is assumed at 0.10. The market factor for
redevelopment is 0.83.
The right-of-way (ROW) and public purpose factors generally account for
roads, easements, and other access and public uses. The deduction of between
7% and 15% for commercial land was agreed upon by King County as being
reasonable for cities to use. The market factor is more difficult to assess; ECO
is not aware of any empirical studies on how much land may be kept off the
market over a 20-year period. However again, a range of deductions to be
used was agreed upon by King County, and local jurisdictions could choose
percentages for various zones based on the local market. For vacant land,
Federal Way chose a 10% discount for the majority of non-residential zones.
The 90% discount in the OP' 1 zone is based on limited ownership
(Weyerhaeuser Corporation).
The unconstrained lot area, multiplied by the ROW, public purpose, and
market factors, provides a revised estimate of land available for development.
This figure is then multiplied by a building footprint factor and the number of
allowable floors in each zone to estimate capacity of floor area.
Table 3-11 shows a comparison of City FAR assumptions and observed
FARs for different time periods in the Federal Way city limits. The results
indicate that the implied FARs assumed by the City are substantially higher
than FARs observed over any time period in Federal Way. The reason for the
higher FARs chosen by the City is due to a code amendment adopted in 1996,
which allows commercial buildings in the City Center to a height of 95 to 145
feet depending on use and provision of public amenities, such as public open
space. In addition, the City may consider a code amendment, which would
allow these increased height limits outright. Furthermore, FARs observed in
the recent past, are not necessarily indicative of what FARs might be
achieved in the future. It is, reasonable to assume that FARs will increase in
the 20-year planning period due to urbanization, supply constraints,
investment in infrastructure by the City, and potentially, public policy.
Page 3-18 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 3-11. Comparison of City FAR assumptions and observed
FARs
Zoning
Observed FAR
Implied FAR for Observed Observed FAR, of Recent
City's Capacity FAR, All Development Projects
Estimates Development since 1995 (Winter 2000)
BC 0.50 0.17
BN 0.50 0.17
BP 0.50 0.16
CC 3.50 0.21
CF 2.4O 0.29
CP-1 0.30 0.10
OP 1.05 0.34
OP-1 1.05 0.43
OP-2 1.05 0.60
OP-3 1.05 Na
OP-4 0.70 0.00
PO 0.40 0.18
0.22
0.10
0.32
0.43
0.10
0.26
0.36 0.55
0.37 0.35
0.38
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Database.
Another key assumption in the City's capacity methodology is the
allocation of multiple-family residential units in mixed-use zones. Table 3-12
provides a comparison of the City's assumptions with the actual observed mix
for all development in the city and all development since 1990.
ECONorthwest's analysis assumes 800 square feet per residential unit in
mixed-use zones.
The data indicate that residential development in mixed-use zones has
been considerably below the City's assumptions for future development, with
the exception of the CF zone. The existing amount of residential development
in mixed-use zones is only a small fraction of all residential development in
the city (about 5% for all development; about 10% for residential development
since 1990).
The analysis also indicates that some non-residential development is
occurring in residential zones. This is not surprising: cities commonly allow
non-residential facilities such as schools, churches, fraternal organizations,
and so on as conditional uses in residential zones.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-19
Table 3-12. Mix of residential and non-residential uses by zone,
Federal Way city limits
All Development
Zoning Total DU % Res
BC 201 8%
BN 13 2%
BP 26 3%
CC 0 0%
CF 1,028 38%
CP-1 I 0%
OP 322 8%
OP-1 0 0%
OP-2 0 0%
OP-3 0 Na
OP-4 0 0%
PO 17 7%
RM1800 5,066 100%
RM2400 6,077 100%
RM3600 2,837 98%
RS15.0 1,058 91%
RS35.0 82 35%
RS5.0 504 97%
RST.2 11,892 95%
RS9.6 3,348 95%
SE 21 45%
Dev Since 1990
Total DU % Res
63 14%
1 0%
0 O%
0 O%
385 53%
0 O%
0 O%
0 O%
0 O%
0 O%
0 O%
0 O%
209 100%
819 100%
649 100%
137 91%
5 5%
132 100%
1,426 93%
537 100%
1 100%
ci~
Assump
(% Res)
33%
33%
10%
50%
50%
0%
10%
0%
0%
0%
O%
0%
Na
Na
Na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Database, analysis by ECONorthwest, 2000.
The City's capacity analysis yielded about 18 million square feet
(18,045,147) of non-residential bufldable floor area and 12,169 dwelling units.
Table 3-13 shows a basic simulation of the CiW's method at the aggregate
level. The key variables in the simulation are the floor area ratio (FAR),
percent of land in mixed-use zones allocated to residential, and the average
area of apartment.
The base simulation shown in Table 3-13 is set so it comes close to the
City's capacity estimates. There are an infinite number of combinations of
assumptions that could result in values comparable to the City's results. The
combination of variables that we used were a 1.0 FAR, and 20% of mixed-use
capacity to residential units. The point of Table 3-13 is to illustrate that the
population growth forecasted by PSRC (27,397 persons) can be
accommodated provided land in non-residential, mixed-use zones get
developed for housing. In Chapter 5 we evaluate how reasonable these
assumptions are.
Page 3-20 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 3-13. Simulation of land capacity, Federal Way
city limits
Variable Value
Vacant lot area After Deductions
(Square Feet (SF))
Redev lot area after deductions (SF)
Total lot area (SF)
FAR Assumption
Total buildable area (SF)
Percent residential assumption
Mixed-use area in residential (SF)
Avg Res Size ($F)
Non-res buildable in mixed use (SF)
Res units in mixed-use zones
Res units in res zones
Total residential units
16,742,633
6,898,882
23,641,516
1.00
23,641,516
20%
4,728,303
600
18,913,212
7,881
4,839
12,720
Source: ECONorthwest, based on City capacity methods.
Table 3'14 shows estimated non'residential capacity under
different assumptions about FAR and the percentage in residential
use. The table shows the amount of non-residential built space for
different FAR assumptions and residential assumptions. For example,
if one assumes that development in mixed-use zones averages an FAR
of 0.6 and that 20% of that built space is used for residential purposes,
about 11.35 million square feet of non-residential capacity would
remain.
The results show that non-residential capacity is highest using
higher FAR assumptions and lower residential allocations.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-21
Table 3-14. Estimated total non-residential built space capacity using
different FAR and percent residential assumptions (in millions of
square feet of floor area)
Percent of Total Developable/Redevelopable Square Footage to
Residential Use (millions of square feet)
FAR Assmp 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
0.20 4.26 3.78 3.31 2.84 2.36 1.89
0.40 8.51 7.57 6.62 5.67 4.73 3.78
0.60 12.77 11.35 9.93 8.51 7.09 5.67
0.80 17.02 15.13 13.24 11.35 9.46 7.57
1.00 21.28 18.91 16.55 14.18 11.82 9.46
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000.
Table 3-15 shows estimated total residential capacity using different FAR
and residential assumptions. The results combine residential capacity on
residential land and residential capacity in mixed-use zones: in other words,
Table 3-15 shows an estimate of total residential capacity for all of Federal
Way, based on different assumptions about FAR and percent residential in
mixed-use zones. Residential capacity increases as FAR and allocation to
mixed-use zones increases. Table 3-15 illustrates our point that there are
many combinations that yield over 11,000 to 12,000 dwelling units, about the
number needed to accommodate PSRC's forecasted population growth.
Table 3-15. Estimated total residential capacity (dwelling units)
using different FAR and percent residential assumptions, Federal
Way city limits
Percent Residential
FAR 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
0.20 5,567 6,294 7,022 7,749 8,477 9,204
0.40 6,294 7,749 9,204 10,659 12,114 13,569
0.60 7,022 9,204 11,386 13,569 15,751 17,933
0.80 7,749 10,659 13,569 16,478 19,388 22,298
1.00 8,477 12,114 15,751 19,388 23,025 26,662
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000.
Page 3-22 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
The scenarios shown in Tables 3-14 and 3-15 indicate that the key
variables that affect capacity are floor area ratio and allocation of residential
units to mixed-use zones. In chapter 4 we review historical development
patterns in the Puget Sound region and Federal Way. This analysis provides
a strong indication of what densities and mixes of uses the market has built
to in the recent past. In chapter 5 we evaluate population and employment
forecasts and develop estimates of demand for dwelling units and built
commercial space based on our evaluation of what the market will build to in
the next 20 years. We then present revised capacity estimates based on FARs
and housing type mix. Land demand is then allocated to TAZs based on the
revised capacity estimates.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-23
Chapter 4
Historical Development
Patterns
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes development patterns in the Puget Sound Region,
King County, and Federal Way over the past 10 years. Historical
development patterns are direct indicators of how demand for residential,
commercial, office, and industrial development have manifested itself in the
region and in Federal Way. Historical development patterns show the rates
at which housing, retail, office, and industrial space has been absorbed in the
recent past, which provides a starting point and check on assumptions about
future absorption.
The Growth Management Act requires counties and cities to monitor
development. Amendments to the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1997
require King County and its cities to collect data on buildable lands and
analyze how planning goals are being achieved. The amendments, often
referred to as the Buildable Lands Program, require local governments to
monitor the intensity and density of development to determine whether a
county and the cities within its boundaries are achieving urban densities to
meet state growth projections. If development does not occur at planned
levels, jurisdictions must consider measures other than expanding urban
growth areas (UGAs) to accommodate development.
Our analysis of development trends covers:
· The mix of residential types: single-family (divided by construction
typc conventional site built, manufactured, and by lot size);
duplex/tri/quad, town houses, and apartments;
· The mix of commercial types: retail, office, industrial;
Lot size/density, and gross-to-net acre relationships;
Size of unit per type; and
· Value or price per size and type of unit.
We used several data sources to complete our analysis of historical
development trends. The key ones:
· Building permit data from PSRC and the City;
· City GIS data that includes year built, number of dwelling units, and
floor area at the tax lot level; and
· Secondary real estate information sources, such as CB Richard Ellis,
Dupre and Scott, and Mundy Associations as well as interviews with
local brokers and developers.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-1
Federal Way is part of the larger, Puget Sound real estate market.
Analysis of regional development trends provides a better understanding of
factors affecting development in Federal Way. Our analysis of regional
development patterns is presented in Appendix C.
FEDERAL WAY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
ECO conducted a detailed analysis of development in Federal Way using
assessment data, the City's capacity database, PSRC building permit data,
and City building permit data. We used these data sources to quantify the
amount and density of development within the Federal Way city limits, and,
to the degree data were available, the Federal Way Potential Annexation
Areas (PAAs).
One problem with reporting historical data for Federal Way is that
Federal Way did not incorporate until 1990. Before 1990, the US Bureau of
Census classified Federal Way as a Census Designated Place (CDP). Before
Federal Way incorporated, King County was responsible for issuing and
tracking building permits. The analysis of building permits in this chapter
only includes permits issued after Federal Way incorporated.
Analysis of recent development patterns is an important component of the
demand analysis. Historical data, combined with data on recent development
approvals (the development pipeline) provides empirical evidence of the rate,
location, and intensity of development. Analysis of recent densities provides
an indication of what future development might look like, and what the
actual capacity of land is, given the market characteristics of the city.
RESIDENTIAL
According to the 1999 King County Annual Growth Report, Federal Way
added 9,516 people and 6,036 jobs between 1990 and 1998. In addition, the
Annual Growth Report shows Federal Way as having 31,729 dwelling units
in 1998 and the U.S. Census shows 28,087 units in 1990/This results in an
increase of 3,642 dwelling units between 1990 and 1998.
Table 4-1 shows the density of residential development by type in Federal
Way for different time periods. The data indicate that residential
development in Federal Way averages, across all dwelling unit types (SF and
MF) about 5.4 dwelling units per net residential acre. This figure increases to
about 6.6 dwelling units per net buildable residential acre. The data show
that residential densities for recent single- and multiple family development
(1995-1999) have occurred at lesser densities than during the earlier period.
~ The change in total dwelling units is inconsistent with building permit data presented in the 1999 Annual Growth
Report which indicates that 2,531 residential building permits were issued between 1990 and 1998. The change of 3,642
dwelling units results in an average household size of 2.61 persons, a figure relatively close to the average household size
reported for Federal by the 1990 Census. The 2,531 building permits issued would result in an average household size of
about 3.75 persons. Our evaluation is that the 3,642 is the more reliable figure.
Page 4-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 4-1. Density of residential development by time period, City of
Federal Way
DU/Net
Total Tax Total Buidlable DU/Net Buildable
Type/Period Lots Acres Acres Total DU Acre Acre
Single-Family
No Year 144 90 61 144 1.6 2.4
Before 1990 14,507 3,999 3,711 14,507 3.6 3.9
1990-1994 498 145 131 498 3.4 3.8
1995-1999 1,575 364 341 1,575 4.3 4.6
Subtotal SF 16,724 4,598 4,245 16,724 3.6 3.9
Multiple Family
No Year 85 28 12 3,189 Na Na
Before 1990 528 1,293 569 10,293 8.0 18.1
1990-1994 14 108 91 1,656 15.3 18.2
1995-1999 7 30 26 635 21.0 24.4
Subtotal MF 634 1,460 697 15,773 10.8 22.6
Total
No Year 229 119 73 3,333 Na Na
Before 1990 15,035 5,293 4,280 24,800 4.7 5.8
1990-1994 512 253 222 2,154 8.5 9.7
1995-1999 1,582 394 367 2,210 5.6 6.0
Total 17,358 6,058 4,942 32,497 5.4 6.6
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, 2000.
Note: No Year includes permits that did not have a year issued value.
Table 4-2, Figure 4-1, and Map 4-1show new dwelling units approved
(residential building permits) in the Federal Way city limits between 1990
and 1999. The data indicate that the City issued permits for about 4,060
residential units, or about 406 units annually during this period. On average,
about 51% of permits issued were for single-family units. King County
approved a substantial number of dwelling units (1,016) in 1990 just after
Federal Way incorporated and King County was still processing permits,
submitted prior to incorporation, for property located in Federal Way. Since~
1991, an average of about 293 dwelling units were approved annually; 57%
of approvals were for single-family units.
The Federal Way building permit data are substantially different than
the year built data in the City's capacity database. The capacity database
shows nearly 4,400 dwelling units with a year built of 1990 or greater,
whereas the building permit data show 4,060 units issued during that time.
Most of this difference is probably accounted for by the lag time between
when permits are issued and dwelling units are built--many permits must
have been issued before 1990 with dwelling units built after 1990.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-3
Table 4-2. New dwelling units approved by residential building
permits, Federal Way, 1990-1999
Multiple Mobile Home Accessory
Year Single Family Family on Lot Dwelling Total
1990 546 873 1,419
t991 190 0 190
1992 255 47 302
1993 186 186
1994 185 246 43t
1995 212 8 22O
1996 108 129 2 1 240
1997 151 368 3 2 524
1998 102 95 5 2 204
1999 116 225 2 1 344
Total 2,051 1,991 12 6 4,060
Percent
of Total 51% 49% 0% 0% 100%
10-yr Avg 205 199 1 1 406
Source: City of Federal Way, 2000.
Figure 4-1. Dwelling units approved by residential building permits,
Federal Way city limits, 1990-1999
1,000
9OO
8oo
700
600
500
400
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 ! 996 1997 1998 1999
Yea r
· Single Family [2 Multiple Family [] Mobile Home on Lot · Accessory Dwelling
Source: City of Federal Way, 2000
Table 4-3 shows assessed value of residential development by type and
year built as of February 2000. The data indicate that as one would expect,
newer units tend to have higher assessed values. Moreover, newer single-
family residences are, on average, larger than older residences. The average
size of multiple family units decreased slightly for the period 1995-1999
compared to 1990-1994.
Page 4-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Map 4-1
2000 Federal Way
Market Study
'1
Residential Permits, 90-98
by Transportation Analysis
Zones (TAZ)
192
13
193
11
® (9
18
.:2
78 ,:::~ 79~ ?
197 ¢
180
Scale: 1 to 62040
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet
0 1 Mile
Legend:
__ City of Federal Way
Multi-Family Permits
Permit, Issued BEFORE 1995
Permit, Issued AFTER 1995
Single-Family Permits
~ Permit, Issued BEFORE 1995
® Permit, Issued AFTER 1995
(Note: Only permits issued after
1990 are displayed.)
Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
FederaJ Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000.
This map is intended for use as a
raphicaJ representation ONLY. The
ity of Federal Way makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
GIS DIVISION
/users/mikesllandlrespermaml
Table 4-3. Assessed value of residential development by type and
year built, Federal Way city limits, February 2000
Land Imp Value Total
Value (in (in Value (in Average Average
Period Total DU~ millions) millions) millions) Value Size (SF)
Single-Family
No Year 144 9.4 5.0 14.4 100,256 Na
Before 1990 14,507 737.3 1,427.4 2,164.7 149,219 1,996
1990-1994 1,575 86.8 236.7 323.5 205,383 2,376
1995-1999 498 28.8 83.9 112.7 226,311 2,579
Total 16,724 862.3 1,753.0 2,615.3 156,382 2,032
Multiple Family
No Year 544 3.5 7.9 11.4 20,883 Na
Before 1990 10,293 93.4 243.2 336.6 32,706 798
1990-1994 1,656 12.8 55.4 68.2 41,191 1,103
1995-1999 635 4.3 27.4 31.7 49,905 935
Total 13,128 114.0 333.9 447.9 34,118 Na
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Database; assessed values from King County Assessor, 2000.
