The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-03-05 City Council - Public Agenda-1484'4- o 90� AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds MARCH 5, 2013 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call 2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. AM-5546 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2013. B. AM-5544 Approval of claim checks #200747 through #200857 dated February 28, 2013 for $473,785.35 (reissued checks #200747 $334,100.00 and #200806 $37.50). C. AM-5526 Approval of list of Edmonds' businesses applying for renewal of their liquor license with the Washington State Liquor Control Board, February 2013. D. AM-5540 Approval of 2013 Taxicab Operator's License for Yellow Cab of Washington Inc. 4. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5. (5 Minutes) Brain Injury Awareness Month Proclamation AM-5539 6. (15 Minutes) Annual Report - Municipal Court Judge AM-5543 7. (15 Minutes) Annual Report -Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board and Arbor Day Proclamation. AM-5537 Packet Page 1 of 431 8. (30 Minutes) Presentation on Sustainable Design (Valerie Stewart and Ian Duncan). AM-5541 9. (20 Minutes) Update on Snohomish County buildable lands and population/employment projections. AM-5545 10. (10 Minutes) Discussion and potential action regarding live airing of City Council Meetings. AM-5536 11. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 12. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 13. (15 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding areal estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c), and pending litigation per RCW 42.3 0.11 0(l)(i). 14. (5 Minutes) Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 431 AM-5546 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 03/05/2013 Time: Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The draft minutes are attached. 02-26-13 Draft City Council Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 03/01/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 02/28/2013 06:52 PM Sandy Chase 03/01/2013 08:41 AM Started On: 02/28/2013 02:43 PM 3. A. Packet Page 3 of 431 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES February 26, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Strom Peterson, Councilmember 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Ronald Cone, Interim Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Peterson. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 6:16 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. He announced action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Senior Planner Kernen Lien and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:44 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 5 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 6:47 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 6:49 p.m. and led the flag salute. 3. MEET WITH CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD At 6:50 p.m., the City Council met with a candidate for appointment to the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board, Richard Zitzmann. The meeting was open to the public and took place in the Jury Meeting Room, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 431 located in the Public Safety Complex. All City Councilmembers and Mayor Earling were present for the meeting with Mr. Zitzmann. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, DELETING ITEMS 16 AND 17. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda so she could abstain from the vote. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1 & 2, 2013. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #200630 THROUGH #200746 DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2013 FOR $354,335.92. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60030 THROUGH #60045 FOR $442,967.10, BENEFIT CHECKS #60046 THROUGH #60054 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $192,823.10 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1, 2013 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2013. D. APPOINTMENT OF MR. RICHARD (RICK) ZITZMANN TO EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD. E. ORDINANCE NO. 3912 — AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 5.14 - MARIJUANA ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2013 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINED. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Victor Eskenazi, Edmonds, (Esperance), commented the Edmonds Marsh is a unique area and suggested consideration be given to a cultural facility such as a restaurant featuring native food, the food that the first people ate. It could be a unique attraction with cultural activities that would attract school children and adults. Such a facility would generate tax dollars for the City, help preserve the Marsh and help preserve culture. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, relayed a King 5 news story that reported Snohomish County had over 1,200 building permits, the highest in the last 5 years, and that Sunquist Homes is constructing homes in Edmonds. Next, he reported Representative Cindy Ryu, who was not appointed to the vacant seat on the King County Council, plans to run for the seat in November, potentially vacating her seat on the legislature. He voiced his support for the Edmonds Marsh. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 431 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the concern he voiced last week with the Mayor's salary increase in the budget amendment and whether the increase was mandatory. His understanding is the Salary Commission makes a recommendation regarding salaries and if the Council does not take any action, simply agreeing to them in general without a hearing, the increases are permanent. He expressed concern the Council appeared to be eliminating hearings on important subjects such as the item on tonight's Consent Agenda regarding marijuana. He recalled a statement by Councilmember Yamamoto last week regarding an item the Finance Committee placed on the Consent Agenda and that a Councilmember could pull it if they wished. He urged the Council to remember the public wants to participate and to educate the public as thoroughly as possible. At Mayor Earling's request, Reporting Human Resources/Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite (staff liaison to the Citizens Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials (CCCEO), advised the Commission made a recommendation to the Council on May 1, 2012. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained there is a constitutional requirement that elected officials not set their own compensation. There are two ways to set the compensation for elected officials, 1) the Council setting compensation for a future Council, or 2) use of a Salary Commission. The issue with the Salary Commission was reconciling City code with State law and the State constitution. The City code uses the word "recommend" which it probably should not because the Council cannot set its own salary. Mr. Taraday recalled his advice regarding how the Salary Commission should operate to be consistent with State law is to make its salary determination and have it automatically included in the budget so that the Council is not taking action specifically on their own compensation. For that same reason, the Council would not hold a hearing on their own compensation; any hearing for that purpose should be held by the Salary Commission not the Council. If the Council is not satisfied with that process, the Salary Commission process can be abandoned and return to the Council setting compensation for a future Council. With regard to the question regarding the Mayor's salary, also set by the Salary Commission, Mr. Taraday explained his advice at the time of the Salary Commission's recommendation was to have that increase included in the budget so that there was no need to take action on it. For some reason that did not happen, so at some point the Council will need to determine what to do about that. Ms. Hite advised the Salary Commission held two public hearings; they were publicized and held in the Plaza Room above the library. The Salary Commission made their recommendations based on input at the public hearing, fact finding, interviews with current and former elected officials, etc. Mayor Earling explained if the City Attorney determines that he is obligated to accept the salary increase, he will decline it and if unable to do so, he will purchase something for the benefit of the City on Main Street between 5`" and 6tn Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was opposed to the increase. She observed the Council receives recommendations from many boards and commissions and asked why the Salary Commission's recommendation was mandated. It was her understanding Mayor Earling declined the increase due to the City's financial difficulties. Mr. Taraday agreed it was counter -intuitive, particularly for Councilmembers used to receiving recommendations from advisory bodies. He offered to follow-up with the Council in more detail after he had an opportunity to do further research. He summarized the Council is forbidden by State law from setting their own compensation. That is why the Salary Commission is convened. To the extent the Salary Commission's action is a recommendation and the Council takes action, the Council would be setting their own compensation which is a violation of the State Constitution. He assumed that constitutional provision was intended to protect the public from public officials who might use the opportunity to line their own pockets. By automatically including the Salary Commission's recommendation in the budget, the Council is not setting its own compensation. He reiterated the Council Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 431 is not obligated to utilize the Salary Commission; the Council could return to setting compensation for future Councilmembers. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the same issue arose in 2009 with then -Mayor Haakenson who declined the increase and the Council voted not to approve the increase. Mr. Taraday responded in addition to setting compensation for Councilmembers, the Salary Commission also considers the Mayor's and Judge's salaries. The Mayor and Judge do not technically set their own compensation because they do not vote on the budget. The Mayor's increase was removed from the budget amendment on tonight's agenda to allow him to do further research. 7. CITY HALL ENERGY STAR AWARD 2013 Mayor Earling explained the City has been aggressive about pursuing energy savings, particularly at City Hall. The City received the Energy Star Award last year and was notified the City has received it again this year. He recognized staff members Jim Stevens and Dan Housler for their efforts. He presented the City Hall Energy Star Award to Public Works Director Phil Williams. Mr. Williams enthusiastically accepted the award on behalf of the facilities crew, all of whom do a great job. He thanked the Council for their past investments in projects that have led to energy savings in many City buildings. The Energy Star Award for City Hall recognizes that City Hall is in the top 20% of similar buildings nationwide and the only City Hall in Washington that received the award. This is the third year in a row the City has received the Energy Star Award. The award will be displayed prominently in City Hall. 8. PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT QUARTERLY REPORT Executive Director Joe McIalwain reviewed programming and operations: • 81 % average capacity this season, 500-600 attendees in 700 seat facility • Recent Sellouts: Pilobolus, Ed Asner • Up Next: Blind Boys, Ladysmith, Nanci Griffith, Taj Majal • Education/Outreach: Student Matinees, Residencies • Community Groups: DeMiero Jazz, Terrace Park, Edmonds Community College • Rick Steves' Europe: Symphonic Journey (free) • KIDSTOCK! 2013 — 2,500 Attendees (free) • Summer Camps — Shakespeare, Book -it, Zambini • 2013-2014 Season Planning Underway • Center Stage Sponsorship Event — May 1 Next, he provided a legislative update. He has been working in partnership with the 20-member Association of Washington State Public Facilities Districts (AWSPFD) to affect legislation to extend the State sales tax rebate for 15 years beyond its current sunset date. Bills have been introduced in the House (HB 1687) and Senate (SB 5599). He and other members of the AWSPFD presented to the House Finance Committee on February 18 and the Senate Ways and Means Committee on February 19. He was hopeful those bills would be successful and said he may ask the Council and Mayor to contact legislators to encourage them to support those bills. He also reported on Snohomish County Lodging Tax: • County finance staff is responding to a "fiscal note" in the 2013 budget to provide detailed • information regarding current reserves, projected revenues and allocation guidelines • Report to County Council scheduled for May 2013 • Awaiting announcement of grant opportunities and guidelines Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 431 With regard to facilities, Mr. McIalwain reported the ECA's Operations Manager Jeff Vaughan does a wonderful job managing all the rental contracts as well as managing and maintaining the facility. The Facilities and Maintenance Committee are preparing to conduct a facilities condition assessment to help identify immediate and long-term facilities concerns. The next step will be creation of a comprehensive and prioritized maintenance and capital replacement plan utilizing condition assessment results. Mr. McIalwain reviewed operating revenue/expenses: Operating Revenue/Ex ense Revenue 2012 Budget 2012 PYE 2013 Bud et Contributions -Operating $ 562,000 $ 679,988 $ 650,000 Rental Revenue 330,000 322,696 340,000 Concessions 55,000 97,692 105,000 Ticket Sales & Fees 460,000 424,993 485,000 Total $1,407,000 $1,525,370 $1,580,000 Expense Presenting/MarketingPresenting/Marketing $ 431,000 $ 489,565 $ 485,000 Facilities/Operations 250,000 303,019 290,000 Labor costs 630,000 569,929 675,000 Other Expenses 72,000 94,280 75,000 Total $1,383,000 $1,456,792 $1,525,000 Net Revenue $ 24,000 $ 68,578 $ 55,000 Mr. McIalwain reviewed non -operating revenue/expenses: Non -Operating Revenue/Expense Revenue 2012 Budget 2012 PYE 2013 Budget Sales Tax Rebates $ 435,000 $ 418,866 $ 435,000 Transfer from Operations -- 45,000 35,000 Interest Earnings 130 1,454 130 Total $435,130 $465,320 $470,130 Expense Debt Service Interest $396,026 $410,240 $256,226 Debt Service Principal 305,000 305,000 380,000 Capital Expenditures 15,000 -- 20,000 Total $716,026 $715,240 $656,226 Net Revenue(Shortfall) ($280,896) ($249,920) ($186,096) He explained the $186,096 is the amount the PFD will need to request in a City loan to assist with meeting the PFD's bond obligation, provided another solution cannot be determined by yearend. He pointed out the success of the facility has allowed transfer from operations to reduce the loan request from the City. The City budgeted $190,000 for a loan to the PFD in 2013. Mr. McIalwain reported on the Strategic Plan: • Designed to guide EPFD/ECA through next 5 years • Consulting Team - BERK and AdvisArts • Stakeholder input received through interviews focus interviews, groups and surveys • Reviewing and updating mission and vision • Confirms two key points of essential focus: debt retirement and major facility maintenance/repair • Five key strategic categories: o Arts Programming & Outreach Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 431 o Funding and Financial Management o Facility Maintenance & Capital Improvements o Facility Redevelopment Planning o Governance & Organizational Capacity • Once completed and approved, a copy of the plan will be provided to City Council and staff • A nearly final draft has been completed and forwarded to Steering Committee for review/approval • ECA Board review/approval — Tuesday, March 12 • PFD Board review/approval — Thursday, March 28 • Implementation begins April, 2013 Mr. McIalwain summarized: • Programming continues to expand and improve • Cultural and economic impact of ECA continues to grow, gaining more local and regional recognition • Operation's financial performance is strengthening • Legislative actions are being taken to try to address long-term debt and reduce/eliminate need for City loans • Strategic plan scheduled for completion in March, implementation in April Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the PFD/ECA audit exception and what is being done to correct it. Mr. McIalwain responded the audit finding the PFD received last year is as follows: The District's financial position continues to place it at risk of not meeting its financial obligations. During the current audit, the auditor found the District is working to increase revenue and decrease expenditures; however it has not generated sufficient funds to meet its financial obligations. Mr. McIalwain explained the State auditor applies formulas to the financial statements and produces ratios; the current ratio raises a red flag due to the $250,000 difference between revenues and expenses. The auditor's analysis does not take into account the loan the City provides the PFD to meet its debt obligations in the short term because they view it as a shift of long term debt from one place to another. Until a solution is identified, he was unsure if that would continue to be a finding. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the PFD has not created a capital reserve policy. Mr. McIalwain agreed that has not been done. The issue is earning enough net revenue in operations to apply a portion to debt service to keep the City's loan as low as possible and establish reserves to meet ongoing maintenance and ultimately capital replacement. The Strategic Plan will provide some guidance. If a new revenue stream cannot be identified, the PFD may have to work with the City on a middle -ground of keeping the loan to assist with debt service as low as possible and continue to take care of the facility. He assured staff continues to seek capital grants. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the non-profit ECA Board could apply for grants. Mr. McIalwain answered they can but funds from non -profits are typically investments in new buildings, and not maintenance. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the City provided the PFD $250,000 in 2012, recalling the City provided less due to a payment from the PFD. Mr. McIalwain answered the $250,000 was correct and offered to meet with Councilmember Buckshnis, explaining Finance Director Shawn Hunstock and Accountant Deb Sharp met to resolve the numbers. Councilmember Buckshnis spoke in favor of setting up a capital reserve for the ECA, and the possibility of establishing a reserve policy. Mr. McIalwain explained sales tax rebates from Snohomish County are improving. He anticipated in the future the PFD would ask for less and less loan amounts and then begin Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 431 to repay the loans. The loan amount in 2013 is less than 2012 and he assured the loan amount in 2013 would be $187,000 or less. 9. 