Note: No Year includes permits that did not have a year issued value.
~ The total number of dwelling units reported in the capacity database is slightly different than the value reported
in Table 4-2. This is probably due to misclassification of land use by the assessor or discrepancies in the
number of multiple family units in individual buildings.
NON-RESIDENTIAL
The City of Federal Way tracks land use, floor area, year built and other
important development data in its capacity database. Non-residential
development is classified into seven categories:
· Hotels
· Industrial
· Institutional
· Office
· Retail
· Recreation
· Schools
The data allow analysis of built space by type and time period, floor area
ratios, improvement values, and lot sizes. Table 4-4 summarizes data for all
non-residential development in Federal 'Way and Map 4-2 shows locations of
non-residential permits. The data indicate that the majority of non-
residential development is relatively low-intensity. Prior to 2000, floor area
ratios (square feet of floor area divided by square feet of land area) average
0.13 for all development. New development, however, is going in at
Page 4-6 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
intensities more than twice the city's average; floor area ratios (FARs)
averaged 0.25 for the period 1995-1999 and 0.5 for 2000.
Table 4-4. Total non-residential built space by time period, Federal
Way City Limit
Number
of Tax Acres in Buildable Imp Value
Period Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
Before 1990 614 2,265.9 2,051.2 10,376,174 0.12 589,928,933
1990-1994 56 265.7 245.0 1,732,663 0.16 141,756,500
1995-1999 26 74.6 66.2 725,361 0.25 41,246,700
Total 704 2,634.8 2,388.2 13,282,112 0.13 772,932,133
Not Yet
2000 10 32.5 29.7 652,895 0.50 Assessed
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
Table 4-5 shows total built space by use for non-residential development
within the Federal Way city limits. The data show Federal Way had over 13
million (13,487,093) square feet of built non-residential space in February of
2000. The FAR shows considerable variation by use, with hotel uses having
the highest overall FAR and recreational uses having the lowest. The final
column shows improvement value by use; the total assessed value of non-
residential improvements was nearly $775 million.
Table 4-5. Total non-residential built space by use, Federal Way city
limit, February 2000
Number
of Tax Acres in Buildable Implied Imp Value
Use Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area1 FAR (2000)
Hotels . 15 38.9 34.6 442,300 0.29 14,142,600
Industrial 152 501.8 473.6 3,839,438 0.19 188,136,758
Institutional 75 338.6 284.7 850,224 0.07 63,970,410
Office 160 423.5 354.3 3,286,495 0.21 178,307,685
Recreation 19 407.2 357.4 359,021 0.02 33,970,700
Retail 252 510.3 494.4 4,068,020 0.19 215,681,780
Schools 33 418.3 392.9 641,595 0.04 80,521,000
Total 706 2,638.6 2,392.0 13,487,093 0.13 774,730,933
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
~ Includes built space in non-commercial zones.
The 2000 Improvement Value for Hotels does not include the Marriott or Holiday Inn, since they had not been
assessed at the time of writing.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-7
Map 4-2
2000 Federal Way
Market Study
Commercial Permits, 90-98
by Transportation Analysis
Zones (TAZ)
14
13
190
192
193
t
!1
78
818
Tacoma
138
141
Scale: 1 to 62040
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet
0 1 Mile
Legend:
City of Federal Way
Commercial Permits
Permit, issued BEFORE 1995
Permit, Issued AFTER 1995
Note: Only permits issued after
1990 are displayed. Commercial
permits issued outside Federal Way
are not shown.
206
180
210
213
~lilton
212
216
Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000.
This map is intended for use as a
raphical representation ONLY. The
ity of Federal Way makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
GIS DIVISION
/userslmikesllandlcomperm.aml
Table 4-6 shows total non-residential built space by zoning district, for non-
residential districts, within the Federal Way city limits. The total built space
figure is smaller than in the previous table because this table does not
include built space in residentially-zoned lands. As one would expect, the
density of development as measured by FARs, varies by zones. The average
FAR for all zones was 0.20, but was as high as 0.60 in the OP-2 (Office Park
2) district.
Table 4-6. Total non-residential built space by zoning, Federal Way
city limit, February 2000
Zoning Tax Lots Acres Buildable Acres Built Space FAR
BC 218 278.3 270.8 2,062,731
BN 62 88.8 87.0 629,662
BP 70 116.4 105.8 717,738
CC 39 147.09 146.49 1,496,260
CF 67 164.6 163.3 2,075,125
CP-1 7 362.2 310.8 1,304,299
OP 72 227.6 206.1 3,055,565
OP-1 3 28.5 21.2 402,045
OP-2 2 11.1 5.5 144,000
OP-4 I 40.0 35.7 5,088
PO 21 25.4 23.4 188,450
Total 562 1,490 1376.1 12,080,963
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.23
0.29
0.10
0.34
0.43
0.60
0.00
0.18
0.20
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
Note: Does not include built space in residential zones.
RETAIL
Table 4-7 shows the amount of retail space built by time period in the
Federal Way city limits. The data indicate that the City has just over four
million square feet of retail space. FARs average about 0.19, but were 0.24 for
development between 1995 and 1999.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-9
Table 4-7. Amount of retail space built by time period, Federal Way
City Limit
Number of Acresin Buildable Implied Imp Value
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
No Year 2 10.1 10.0 142,057 0.32 Na
Before 1990 222 389.8 376.5 3,102,025 0.19 155,503,080
1990-1994 15 87.8 85.5 592,632 0.16 42,718,700
1995-1999 13 22.6 22.4 231,306 0.24 17,460,000
Total 252 510.3 494.4 4,068,020 0.19 215,681,780
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
OFFICE
Table 4-8 shows the amount of office space built by time period in the
Federal Way city limits. The data indicate that the City has nearly 3.3
million square feet of office space. FARs average about 0.21, but were 0.36 for
development between 1995 and 1999.
Table 4-8. Amount of office space built by time period, Federal Way
City Limit
Number
of Tax Acres in Buildable Implied Imp Value
Period Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
No Year 3 8.0 5.8 224,000 0.88 Na
Before 1990 140 362.3 307.0 2,434,796 0.18 144,274,785
1990-1994 9 20.3 16.6 235,501 0.33 16,041,700
1995-1999 8 32.9 24.9 392,198 0.36 17,991,200
Total 160 423.5 354.3 3,286,495 0.21 178,307,685
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
INDUSTRIAL
Table 4-9 shows the amount of industrial space built by time period in the
Federal Way city limits. The data indicate that the City has just over 3.8
million square feet of industrial space. FARs average about 0.19, but were
0.26 for development between 1995 and 1999.
Page 4-10 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 4-9. Amount of industrial space built by time period, Federal
Way City Limit
Numberof Acres in Buildable Implied
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR
Imp Value
(2OOO)
No Year 1 3.3 3.3 616 0.00
Before 1990 127 419.8 398.0 3,096,284 0.18
1990-1994 20 71.6 65.1 660,960 0.23
1995-1999 4 7.2 7.3 81,578 0.26
Total 152 501.8 473.6 3,839,438 0.19
38,800
134,500,058
50,742,800
2,855,100
188,136,758
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
OTHER BUILT SPACE
Federal Way classifies several other categories of built space beyond
office, retail, and industrial. The city tracks built space for hotels,
institutional uses, recreational facilities, and schools.
Table 4-10 shows the amount of hotel space built by time period in the
Federal Way city limits. The data indicate that prior to 2000, the City had
just over 237,000 square feet of hotel space with a FAR average of about 0.18.
This table shows that the FAR for hotels has been increasing since 1999.
Table 4-10. Amount of hotel space built by time period, Federal Way
City Limit
Numberof Acres in Buildable Implied ImpValue
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
Before1990 11 31.8 27.5 172,812 0.14 10,317,400
1990-1994 I 0.8 0.8 9,360 0.26 2,065,200
1995-1999 1 2.5 2.5 55,147 0.51 1,760,000
To~l 13 35.1 30.8 237,319 0.18 14,142,600
Not Yet
2000 2 3.79 3.79 204,981 1.24 AsseSsed
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
Table 4-11 shows the amount of institutional space built by time period in
the Federal Way city limits. The data indicate that the City has just over
850,000 square feet of institutional space. A substantial amount (61%) of
institutional built space is on land zoned for residential uses. FARs for
institutional uses are very low compared to others uses averaging about 0.07.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-11
Table 4-11. Amount of institutional space built by time period,
Federal Way City Limit
Number of Acres in Buildable Implied Imp Value
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
No Year 1 4.9 4.3 26,094 0.14 Na
Before 1990 67 294.8 245.8 743,177 0.07 57,479,610
1990-1994 6 27.1 22.9 60,674 0.06 3,550,400
1995-1999 1 11.8 11.7 20,279 0.04 2,940,400
Total 75 338.6 284.7 850,224 0.07 63,970,410
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
Table 4-12 shows the amount of recreational space built by time period in
the Federal Way city limits. The data indicate that the City has nearly
360,000 square feet of recreational space. Like institutional facilities, FARs
for recreational facilities are very low. Recreational FARs average about 0.02,
but are probably combined with outdoor recreational facilities or open space.
Table 4-12. Amount of recreational space built by time period,
Federal Way City Limit
Number of Acres in Buildable Implied Imp Value
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
Before 1990 17 378.0 330.6 288,377 0.02 17,013,900
1990-1994 2 29.2 26.8 70,644 0.06 16,956,800
1995-1999 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00 0
Total 19 407.2 357.4 359,021 0.02 33,970,700
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
Table 4-13 shows the amount of school space built by time period in the
Federal Way city limits. The data indicate that the City has just over 640,000
square feet of school space. FARs average about 0.04, but were 0.09 for
development between 1995 and 1999. This is not surprising; most schools
include a substantial amount of outdoor space for their grounds.
Page 4-12 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 4-13. Amount of school space built by time period, Federal
Way City Limit
Number of Acresin Buildable Implied ImpValue
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
Before 1990 30 389.3 365.6 538,703 0.03 70,840,1 O0
1990-1994 3 29.0 27.3 102,892 0.09 9,680,900
1995-1999 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00 0
Total 33 418.3 392.9 641,595 0.04 80,521,000
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-13
Chapter 5
Demand Analysis and
Growth Allocation
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2 described the official regional growth forecasts for Federal
Way; Chapter 3 described the amount of land available to accommodate that
growth; Chapter 4 described Federal Way's recent development history. We
are now in a position to make a judgment about the amount of growth
(employment and built office and retail space; population and housing units;)
that is likely to occur in Federal Way, and how that growth is likely to be
distributed by location and time period. Our conclusion, which we document
in this chapter, is that the PSRC population forecasts for Federal Way are too
high as "most likely" forecasts for the City limits, however, the PSRC
population forecasts for the TAZ Study Area (TAZs outside of the City) and
the employment forecasts for both the City Limits and TAZ Study Area are
reasonable.
To document this conclusion, this chapter begins with a review of
population and employment forecasts, comparing them with recent
development trends. That review leads to a conclusion about the amount of
population and employment growth--and, thus, development, that the City
should be planning for over the next 20 years. It then describes three future
development scenarios for how that growth might be accommodated. It
concludes with an allocation of that growth to Federal Way transportation
analysis zones (TAZs): ECO's opinion of the most probable development
scenario.
GROWTH FORECAST (CITY-WIDE)
METHODS
A key objective of our work program is an estimation of growth in the
Federal Way City Limits and the Federal TAZ Study Area. For a number of
reasons, we began our analysis in Chapter 2 by using the PSRC regional
population and employment forecasts to develop a forecast for the city limits
and the TAZ Study Area. We started with the PSRC forecast for two reasons:
(1) it is the official coordinated forecast for the Puget Sound Region; and (2) it
is regionally controlled (it sums to OFM county-level forecasts).
Several options exist for evaluating the PSRC forecasts: (1) compare the
PSRC forecasts to historical amounts or growth rates (extrapolation); (2)
compare historical shares (ratios); (3) simulate different rates (simulation); or
(4) create an independent model (econometric modeling).
For any complex social system (a household, a business, a city) the future
is inherently uncertain and forecasts are educated guesses about that future.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-1
The best forecasts are ones that offer compelling reasons for those guesses.
For this project, we have decided that the best way to explain the City's
possible growth futures is to:
Describe the amount and type of development that would have to occur
to accommodate the population and employment forecasted by PSRC,
given the City's estimates of vacant and redevelopable land. Therefore,
the market analysis begins with the PSRC population and employment
that are exogenous to this study. As a starting point, we compare the
PSRC population and employment forecasts to the City's development
capacity estimates. This comparison requires a conversion of forecasted
population and employment into acres and built space. Appendix B
provides a description of the methods used for this analysis.
Evaluate how likely that forecast is, given (a) historical and forecasted
future rates of growth from the region, (b) historical amounts and rates
of growth in Federal Way, (c) the policies and markets of jurisdictions
that compete with Federal Way for regional growth.
PRELIMINARY COMPARISON OF PSRC FORECAST TO FEDERAL WAY
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
The basic assumption of this analysis is that (1) population growth
translates into more households, which create a demand for housing, which
creates a demand for residential land; and (2) employment growth requires
new commercial or industrial space, which creates a demand for commercial
and industrial land. Table 5-1 uses this logic to compare demand based on
PSRC population and employment forecasts, and land capacity from the
City's capacity analysis.
Many assumptions were required to develop demand estimates. ECO
estimates that Federal Way will need about 12,378 dwelling units to house
the 27,397 new people forecast by PSRC between 2000 and 2020. This figure
assumes:
· An average household size of 2.35 persons;~
· A 5% residential vacancy rate; and
· Persons in group quarters will increase by 200 persons.
~ This assumption requires explanation. In the Puget Sound region as a whole, the PSRC estimates that from 2000 to
2020, the average household size will fall from 2.5 to 2.34 persons. For King County, PSRC anticipates an even larger
drop-the average household size is expected to fall from 2.4 to 2.17 persons. The 1990 Census reported that the average
household size was 2.61-a figure higher than both the Puget Sound region and King County. Because of the larger
household size historically in Federal Way, we assume a smaller drop to 2.35 persons, a figure that is comparable to the
regional average.
Page 5-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 5-1 summarizes the results of this preliminary housing needs
analysis and compares the results with the City's capacity estimates. The
table is organized into several sections as follows:
Residential demand provides an estimate of the total number of
dwelling units needed to accommodate the PSRC population forecast
for the Federal Way city limit. The analysis divides population (27,397
persons) by persons per dwelling unit (2.35) to estimate occupied
dwelling units (11,658). The analysis assumes a 5% vacancy rate
adding 624 dwelling units to arrive at a total dwelling unit estimate of
12,272.
City capacity analysis shows the capacity estimates developed by City
Staff. The estimates are broken out by residential and mixed-use
zones.
Residential capacity and population estimates. For residential
uses, ECO converted dwelling unit capacity to population capacity
using an average household size of 2.35 persons (2.80 persons for
single-family, and 2.15 persons for multiple family).2 The results
show a total population capacity of 12,902 persons in residential
zones.
For dwelling units in mixed uses, ECO assumed that 100% of
dwelling units in mixed-use zones would be multiple family. The
dwelling unit capacity (7,329) results in a population capacity of
15,757 persons assuming an average household size of 2.15
persons in multiple family units. The City's capacity analysis
indicates a total residential capacity of 12,168 dwelling units.
Assuming an average household size of 2.35 persons, this results
in a population capacity of 28,594 persons-a figure very close to
the PSRC forecast.
The City's capacity estimates assume a housing mix of 32% single-
family and 68% multiple family;
Employment capacity and built space estimates. The City estimated a
total non-residential built space capacity of about 23.4 million square
feet. The City's estimates assumed that 23% percent of total built non-
residential space capacity would go to residential uses, leaving about
18 million square feet of non-residential built space capacity.
Estimated built space demand. The PSRC estimates Federal Way will
have 8,177 new employees between 2000 and 2020. Applying an
average built space per employee assumption of 350 square feet yields
demand for about 2.86 million square feet of non-residential built
2 A higher average household size assumption would result in a higher population capacity estimate. The average of 2.35
persons assumed by ECO is conservative in that it is a smaller decrease than'forecast by PSRC for King County.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-3
space. Thus, the City has an excess capacity of about 14.6 million
square feet of non-residential built space.
Table 5-1. Preliminary comparison of capacity
and demand, Federal Way city limits, 2000-2020
Variable Value
Residential Demand (PSRC Forecast)
New population, 2000-2020
Average HH size
DU to house new population
Vacancy rate
Total DU needed 2000-2020
City Capacity Analysis
Residential Capacity
Residential zones (DU)
Single-family (DU)
Multiple-family (DU)
Total
Population
Single-family (@ 2.80 persons/DU)
Multiple-family (@2.15 persons/DU)
Total
Mixed-use zones
Implied housing need in mixed-use zones
Dwelling units (multiple-family)
Persons (@ 2.15 persons/DU)
Implied housing mix
Single-family
Multiple-family
Implied ratio of built space in mixed use zones
Employment Capacity
Total Capacity (City estimate)
Residential (multiple-family @ 800 sf/du)
Percent residential
Non-residential
Percent non-residential
Estimated built space demand
PSRC new employment, 2000-2020
Average built space per employee
Needed built space
Surplus built space capacity
27,397
2.35
11,658
5%
12,272
3,844
995
4,839
10,763
2,139
12,902
7,329
15,757
32%
68%
23,413,850
5,946,314
25%
17,467,536
75%
8,177
350
2,861,950
14,605,586
Source: PSRC Forecasts, Federal Way Capacity Estimates, Analysis by ECONorthwest, 2000
Page 5-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Thus, this preliminary analysis indicates that Federal Way has a large
surplus capacity for employment. It also shows that, based on reasonable
assumptions about housing need and capacity of lands zoned for residential
development, the City will need to achieve a housing mix that would be
nearly 70% multiple-family for all units added to existing housing stock. A
thorough answer to whether this mix is achievable requires some additional
evaluation. The following sections answer these questions by evaluating
additional information that is relevant to development in Federal Way.
EVALUATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING DEVELOPMENT IN FEDERAL
WAY
Federal Way is part of the larger, Puget Sound real estate market.
Analysis of regional development trends provides a better understanding of
factors affecting development in Federal Way. Our analysis of regional
development patterns is presented in Appendix B.
HISTORICAL CITY GROWTH
In Chapter 2 we presented population and employment forecasts based on
aggregations of PSRC transportation analysis zones for the Federal Way city
limits and the TAZ Study Area. In this section we evaluate those forecasts
based on population and employment growth and development trends in
Federal Way over the past 10 years.
Table 5-2 shows selected growth indicators for Federal Way between 1990
and 1998. Population and housing grew at about the same rate during this
period. Employment grew at twice the rate of population.
Table 5-2. Growth indicators, Federal Way city limits, 1990-1998
Percent Annual
Indicator 1990 1998 Change Change Increase
Population 67,304 76,820 9,516 14% 1,190
Employment 21,756 27,792 6,036 28% 755
Housing 28,087 31,729 3,642 13% 455
Source: US Census, 1999 King County Annual Growth Report
Figure 5-1 shows historical population for Federal Way between 1990 and
1999 and compares it with the PSRC population projection for the year 2000.
The data show that, based on historical trends, Federal Way is not likely to
achieve the year 2000 population projection that PSRC developed.
Extrapolating historical population to 2000 yields an estimate of 77,961
persons. The PSRC 2000 projection of 81,150 is 3,189 persons higher than the
2000 extrapolation.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-5
Figure 5-1. Historical population, Federal Way city limits, 1990-1999;
PSRC projection, 2000
85000
~ Historic
80000 .......... ' Current F~SRC ·
Projection
70000
65000 4-
60000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Source:Historicalpopulationfrom Washington OfficeofFinancialManagement, and Year2000projectionfrom
PSRC.
The PSRC employment forecasts for Federal Way are consistent with
historical trends. Table 5-3 provides a comparison of PSRC population and
employment forecasts for the Federal Way city limits. It shows that PSRC
expects population to g~row at a rate slightly faster than employment. The
ratio of population to employment is a standard measure of a community's
balance between housing and jobs. At state or regional levels, a typical ratio
is about 2.0. Though a large economy (like a state) does not vary from that
ratio much (young, old, retired, and unemployed people make up about half
the population), sub-regional economies (e.g., a city in a metropolitan area)
are more variable. Federal Way's ratio of close to 3.0 shows that it has
substantially more people compared to jobs than what would be expected
regionally. In other words, on this dimension it fits the definition of what are
referred to as "bedroom communities." (Later sections explain why we think
that pattern will change.)
Page 5-6 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 5-3. Comparison of PSRC population and employment
forecasts, Federal Way city limits, 2000-2020
PoplEmp
Year Population Employment Ratio
1990 67,309 21,756 3.1
2000 81,150 29,055 2.8
2010 93,431 33,867 2.8
2020 108,547 37,232 2.9
Change 2000-2020 27,397 8,177 3.4
Percent Change 2000-2020 34% 28%
Source: 1990 data from 1999 King County Growth Monitoring Report; Forecasts from PSRC
The PSRC population forecast implies that Federal Way will increase
population by about 1,370 persons per year. Applying the PSRC's estimate of
average household size of 2.35 for new households created between 2000 and
2020 yields a dwelling unit need of about 580 dwelling units annually. But
between 1991 and 1998, Federal Way added about 300 permits annually, 52%
of the PSRC forecast. In other words, the PSRC forecasts implies that
Federal Way will increase the number of permits issued by almost 300 per
year, an increase of approximately 50% over its production in the 1990s, and
that it will sustain that increase for 20 years.
CITY LAND CAPACITY
The City's capacity analysis showed limited capacity for land designated
for residential uses. The City estimated that residential lands could
accommodate about 4,839 dwelling units: about 12,902 persons (from Table 5-
1) and 46% of PSRC's forecasted population growth of 27,937. About 80% of
the capacity on residential lands is for single-family dwellings.
The City allows multiple-family development outright in all commercial
zones (mixed-use zones) and some office zones. The implication of high
forecasted growth rates, and a supply of vacant land in mixed-use zones
zoned outright for single- and multiple-family dwellings, is that some
residential development will locate in mixed-use zones. Existing land use
patterns confirm that this is the case; however, only 11% of land in mixed-use
zones is presently in residential uses.
REQUIRED AMOUNT OF MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING
Data from the King County Annual Growth Report indicate that the
housing mix in Federal Way in 1998 was about 53% single-family and 47%
multiple-family. Table 5-1 shows that the City's capacity (by the City's
estimates) for new units is for about 32% single-family and 68% multiple-
family.
The average percent of multiple-family units for incorporated areas of
King County in 1998 was about 44%, a figure relatively close to Federal
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-7
Way's 1998 percentage of multiple-family. Tukwila had the highest
percentage of multiple-family dwelling units at 57%, while Kent had about
55%, and Redmond had about 54%.
It will be a challenge for Federal Way to achieve such a high percentage of
multiple-family units between 2000 and 2020. The market has not
historically developed at that mix. The anticipated multiple family
development must derive from either development in mixed-use zones, or
rezoning and redevelopment of primarily built but underutilized residential
property. ECO's market analysis takes the perspective of a lending
institution: we apply due diligence to our conclusions, which tend to be
conservative. Our evaluation is that, in the absence of substantial public
investment and policy shifts, the City will not meet its goals for residential
development in mixed-use zones. Even with substantial public investment
and policy shifts, the City will be challenged to meet its goals for residential
development in mixed-use zones.
The City does have a vision for a city center, and has adopted policies that
are intended to implement that vision. Moreover, the City is also in the
process of making considerable investments in the downtown area. Historical
trends capture events that happen in the past. After making our preliminary
forecast, ECO reviewed factors that are likely to change in Federal Way
including market conditions, policy conditions, and public investment. We
interviewed the city, and they informed us of foreseeable changes in the
future. Following is a summary of the City's vision.
Federal Way's vision is to create a definable and vibrant City Center and
Urban Center for Southwest King County. Federal Way is one of 21
designated Urban Centers in King County. The King County Countywide
Planning Policies (CWPPs) envision that at build-out, an Urban Center
would contain a minimum of 15,000 jobs within ½ mile of the transit center,
(Federal Way's Transit Center will be located on the southwestern corner of
S. 318th and 23~ Avenue), 50 employees per gross acre, and an average of 15
households per acre. Federal Way's Urban Center is 209 acres in size;
therefore, at build-out the Urban Center criteria calls for 10,450 employees
and 3,135 households (7,367 people at 2.35 units per household).
The Economic Development Executive, a position jointly funded by the
City and the Chamber of Commerce is actively working on attracting
multifamily housing development in conjunction with the Transit Center. In
addition, the City is pursuing an aggressive schedule of infrastructure
investment in the Urban Center. In 1995, the citizens of Federal Way
approved a $7.5 million bond initiative that included a significant amount of
infrastructure improvements in the City Center to accommodate future
growth within the Urban Center. Some of the City's efforts to date include
adoption of new streetscape guidelines related to roadway profiles,
streetlights, sidewalk widths, ~nd street trees in 1998. In addition, in 1999,
South 312th Street between Pacific Highway South and 23~ Avenue South
was widened to five lanes, and new sidewalks, street lighting, and street
trees were added. Furthermore, Summer 2000 will see the widening and
improvement of the Pacific Highway South/South 320th intersection. The
Page 5-8 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
succeeding three-year period through 2003 will see additional construction
such as widening of Pacific Highway South in the City Center area,
construction of the Transit Center and fly-over ramps from I-5, and upgrade
of the Sea Tac mall surface water conveyance system.
The City is also researching the preparation of a Planned Action SEPA for
the City Center, which would allow environmental review to occur in advance
of development, thereby allowing development to proceed more quickly.
While these are all actions that will remove barriers to development, none
provide direct incentives for development. Ultimately, private developers and
landowners make the decision to develop a parcel of land for a particular use,
within the physical and legal constraints of that property. The most
important factors driving this decision are the ability to achieve sustained
rents (or, in the case of condominiums, sales prices) at occupancies, which
justify the costs of land and building construction and the operation expenses
of the facility as well as provide an attractive rate of return given the level of
risk. Federal Way's multi-family rental market is strong, though it lags the
rest of the Puget Sound region in overall rents and occupancy, as shown in
Table 5-4. Here we find that Federal Way is 18th out of 25 in average monthly
rents, has the second highest vacancy rate in the region (albeit not an
abnormally high rate given most national markets for this type of property),
and first in the percentage of projects offering incentives such as free rent,
which reduces overall income (an indication of a softer market). The City
Center is even further challenged in this market in that higher land values
require higher levels of density, which depend on achieving an even higher
rent premium. Currently, the City Center, in our opinion and based on the'
feedback provided by the many representatives we spoke with in the
development community, does not have the demand nor the amenities to
achieve this rent premium. ·
Other cities and locales within the Puget Sound region, situated in somewhat
similar urban settings, have been able to achieve what Federal Way is
seeking in higher density mu)ti-family development in its urban center.
Bellevue, for instance, has exPerienced and is currently experiencing a high
degree high density multi-family housing; yet, what is important to recognize
is that this development has occurred well after Bellevue's establishment as a
major regional retail and employment center. Federal Way has this
potential, to an extent; in our opinion, though, higher density multi-family
development will occur only after the City Center, or immediately adjacent
areas, has attained a critical level of office employment and amenities.
Bothell, as well, has been successful in developing its urban center with
mixed use and multi-family developments; yet, it also has the benefit of both
a more established city core and geographical constraints (such as the
Sammamish River, 1-405, and a series of hills) to facilitate this development.
It also resides in the area of the region that has experienced the most rapid
and sustained employment growth.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-9
Table 5-4. Ranking of average rents, vacancy rates, and percent of
projects with government incentives
Area Avq. Rent Vacancy Rate % Offering Incentives
Kirkland 999 4.3% 5.8%
Issaquah 960 4.5% 17.1%
Bellevue-West 945 2.5% 9.7%
Redmond 883 3.8% 25.4%
Mercer Island 872 2.6% 6.7%
Factoria 858 3.5% 18.4%
Juanita 803 2.8% 15.1%
Woodinville/Totem Lake 756 3.7% 24.9%
Mill Creek 739 4.2% 22.2%
Bellevue-East 734 2.7% 15.3%
Bothell 733 3.5% 15.6%
Mountlake Terrace 695 3.8% 21.6%
W. Seattle 660 2.3% 3.6%
North and Central Seattle 659 2.3% 6.6%
Renton 656 4.2% 25.7%
Lynnwood 647 3.7% 18.2%
Kent 629 4.7% 33.6%
Federal Way 624 (18) 5.1% (2) 35.4% (1)
Edmonds 619 3.0% 10.7%
White Center 614 4.7% 12.3%
Auburn 592 5.1% 27.2%
Des Moines 581 5.2% 29.1%
Riverton/Tukwila 579 3.7% 25.0%
Burien 575 4.5% 14.'7%
Airport 537 4.4% 13.5%
AVERAGE 718 3.8% 18.1%
Source: Dupre and Scott, The Apartment Vacancy Report, Spring 2000, vol. 18., no. 1.
Thus, unless there are factors, which will substantially change the
market conditions for multi-family development, we do not believe that the
City will be able to meet the PSRC 20-year population forecasts.
DIFFICULTIES OF DEVELOPING IN MIXED USE ZONES
All commercial and some office zones in Federal Way allow multiple-
family residential as an outright use. The zoning code requires ground floor'
retail or office uses in mixed-use zones, when fronting rights of ways.
Multiple-family dwellings can occur on upper levels.
Several challenges exist in the market for this type of development.
Multiple-family units in mixed-use zones are different from those in typical
residential zones because it is not a standard product for developers and
lenders. There are only a few successful models in the area to pattern new
projects after, compared to thousands for typical multiple-family products.
Ground floor retail adds complication and expense to development, as do
Page 5-10 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
buildings over three floors? The examples of mixed rise development that
have worked in larger cities are usually subsidized ~ some way, with the
public sector assembling or writing-down land, lending or guaranteeing loans
at below-market rates, abating taxes or development fees, or providing other
amenities.' ~
These perceptions are common in the development community and place
multiple-family dwellings in mixed-use developments at a disadvantage
relative to multiple-family dwellings in residential zones. However, there are
ways of encouraging multiple-family development in the City Center. The
City of Redmond allows multi-family on the first floor, but requires increased
first floor heights. This enables commercial uses to locate there in the future
as the market allows. While flexibility is desirable from the City's standpoint,
the additional expense provides disincentives to developers over standard
garden or mid-rise apartments.
Another recent change, which may encourage residential development in
the City Center, is the recent-passage of legislation, which expands the
multiple-unit dwellings property tax exemption to cities with 50,000 or more
population. This allows the deferment of property taxes on multiple family
development for ten years after construction. While this provides incentives
for multiple family development, it is not unique to Federal Way and thus
may not confer any competitive advantages to developing in Federal Way
versus other locations.
COMPETITIVENESS OF FEDERAL WAY RELATIVE TO OTHER
JURISDICTIONS
Through most of the 1990s, housing demand in Southwest King County
has been soft relative to other areas of the County. In absolute terms,
unincorporated areas like the Sammamish Plateau and the Soos Creek area
absorbed large portions of the County's new single-family development, and
cities like Seattle, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Kent absorbed large numbers of
both new single-family and new multi-family housing.
When we look to the future, however, there is reason to believe that
Southwest King County in general, and Federal Way specifically, will begin
to receive more attention from developers. With housing prices in places like
Seattle and Kirkland rising rapidly due to a combination of strong demand
and diminishing supply, and with the recent incorporation of the Sammamish
Plateau (which was at least partially driven by resident's desire to curtail
development), one would expect Federal Way's supply of relatively
inexpensive land to attract an increasing number of new households in the
coming years, and thus, developers.
3 Buildings over three floors are required to have elevators under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Moreover,
structures over three floors generally require additional structural work.
4 Such subsidies may be justified by important public purposes. However, they add an additional layer of complication
and risk to development.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-11
On the commercial side, Federal Way remains in a position to capitalize
upon the region's sustained demand for office uses. While the area has not
seen the rapid development experienced in other parts of the larger region
(e.g., the Eastside areas of Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond), its location
between Seattle and Tacoma, proximity to Sea-Tac Airport, and cheaper land
prices make it attractive for future office development. New development in
the East Campus Corporate Park, for instance, has seen strong absorption,
and is anticipated to be built out within the next five to ten years.
Preliminary development applications for office and retail projects to the
west of the I-5 corridor also indicate strong interest on the part of the
development community. A total of nearly 900,000 square feet of office space
is either under construction or proposed for delivery through 2010.
While land on the east side of I-5 in the East Campus area is experiencing
the most office demand and development activity currently, the area around
the City Center (core and frame) should see office development over the study
period of this forecast. In effect, this area holds the seeds of an "Edge City,"
anchored by a retail center with direct access to the I-5 corridor. Office
development of this area requires rents that can sustain both higher
densities as well as the costs of re-developing largely retail uses. As the East
Campus development is absorbed, demand and potential rents in the City
Center will increase such that office development will become viable.
Other areas west of I-5 that will be recipients of new office demand,
though at a less robust pace than the areas near and east of I-5, include the
West Campus area as well as areas on the southern .sections of Pacific
Highway, zoned Business Park.
Federal Way is positioned as a residential community with excellent
access to Tacoma, the Kent Valley industries, and Southcenter area in
Tukwila, and even downtown Seattle (with expansion of express transit
service). The City has lower than average jobs per capita located in the city
(0.36 jobs per capita in Federal Way, versus 0.56 regional average), giving the
city the reputation of largely a bedroom community. Federal Way residents
are well served by local retail destinations; retail jobs account for one-third of
the jobs located in the City--twice the regional average. Portions of Federal
Way are known for relatively high incomes, particularly in neighborhoods
along Puget Sound. In addition, on a county-wide basis, Federal Way is an
affordable community.