2013 FEBRUARY BUDGET AMENDMENT Mayor Earling explained Finance Director Shawn Hunstock reviewed the amendments in detail at last week's Council meeting. Interim Finance Director Ronald Cone explained other than the removal of the Mayor's salary increase, there were no other changes to the amendment presented to the Council last week. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the $12,000 for professional services for Hainline for Haines Wharf Park and Walkway. Public Works Director Phil Williams responded that was the last billing from Hainline for Henry Speiker's work during the settlement process. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3913, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3904 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT UPDATE Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained since the Council approved Ordinance No. 3909 in January 2013, Finance, Information Technology, Community Services/Economic Development and the City Clerk's Office have been reviewing information to ensure it is as accurate as possible before letters and assessment statements are mailed. A decision was made to send out two letters; the first letter was mailed last week to both the business address and the mailing address on the business license. This was done to ensure the business owners received the letter as soon as possible. The purpose of the first letter is to 1) inform the business owner that the City Council formed the BID for the downtown area, 2) invite interested business owners to submit their name for consideration for appointment to the Interim Members Advisory Board (appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council), and 3) on a separate page in large font, inform the business that all future mailings related to the Edmonds Downtown BID will be sent to the mailing address on the business license and asking the business owner to contact Huda Olsen in the City Clerk's Office if the address is incorrect. Thus far no calls have been received. The second letter will be from the Members Advisory Board following appointment of the Board. The letter will explain more about the Edmonds Downtown BID, the levy of assessments, a table listing the square footage ranges, the per quarter assessment for "by appointment" or "open door" businesses, and the assessment collection schedule. The letter will also include a separate page, stating in large font that their business has been identified as either an open door or by appointment business, the square footage of the business listed on the business license and identifying the assessment per quarter. Business owners will be asked to contact Sarah Mager, Accounting Supervisor, with questions about their square footage or the type business. It is hoped by the time both letters have been issued, all questions can be resolved before assessment notices are issued. Mr. Clifton explained that due to the resignation of the Finance Director, it took longer than anticipated to send out the first letter. ECC 3.75.120 establishes two 90 day periods; one period follows adoption of the ordinance for creation of the 2013 work program and a second 90 day period that begins when the Members Advisory Board is created to develop the bylaws. Because it took approximately 11/2 months to send out the letter and the Mayor needs to appoint the Members Advisory Board, approximately half of the 90 days to create the work program has elapsed. He requested the Council amend ECC 3.75.120 to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 431 add an additional 60 days to the timeframe to develop the work program. That amendment could be prepared and presented to Council next week. The Members Advisory Board will present the 2013 work program to the Council for approval. Once the members of the BID choose their own Members Advisory Board, they will prepare and submit a 2014 work program to the City Council before the end of September 2013. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Members Advisory Board will be selected. Mr. Clifton responded the ordinance calls for appointing members based on proportional representation based on the valuation of collections. It is approximately a 50150 split now. The ordinance allows for appointment of an Interim Board of 7 to 11 members. Thus far, 14 individuals have expressed interest in serving on the Interim Members Advisory Board; a proportional representation would be 5 members from by appointment businesses and 5 members from open door businesses. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the deadline for businesses to submit their name to participate on the Board. Mr. Clifton advised the letter requests names be submitted by March 8. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the 50150 split of open door and by appointment businesses. Mr. Clifton responded the percentages based on the total assessment collected are 50.6% open door and 49.4% by appointment businesses. Councilmember Bloom pointed out if the percentage was based on the number of businesses, there would be more by appointment members of the Board. She asked whether the calculation method could be changed. Mr. Clifton answered it was in the ordinance and the only way to change it would be for the Council to revise the ordinance. 11. DISCUSSION: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE INTRODUCTION Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the second introduction to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. He provided a brief introduction at the December 4, 2012 Council meeting, primarily related to the Harbor Square property. A continued work session regarding the SMP is scheduled on March 26 and a decision will be made at that meeting whether to hold another work session. Mr. Lien provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA): • Adopted in 1971 • Policies address: o Shoreline Uses ■ The SMA establishes the concept of preferred uses of shoreline areas. Preferred uses include single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water dependent industrial and commercial developments and other developments that provide public access opportunities. o Environmental Protection ■ The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..." against adverse effects. All allowed uses are required to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline. o Public Access ■ Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities Shoreline Master Program o Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a SMP that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline -specific combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 431 In 2003 the Department of Ecology (DOE) adopted SMP Guidelines that are contained in WAC 173-26. The SMP Guidelines are state standards which local governments must follow in drafting their shoreline master programs. The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the SMA (RCW 90.58.020) into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. Edmonds did a fairly significant update of its SMP in 2000; the prior SMP was adopted in the early 1970s. The SMP is comprised of several documents: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations • Draft ECDC Title 24 • Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications • Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis He reviewed components of the SMP update: • Technical Advisory Committee, convened in 2006 • Consultant Documents o Shoreline Inventory and Characterization o Restoration Plan • Development Regulations — ECDC Title 24 • Cumulative Impact Analysis • SMP must be approved by Ecology o Have tentative DOE approval of regulations Mr. Lien explained the SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (Edmonds has none) • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands — upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien described the differences between jurisdiction, setback and buffers: • Jurisdiction — Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark of shorelines (OHWM) • Setback — Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM Buffer — the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. Buffer widths vary depending on the relative quality and sensitivity of the area being protected. Unlike zoning or shore setbacks, buffer areas are intended to be left undisturbed, or may need to be enhanced to support natural processes, functions and values. Mr. Lien explained often people think of an idealized natural concept of an undeveloped shoreline when thinking about buffers. The reality in Edmonds is a heavily developed shoreline with the Port, railroad tracks and other uses. Thus the naturalized concept for buffers does not apply in urban developed areas. As an example, he provided an image of Lake Ballinger, identifying the shoreline jurisdiction, shore setback prescribed by the SMP, and wetland setback. He provided an image of the bluff area in north Edmonds, identifying the railroad tracks, steep bluffs, bluff setback, and critical area building setback. Council President Petso asked if the appropriate setback and buffers are intended to be in Title 24 or will other critical area ordinances apply. Mr. Lien answered he would address that later in his presentation. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 431 Mr. Lien explained a key aspect of the SMA and a key consideration in developing the SMP is the concept of no let loss: • RCW 90.58.620 — Updated SMP's must ensure expansion, redevelopment and replacement of existing structures will result in no net loss of the ecological function of the shoreline. • WAC 173-26-186 — Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions. Achievement of no net loss is documented via the cumulative impacts analysis. • SMP Handbook — Setbacks only, with vegetation conservation and enhancement with new development meet the requirements to protect ecological functions. Mr. Lien reviewed the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. • Part I: Introduction ECDC 24.10.000 — 24.10.060 o 24.10.030 — Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations ■ SMP is adopted element in Edmonds Comprehensive Plan ■ SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC • Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP • SMP prevails where there are conflicts Part II: Goals & Policies ECDC 24.20.000 — 24.20.110 o Goals and Policies reviewed by Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in 2006 o Largely unchanged from current SMP o Added policies on climate change, LID, and Edmonds Marsh Part III: Shoreline Environments ECDC 24.30.000 — 24.30.080 o Intent is to encourage uses that will protect or enhance the current or desired character of a shoreline. o Environment designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction o Environmental designations reviewed by TAC o Edmonds has 11 Shoreline Environments: ■ Aquatic • Aquatic I (Low Intensity) — purpose is to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the OHWM. • Aquatic II (high intensity) — purpose is protect the unique characteristics and resources of the aquatic environment by managing water -dependent use activities to prioritize preservation and restoration of natural resources, navigation, recreation, and commerce, and by assuring compatibility between shoreland and aquatic uses. ■ Natural — purpose is to protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require that only very low -intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. • The Edmonds Marsh and the historically contiguous wetland to the east of State Route 104. • The Shell Creek wetland and lower riparian zone ■ Conservancy — purpose is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplains, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses • Bracket Landing South and North • Off -leash Dog Park • Willow Creek outlet of Edmonds Marsh ■ Shoreline Residential — purpose is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with the SMP. • Shoreline Residential I Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 431 — North Edmonds east of railroad, RS-12 & RS-20 zoning Shoreline Residential II — East of railroad, RS-6 zoning Shoreline Residential III — Lake Ballinger, RSW-12 Mr. Lien explained one of the major changes between the current SMP and the updated SMP is the change in designation of the Edmonds Marsh. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland which meant shoreline jurisdiction ended at the edge of the Marsh. In this update, DOE determined the Edmonds Marsh was itself a shoreline and the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the Marsh. The portion of the Marsh that is shoreline jurisdiction is the portion that is tidally influenced, the salt marsh area. He displayed an image identifying the historic boundaries of the Edmonds Marsh and the boundary set for the SMP. He identified an area where WSDOT estimated would turn into a salt marsh if Willows Creek were daylighted. Mr. Lien continued with the list of Edmonds' 11 shoreline environments: ■ Urban Mixed Use — the purpose is to provide for high -intensity, water -oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded • Urban Mixed Use I — North of fishing pier to Brackett's Landing South • Urban Mixed Use II Ferry Terminal Marina Beach to fishing pier • Urban Mixed Use III Upland areas around Edmonds Marsh Commercial area north of ferry terminal Councilmember Buckshnis commented Urban Mixed Use III was the only classification that allows residential. Mr. Lien agreed, explaining the SMP update is to consider all plans made or being made. Staff was aware the Port was considering redevelopment of Harbor Square which included a residential component. He identified an area where the Urban Mixed Use III applies to a Master Plan 11 zone that also envisions mixed use development with residential and commercial. He advised the use tables consider residential development within Harbor Square. Council President Petso asked if Urban Mixed Use 11 was an option for the south end of the Marsh as it was her understanding that was to be a transportation oriented use such as the ferry terminal relocation. Mr. Lien answered the south end of the Marsh allows for residential use. There is a MP 1 zone on the hill and MP 2 zone at the base of the hill. In the MP 1 zone, multi -family residential, offices, hotels/motels, restaurants, local public facilities and other uses are allowed. In the MP 2 zone, all uses permitted in the MP 1 zone are allowed. Council President Petso relayed her understanding the area on the map colored purple was intended to be used for the new ferry terminal, a transportation use. Mr. Lien responded it is the Edmonds Crossing site, but some commercial development was also envisioned in that area. Mr. Lien advised language describing the difference in the Urban Mixed Use environments is contained on page 30 of Title 24. Mr. Lien continued with the list of Edmonds' 11 shoreline environments: ■ Urban Railroad — purpose is to identify the 100-foot right-of-way for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad along the Edmonds shoreline. This designation will provide for high -intensity transportation uses while protecting ecological functions • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 14 of 431 Mr. Lien continued his review of the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. Part IV: General Policies & Regulations ECDC 24.40.000 — 24.40.090 0 24.40.080 — Shoreline Development Table ■ Allowed uses and required permits 0 24.40.090 — Bulk and Dimensional Standards ■ Setbacks and height limits Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is a jurisdiction of 150-200 feet from the OHWM, and a shore setback of 50 feet and asked whether the jurisdiction trumps the setback. Mr. Lien answered the jurisdiction is not a buffer or setback; 200 feet from the OHWM is the shoreline jurisdiction and is where the SMP applies. Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example: a house could not be located in the dog park because it is not 200 feet from the OHWM. Mr. Lien answered a house could not be located in the dog park because it is a conservancy environment which does not allow residential development. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the shore setbacks in Urban Mixed Use III are 50 feet and 15 feet for Urban Mixed Use I and II. She asked if that could be changed, expressing her interest in having the correct setbacks to seek grant funds. Mr. Lien responded he has worked closely with Ecology drafting these regulations; Ecology submitted a letter to the Port, copied to the City, regarding the Mixed Use III environment, and it states Ecology supports the Edmonds draft Mixed Use III shoreline environment and the associated shoreline regulations for Harbor Square area. The proposed standards recognize the existing high intensity land use that is present at Harbor Square and the highly modified upland shoreline environment adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh. Standards allow for potential redevelopment in the same impervious footprint. He explained although there are small setbacks, the setback is larger than currently exist and any redevelopment of the area provides an opportunity for enhancement. This also applied to critical area regulations that are outside the shoreline. Edmonds is 96% developed and many of the buffers encompass 2-3 parcels and the science the buffers are developed on areas that are undeveloped natural areas and do not apply to urbanized area. Councilmember Yamamoto asked how the OHWM is determined. Mr. Lien answered the OHWM on Puget Sound is the mean higher high tide. There are two high tides each day, one is always higher. The mean higher high tide for the Edmonds area is 10 feet. Around the Edmonds Marsh area, the OHWM is the edge of the wetland. Mr. Lien continued his review of the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. He explained a major change is proposed in the SMP update: • Part VIII: Administration — Shoreline Permits ECDC 24.80.000 — 24.80.170 o Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 0 24.80.100 — Public Hearing ■ Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner ■ Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner: • One or more persons request a hearing • A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued • Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use • The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits • Part IV: General Policies & Regulations ECDC 24.40.000 — 24.40.090 0 24.40.020 — critical areas o GMA vs. SMA o CAO Integration Options: 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 15 of 431 o Recommend City pursue options two and three Mr. Lien explained there are certain provisions within the CAO that had to be excepted out such as the reasonable use variance in the CAO. There is a shoreline variance process in the SMP that will need to be followed, not the CAO variance process. Councilmember Bloom asked what was meant by "except out." Mr. Lien explained these are provisions of the CAO that do not apply within shoreline jurisdiction. The entire CAO was adopted by reference. He referred to Section D, page 35 of the SMP which lists the provisions of the CAO that would not apply within shoreline jurisdictions. The remainder of the CAO would apply within shoreline jurisdictions. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained the reasonable use variance in the CAO does not apply in shoreline jurisdictions; however, there is a variance process in the SMP for shorelines. He summarized he has worked closely with Ecology in developing the City's SMP and these were items that Ecology said would need to be excepted out before they would approve the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified in this instance the SMP trumps GMA. Mr. Lien agreed. Mr. Lien explained another major change with regard to exceptions is there are certain provisions that are allowed in the City's CAO that would require a shoreline variance. He provided an example in a bluff area in north Edmonds; the CAO requires a 50 foot setback from the top of the bluff and a 15 foot building setback for a standard setback of 65 feet. The CAO regulations allow construction close to the bluff with a geotech report that says it is safe. In the updated SMP, building closer to the standard setback would require a shoreline variance. The same is true with wetland buffer reductions, construction closer than the 50% reduction allowed by the CAO would require a shoreline variance. Mr. Lien reviewed CAO integration: • 24.40.020.13 — CAO exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands 24.40.020.0 — CAO provisions allowed with shoreline variance Wetlands 0 24.40.020.F — Wetlands o Wetland regulations based on Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities: Publication No. 10-060- 002 o Wetland compensatory mitigation ratios according to Ecology's Guidance for protecting and Managing Wetlands, Appendix 8-C, Table 8-C 11: Publication No. 05-06-008 Mr. Lien asked what other details the Council would like to have provided at the March 26 work session. Council President Petso asked if the PowerPoint slides were available in the Council packet or on the City's webpage. Mr. Lien answered he could make the slides available to the Council. Council President Petso requested the slides Mr. Lien presented tonight be posted on the City's website. Mr. Lien advised he has created a webpage on the City's website for the SMP update that contains all the details and links to Planning Board and City Council agenda items. He will add this PowerPoint to that webpage. Councilmember Buckshnis commented her primary concern is having the correct setbacks around the Marsh so if/when WRIA 8 funds are available, the setbacks are consistent with other cities' setbacks. Mr. Lien commented every city is different; the SMP update is intended to fit Edmonds. Mayor Earling suggested Councilmembers forward any additional questions to Mr. Lien. Mr. Lien explained he plans to review the use tables and setbacks at the March 26 work session. He encouraged Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 16 of 431 Councilmembers to inform him if there were other elements of the SMP update they wanted him to provide further details on. 12. DISCUSSION: CITY CODE REVIEW/REWRITE Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained this is a follow-up to a presentation made at the Council retreat. He reviewed the general approach for a code mapping project: • Technical exercise o Improve organization o User-friendly orientation o Web -based for online delivery o Identify and resolve conflicts • Identify policy issues o Policy issues will require a separate public process o Could be simultaneous or follow-on process • Problem: o Edmonds has standards that are specific to Edmonds and reflect community values and identity o No single template to adopt o No single consultant can provide a finished product • Intent is to maximize available recourses o Requires substantial staff commitment and time o Use Code Publishing for presentation and online format and delivery o Use AWC template/author to provide legally sound modules to help organize re -mapped code Mr. Chave described research done thus far: • January 2013 — met with Code Publishing to review existing and potential expansion of online formats and features • January 2013 — met with Carol Morris to review AWC templates and potential legal services • 2012 — completed digital mapping of existing code (displayed digital map of ECC and ECDC) Council President Petso asked how issues that are policy and/or legal issues will come back to Council. She assumed once they have been identified, they will need to be prioritized. Mr. Chave answered that will entail working with Carol Morris. For example, Ms. Morris has been working on a template that integrates a standard subdivision process that tracks with State law and the civil review. As civil review is not included in the City's code, that will be a high priority. He anticipated a few high priorities will be identified early in the process and others will arise throughout the process. His plan is to provide an update to the Council every 1 to 2 months, identify policy issues that have arisen and determine whether the Council wants them pursued via a separate process or incorporated in the rewrite. Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Chave to provide further details regarding the overall civil review process that is not mentioned in the subdivision code. Mr. Chave explained there is a preliminary approval in the subdivision process where most details are worked out. Final approval occurs after the process of developing and having civil plans approved administratively by the City and showing that the requirements of the preliminary approval have been met. The subdivision code is essentially silent regarding the process for approving civil plans. Councilmember Bloom asked whether most other cities include the civil process in their code. Mr. Chave was uncertain, noting subdivision processes primarily come from State enabling legislation and do not include the civil process. Subdivision processes were developed primarily via zoning rules; whereas civil approvals are related to Public Works and Utilities. There are a number of potential issues that can arise Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 17 of 431 during a civil review process such as it is not feasible to do something that was envisioned during the preliminary stage. It would help administratively to identify the process that would be used in those circumstances. Councilmember Bloom observed the information presented regarding the code mapping had icons with drop down menus. She asked how the drop down menus could be viewed. Mr. Chave answered it is specific software and the City only has licenses for a few copies. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Chave explained the boxes displayed on the code mapping page represent sections of the existing code. Using the software, pieces of the code can be moved around and exported into a word processor to revise the language. The benefit is there is an electronic trail and allows for visual organization. He noted the new code sections would likely have different names than the old. For example, it would not necessarily be "zoning," it may be called something different such as "private property development." When people look at the code, they want to know more than just the zoning; they want to know all the regulations. Councilmember Bloom asked when in the process the Council could see those details. Mr. Chave answered the high level titles in the reorganization will be identified and the listings under those subjects. That will give the council a good idea of what the new code will look like and will be available in 2 to 3 months. 13. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Yamamoto reported he is the Council liaison to several boards including SnoCom, CTAC, Port of Edmonds, and SeaShore Transportation Forum. With regard to SnoCom, as part of a dispute resolution, he visited the New World vendor in Detroit along with other SnoCom, SnoPac and NorCom representatives. This has been ongoing since 2009, and the only leverage is to withhold maintenance payments which amount to $300,000 to $400,000. The live date for the New World product has been repeatedly delayed. The New World system will provide enhanced 911 capabilities and coordination between Snohomish County and King County as well as provide additional information to police and fire. He further reported SnoCom's budget is doing well and they reduced their monthly costs by $73,000. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Public Health District meeting did not have a quorum. They were able to distribute food establishment awards for grocery stores, restaurants and mobile food vendors in Snohomish County. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she was recently appointed to the Law and Justice Committee for Snohomish County. She has attended one meeting and looks forward to learning more about law and justice standards in Snohomish County. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board plans to make its annual presentation to the Council on March 5. The Tree Board's recent meeting included discussion regarding a tree inventory and an Arbor Day celebration. Councilmember Bloom reported the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee discussed exploring advertising on social media and wayfinding signage. Councilmember Bloom reported the Economic Development Commission (EDC) discussed communicating with Council and getting direction from Council. The EDC may develop a questionnaire for Councilmembers to complete. The meeting also included reports from subcommittees, discussion regarding uses in the BD zone and a summary of issues related to gambling. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 18 of 431 Council President Petso reported the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) included training for Commissioners on registering properties and conveying the benefits of listing a property on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. She anticipated public hearings and approvals of additional properties on the Register. The HPC also discussed a grant for next year's calendar. She advised calendars are still available for $5 and contain gorgeous photographs. Council President Petso reported on the Regional Fire Authority meeting, the first meeting of the group since several jurisdictions made a decision not to participate. The financial model using only Fire District 1, Mountlake Terrace and Brier indicates the numbers are not as attractive with only those three jurisdictions. Councilmember Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 is seeking projects to fund. She has been in contact with Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and Keely O'Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, regarding potential projects. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the upcoming Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) meeting will include voting on growth targets. She has reviewed the targets with Mr. Chave and Mayor Earling; Edmonds' targets are reasonable. SCT will also be appointing officers, reviewing the interjurisdictional agreement related to affordable housing, and discussing conflict compromise. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling recalled at the retreat there was discussion regarding interaction between Councilmembers and Directors. He will email guidelines to Councilmembers tomorrow. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson announced SnoCom's open house Wednesday, February 27, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. She also reviewed the February 27 Planning Board meeting agenda: 1) Public hearing to amend the ECDC related to design standards for BD2 — BD4 zones. 2) Discussion on increasing the timeframe for validity of preliminary short plat approval 3) Discussion on Edmonds Way Zoning Council President Petso reported staff is working on live streaming Council meetings so that meetings can be watched as they occur. Approval to launch live streaming will come to the Council in the near future. 16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(D This item was removed from the agenda via Council action under Agenda Item 4. 17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was removed from the agenda via Council action under Agenda Item 4. 18. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 19 of 431 AM-5544 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 03/05/2013 Time• Consent Submitted For: Ronald Cone Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Submitted By: 3. B. Nori Jacobson Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Approval of claim checks #200747 through #200857 dated February 28, 2013 for $473,785.35 (reissued checks #200747 $334,100.00 and #200806 $37.50). Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2013 Revenue• Expenditure: 473,785.35 Fiscal Impact: Claims $473,785.35 Reissued checks $334,137.50 (#200747 $334,100 & #200806 $37.50) Attachments Claim Checks 2-28-13 Proiect Numbers 2-28-13 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Ronald Cone 02/28/2013 11:48 AM Packet Page 20 of 431 City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Final Approval Date: 03/01/2013 Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase 02/28/2013 02:44 PM 02/28/2013 06:52 PM 03/01/2013 08:41 AM Started On: 02/28/2013 10:13 AM Packet Page 21 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200747 2/26/2013 074323 YUSEN & FRIEDRICH IN TRUST E6DA.Pmt15.Precision E6DA.PMT 15.FINAL.PRECISION SE E6DA.Pmt 15.Final. Precision Settlem 011.000.39.518.60.49.00 334,100.00 Total : 334,100.00 200748 2/28/2013 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC CR29754 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 1,237.22 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 286.22 Total : 1,523.44 200749 2/28/2013 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 213422 WINTER PICKLE BALL SHIRTS WINTER PICKLE BALL SHIRTS 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 23.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 2.24 Total : 25.80 200750 2/28/2013 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND MARCH 2O13 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 03/2013 E ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 03/13 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,097.71 Total : 2,097.71 200751 2/28/2013 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 3-0197-0807770 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLIN WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLIN 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 12.64 Total : 12.64 200752 2/28/2013 065568 ALLWATER INC 020713030 WWTP WATER COOLER WWTP WATER COOLER 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 30.30 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 0.67 Total : 30.97 Page: 1 Packet Page 22 of 431 vchlist 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 2 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200753 2/28/2013 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 061514-12114 APA MEMBERSHIP FOR DIRECTOF American Planning Association 001.000.61.519.70.49.00 300.00 American Planning Association 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 300.00 Total : 600.00 200754 2/28/2013 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC WC99 WWTP LABORATORY SERVICES WWTP LABORATORY SERVICES 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 165.00 Total : 165.00 200755 2/28/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6666881 UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 30.37 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 2.89 Total : 33.26 200756 2/28/2013 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0400605-IN #2 Diesel fule #2 Diesel fule 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 8,934.47 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 848.77 Total : 9,783.24 200757 2/28/2013 065950 ATS ELECTRO-LUBE INTL INC 78193 WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES - E WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES - E 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 534.58 Total : 534.58 200758 2/28/2013 071439 AUTOMATIC ENTRIES INC 27738 PW - Front Counter Supplies PW - Front Counter Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 88.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.36 Page: 2 Packet Page 23 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200758 2/28/2013 071439 071439 AUTOMATIC ENTRIES INC (Continued) Total : 96.36 200759 2/28/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 68407 UTILITY BILL INSERTS Utility Bill Inserts 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 552.76 Total : 552.76 200760 2/28/2013 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST March 2013 AWC MARCH 2O13 AWC March 2013 AWC Premiums 811.000.231.510 57,322.60 Total : 57,322.60 200761 2/28/2013 074346 BIDWELL, JOY BIDWELL 02222013 REFUND -WEATHER REFUND -WEATHER 001.000.239.200 49.00 Total : 49.00 200762 2/28/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12544379 PARKS AND REC RENTAL IRC 505' PARKS AND REC RENTAL IRC 505' 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 249.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 23.75 12544383 PARKS AND REC HFP02100 PARKS AND REC HFP02100 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 27.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 2.66 Total : 304.39 200763 2/28/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12544373 Lease printer/copier for Council Office Lease printer/copier for Council Office 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65 Total : 30.65 200764 2/28/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12544381 Lease Planning Printer/Copier Lease Planning Printer/Copier 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16 Page: 3 Packet Page 24 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200764 2/28/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 12544382 Lease printer/copier Building Div. Lease printer/copier Building Div. 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16 Total : 72.32 200765 2/28/2013 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 138.73 Total : 138.73 200766 2/28/2013 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT 17467 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 17467 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT 17467 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 70.68 Total : 70.68 200767 2/28/2013 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 37237048 INV#37237048 ACCT#7898305185 E FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 534.31 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 5.34 Total : 539.65 200768 2/28/2013 069947 CITRIX ONLINE LLC 1200745607 GOTOMYPC CORPORATE SERVICE GoToMyPC Corporate Service - Qty 001.000.31.518.87.49.00 2,904.