INCENTIVES/POLICIES
Federal Way's growth-related policies are consistent with communities
nearby that, in essence, compete for growth. Cities in Pierce County and
Southwest King County generally have few impediments to growth that are
unique to their community. Federal Way's impact fees are primarily tied to
schools. Impacts associated with traffic and drainage are identified through
the SEPA process. Additionally, the dedication of parkland or payment of a
fee in lieu of dedication is one of the requirements for subdivision approval.
Commercial incentives are virtually non-existent.
Page 5-12 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
The City of Kent enforces GMA impact fees for school funds only. Like
Federal Way, new subdivisions are subject to setting aside an agreed upon
percentage of land for parks, or a fee paid to the Parks Department in lieu of
the land set aside. SEPA related mitigation might lead to fees for new or
related road projects. Commercial related incentives do not exist, consistent
with State laws prohibiting property tax incentives. Kent does, however,
qualify to include property tax incentives for multifamily development in the
Urban Center, as do all cities with population greater than 70,000. Federal
Way is also eligible for the property tax incentives for multiple family
housing development.
The City of Burien, while much smaller than Kent and Federal Way, is
representative of the smaller cities in Southwest King County competing for
growth. The City of Burien has a parks impact fee for new subdivision,
similar to Kent's and Federal Way's, which is paid in lieu of land set aside for
parks within the subdivision. No other impact fees exist in Burien.
In sum, our brief review found no compelling evidence that Federal Way's
plan and implementing policies give it either strong advantages or strong
disadvantages for development relative to the other cities of south King
County and north Pierce County that serve roughly the same market.'
PSRC FORECAST METHODS
PSRC's forecasts are accepted throughout the region as the sub-area
forecasts necessary for regional travel demand modeling and as general
forecasts of where jurisdictions' comprehensive plans would guide growth
within the four-county region. It is important for local planning efforts--
particularly transportation planning--to remain consistent with the PSRC's
forecasts. General consistency with regional models provides a regional
context for local planning efforts and forecasts.
But a more meaningful application of PSRC's forecasts should include
various reality checks and adjustments at the jurisdiction level. The
adjustments should reflect and account for the deeper understanding of local
market conditions and land use policies (as described in this report) than the
regional modeling process can capture. For example, PSRC~s own methods
would have probably led to lower residential forecasts if it had used the Citfs
current buildable land analysis in its modeling.
PSRC's modeling process has two important features: (1) population,
employment, and household forecasts that are fully integrated with the
regional transportation model; (2) an extensive region-wide review and
adoption process by local planners and elected officials. Our adjustments
need to reflect a complete understanding of the value and the impact of these
features. We need to adjust the PSRC forecasts in such a way as to bend but
not break the connectivity to the regional travel demand models that are
~ We have already discussed the exception: the fact that most of the multiple-family residential capacity must meet all
the requirements of Federal Wars various mixed-use zones.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-13
used for MTP 2001 Update and for allocation of federal transportation funds
(T.I.P:). Our adjustments also need to understand the amount of locally
specific information that the PSRC forecasts include, and how that
information may have changed since the PSRC forecasts were developed
Detailed local expertise i~ difficult to capture in regional modeling. Our
adjustment of the PSRC's forecast need to reflect an understanding of the
modeling process, local land use policies, and real-world market conditions.
Such a refinement may allow improvements to the regional forecasting
process, and will produce a more customized set of forecasts to aid decision-
making in Federal Way.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF MARKET CONDITIONS
The availability of inexpensive land in Federal Way may spur
development in coming years, however, the strength of this effect is largely
limited by Federal Way's supply of residential land. As the City's supply of
vacant or redevelopable land gets drawn down farther, any competitive
advantage afforded by that supply begins to also disappear.
On the whole, residential demand in South King County has been weaker
than other areas of the Puget Sound Region. While higher housing prices and
strained capacity in other parts of the region may lead to some increase in
residential growth pressures in Federal Way, we do not see these pressures
to be of the magnitude necessary to meet the population projections identified
by the PSRC. On the commercial side, however, Federal Way will continue to
experience office, retail, and industrial employment growth at a rate slightly
below that of the region as a whole. The employment forecasts of the PSRC
are consistent with this assessment and reflective of longer-term future
market conditions. These conclusions lead us to adjust the PSRC population
growth forecast for Federal Way in the next section.
REVISED FORECASTS OF GROVVTH IN FEDERAL WAY, 2000-2020
The key objective of our assessment of regional market conditions in the
previous section was to evaluate the PSRC population and employment
forecasts. Our review of regional and local commercial and industrial
development trends suggest that the PSRC employment forecast is
reasonable.
Our evaluation of residential supply and demand forecasts, however,
suggests a mismatch between residential demand forecasted by PSRC and
the capacity of residential land in residentially zoned districts to
accommodate new housing units. However, the remainder of Federal Way's
residential capacity is located within the mixed-use zones and the City
assumes that the mixed-use zones will absorb the additional housing
demand. Absorbing that capacity requires aggressive assUmptions about both
housing mix and the amount of residential development that will occur in
mixed-use zones. While we may underestimate the market's response to City
investment and policies, we do not believe that Federal Way will achieve a
Page 5-14 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
housing mix that is more than two-thirds multiple family in the next 20
years.6 Our conclusion is that it is unlikely that the PSRC population forecast
will be achieved if the vacant land in the City retains its current zoning.
That conclusion is, of course, rebuttable. The City could argue that as
land supply gets tight, developers will increasingly develop in mixed-use
zones at densities that are comparable to the City's capacity assumptions,
and the PSRC population growth forecasted for inside the Federal Way City
limits may be accommodated.
If the City accepts our analysis, but still wishes to try to accommodate the
population growth forecasted by PSRC, we see at least two options for public
policies:
1. Adopt, and plan for, lower estimates of population growth.
Rezone land to add more residential capacity, or otherwise
facilitate residential development (e.g., changes to development
regulations).
If the PSRC population increase of 27,397 between 2000 and 2020 is
unjustifiably high given Past development trends and residential capacity in
Federal Way, what is a more reasonable estimate? We answer that question
by evaluating the kind of housing absorption that would have to occur to
accommodate different increases in population.
Table 5-5 shows the impact on housing mix of various population forecast
scenarios. The table is intended to show:
The total number of dwelling units needed for different population
assumptions, and the number of dwelling units needed annually;
2. How many dWelling units need to be built in mixed-use zones; and
3. The mix of housing units by types.
The PSRC forecast implies more than 600 dwelling units will need to be
added annually between 2000 and 2020. Federal Way averaged about 406
new dwelling units annually for the years 1990 through 1999 (See Table 4-2).
Thus, the PSRC forecasi assumes that the growth rate will increase by 50%
over recent trends. Moreover, the PSRC forecast implies that nearly 70% of.
new housing units buil~ between 2000 and 2020 will be multiple family units.
ECO could find no historical precedent in the Puget Sound region for this
housing mix.
ECO's evaluation of residential growth (and thus, population growth) in
Federal Way is that market factors do not suggest a substantial shift in the
While it is theoretically possible, historical analysis indicates that no communities in the region have achieved that mix
of housing.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-15
rate of residential development from the past ten years. If anything, recent
economic factors (interest rate increases, energy price increases) will serve to
stabilize or decrease the rate of residential development, at least in the next
few years.
Our revised population forecasts rely on a housing unit method. The
general basis of this forecast method is that population increases occur
subsequent to housing development. We present two possible forecasts: a low
forecast based on historical trends, and a mid-range forecast that falls
between the conservative forecast and the PSRC forecast.
A population forecast of 20,000 new persons over the 20-year period
results in a total population change of about 25%; a 1.1% annual growth rate,
a rate we would classify as moderate. Even so, it results in an annual
dwelling unit need and housing mix that may be weighted a little too heavily
toward multi-family units, but which is consistent with development trends
over the past 10-years.
A mid-range population estimate of 23,500 results in a housing mix of
37% single-family and 63% multiple-family. This forecast is roughly between
the low forecast and the PSRC forecast and is presented as a third scenario.
Under the mid-range population scenario, about 25% of capacity in mixed-use
zones would be in residential use (based on the City's capacity estimates).
Reducing population to 20,000 persons yields a housing mix of 43% single-
family and 57% percent multiple-family; about 18% of the mixed-use capacity
would be for residential uses (based on City estimates).
Based on our evaluation of local and regional market trends, ECO
believes the low forecast of 20,000 new persons between 2000 and 2020 is the
most likely scenario.
Page 5-16 ECONorthwest July 2000 ~DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 5-5. Impact on housing mix of alternative population forecasts,
Federal Way city limits, 2000-2020
Measure' PSRC Medium Low
Forecast
New population, 2000-20201 27,397 23,500 20,000
Total DU needed 2000-20201 12,272 10,526 8,959
New DU annually 614 526 448
Residential Zones
Total DU capacity in residential zones 4,839 4,839 4,839
Total population capacity in residential zones2 12,902 12,902 12,902
Mixed-use zones
Implied DU in mixed use zones (MF) 7,433 5,687 4,120
Implied persons in mixed use zones 14,495 10,598 7,098
Implied housing mix
Single-family3 31% 37% 43%
Multiple-family 69% 63% 57%
Source: Analysis by ECONorthwest, 2000
Assumes 2.35 persons per household and 5% vacancy rate
From Table 5-1
Based on the City's single family capacity estimate of 3,844 dwelling units
CONVERSION OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TO DWELLING UNITS
AND BUILT SPACE
The results of this section are largely derived from running the
development simulator that outputs dwelling unit and built space demand,
by type, for the city limits and for the TAZ study area outside the city limits.
We begin the analysis with population and employment forecasts. Table
5-6 summarizes the population and employment forecasts for Federal Way
and the TAZ study area outside the city limits for the period between 2000
and 2020. All of the forecasts are derived from the PSRC regional forecasts
with the exception of the population forecast for the Federal Way city limits
(see the previous section for a discussion of the revised city limit population
forecast).
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-17
Table 5-6. Summary of revised population and employment forecasts
for Federal Way city limit, TAZ study area, and combined city limits
and study area, 2000-2020
Population Employment
Year City TAZ Market City TAZ Market
limits study Analysis limits study Analysis
area Study area Study
Area Area
2000 81,150 28,247 109,397
2010 93,431 29,924 123,355
2020 101,150 31,579 132,729
Change 2000-2020 20,000 3,332 23,332
Percent Change 25% 12% 21%
2000-2020
AAG R 2000-2020 1.11% 0.56% 0.97%
29,055 2,291 31,346
33,867 2,466 36,333
37,232 2,839 40,071
8,177 548 8,725
28% 24% 28%
1.25% 1.08% 1.24%
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts by TAZ and Annual Population Estimates by
Census Tract for 1990 through 1999; revised city limit population forecast by ECONorthwest.
Residential development
Table 5-7 converts population into new housing unit demand for the
period 2000-2020 by area. The analysis assumes a slight increase in persons
in group quarters; an average occupied household size of 2.35 persons, and a
5% vacancy rate. The results show demand for about 8,869 new dwelling
units in the city limits, 1,470 in the TAZ study area outside the city limits,
and 10,339 for both areas combined.
Table 5-7. Estimated housing demand, 2000-2020
Housing Need, New DU, 2000-2020
TAZ study
Federal Way area (outside
city limits city limits)
Market
Analysis
Study Area)
Change in persons (2000-2020)
-Change in persons in group quarters
=Persons in households
+Persons per occupied DU
=Occupied dwelling units
/ (1-vacancy rate)
=TOTAL NEW DU
20,000 3,332 23,332
200 50 250
19,800 3,282 23,082
2.35 2.35 2.35
8,426 1,397 9,822
95% 95% 95%
8,869 1,470 10,339
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
An important component of the simulation is an estimate of new dwelling
units by type and tenure. The City's capacity database provides reliable data
on the distribution of units by type. The best data that are available on
tenure, however, are from the 1990 Census.
Page 5-18 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
In 1990, about 57% of occupied dwelling units in Federal Way were
owner-occupied. A review of Census data on unit type and tenure shows that
the majority (92%) of single-family dwellings (detached and mobile homes)
are owner-occupied. The Census data suggests a strong correlation between
housing type and tenure. Given the land base in Federal Way and recent
development trends that suggest a higher percentage of multiple family
housing, it is unlikely that the percentage of homeowners will increase; in
fact, it is more likely that it will decrease.
Table 5-8 shows estimated new dwelling units by type and lot size. The
simulation results in a mix of new dwelling units that is 45% single-family
and 55% multiple family. The number of single-family housing units the
simulation shows (3,991) will be needed within the city limits is slightly
higher than the City's capacity estimate (about 3,845 dwelling units), but
within what we consider a reasonable margin of error.
Table 5-8. Estimated new dwelling units by type and lot size, 2000-
2020
Market
An .alysis
Federal Stu(ty Area Percent of
Way City TAZ Study (city limits + new DU
Type Limits Area study area) 2000-2020
Single-family by lot size
<5000 559 93 651 6%
5000-9999 2,634 437 3,071 30%'
10000-19999 639 106 744 7%
20,000+ 160 26 186 2%
Total Single Family 3,991 662 4,653 45%
Multiple family -
Duplex 239 40 279 3%
Row/Town House 160 26 186 2%
Garden Apt 3,681 610 4,291 42%
Mid-Rise 798 132 931 9%
Total Multiple Family 4,878 809 5,686 55%
Total 8,869 1,470 10,339 100%
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
Commercial and industrial development
We developed a spreadsheet to simulate demand for new commercial and
industrial built space. The estimates of demand for built space use the PSRC
sector-level employment forecasts as their basis. The simulation makes
several dedUctions from the base employment forecast before applying an
assumption about square feet per employee to estimate built space.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-19
Table 5-9 summarizes the assumptions applied in the sector-level
simulation. The first assumption is the percentage of employment for each
sector; the percentages reflect the PSRC allocation of employment in Federal
Way by sector. The next two columns (% of employment that requires no non-
residential built space, and the percent of employment that will locate on
existing developed land) are deductions from employment that requires new
built space: in other words, some of the forecasted employment will be
accommodated in space that does not need vacant commercial or industrial
land. The vacancy rate increases the amount of new built space needed.
Finally, the square feet per employee factor converts employment into built
space.
Table 5-9. Assumptionsforestimating built space demand, 2000-
2020
Sector
% of total '
emp that
requires Percent of
Percent of no non-res emp on
new emp built existing
(2000- space developed
2020) /land land
Adjust for Sq. ft.
vacancy floor
rate area/emp
Retail 15% 1% 5% 7% 700
FIRES 70% 2% 10% 7% 350
Manufacturing 3% 1% 10% 5% 650
WTCU 5% 1% 10% 5% 600
Education 5% 0% 15% 0% 400
Government 2% 0% 15% 0% 400
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
Note: the assumptions used by ECO are slightly different than those used in the City's capacity analysis.
Table 5-10 shows estimates for built space by employment sector for the
period between 2000 and 2020. The estimated demand is for nearly 2.8
million square feet of new built space within the Federal Way city limits, and
nearly 3.0 million square feet in the combined city limits and TAZ study area.
Because the finance, insurance, real estate, and services (FIRES) sector
accounts for 70% of new employment, this sector has the greatest demand for
built space.
Page 5-20 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 5-10. Estimated demand for new built space by employment
sector, 2000-2020
City limits TAZ study Area Total (Market Analysis
Study Area)
Employees Built Employees Built Employees Built
Sector Space (sf) Space (sf) Space (sf)
Retail 1,227 761,279 82 51,019 1,309 812,298
FIRES 5,732 1,754,089 384 117,554 6,116 1,871,643
Manufacturing 270 110,022 18 7,373 288 117,395
WTC U 368 154,545 25 10,357 393 164,903
Education 401 t 36,229 27 9,130 428 145,359
Government 180 61,164 12 4,099 192 65,263
Total 8,177. 2,779,935 548 186,304 8,725 2,966,238
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
EVALUATION OF LAND SUPPLY AND DEMAND BY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT7
One key objective of this study is to help the City review applications for
comprehensive plan designation and zone changes, particularly in mixed-use
zones. ECO reviewed historical development data to assess development
trends by comprehensive plan designation and zoning. We then correlated
types of employment with expected locations to develop an estimate of how.
much land is needed for each comprehensive plan and zoning district
between 2000 and 2020.
The key question posed by City staff is: does the City have enough land
designated in different districts to accommodate demand? This question
requires additional discussion and clarification. This question suggests
several corollaries:
· Does the City have enough land zoned for different uses in the right
locations?
· Is that land serviced, or serviceable?
· Are there a variety of parcel sizes available to accommodate different
uses?
· Can reasonable access be provided?
Thus, a simple comparison of employment forecasts and land capacity by
zone misses some key points. Nevertheless, the City can still have
~ For the purpose of this analysis we use zoning from the City's capacity database. We assume that zoning and plan
designations are generally consistent.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-21
considerable influence over the availability of land for different uses through
the rezoning process. Rezoning land, however, should be carefully considered
in the broader context of impacts to transportation facilities, public services,
and the broader vision the City has for urban form.
The answer to this question also depends on what assumptions are
applied to the City's capacity estimates and how employment is likely to
disperse itself in various zones. Using the City's capacity assumptions and
estimates results in a surplus of land under any reasonable employment
allocation. Table 5-11 shows the City's capacity estimates for mixed-use
zones. The City's assumptions show a capacity for nearly 50,000 additional
employees in Federal Way.
Table 5-11. Built-space and employment capacity in mixed-use zones in the
Federal Way city limit, City of Federal Way estimates
Zoning
Vacant Total Retail Retail Office Office Industrial Ind Emp
Land Capacity Capacity Emp Capacity Emp Cap Capacity Cap
Capacity (~250 SF) (@800
(~500 SF)
SF)
Total
Emp
Capacity
BC 4,464,276 3,123,713 3,123,713 6,247
BN 1,166,926 628,803 628,803 1,258
BP 5,759,269 3,947,675 3,947,675 4,935
CC 355,045 2,118,233 1,588,675 3,177 529,558 2,118
CF 325,575 612,587 459,440 919 153,147 613
CP-1 4,081,827 640,756 640,756 2,563
OP 3,472,513 3,158,995 3,158,995 12,636
OP-1 3,588,298 3,156,967 3,156,967 12,628
OP-2 0 0 0 0
OP-3 241,977 212,890 212,890 852
OP-4 216,413 126,933 126,933 508
PO 499,622 317,597 317,597 1,270
Total 24,171,741 18,045,147 5,800,630 11,601 8,296,842 33,187 3,947,675 4,935
6,247
1,258
4,935
5,296
1,531
2,563
12,636
12,628
0
852
508
1,270
49,723
Source: City of Federal Way, March 2000
Table 5-12 shows a comparison of City and ECO capacity estimates to
forecast employment. The employment allocation by zone is based on the
amount of built space in various zones by type of employment. Under both
scenarios, the City has enough capacity to accommodate the 20-year
employment forecast. Several districts, however, achieve more than 50%
buildout: BN, CF, CP-1, and PO. The City should pay close attention to zone
change requests in the BN district: this district provides the majority of the
City's land base for neighborhood business uses. The City should also pay
close attention to development in the CF zone: this is the City Center Frame
district and is crucial for achieving the City's vision.
Page 5-22 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 5-12. Comparison of City and ECO capacity estimates to
employment forecast
Absorption
Zoning City Emp ECO Emp 2000-2020 City ECO
Capacity Capacity Emp
Allocation
BC 6,247 3,124 1,495 24% 48%
BN 1,258 629 471 37% 75%
BP 4,935 3,948 526 11% 13%
CC 5,296 4,539 1,008 19% 22%
CF 1,531 1,313 1,069 70% 81%
CP-1 2,563 1,098 653 25% 59%
OP 12,636 5,415 2,453 19% 45%
OP-1 12,628 5,412 314 2% 6%
OP-2 0 0 0 Na Na
OP-3 852 213 0 0% 0%
OP-4 508 127 4 1% 3%
PO 1,270 272 139 11% 51%
Total 49,723 26,090 8,177 16% 31%
Source: City of Federal Way, March 2000
GROWTH ALLOCATION (TAZS)
The previous section converted new population and employment into
demand for new dwelling units and built space. This section summarizes the
methods we used to allocate that growth to the 216 transportation analysis
zones (TAZs) within the Federal Way TAZ study area.
We began this analysis by reviewing the assumptions underlying the
City's capacity analysis. Chapter 3 concluded that the City's methodology
represents capacities that are closer to the theoretical allowable capacity
than to what recent development trends suggest the market will build to.
Based on our review of development trends (see Chapter 4), we made
adjustments to the Citfs capacity floor area ratio (FAR) assumptions that
are the basis for the City's estimates for mixed-use zones.
Table 5-13 compares the City's initial FAR assumptions with the revised
assumptions applied by ECO to develop capacity estimates that better
represent recent development trends and allocate that capacity to TAZs. The
assumptions applied by ECO are lower than the implied FAR assumptions
used by the City (building footprint*number of floors). They are, however,
higher than observed FARs. Our analysis assumes a tightening land supply
and City policies that will result in higher observed FARs over the next 20
years.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-23
Table 5-13. Comparison of observed and assumed FAR
Observed
Observed FAR,
Implied ECO FAR, All Development
Zoning FAR Assumption Development since 1995
Observed
Density of
Recent
Projects
BC 2.35 0.35 0.17 0.35 0.10
BN 2.35 0.35 0.17 0.11
BP 2.35 0.35 0.16 0.24
CC 7.60 0.75 0.21 0.47 0.26
CF 4.50 0.75 0.29 0.51
CP-1 3.35 0.60 0.10
OP 3.35 0.60 0.34 0.45 0.55
OP-1 3.35 0.60 0.43 0.35
OP-2 3.35 0.60 0.60 0.38
OP-3 3.35 0.35 Na 0.38
OP-4 2.35 0.35 0.00
PO 2.35 0.30 O. 18
Source: Federal Way Capacity Analysis, ECONorthwest, 2000
ECO's allocation of growth to TAZs is based on our evaluation of land
capacity, development trends, and feedback from the development
community during a focus group session. To make the task of allocating
growth to 216 TAZs more manageable, we grouped TAZs into 20 sub-areas'
inside the city limits, and one sub-area outside the city limits. Each sub-area
was assigned a development priority (1-high, 2-medium, and 3-1ow) for
residential, office, and retail development. The development priority reflects
a number of market factors: availability of land, access, services, desirability
for specific types of development, and other factors discussed during the focus
group session.
The final step in the analysis is to allocate development in five-year
increments. To accomplish this, we developed a matrix that began with 100%
of development and allocated specific percentages to each five-year
increment. Sub-areas identified as high priority for development are
generally weighted so that development is allocated earlier in the 20-year
period. Sub-areas with low priority are weighted for development later in the
20-year period. Finally, development in sub-areas is allocated for each five-'
year period.
Tables 5-14, and Maps 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 show the allocation results by
subarea. The table summarizes population and employment, dwelling units
by type, and built space by broad employment sector.
Page 5-24 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 5-14. Allocation summary by subarea
Subarea New Pop New Emp
N - North 3,536 322
N C 1,299 140
EL - Easter Lake 707 535
ML - (Central) Mirror Lake 271 15
L - Lakota 359 56
NW- Northwest 66 20
SL - Steel Lake 312 118
CC - City Center 1,245 1,199
ECN - East Campus North 2,038 764
NW- (Part) Twin Lakes 188 136
WCN - West Campus, North 533 31
KC - Kitts Corner 1,448 1,531
WC - West Campus 362 728
NW- Northwest (Except Twin Lakes) 404 23
ECS- East Campus South ' 615 370
KCS - Kitts Corner 1,048 731
SW - SouthWest 2,886 362
C348 - 348th Corridor 563 673
HW - Hylebos Wetlands 249 81
SR 18 @ I-5 443 258
SC - South Central 759 43
S - South 714 40
EP - Enchanted Park 0 0
Total City Limits 20,045 8,176
Outside City Limits
TAZ Study Area 3,326 562
Total All Areas 23,371 8,738
Dwelling Units
SF MF TotalDU
1,157 408 1,565
523 52 575
114 199 313
120 0 120
136 23 159
0 29 29
75 63 138
0 551 551
0 902 902
0 83 83
16 220 236
0 641 641
0 160 160
179 0 17(.
192 80 27;
0 464 46z
859 418 1,277
0 249 249
0 110 110
6 190 196
324 12 336
287 29 316
0 0 0
3,988 4,883 8,871
664 808 1,472
4,652 5,691 10,343
Built Space
Office Retail Other Total
41,282 0 10,321 51,603
22,718 0 5,680 28,398
167,228 0 41,807 209,035
0 0 0 0
11,923 0 2,981 14,904
5,437 0 1,359 6,796
34,005 0 8,501 42,506
381,669 0 95,417 477,087
219,408 0 64,852 274,259
0 53,053 0 53,053
343 125 86 553
452,039 47,459 113,010 612,508
106,633 165,822 26,658 299,113
0 0 0 0
113,500 0 28,375 141,874
0 283,946 0 283,946
0 64,359 0 64,359
216,655 0 54,164 270,819
0 28,229 0 28,229
0 98,286 0 98,286
0 0 0 0'
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1,772,839 761,279 443,210 2,977,327
118,811 51,019 29,703 199,532
1,891,650 812,298 472,912 3,176,860
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
Note: Office uses include all employment in FIRES and Government, and 50% of employment in WTCU (see Table 5-10).
Table 5-15 shows allocation of population and employment by subarea
and by five-year increment.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-25
Map 5-1
2000 Federal Way
Market Study
Population
Allocation
By TAZ, 2000-2020
Fed~ai
F
acoma
/E
C
Scale: 1 to 62040
1 inch equals 5170 Feet
0 1 Mile
Legend:
Population
increase
O-45
46-143
144-288
289-572
Morethan573
Area
Key
A- North
8- NC
C - EL (Easter Lake)
D - ML (Central Mirror Lake)
E - Lakota
F- NW
G - SL (Steel Lake)
H- CC (City Center)
I- ECN (East Campus, North)
J- NW Part (Twin Lakes)
K- WON (West Campus North)
Milton
L- KC (Kitts Comer)
M- WC (West Campus)
N - NW Part (except Twin Lakes)
0 - ECS (East Campus South)
P- KCS (Kit'ts Corner)
Q- SW
R - C348 (348th Corridor)
S - HW (Hylebos WeMands)
T-SR18@1-5
U - SC (South Central)
V- S - South
W- EP (Enchanted Park)
i
Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S.
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000
This map is intended for use as a
graphical representaMon ONLY. The
C~ of Federal Way makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
GI$ DIVISION
/userslmikes/landlpop.arnl
Map 5-2
2000 Federal Way
Market Study
Employment
Allocation
By TAZ, 2000-2020
B
Federal
F
C
: I
Milton
Scale: 1 to 82040
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet
0 1 Mile
Legend:
Employment
Increase
0-19
20 - 61
62 - 129
~ 130 - 256
~ More than 257
Area
A- North
B-NC
C - EL (Easter Lake)
D - ML (Central Mirror Lake)
E - Lakota
F- NW
G - SL (Steel Lake)
H - CC (City Center)
I - ECN (East Campus, North)
J- NW Part (Twin Lakes)
K - WCN (West Campus North)
L- KC (Kitts Comer)
M- WC (West Campus)
N- NW Part (except Twin Lakes)
0 - ECS (East Campus South)
P- KCS (Kit'ts Corner)
Q- SW
R - C348 (348th Corridor)
S - HW (Hylebos Wetlands)
T-SR18~1-5
U - SC (South Central)
V - S - South
W- EP (Enchanted Park)
Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000
This map is intended for use as a
raphical representation ONLY. The
ity of Federal Way makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
GIS DIVISION
luserslmikesllandlemD.aml
Map 5-3
2000 Federal Way
Market Study
Dwelling Unit
Allocation
By TAZ, 2000-2020
B
J
Fedellal
C
Tacoma
Milton
\
Scale: 1 to 62040
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet
0 1 Mile
Legend:
Owelling Unit
increase
O-29
30 - 75
76-127
128-275
Morethan 275
Area
Key
A- North
B-NC
C - EL (Easter Lake)
D - ML (Central Mirror Lake)
E - Lakota
F- NW
G - SL (Steel Lake)
H - CC (City Center)
l - ECN (East Campus, North)
J- NW Part (Twin Lakes)
K- WCN (West Campus North)
L- KC (Kitts Corner)
M- WC (West Campus)
N - NW Part (except Twin Lakes)
0 - ECS (East Campus South)
P - KCS (Kitts Comer)
Q- SW
R - C348 (348th Corridor)
S- HW (Hylabos WetJands)
T-SR18~l-5
U - SC (South Central)
V - S - South
W- EP (Enchanted Park)
Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000
This map is intended for use as a
graphical representation ONLY The
City of Federal Way makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
GIS DIVISION
luserslmikesllandldu.aml
Table 5-15. Growth allocation by subarea and time period
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
Subarea Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
N - North 707 64 707 64 1,061 96 1,061 96 3,536 32~
NC 260 7! 260 14 390 49 390 70 1,299
EL - Easter Lake 141 27 141 53 212 187 212 267 707 535
ML - (Central) Mirror Lake 54 2 54 2 81 5 81 7 271 15
L - Lakota 108 6 108 6 1 08 19 36 25 359 58
NW - Northwest 13 2 13 2 16 6 23 10 66 2(3
S L - Steel Lake 62 12 62 12 78 35 109 59 312 118
CC - City Center 374 24(3 374 240 249 360 249 360 1,245 1,19(J
ECN - East Campus North 611 76 611 267 408 267 408 153 2,038 764
NW - (Part) Twin Lakes 38 54 38 48 47 34 66 0 188 136
WCN - West Campus, North 267 6 160 11 53 11 53 6 533 35
KC - Kitts Corner 290 383 290 383 362 383 507 383 1,448 1,531
WC - West Campus 72 73 72 182 108 255 108 218 362 728
NW - Northwest (Except Twin Lakes) 121 6 121 8 81 5 81 5 404 23
ECS - East Campus South 307 37 184 37 61 111 61 185 615 370
KCS - Kitts Corner 315 292 315 256 210 183 210 (~ 1,048 731
SW - SouthWest 577 91 577 109 866 109 866 54 2,886 362
C348 - 348th Corridor 225 67 169 67 113 202 56 336 563 673
HW - Hylebos Wetlands 50 28 50 24 50 16 99 12 249 81
SR 18 @ I-5 177 52 133 52 89 77 44 77 443 256
SC - South Central 304 9 228 9 152 13 76 13 759 43
S - South 143 4 179 4 179 12 214 20 714 40
EP - Enchanted Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3 0 0
Total City Limits 5,216 1,537 4,846 1,849 4,973 2,436 5,011 2,356 20,045 8,179
Outside City Limits
TAZ Study Area 830 141 830 141 830 141 830 141 3,322 562
Total All Areas 6,046 1,677 5,676 1,989 5,803 2,577 5,841 2,498 23,367 8,741
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
Note: Years may not add to total for sub-areas due to rounding.
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
The City of Federal Way Market Analysis updates the previous market
analysis prepared for the 1995 City of Federa! Way Comprehensive Plan. The
purposes of the Market Analysis were to determine how fast and with what
type of development different areas of the City will grow. Specifically, it
described:
· The kind of growth to be anticipated in the next 20 years (2000 -
2020), broken down in five-year increments.
· The areas, by City Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) and City
zoning district that will receive this growth by 2020.
· Future land and redevelopment space needs.
Page 5-26 ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
ECO reviewed both demand for land in Federal Way and the supply of
land. ECO's key conclusions are:
The PSRC population forecast for the Federal Way city limit between
2000 and 2020 (27,397) probably overestimates the amount of
population growth. Historical development trends in Federal Way,
land supply, and regional factors all point to a lower rate of growth
than forecast by PSRC.8
The housing mix implied by the City's capacity estimates (nearly 70%
multiple family) does not reflect current market trends in the region
or Federal Way. Moreover, our analysis of demographics, comparable
communities, and City policies, provided no evidence that this mix
could realistically be achieved. The market analysis assumes a
housing mix of 55% multiple family. This figure is slightly higher than
recent development trends in Federal Way.
The majority of the City's residential capacity is in mixed-use zones.
Our evaluation of recent development trends showed that (1)
residential development has not occurred at the densities assumed in
the City's capacity estimates, and (2) the mix of residential to
employment in mixed-use zones is below the assumptions in the City's
capacity estimates.
The City may have too much land designated for mixed-use
development. The risk this poses is that development is dispersed and
the City fails to meet its City Center objectives.
Our evaluation of residential capacity is that the City should consider
either (1) zoning more land for strictly residential use (primarily
multiple family), or (2) relax regulations in some mixed use zones or in
selected areas to allow horizontal mixed use (i.e., not requiring ground
floor retail or office use).
The PSRC employment forecast of 8,177 is consistent with recent
market trends. PSRC forecasts that 70% of new employment will be in
the finance, insurance, and real estate sector. Our evaluation is that
under any set of assumptions, Federal Way has enough land zoned for
employment to accommodate this forecast.
Recent commercial and office development has occurred at densities -
that are far below those applied in developing the City's capacity
estimates. This is not to imply that the City cannot meet the densities
assumed in its capacity assumptions, but to point out that the City
will need to make a concerted effort to encourage higher density
development.
~ ECO developed a separate TAZ-level population allocation based on the PSRC population forecast of 27,397. This
allocation was necessary because the PSRC numbers add up to regional control totals. Our evaluation is that it will take
Federal Way more than 20 years to achieve the PSRC forecast. This allocation is not presented in this report.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-27
Some alternative actions that could be undertaken by the City to shift its
future population/employment balance are:
1. Adopt, and plan for, lower estimates of population growth.
2. Rezone land to add more residential capacity, or otherwise facilitate
residential development (e.g., changes to development regulations).
The City has taken many steps already to encourage both higher
residential densities and mixed-use development. However, mixed-use
development is an emerging trend that many developers have little
experience with. The City should pay close attention to the perspectives of
developers when reviewing applications, particularly for mixed-use
developments.