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.49.00 275.88 Total : 3,179.88 200769 2/28/2013 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE83481502 Fac Maint - ASSA Supplies Fac Maint - ASSA Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.50 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.78 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 4 Packet Page 25 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200769 2/28/2013 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.41 Total : 27.69 200770 2/28/2013 074255 COAL CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOC 120902-03 WWTP SLUDGE INCINERATOR PRi WWTP SLUDGE INCINERATOR PRI 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,206.63 Total : 1,206.63 200771 2/28/2013 068358 COLUMBIA CASCADE COMPANY 48249-26 E7AA.BENCHES E7AA.Benches 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,135.25 Total : 2,135.25 200772 2/28/2013 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 27385 Vogelsang pump rebuild Vogelsang pump rebuild 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 3,124.58 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 296.84 Total : 3,421.42 200773 2/28/2013 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3271799 RFQ AD FOR COMP PLAN RFQ AD FOR COMP PLAN 001.000.64.571.21.44.00 109.20 3271800 RFQ AD RFQ AD 125.000.64.576.80.44.00 107.10 Total : 216.30 200774 2/28/2013 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 328318 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 02/02/13 E1AA.Services thru 02/02/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 27,642.03 Total : 27,642.03 200775 2/28/2013 006375 DAY & NITE PLUMBING BLD2013.0166 Online permit overpayment Online permit overpayment 001.000.257.620 90.00 Page: 5 Packet Page 26 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200775 2/28/2013 006375 006375 DAY & NITE PLUMBING (Continued) Total : 90.00 200776 2/28/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3340 Prof Sery - Minutetaker for 2013 Prof Sery - Minutetaker for 2013 001.000.11.511.60.41.00 510.00 Total : 510.00 200777 2/28/2013 074273 DOOLEY, LANCE 1099 KINGFISHER AND HORNED GREBE KINGFISHER AND HORNED GREBE 127.200.64.573.20.41.00 2,050.00 Total : 2,050.00 200778 2/28/2013 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1694106 KILN AND HARDENER KILN AND HARDENER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 127.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.07 Total : 139.12 200779 2/28/2013 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP GIFFORD 16415 JOSHUA GIFFORD TOT SOCCER 11 JOSHUA GIFFORD TOT SOCCER 11 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 61.00 ROSS 16705 CAMBREE ROSS CHEER SQUAD 11 CAMBREE ROSS CHEER SQUAD 11 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 45.00 Total : 106.00 200780 2/28/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTEI 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTEI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 2-25175 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 2-28275 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 2-37180 MINI PARK Page: 6 Packet Page 27 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200780 2/28/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) MINI PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 44.48 7-05276 820 15TH ST SW 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 130.11 Total : 269.96 200781 2/28/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE� LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE� 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 67.43 2-29118 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.52 2-29119 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN - LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN - 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 149.34 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH I LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH I 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 31.79 Total : 283.08 200782 2/28/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 084609 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTEN Maintenance for printers 02/21/13 - 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 312.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 29.64 Total : 341.64 200783 2/28/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 084536 WWTP COPIER MONTHLY MAINTEI WWTP COPIER MONTHLY MAINTEI 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 65.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 6.22 Total : 71.72 Page: 7 Packet Page 28 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200784 2/28/2013 072951 ENECON USA 63035 Pump Coating Material Pump Coating Material 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 765.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 40.00 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 72.68 Total : 877.68 200785 2/28/2013 074345 EUROFINS EATON ANALYTICAL L0111842 Water Quality - Testing Water Quality - Testing 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 160.00 Total : 160.00 200786 2/28/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU27796 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.55 WAMOU27797 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.84 Total : 73.68 200787 2/28/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU27702 Propane Project Supplies Propane Project Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 20.80 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1.98 Total : 22.78 200788 2/28/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0364753 Water - 4" Hydrant Meter Water - 4" Hydrant Meter 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2,367.00 Page: 8 Packet Page 29 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200788 2/28/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 48.41 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 229.47 0368791 Water Meter Inventory - #2024— Water Meter Inventory - #2024- 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 4,634.64 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 440.29 0368794 Water Supplies - 3/4 Rubber Meter Water Supplies - 3/4 Rubber Meter 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 180.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 17.10 Total : 7,916.91 200789 2/28/2013 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 211790 Flex Plan 2013 processing and Flex Plan 2013 processing and 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 674.00 Total : 674.00 200790 2/28/2013 011900 FRONTIER 253-017-8148 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 821.51 Total : 821.51 200791 2/28/2013 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR` SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR` 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 29.02 253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 001.000.65.519.91.42.00 5.48 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE Page: 9 Packet Page 30 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 200791 2/28/2013 011900 FRONTIER Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 20.78 253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 151.72 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 281.76 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.53 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.42 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.86 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 81.46 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 27.01 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 27.01 425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 001.000.65.519.91.42.00 14.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 70.51 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 59.23 Page: 10 Packet Page 31 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200791 2/28/2013 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 59.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 78.97 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 55.39 425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSIOI` 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 110.78 425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUST( 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 50.88 425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 53.85 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL. FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.44 Total : 1,468.67 200792 2/28/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA: FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA: 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 166.17 425-778-3297 UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LIN UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LIN 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.07 UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LIN 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 35.42 Total : 220.66 200793 2/28/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0423 WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LII WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LII 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 59.61 Page: 11 Packet Page 32 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200793 2/28/2013 011900 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) Total: 59.61 200794 2/28/2013 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 109423 B Tire Tax from old invoice Tire Tax from old invoice 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.00 Total : 4.00 200795 2/28/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9068000455 MOTOR LOCKING HANDLE MOTOR LOCKING HANDLE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.84 Total : 9.68 200796 2/28/2013 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 135770/1 Water Inventory - #0113— Water Inventory - #0113- 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 660.60 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 62.76 Total : 723.36 200797 2/28/2013 073939 HAINLINE & ASSOCIATES INC 8890 E6DA.SERVICES THRU 1/25/13 E6DA.Services thru 1/25/13 125.000.64.594.75.41.00 8,402.50 Total : 8,402.50 200798 2/28/2013 073299 HAMEL, NANCY HAMEL 02222013 REFUND INSUFFICIENT REGISTRA- REFUND INSUFFICIENT REGISTRA- 001.000.239.200 31.00 Total : 31.00 200799 2/28/2013 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 13308935 Water Supplies - Romac Saddles wit[ Water Supplies - Romac Saddles wit[ 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,400.88 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 133.09 Page: 12 Packet Page 33 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200799 2/28/2013 010900 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC (Continued) Total : 1,533.97 200800 2/28/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 4048883 ORGANIZERS ORGANIZERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 26.