Page 5-28
ECONorthwest
July 2000
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Terms and Acronyms
Buildable Land - Vacant or partially vacant land (a developed tax lot that
has a large enough vacant remainder to permit additional development) that
is not constrained physically and has services available.
FAZ - These refer to the 219 PSRC Regional Forecast Analysis Zones
covering the Central Puget Sound Region.
Gov/Edu - Government and Education.
FIRES - Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services Sector.
Lands Suitable for Development (Buildable Lands) - Vacant or
redevelopable land that is (a) designated for commercial, industrial, or
residential use; (b) not intended for pubhc use; (c) not constrained by critical
areas in a way that limits development potential and makes new construction
unfeasible.
Manu - Manufacturing
PAA - Potential Annexation Area
PSRC - Puget Sound Regional Council of Governments
TAZ (City) - These refer to the 216 Transportation Analysis Zones that
cover the City and areas outside of the City (Please refer to Map 1-1)
TAZ (PSRC) - These refer to the PSRC Transportation Analysis Zones
which are larger than the City TAZs
UGA - Urban Growth Area
Vacant Land - Land that has no structures. For the purposes of the City's
analysis, parcels with improvement values of $0 were classified vacant.
WCTU - Wholesale, Transportation, Communication and Utilities
DRAFT: Terms and Acronyms ECONorthwest July 2000 Page I
Appendix A
Capacity Study Methods
This Appendix contains documentation of the methods used by the City of
Federal Way in development of its land capacity analysis. The City updated
the land capacity analysis in January 2000, and provided the revised land
capacity database to ECONorthwest in February 2000 for the completion of
the market analysis and growth allocation project.
METHODS APPLIED BY THE CITY
The source of this information is King County AssessorDs records,
accessed through MetroScan. In cases where there is no parcel
information (recently subdivided areas, etc) the lot square footage
was generated by GIS.
Parcels were evaluated based on current ownership and future
plans. The following parcels were excluded:
· Parcels owned by public agencies, which are unlikely to be
developed.
· Any parcel with a current building permit.
· Parcels unlikely to ever be developed (cemeteries, under the
BPA power lines)
Vacant parcels associated closely with developed parcels
(parking for St. Francis Hospital, the plaza at Weyerhaeuser's
West Campus)
Parcels were divided into 3 categories, Fully Developed (and
excluded parcels) Redevelopable and Vacant. Vacant parcels have
an improvement value of 0.
Commercial/Industrial Redevelopable parcels are defined as
parcels where the ratio of improvements to land value is less than
50%. In residential areas, Redevelopable is defined differently. In
Single Family areas, lots, which can be divided 2.5 times or more,
are redevelopable. In Multi-Family areas, lots, which have a
single-family residence or a duplex, are Redevelopable. Only
Vacant and Redevelopable parcels were included in this survey.
Residential parcels were further divided into the categories Sub-
dividable, NOT sub-dividable, and recently subdivided. For
residential zones, some discounts were not applied to the latter two
categories.
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page A-1
Critical areas were taken out at the parcel level. These include (1)
wetlands (except wetlands under 2500 sf,) (2) wetland buffers, (3)
streams and (4) steep slopes (greater than 40% slope.) The
resulting square footage is the buildable area. The data source for
wetlands, buffers and streams is the City's 1998 wetland study.
The source of steep slope data is contour information, stored in the
City§s GIS.
Square feet of buildable land was aggregated by zone, and the
amount of building area that could be developed in each zone was
computed.
For commercial zones, several discounts were removed from the
total, including Right of Way, Public Purpose, Building Footprint
(commercial only) and Market Factor. The square footage was
multiplied by the number of stories that are likely. These factors
varied by zone and development category (vacant and
redevelopable.)
For residential zones, the total square feet was divided by the
zone's minimum lot size, and a similar set of discounts were
applied, with the exception of Building footprint.
Since some residential uses are allowed in commercial zones, a
percentage of these zones was counted in residential categories.
The total building square feet in these zones was divided bythe
percentage allocated to residential, and the resulting figure was
divided by the average unit size, which varies by zone.
The remaining commercial square footage was divided by a factor
to establish the number of employees possible. See Notes for the
figures used.
NOTES - CAPACITY STUDY
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USES
I & II. Vacant & Redevelopable
A. CC/CF Public Purpose Factor: 1.0 instead of 0.98 as development of
additional pubhc facilities in the Core/Frame (schools, churches, etc) is
unlikely.
B. CP'I Market Factor: Set to 0.1, as any additional development is
unlikely in this zone.
III. Summary
1. Percent of Zone that is Residential: This figure is simply a best guess.
Page~-~ ECONorthwest July 2000 DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
2. Unit Size: Unit size was selected to reflect the type of residential
development that will likely occur in each zone. In zones other than CC and
CF, the smaller size accounts for the fact that development will likely be a
mix between standard residential uses and assisted living or senior housing.
In OP, the size of 500 square feet is used, as only senior housing is allowed.
IV. Employment Summary
1. CC/CF Retail/Office split: A breakdown of 75% retail and 25% office
was used.
2. Average Square Feet per Worker: The figures used (500- commercial,
250 - office and 800 manufacturing) are standard figures.
RESIDENTIAL USES
II. Parcels Not Subdividable, Not subject to discounts: Parcels included in
this category are too small to legally subdivide. They will be counted as
having one potential unit per case, with only a market factor discount being
removed.
III. Vacant, not subject to discounts: This includes areas, which have
been recently subdivided. As all parcels are highly likely to fully develop, no
discounts are taken - even a market factor. Also included are areas governed
by development agreement, where the number of housing units is set
(Residential North.)
DRAFT: Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page A-3
A
I. VACANT
LOT
NET R.O.W.
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USES + SUMMARY
1999 Capacity Analysis
(BASED ON 1999 ASSESSOR RECORDS AND FEDERAL WAY GIS DATA)
(Parcels with an improvemnt value of $0)
PUBLIC MARKET BUILDING SUB-TOTAL OF TOTAL
PURPOSE FACTOR FOOTPRINT BUILDABLE # OF BUILDABLE
ZONING SQ. FT. FACTOR FACTOR (10%*)
BC 4,464,276 0.95 0.98 0.90
-B-N 1,166,926 0.95 D~'8 0.90
'B~2~ 'b~)~J 0.~8 0.90
~ ~ 0.85 ~ .~ 0.~
-OP- 3,472,5~ 3 0.95 0~8 0.~
3,588,298
OP-3 241.977 0 95
'bP;4 ............. 216,413 ........
~ "499T6~22
FACTOR SQ. FEET
0.35 1,309,216
'~.35 '" 342,219
0.60 162,966
0:,~0 124, $'3"2'
1,018,366
0.98 ~:~)- b-.~,~322
~ i~.3~J o
0 90 0 35 70.963
0.95
FLOORS SQ FT
2 2,618,432
2 684, ~-~'}'--
7 1,140,760
0.98 3
' ' 098 3 ..... 212.890
.......... 0.98 .............. d 90 .............. 0 35 ............... ~31466 ......... 2' ..... 1'26.933 ....
~2~00
TOTAL: 24,171,741 6,112,571 15,563,694
II. REDEVELOPABLE (Parcels where the ratio of improvements to land value is less than 50%)
LOT PUBLIC MARKET BUILDING SUB-TOTAL OF TOTAL EXISTING NET
NET R.O.W. PURPOSE FACTOR FOOTPRINT BUILDABLE #OF BUILDABLE BUILDING BUILDABLE
ZONING SQ. FT. FACTOR FACTOR (17%*) FACTOR SQ. FEET FLOORS SQ FT SQ FT SQ FT
BC 4,337,392 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 1,173,072 2 2,346,143 302,317 2,043,826
BP 1,984,407 0.95 0.98 0.83
0.35 536,694 2 1,073,388 65,066 1,008,322
b:~:)~----~?bT60~3 ...... 7 ~3~ 2.~.:~2~--- -;I--§~ ~5-1~r~ ~, ~-§~?b~5-
'~1~' 577,795 0.85 1.00 0.83 0.50 203,817 4 815,269 88,226 727,043
CP-1 2,637,725 0.95 0.98 0.10 -(~:~5 -~3 ............. ~ .......... 2'5'~'~ ¥ ~--"- '~ ~-1~--- '--' ~ ~;1~ ~-
OP-1 0 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 "~- ......... -~ ............. 6 5 ...... -O--
OP-2 0 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 0 3 0 0 0
OP-4 0 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 ~0~ ......... ~ ......... O-- ~ ~-'
11,788,927 2,778,417 8,559,987 709,831 7,850,156
III. SUMMARY (Break-down belween residential uses and non-residential uses)
+ * = I = =
BUILDING BUILDING SIZE OF # OF M.F. FINAL
TOTAL % OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS DWELLING BUILDABLE
ZONING SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL SQ. FT. SQ. FT. UNITS SQ. FT.
BO 4,662,258 0.33 1,538,545 1,000 1,539 3,123,713
'CF ............. i:2~:iY~' .............. ~:50' ....... ~:~Y ..... Y~' -~'E 612,587
'C'~:~~ ........... ~:~S~-~:00' o o
'~ ............... 3T~09~ ..... 6~b' 350,999 5~ 702 3,158,995
OP-2 0 0.00 0 0 0
OP-3 212,890 0.00 0 0 212,890
PO 317,597 0.00 0 0 317,597
TOTAL: 23,413,850 7,329 18,045,147
POSSIBLE NEW HOUSING UNITS:
RESIDENTIAL ZONES: 4,839 UNITS
NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONE 7~329 UNITS
TOTAL: 12,168 UNITS
POSSIBLE NEW COMM./INDUST. SF:
TOTAL: 18,045,147 SQ. FT.
POSSIBLE NEW EMPLOYEES:
TOTAL: 49,723
IV. EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
-I- -I-
FINAL
BUILDING
ZONING SQ. FT. RETAIL SF
BC 3,123,713; 3,123,713
I~ .................~'8~d~ 628,803
BP 3,947:~ i ~
'~ ~26,833~ ~:_126,933 sos~
EMPLOYEES
(500 SFI OFFICE SF
6,247
1,258 f
(Summary of how many employees can be accomodated per zone)
+ I + I
TOTAL
EMPLOYEES EMPLOY NUMBER
(250 SEI MANUFACT. SF (800 SF1 EMPLOYEES
6,247
3,947,675 4,935 ~ 4,935
! '~;~296
7 1,531
'~'2-
508
ms J~newcap8.wb3
Sheet C
TOTAL: 18,045,147 1~ 5,800,630 11,601 8,296,842 33,187
* Break-down between Retail and Office Uses: 75% Retail, 25% Office
3,947,675 4,935 I 49,723
07/03/00
04:58 PM
B RESIDENTIAL USES
1999 Capacity Study
(BASED ON 1999 ASSESSOR RECORDS AND FEDERAL WAY GIS DATA)
I. VACANT (Parcels with an improvemnt value of $O)
4- * * * =
PUBLIC MARKET TOTAL OF
MINIMUM BUlLDABLE LOTS R.O.W. PURPOSE FACTOR BUlLDABLE
ZONING LOT SIZE SQ. FEET FACTOR FACTOR It0%) LOTS
RM1800 1800 350,622 195 0.90 1.00 0.90 158
~2~00
RM2400 2400 ~-65,926 194 0.90 1.00 0.90 157
RM3600 3600 1,618,001 449 0.90 1.00 0.90 364
-R~J~. ~~ 15000 5,647,806 377 0.85 0.90 0.90 259
RS35.0 35000 1,590,141 45 0.85 0.90 0.90 31
RSS.0 5000 981,782 196 0.85 0.90 0.90 135
RS7.2 7200 9,381,989 1,303 0.85 0.90 0.90 897
RS9.6 9600 6,971,064 726 0.85 0.90 0.90 500
SE 217800 ~-~, 178 3 0.85 0.90 0.90 2
TOTAL: 3,489 2,604
REDEVELOPABLE (Single Family: Parcel can be divided 2.5 times +, Multi-Family: Current use is single family or duplex)
4- * . · ..
PUBLIC MARKET SUB-TOTAL OF SUB-TOTAL OF TOTAL OF
MINIMUM BUILDABLE LOTS R.O.W. PURPOSE FACTOR BUILDABLE EXlSING BUILDABLE
ZONING LOTSlZE SQ. FEET FACTOR FACTOR 117%) LOTS UNITS LOTS
RM1800 1800 316,216 176 0.90 1.00 0.83 131 42 89
RM2400 2400 217,168 90 0.90 1.00 0.83 68 12 56
RM3600 3600 2,260,764 628 0.90 1.00 0.83 469 380 89
RS15.0 15000 11,783,235 786 0.85 0.90 0.83 499 144 355
RS35.0 35000 2,696,218 77 0.85 0.90 0.83 49 22 27
RS5.0 5000 445,367 89 0.85 0.90 0.83 57 5 52
RS7.2 7200 12,045,524 1,673 0.85 0.90 0.83 1,062 309 753
RS9.6 9600 4,780,667 498 0.85 0.90 0.83 316 124 192
SE 217800 1,474,908 7 0.85 0.90 0.83 4 3 1
TOTAL: 4,024 2,655
II. PARCELS NOT SUBDIVlDABLE - NOT SUBJECT TO MOST DISCOUNTS
- VACANT
+ *
# OF PUBLIC MARKET TOTAL OF
LOTS R.O.W. PURPOSE FACTOR BUlLDABLE
ZONING FACTOR FACTOR (10%) LOTS
RM1800 0 N/A N/A 0.90 0
RM2400 0 N/A N/A 0.90 0
RM3600 0 N/A N/A 0.90 0
RS15.0 233 N/A N/A 0.90 210
RS35.0 24 N/A N/A 0.90 22
R ~ 5'i'{~' .................................................................. o N/A N/A 0.~"'{~b-~ .............
RS7.2 161 N/A N/A 0.90 145
~'{~ .................. :~'~)~'~N"~-~ N/A 0.90 161
SE 0 N/A N/A 0.90 0
TOTAL: 897 537
t041
1,614
(Un-subdividable Parcels)
III. VACANT, NOT SUBJECT TO DISCOUNTS* (Recently Subdivided or)
4. = subject to a development
# OF PUBLIC MARKET TOTAL OF agreement)
LOTS R.O.W. PURPOSE FACTOR BUlLDABLE
ZONING FACTOR FACTOR (10%) LOTS
RM1800 0 N/A N/A N/A 0
RM2400 0 N/A N/A N/A 0
RM3600 82 N/A N/A N/A 82
RS15.0 I N/A N/A N/A 1
RS35.0 0 N/A N/A N/A 0
RSS.0 I N/A N/A N/A 1
RS7.2 83 N/A N/A N/A 83
RS9.6 17 N/A N/A N/A 17
SE 0 N/A N/A N/A 0
TOTAL: 184
This category includes recently subdivided lots which are likely to
f '~velop, as well as areas governed by development agreements,
184
Note: NS = 'D'
# OF
ZONING LOTS
RM1800 247
'~-M~74~' 213
RM3600 535
~'¥~'~ -- 825
k~35.o 80
~ .-d 188
RS7.2 1,878
RS9.6 870
SE 4
~-O~E-~ J~ 7,329
ITOTAL: ! 12,168
i:~newcap8.wb3
Sheet D
07103/00
05:00 PM
AppendixB Regional Development Patterns
Federal Way is part of the larger, Puget Sound real estate market.
Analysis of regional development trends provides a better understanding of
factors affecting development in Federal Way. Our analysis of regional
development patterns is based on building permit data from PSRC.
To supplement building permit data, ECO reviewed a number of market
studies of the Puget Sound region. We crosschecked and supplemented this
information with secondary real estate information sources including, CB
Richard Ellis, Dupre and Scott, and Mundy Associates, as well as discussions
with local brokers and developers.
REGIONAL MARKET OVERVIEW
CB Richard Ellis prepares quarterly market reports for housing, retail,
office, and industrial development in the Puget Sound region. The reports
break the region into five or six sub-markets depending on the type of
development: downtown Seattle, the North-end, the South-end,
Tacoma/Pierce County, Eastside, and Snohomish County. Federal Way is
usually included in the South-end market (housing, retail space, office), and
is not specifically classified in an industrial sub-market.
At the regional level, the general market outlook is for strong continued
growth of all types (CB Richard Ellis). In the short run, population and
employment, the two key economic drives of the Puget Sound development
market, are forecast to grow at a slower pace then during the late 1990s.
Long run forecasts developed by PSRC indicate that substantial population
and employment growth will occur in the region over the next 20 years.
A number of factors will affect where that growth locates. When choosing
where to live, households consider factors such as: access to work; access to
shopping, recreation and friends; public services; neighborhood
characteristics, and type and size of housing. Businesses consider location,
transportation facilities, taxes, as well as other factors.
Some factors point to growth in the south end of King County, and
Federal Way. According to the Puget Sound Business Journal, congestion,
high rental rates, and limited access in Seattle and surrounding areas are'
making south King County more desirable for development. Federal Way's
location in the I-5 corridor between Tacoma and Seattle also provides easy
access.
The following sections provide a more detailed overview of residential,
retail, office, and industrial development in the Puget Sound region over the
past decade.
Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns ECONorthwest July 2000 Page B-1
RESIDENTIAL
Figure C-1 shows residential building permits issued in incorporated
areas of Puget Sound counties between 1991 and 1998. The data show that
the region approved relatively comparable numbers of single-family and
multiple family building permits between 1991 and 1995. The most notable
trend is the increase in multiple family construction since 1995.
Figure C-1. Residential building permits issued in incorporated areas
Puget Sound Counties (King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish), 1991-1998
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
= Multiple family
I -' Mobile homes
~ & Single-family
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Yea r
Source: PSRC Permit Data, 2000.
Table C-1 provides a regional summary of building permits issued for new
residential construction. The data show that King County approved more
than 6,000 units each year between 1991 and 1998. Moreover, King County
accounted for more than 60% of all residential permits issued during this
period.
Table C-1. Residential building permits issued by type,
incorporated areas of Puget Sound counties, 1991-1998
County Single- Multiple Mobile Total Units Avg
family family Home Annual
Units
King 30,161 1,105 16,873 48,127 6,016
Kitsap 1,083 379 1,981 3,443 430
Pierce 2,427 196 7,053 9,676 1,210
Snohomish 8,207 379 11,730 20,316 2,540
Source: PSRC Permit Data, 2000
Table C-2 shows residential building permits issued by type for cities in
King County between 1991 and 1998. Federal Way ranked 6th out of King
County cities in terms of the number of building permits issued annually
Page B-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns
during this period. PSRC data (Table C-2) indicate that Federal Way issued
about 2,089 residential building permits, or about 261 permits annually
during this period. Nearly two-thirds of the multiple family permits issued in
Federal Way were for complexes with 50 or more units. No permits for
demohtions were issued in Federal Way between 1991 and 1998.
Table C-2. Residential building permits issued by type, King County cities,
199'1-1998
Single- Mobile Total
family homes SF
Units
Seattle 2,279 37 2,316
Bellevue t ,556 1 1,557
Kent 2,013 142 2,155
Renton 1,121 23 1,144
Redmond 1,086 23 1,109
Auburn 1,168 268 1,436
Kirkland 772 772
Issaquah 651 11 662
Enumclaw 671 147 818
Bothell 360 19 379
North Bend 507 10 517
Duvall 570 5 575
Newcastle 213 -1 212
Black Diamond 305 1 306
Mercer Island 253 253
Shoreline 268 5 273
Des Moines 232 4 236
Snoqualmie 224 2 226
Maple Valley 143 86 229
Burien 184 3 187
Woodinville 65 3 68
SeaTac 104 65 169
Tukwila 126 126
Carnation 165 4 169
Pacific 134 7 141
Algona 153 28 181
Lake Forest 95 95
Park
Kenmore 66 3 69
Normandy Park 56 56
Covington 25 1 26
Milton 26 26
Yarrow Point 15 15
Clyde Hill 14 14
Skykemish 6 1 7
Beaux Arts 2 2
Hunts Point -4 -4
Medina -20 -20
~ Duplex Triplex/ 5-9 10-19 20-49 50 or Total
Quad Units Units more MF
Units Units
1,161 1,338 1,450 1,539 3,560 7,206 16,254
150 333 453 398 766 1,842 3,942
31 388 455 25 155 1,198 2,252
89 417 528 639 60 391 2,124
4 16 27 52 414 1,622 2,135
75 215
147 145
53 56
6 12
21 37
4 24
1 3
4 4
18 20
8 10
20 3
14 2O
6 24
3
2
4 15
2
44 131 135 79 679
337 513 294 370 1,806
228 124 278 398 1,137
6 12 62 98
101 376 32 50 617
130 62 220
0
8 208 216
7 11
18 22 81 129
35 73
22 24 64
23
0
34
25 198 253
47 50
t2 90 21 123
0
2
19
Source: PSRC Permit Data, 2000.
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Demo- New Avg
litions Units- Annual
Demo Units
-2,566 21,136 2,642
-84 5,583 698
-17 4,424 553
-16 3,284 41!
-2 3,246 406
2,115 264
-32 2,61o 326
-4 1,803 225
916 115
-5 1,001 125
737 92
575 72
428 54
317 40
-8 390 49
346 43
-2 302 38
249 31
229 29
221 28
321 40
219 27
-2 251 31
169 21
t43 18
0 200 25
103 13
71 9
56 7
26 3
26 3
15 2
14 2
0 7 1
2 0
-4 -1
-17 -2
Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns ECONorthwest July 2000 Page B-3
Table C-3 shows housing indicators for selected King County
communities. The data indicate that all of the selected cities are getting a .
relatively high mix of multiple family housing. Federal Way approved about
313 new dwelling units annually between 1996 and 1998; 62% of the
approvals were for multiple family dwelling units. Only 1% of new dwelling
units approved between 1996 and 1998 were through redevelopment.
Table C-3. Housing indicators for selected King County communities
Indicator Federa!Way Auburn Burien Kent SeaTac Tukwila
1998 Total Housing Units 31,729 15,924 12,952 29,930 10,620 7,454
Percent Multiple Family 44% 46% 39% 55% 39% 57%
1996-98 Average New Units Per
Year 313 472 59 618 33 43
Percent M F 62% 44% 25% 53% 0% 40%
1996-98 Percent of New Units
Through Redevelopment 1% 2% 10% 6% 58% 2%
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council
Table C-4 shows housing price indicators for sub-areas in King County.
The data show that Federal Way is in the middle range of median housing
prices for King County. The highest housing prices were in the Raceway/Lake
Morton region, the lowest were in the Green River Valley and Twin Lakes
sub-areas (the Twin Lakes sub-area falls partially within Federal Way).
Page B-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns
Table C-4. Housing price indicators for King County sub-areas
Median
Median Highest price per
Subarea price (1999) price paid sq ft
Percent increase in median
sales price
2 years 5 years 15 years
Raceway/Lake Morton
Enumclaw Plateau
WoodmontJRedondo
Kent/Renton Suburbs
Lake Youngs
Black Diamond/Maple Valley
E Rural King County
Lea Hill
Kent Meridian
Kentridge
$242,450 $585,000 $115
$233,000 $800,000 $125
$215,003 $915,000 $108
$206,975 $460,000 $111
$205,000 $847,000 $113
$197,000 $550,000 $117
$195,000 $937,057 $143
$194,950 $2,453,000 $102
$189,725 $700,000 $106
$179,950 $352,092 $109
$46o,OOo
$897,0OO
$4OO,OOO
$750,000
$387,000
$500,000
$384,958
$395,000
$468,5OO
Covington $167,500
Auburn $160,000
Jovita/Algona/Pacific $158,000
Star Lake $164,000
Des Moines $156,975
Enumclaw $154,900
Green River Valley $150,000
Twin Lakes $150,000
8.1% 5.0% 6.0%
8.8% 5.0% 6.0%
7.5% 5.0% 5.0%
8.1% 5.0% 6.0%
7.6% 4.0% 6.0%
7.0% 5.0% 6.0%
10.5% 7.0% 8.0%
5.2% 3.0% 5.0%
5.8% 4.0% 5.0%
7.5% 4.0% 5.0%
$113 7.2% 5.0% 6.0%
$102 4.8% 4.0% 5.0%
$104 6.4% 4.0% 5.0%
$103 6.7% 4.0% 5.0%
$108 8.6% 5.0% 5.0%
$104 7.2% 5.0% 5.0%
$115 8.7% 5.0% 6.0%
$97 7.2% 4.0% 5.0%
Source: Seattle Times: Home Values.
RETAIL
The South-end Market Area is, according to CB Commercial data, the
largest regional market,, with 46% of the retail space in the region (28.2
million square feet). Table C-5 shows a breakdown of retail space by type for
the South-end Market Area. The area has 11.6 million square feet in
community/neighborhood centers and 7.4 million square feet in regional
centers, accounting for 70% of total retail space in the area.
' The South-end Market Area extends south from the West Seattle Bridge and includes south King County and Pierce
County.
Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns ECONorthwest July 2000 Page B-5
Table C-5. Retail market overview, South-end Market Area,' 4t'
Quarter 1999
Type Gross Vacancy Rate Vacant Avg Asking
Leasable Area Square Feet Lease Rate
(net)
Freestanding 4,274,601 2.7% 113,704 $16.00
Comm/Neighborhood 11,596,443 7.3% 847,700 $18.00
Strip/Specialty 1,639,603 15.0% 245,940 $17.00
Power Center 2,723,774 2.1% 55,837 $15.70
Regional Center 7,387,598 4.6% 339,830 $25.07
Other 671,669 2.2% 14,978 $14.00
Total 28,293,688 5.7% 1,617,989 $19.07
Source: CB Richard Ellis, Puget Sound Market Index Brief, Retail Market 4th Quarter; and Mundy Associates,
LLC.
a The South-end Market Area extends south from the West Seattle Bridge and includes south King County and
Pierce County.
Table C-6 shows historical retail market trends for the South-end Market
area between 1992 and 1999. New retail space construction averaged about
741,000 square feet annually between 1992 and 1999. The largest year was
1995, when 1.8 million square feet of new retail space was built in the region.
Federal Way added the Pavilions Shopping Center in 1995, and a 135,000
square foot Wal-Mart opened in 1999.
Table C-6. Retail market historical trends, South-end
Market Area,~ 1992-1999
Year New Net Absorption Vacancy Rate
Construction (Sq Ft)
(Sq Ft)
1992 127,139 3.3%
1993 801,494 -163,375 4.0%
1994 559,927 178,567 3.6%
1995 1,814,316 1,410,478 3.0%
1996 196,000 -262,852 7.1%
1997 750,000 1,474,549 7.4%
1998 685,000 3,062,303 4.9%
1999 381,249 364,062 3.5%
Total 5,187,986 6,190,871
Annual Average 741,141 773,859
Source: CB Richard Ellis, Puget Sound Market Index Brief, Retail Market 4th Quarter;
and Mundy Associates, LLC.
~ The South-end Market Area extends south from the West Seattle Bridge and includes
south King County and Pierce County.
Page B-6 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns
OFFICE
According to CB Richard Ellis, the combination of low unemployment,
exponential growth in the high'tech sector, and a strong national economy
promises continued retail growth in the near term.
The unemployment rate remained low, as new jobs in the high-tech sector
kept unemployment stable during a Boeing downturn. Regional computer
software and service employment grew 15% during 1999.
Table C-7 shows data for the regional market office for the fourth quarter
of 1999. Federal Way accounted for about 2% of regional office space. Federal
Way also had the second highest vacancy rate, at 10.7%. Moreover, the
Tacoma/Federal Way sub-market absorbed more than 230,000 square feet of
office space, while adding more than 260,000. The Tacoma/Federal Way sub-
market also had the lowest class "A" lease rate of any sub-market in the
region.
Table C-7. Puget Sound office market, 4th Quarter 1999
Market Net Vacancy Net Under Avg Class
Rentable Rate Absorption Construction "A" Lease
Area (SF) (SF) Rate (full
service
ISF/YR)
Downtown 28,469,378
South-end 5,741,805
Tacoma/Federal Way 3,646,401
F~eralWay 1,076,418
2.1% 353,469 2,997,727 $30
7.6% 77,959 301,508 $19
9.0% 233,377 263,000 $18
Tacoma 2,410,090 8.6% NA NA NA
Fife 94,000 5.7% NA NA NA
Puyallup 65,893 2.5% NA NA N^
Eastside 20,864,771 3.9% 1,412,423 3,772,968 $24
Snohomish County 2,980,614 12.6% 177,885 51,000 $21
North-end 1,135,559 2.6% -8,855 0 $20
Market Total 62,838,528 4.1% 2,246,258 7,386,203 $24
Source: CB Richard Ellis, Puget Sound Market Index Brief, Office Market 4t" Quarter 1999.
INDUSTRIAL
The regional industrial market posted vacancies of 4.5% and added nearly
2.8 million square feet of space during the fourth quarter of 1999. The Kent
Valley led industrial development, adding 1.9 million square feet. Table C-8
summarizes the regional industrial market for the fourth quarter of 1999.
Note that CB Richard Ellis does not explicitly include Federal Way in either
the Kent Valley or Tacoma/Fife sub-markets.
Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns ECONorthwest July 2000 Page B-7
Table C-8. Puget Sound industrial market, 4~h Quarter 1999
Market Net Rentable Vacancy Net Under
Area Rate Absorption Construction
(SF) (SE)
Net Lease
Rate
(PSFIMO)
Seattle Close-in 70,927,337 2.0% -265,167 0
High-tech 1,142,109 1.2%
Non high-tech 69,785,228 2.0%
Kent Valley 85,844,794 4.9% 224,142 1,928,114
High-tech 1,861,314 6.9%
Non high-tech 83,983,480 4.9%
Tacoma/Fife 8,085,025 13.5% 79,082 401,350
High-tech 0 na
Non high-tech 8,085,025 13.5%
Eastside 20,357,740 4.7% 153,793 212,808
High-tech 4,661,838 6.7%
Non high-tech 15,695,902 4.1%
Snohomish County 5,988,159 13.3% -164,916 284,075
Hig h-tech 171,246 35.6% -8,855
Non high-tech 5,816,913 12.6%
$0.85
$0.45
$0.95
$0.35
na
$0.32
$1.25
$0.60
$1.10
$0.50
Market Total 191,203,055 4.5%
High-tech 7,836,507 6.6%
Non high-tech 183,366,548 4.4%
26934 2826347
Source: CB Richard Ellis, Puget Sound Market Index Brief, Office Market 4~" Quarter 1999.
Page B-8 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns
Appendix C
Growth Allocation by TAZ
This appendix presents the allocation of population and employment by
TAZ. Table C-1 shows the detail for Table 5-14. Table C-2 shows the detail for
Table 5-15.
Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-1
Table C-1. Growth allocation by TAZ, 2000-2020
Dwelling Units Built Space
TAZ New Pop New Emp SF MF Total DU Office Retail Other Total
Inside City Limit
0 11 1 5 0 5 0 0 0 0
2 312 65 29 109 138 15,977 0 3,994 19,972
3 353 20 124 32 156 0 0 0 0
4 273 27 0 121 121 4,007 0 1,002 5,009
5 97 5 43 0 43 0 0 0 0
6 400 39 172 5 177 5,446 0 1,361 6.807
7 81 5 36 0 36 0 0 0 0
8 221 54 56 42 98 14,101 0 3,525 17,626
9 254 59 35 82 117 15,027 0 3,757 18,783
10 133 8 0 59 59 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 138 8 61 0 61 0 0 0 0
14 142 8 63 0 63 0 0 0 0
15 237 13 105 0 105 0 0 0 0
16 179 10 79 0 79 0 0 0 0
17 52 3 0 23 23 0 0 0 0
18 2 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 271 41 110 10 120 8,618 0 2,154 10,772
21 29 2 13 0 13 0 0 0 0
22 122 13 40 14 54 2,184 0 546 2,731
23 11 1 5 0 5 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 81 5 36 0 36 0 0 0 0
26 115 121 I 50 51 38,854 0 9,714 48,568
27 895 53 396 0 396 825 0 206 1,032
28 809 46 358 0 358 0 0 0 0
29 11 17 0 5 5 5,437 0 1.359 6,796
30 43 2 19 0 19 0 0 0 0
31 194 40 77 9 86 9,739 0 2,435 12,174
32 154 9 68 0 68 0 0 0 0
33 145 34 55 9 64 8,618 0 2,155 10,773
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 32 38 0 14 14 12,185 0 3,046 15,231
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 45 3 20 0 20 0 0 0 0
38 106 6 47 0 47 0 0 0 0
39 50 3 22 0 22 0 0 0 0
4O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 16 10 0 7 7 3,033 0 758 3,791
42 34 43 0 15 15 13,748 0 3,437 17,185
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 56 3 25 0 25 0 0 0 0
45 68 4 30 0 30 0 0 0 0
46 29 39 0 13 13 12,621 0 3,155 15,776
47 20 25 0 9 9 8,072 0 2,018 10,090
48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
49 20 25 0 9 9 7,953 0 1,988 9,941
Page C-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ
Dwelling Units Built Space
TAZ New Pop New Emp
SF
MF Total DU Office Retail Other
Total
50 0 0 0
51 0 0 0
52 0 0 0
53 56 3 0
54 120 143 0
55 86 102 0
56 36 45 0
57 0 0 0
58 0 0 0
59 142 170 0
60 50 61 0
61 23 29 0
62 0 0 0
63 0 0 0
64 25 32 0
65 0 0 0
66 18 22 0
67 11 17 0
68 52 63 0
69 102 121 0
70 0 0 0
71 18 21 0
72 395 164 0
73 93 112 0
74 0 3 0
75 0 0 0
76 0 0 0
77 54 67 0
78 0 0 0
79 5 7 0
80 0 0 0
81 16 26 0
82 0 0 0
83 0 0 0
84 0 0 0
85 27 17 0
86 271 323 0
87 0 0 0
88 0 1 0
89 36 2 16
90 0 0 0
91 0 0 0
92 497 28 0
93 95 5 42
94 310 17 137
95 0 0 0
96 0 0 0
97 0 0 0
98 0 0 0
99 0 0 0
100 0 0 0
101 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
25 25 0 0 0 0
53 53 45,958 0 11,489 57,447
38 38 32,990 0 8,247 41,237
16 16 14,453 0 3,613 18,067
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
63 63 54,729 0 13,682 68,411
22 22 19,839 0 4,960 24,798
10 10 9,459 0 2,365 11,824
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
11 11 10,505 0 2,626 13,131
0 0 0 0 0 0
8 8 6,993 0 1,748 8,742
5 5 5,639 0 1,410 7,049
23 23 20,470 0 5,118 25,588
45 45 38,952 0 9,738 48,690
0 0 0 0 0 0
8 8 6,920 0 1,730 8,650
175 175 47,857 0 11,964 59,821
41 41 36,206 0 9,051 45,257
0 0 1,137 0 284 1,421
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
24 24 21,611 0 5,403 27,013
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 0 2,918 0 2,918
0 0 0 0 0 0
7 7 0 10,578 0 10,578
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
12 12 0 6,626 0 6,626
120 120 104,102 0 26,025 130,127
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 343 125 86 553
0 16 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
220 220 0 0 0 0
0 42 0 0 0 0
0 137 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-3
Dwelling Units Built Space
TAZ
New Pop NewEmp
SF
MF Total DU Office Retail Other Total
102 99 215
103 75 90
104 16 23
105 122 255
106 0 0
107 197 233
108 133 163
109 0 0
110 90 5
111 307 366
112 41 52
113 7 0
114 181 10
115 280 334
116 9O 84
117 111 98
118 54 21
119 88 5
120 90 5
121 25 4O
122 25 40
123 0 0
124 90 5
125 88 141
126 0 0
127 77 29
128 330 19
129 0 0
130 0 0
131 149 318
132 18 4O
133 0 15
134 0 68
135 18 30
136 0 121
137 79 63
138 25 1
139 1,017 57
140 569 32
141 0 0
142 0 0
143 0 0
144 7 15
145 7 12
146 131 151
147 14 1
148 2 5
149 23 21
150 416 84
151 61 6O
152 145 8
153 36 2
0 44 44 39,261 39,615 9,815 88,691
0 33 33 29,124 0 7,281 36,405
0 7 7 7,352 0 1,838 9,190
0 54 54 47,708 45,201 11,927 104,836
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 87 87 75,000 0 18,750 93,750
0 59 59 50,893 2,258 12,723 65,875
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 40 4O 0 0 0 0
0 136 136 117,861 0 29,465 147,326
0 18 18 16,694 0 4,173 20,867
0 3 3 0 0 0 0
0 80 80 0 0 0 0
0 124 124 107,408 0 26,852 134,260
0 40 40 0 33,315 0 33,315
0 49 49 0 38,709 0 38,709
0 24 24 0 7,659 0 7,659
0 39 39 0 0 0 0
0 4O 40 0 0 0 0
0 11 11 0 16,477 0 16,477
0 11 11 0 16,454 0 16,454
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4O 40 0 0 0 0
0 39 39 0 57,369 0 57,369
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 7 34 0 10,374 0 10,374
58 88 146 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 66 66 57,393 58,875 14,348 130,616
0 8 8 7,252 7,244 1,813 16,309
0 0 0 0 6,199 0 6,199
0 0 0 0 28,529 0 28,529
0 8 8 0 12,220 0 12,220
0 0 0 0 51,029 0 51,029
17 18 35 0 24,560 0 24,560
11 0 11 0 0 0 0
450 0 450 0 0 0 0
0 252 252 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3 3 2,727 2,719 682 6,128
0 3 3 0 4,975 0 4,975
0 58 58 0 60,809 0 60,809
0 6 6 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 2,010 0 2,010
0 10 10 0 8,417 0 8,417
147 37 184 0 25,624 0 25,624
11 16 27 0 23,801 0 23,801
64 0 54 0 0 0 0
16 0 16 0 0 0 0
Page C-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ
Dwelling Units Built Space
TAZ New Pop New Emp SF
MF Total DU Office Retail Other Total
154 0 0 0
155 384 458 0
156 29 37 0
157 149 178 0
158 34 52 0
159 86 26 0
160 301 17 0
161 79 4 0
162 0 0 0
163 127 7 0
164 219 74 0
165 50 80 0
166 131 7 58
167 0 0 0
168 0 0 0
169 43 69 0
170 70 67 0
171 59 3 0
172 242 14 95
173 517 29 229
174 29 2 13
175 29 2 13
176 68 4 1
177 45 33 6
178 353 20 156
179 2 0 1
180 43 2 19
181 38 2 17
182 27 2 12
183 84 5 37
184 41 2 18
190 0 0 0
196 1,464 83 0
197 495 588 0
199 79 94 0
200 190 11 84
202 0 336 0
203 233 13 103
204 90 5 0
206 102 6 5
207 0 0 0
209 0 0 0
211 0 0 0
213 0 0 0
Total 20,056 8,177 3,993
Outside City Limit
I 41 0 18
7 2 0 1
16 0 0 0
36 0 0 0
38 0 0 0
185 23 0 10
0 0 0 0 0 0
170 170 147,478 0 36,869 164,347
13 13 ' 12,006 0 3,002 15,008
66 66 57,171 0 14,293 71,464
15 15 0 21,323 0 21,323
38 38 0 8,751 0 8,751
133 133 0 0 0 0
35 35 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
56 56 0 0 0 0
97 97 0 26,103 0 26,103
22 22 0 32,712 0 32,712
0 58 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
19 19 0 28,229 0 28,229
31 31 0 26,814 0 26,814
26 26 0 0 0 0
12 107 0 0 0 0
0 229 0 0 0 0
0 13 0 0 0 0
0 13 0 0 0 0
29 30 0 0 0 0
14 20 0 12,657 0 12,657
0 156 0 0 0 0
0 I 0 0 0 0
0 19 0 0 0 0
0 17 0 0 0 0
0 12 0 0 0 0
0 37 0 0 0 0
0 18 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
648 648 0 0 0 0
219 219 189,218 0 47,304 236,522
35 35 30,190 0 7,547 37,737
0 84 0 0 0 0
0 0 113,500 0 28,375 141,874
0 103 0 0 0 0
40 40 0 0 0 0
40 45 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4,883 8,876 1,772,839 761,279 443,210 2,977,327
0 18 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 0 0 0 0
Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-5
Dwelling Units Built Space
TAZ
New Pop New Emp
SF
MF Total DU Office Retail Other Total
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
Total
7 0 3
122 2 23
463 4 1
11 0 5
86 32 38
52 18 23
27 4 12
68 15 30
190 13 84
97 42 38
671 24 14
0 25 0
404 32 23
0 0 0
9 33 4
52 42 23
2 1 1
2 0 1
404 49 23
68 84 30
34 28 15
70 17 31
0 1 0
25 16 11
52 0 23
104 0 46
50 73 22
34 6 15
115 0 51
36 0 16
3,322 562 635
0 3 0 0 0 0
31 54 354 152 89 595
204 205 888 381 222 1,491
0 5 0 0 0 0
0 38 6,760 2,903 1,690 11,352
0 23 3.782 1,624 945 6,351
0 12 922 396 230 1,548
0 30 3,121 1,340 780 5,241
0 84 2,709 1,163 677 4,549
5 43 8,886 3,816 2,222 14,923
283 297 5.023 2,157 1,256 8,436
0 0 5,297 2,275 1,324 8,896
156 179 6.775 2,909 1,694 11.379
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4 7,026 3,017 1,756 11,799
0 23 8,914 3,828 2,229 14,970
0 I 175 75 44 294
0 1 0 0 0 0
156 179 10,455 4,489 2,614 17,558
0 30 17,731 7,614 4,433 29,777
0 15 6,003 2,578 1,501 10,081
0 31 3,520 1,511 880 5,911
0 0 311 133 78 522
0 11 3,425 1,471 856 5,752
0 23 0 0 0 0
0 46 0 0 0 0
0 22 15,521 6,665 3,880 26.066
0 15 1,215 522 304 2,040
0 51 0 0 0 0
0 16 0 0 0 0
835 1,470 118,811 51,019 29,703 199,532
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
Page C-6 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
I~Side City Limit
0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 11 1
2 62 13 62 13 94 19 94 19 312 65
3 71 4 71 4 106 6 106 6 353 20
4 55 5 55 5 82 8 82 8 273 27
5 19 1 19 I 29 2 29 2 97 5
~ 80 8 80 8 120 12 120 12 400 39
~ 16 0 16 0 24 2 24 2 81 5
~ 44 3 44 5 66 19 66 27 221 54
] 53 12 53 12 79 18 79 18 264 59
10 27 2 27 2 40 2 40 2 133 8
I1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 28 0 28 I 41 3 41 4 138 8
4 28 0 28 I 43 3 43 4 142 8
5 47 1 47 1 71 5 71 7 237 13
6 36 1 36 I 64 4 54 5 179 10
7 10 0 10 0 13 1 18 1 52 3
8 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 2 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 54 2 54 4 81 14 81 20 271 41
I 6 0 6 0 9 1 9 I 29 2
2 37 I 37 1 37 5 12 6 122 13
3 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 11 1
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 16 0 16 0 24 2 24 2 81 5
~ 23 6 23 12 35 43 35 61 115 121
7 179 11 179 11 268 16 268 16 895 53
~ 162 9 162 9 243 14 243 14 809 46
) 2 2 2 2 3 5 4 8 11 17
) 13 0 13 0 13 1 4 1 43 2
I 58 4 58 4 58 14 19 18 194 40
' 31 1 31 I 46 3 46 4 164 9
I 29 2 29 3 43 12 43 17 145 34
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i 6 4 6 4 8 11 11 19 32 38
; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 9 0 11 1 16 I 45 3
21 1 21 1 32 2 32 3 106 6
10 0 10 0 15 I 15 I 50 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 3 I 5 3 5 5 16 10
7 4 7 4 8 13 12 21 34 43
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 11 0 14 1 20 2 56 3
14 0 14 0 17 1 24 2 68 4
6 2 6 4 9 14 9 19 29 39
4 3 4 3 5 8 7 13 20 25
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 5 6 5 4 7 4 7 20 25
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-7
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 11 0 11 0 14 I 20 2 56 3
54 36 29 36 29 24 43 24 43 120 143
55 26 20 26 20 17 31 17 31 86 102
56 11 9 11 9 7 13 7 13 36 45
57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 43 34 43 34 28 51 28 51 142 170
60 15 12 15 12 10 18 10 18 50 61
61 7 6 7 6 5 9 5 9 23 29
62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~4 7 6 7 6 5 10 5 10 25 32
B5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
$6 5 4 5 4 4 7 4 7 18 22
57 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 5 11 17
58 16 13 16 13 10 19 10 19 52 63
~9 31 24 31 24 20 36 20 36 102 121
70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71 5 4 5 4 4 6 4 6 18 21
72 119 33 119 33 79 49 79 49 395 164
73 28 22 28 22 19 34 19 34 93 112
74 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 3
75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
77 16 13 16 13 11 20 11 20 54 67
78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 1 3 I 3 1 2 2 0 5 7
~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 3 10 3 9 4 6 6 0 16 26
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~5 5 7 5 6 7 4 9 0 27 17
36 54 16 54 32 81 113 81 162 271 323
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
~9 18 0 11 I 4 1 4 0 36 2
)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
)1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
)2 249 6 149 10 50 10 50 6 497 31
)3 28 1 28 2 19 1 19 1 95 5
)4 93 4 93 6 62 3 62 3 310 17
)5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
)6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
)7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
)8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
)9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Page C-8 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-201 $ 2016-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
102 20 22 20 54 30 75 30 65 99 215
103 15 23 15 23 19 23 26 23 75 90
104 3 6 3 6 4 6 6 6 16 23
105 24 64 24 64 31 64 43 64 122 255
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 39 58 39 58 49 58 69 58 197 233
108 27 41 27 41 33 41 47 41 133 163
109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 18 I 18 1 23 I 32 I 90 5
111 61 91 61 91 77 91 108 91 307 366
112 8 13 8 13 10 13 14 13 41 52
113 I 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 7 0
114 36 3 36 3 45 3 63 3 181 10
115 56 83 56 83 70 83 98 83 280 334
116 27 34 27 29 18 21 18 0 90 84
117 33 39 33 34 22 24 22 0 111 98
118 16 8 16 7 11 5 11 0 64 21
119 26 2 26 2 18 I 18 0 88 5
120 27 2 27 2 18 I 18 0 90 5
121 5 16 5 14 6 10 9 0 25 40
122 5 16 5 14 6 10 9 0 25 40
123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 18 2 18 2 23 1 32 0 90 5
125 18 14 18 35 26 49 26 42 88 141
126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
127 15 7 15 9 23 9 23 4 77 29
128 66 5 66 6 99 6 99 3 330 19
129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
131 30 32 30 79 45 111 45 95 149 318
132 4 4 4 10 5 14 5 12 18 40
133 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 15
134 0 27 0 24 0 17 0 0 0 68
135 5 12 5 10 4 7 4 0 18 30
136 0 48 0 42 0 30 0 0 0 121
137 16 16 16 19 24 19 24 9 79 63
138 5 0 5 0 7 0 7 0 25 1
139 203 14 203 17 305 17 305 9 1,017 57
140 114 8 114 10 171 10 171 5 569 32
141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
144 1 1 1 4 2 5 2 4 7 15
145 2 5 2 4 I 3 I 0 7 12
146 39 61 39 53 26 38 26 0 131 151
147 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 14 1
148 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 5
149 7 8 7 7 5 5 5 0 23 21
150 83 21 83 25 125 25 125 13 416 84
151 12 15 12 18 18 18 18 9 61 60
152 29 2 29 2 43 2 43 I 145 8
~53 7 1 7 1 11 1 11 0 36 2
Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-9
2000-2005 I 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 ~Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
155 154 46 115 46 77 137 38 229 384 458
156 12 4 9 4 6 11 3 19 29 37
157 60 18 45 18 30 53 15 89 149 178
158 10 21 10 18 7 13 7 0 34 52
159 26 10 26 9 17 6 17 0 86 26
160 90 7 90 6 60 4 60 0 301 17
161 16 2 16 1 16 1 32 1 79 4
162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 25 2 25 2 25 1 51 1 127 7
164 88 15 66 15 44 22 22 22 219 74
165 20 16 15 16 10 24 5 24 50 80
166 26 2 26 2 39 2 39 1 131 7
167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
169 9 24 9 21 9 14 17 10 43 69
170 28 13 21 13 14 20 7 20 70 67
171 24 I 18 1 12 1 6 I 59 3
172 97 3 73 3 48 4 24 4 242 14
173 207 6 155 6 103 9 52 9 517 29
174 6 0 7 0 7 0 9 1 29 2
175 6 0 7 0 7 0 9 1 29 2
176 14 0 17 0 17 1 20 2 68 4
177 18 7 14 7 9 10 5 10 45 33
178 71 2 88 2 88 6 106 10 353 20
179 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0
180 9 0 11 0 11 1 13 I 43 2
181 8 0 10 0 10 I 12 I 38 2
182 5 0 7 0 7 0 8 1 27 2
183 17 0 21 0 21 1 25 2 84 5
184 8 0 10 0 10 1 12 1 41 2
190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
196 439 8 439 29 293 29 293 17 1,464 83
197 148 59 148 206 99 206 99 118 495 588
199 24 9 24 33 16 33 16 19 79 94
ZOO 95 1 57 I 19 3 19 5 190 11
Z02 0 34 0 34 0 101 0 168 0 336
Z03 116 1 70 I 23 4 23 7 233 13
Z04 45 1 27 1 9 2 9 3 90 5
Z06 51 1 31 I 10 2 10 3 102 6
Z07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rOTAL 5,218 1,537 4,848 1,849 4,976 2,436 5,014 2,358 20,056 8,180
3utside City
.imit
I 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 41 0
~ 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 2 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Page C-10 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
185 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 23 0
186 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 7 0
187 31 0 31 0 31 0 31 0 122 2
188 116 I 116 I 116 I 116 1 463 4
189 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 11 0
190 21 8 21 8 21 8 21 8 86 32
191 13 4 ~13 4 13 4 13 4 52 18
192 7 1 7 I 7 I 7 I 27 4
193 17 4 17 4 17 4 17 4 68 15
194 47 3 47 3 47 3 47 3 190 13
195 24 11 24 11 24 11 24 11 97 42
196 168 6 168 6 168 6 168 6 671 24
197 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 25
198 101 8 101 8 101 8 101 8 404 32
199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 9 33
201 13 11 13 11 13 11 13 11 52 42
203 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 1
204 I 0 I 0 I 0 1 0 2 0
205 101 12 101 12 101 12 101 12 404 49
206 17 21 17 21 17 21 17 21 68 84
207 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 34 28
208 18 4 18 4 18 4 18 4 70 17
209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
210 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 25 16
211 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 52 0
212 26 0 26 0 26 0 26 0 104 0
213 12 18 12 18 12 18 12 18 50 73
214 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 I 34 6
215 29 0 29 0 29 0 29 0 115 0
216 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 36 0
TOTAL 830 141 830 141 830 141 830 141 3,322 562
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-11