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.56 4092660 PLUS GALLON PLUS GALLON 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.28 5040902 SHEARS SHEARS 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 29.97 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 2.85 5080952 MALLET MALLET 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 43.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.17 8045950 GLOVES, STRIPS, SUPPLIES GLOVES, STRIPS, SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 36.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.49 9047998 TOTE, BOX TOTE, BOX 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.46 Total : 205.29 200801 2/28/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2230781 Office supplies - HR Office supplies - HR Page: 13 Packet Page 34 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200801 2/28/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 42.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 3.99 Total : 45.99 200802 2/28/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2231355 WWTP OFFICE SUPPLIES WWTP OFFICE SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 116.04 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 11.01 Total : 127.05 200803 2/28/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2230593 Office Supplies, DSD Office Supplies, DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 333.91 Total : 333.91 200804 2/28/2013 068814 INDUSTRIAL FABRICS CORP 403776 WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES - E WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES - E 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 7,036.00 Total : 7,036.00 200805 2/28/2013 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 10599675 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,957.90 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 32.22 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 32.64 Total : 2,022.76 200806 2/28/2013 074327 JARVEY, ALICIA JARVIS REFUND REFUND, CONFLICT WITH SCHEDI REFUND, CONFLICT WITH SCHEDI 001.000.239.200 37.50 Total : 37.50 Page: 14 Packet Page 35 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 200807 2/28/2013 074176 KING CO SUPERIOR COURT CLERK FEB 25 2013 200808 2/28/2013 068677 KONECRANES AMERICA INC SEA00751891 200809 2/28/2013 073657 LAW OFFICE OF DILLON G SMITH 8 200810 2/28/2013 068619 LINDA SWENSON 200811 2/28/2013 074325 LOPEZ, YUREMI 200812 2/28/2013 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 200813 2/28/2013 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 1243 LOPEZ 02/26/2013 819136 �I$0I:Y1 1 1 PO # Description/Account Amount RECORDS REQUEST - EDMONDS F RECORDS REQUEST 001.000.41.521.11.41.00 10.00 Total : 10.00 WWTP ANNUAL CRANE INSPECTIC WWTP ANNUAL CRANE INSPECTIC 423.000.76.535.80.41.21 775.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.21 73.63 Total : 848.63 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 1,400.00 Total : 1,400.00 EDMONDS HALF OF SUMMER CRA EDMONDS HALF OF SUMMER CRA 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 157.50 Total : 157.50 VOLLEY BALL GYM ATTENDANT Al VOLLEY BALL GYM ATTENDANT Al 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 130.00 Total : 130.00 PINS AND WASHERS PINS AND WASHERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.94 Total : 10.84 HAND PUMP HAND PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 68.00 Page: 15 Packet Page 36 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200813 2/28/2013 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.46 Total : 74.46 200814 2/28/2013 074181 MADSEN, DAWN MADSEN 16443 IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS 16443 IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS 16443 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 45.00 IRISH DANCE 16439 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 60.00 Total : 105.00 200815 2/28/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1244 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 Total : 88.32 200816 2/28/2013 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 22 LEOFF reimbursement LEOFF reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 1,496.00 Total : 1,496.00 200817 2/28/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 45902074 WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 495.50 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 32.86 46100063 WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 199.25 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 6.53 Total : 734.14 200818 2/28/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 46106975 Steel STrut Steel STrut Page: 16 Packet Page 37 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200818 2/28/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 56.80 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 19.27 Total : 76.07 200819 2/28/2013 063773 MICROFLEX 00021150 01-13 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM TAX AUDIT PROGRAM 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 161.68 Total : 161.68 200820 2/28/2013 073918 MINTON, SHARON MINTON 16350 PRENATAL YOGA 16350 PRENATAL YOGA 16350 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 12.33 Total : 12.33 200821 2/28/2013 069365 MOON CONSTRUCTION INC 12049 Project c365 Retainage Project c365 Retainage 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 7,969.40 Total : 7,969.40 200822 2/28/2013 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-249394 Mechanical Bearings for pump repair Mechanical Bearings for pump repair 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 208.54 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 19.82 Total : 228.36 200823 2/28/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-614424 RENTALS PINE STREET PARK RENTALS PINE STREET PARK 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-615031 RENTALS CIVIC PLAYFIELD RENTALS CIVIC PLAYFIELD 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-615794 RENTALS HAINES WHARF PARK RENTALS HAINES WHARF PARK 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77 Page: 17 Packet Page 38 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200823 2/28/2013 061013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued) Total : 445.47 200824 2/28/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 643152 PENS AND PENCILS PENS AND PENCILS 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 39.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 3.79 Total : 43.66 200825 2/28/2013 068709 OFFICETEAM 37119815 Pamela Haldane= Temporary HR Asc Pamela Haldane= Temporary HR AsE 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 525.36 Total : 525.36 200826 2/28/2013 073987 OSMONSON, SHANNON OSMONSON 16430 LITTLE FISHES PRESCHOOL PREP LITTLE FISHES PRESCHOOL PREP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 486.00 Total : 486.00 200827 2/28/2013 008350 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 02262013 PARKS AND REC STORAGE CONT) PARKS AND REC STORAGE CONT) 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 5.26 VALENTINES SUPPLIES FOR GYMP 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 24.46 CONFERENCE FEE FOR MICHELLE 001.000.64.574.35.49.00 10.00 PRESCHOOL SCIENCE SUPPLIES 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 6.12 PARKING AT ARTS DAY 117.100.64.573.20.43.00 12.00 YARN FOR PRESCHOOL 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 2.78 FOOD FOR DADDY DAUGHTER DA 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 18.92 BREAD FOR PRESCHOOL SCIENCI 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 1.99 Page: 18 Packet Page 39 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200827 2/28/2013 008350 PETTY CASH (Continued) DISCOVERY SUPPLIES 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 13.05 SUPPLIES DISCOVERY 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 8.99 EGG HUNT PEZ PRIZES 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 30.00 Total : 133.57 200828 2/28/2013 008475 PETTY CASH 2/1-2/25/13 WATER- THE GROUP 2013 DUES - WATER- THE GROUP 2013 DUES - 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 20.00 UNIT K93 POL - RELICENSE FOR P 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 73.60 UNIT 54 STIR - RELICENSE FOR PR 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 73.60 UNIT 411 POL - RELICENSE FOR PI 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 73.60 Total : 240.80 200829 2/28/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 3232510 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 38.03 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 8.93 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 4.46 Total : 51.42 200830 2/28/2013 070160 POETS & WRITERS INC 2013-6880 POETS AND WRITERS AD POETS AND WRITERS AD 117.100.64.573.20.44.00 1,450.00 Total : 1,450.00 200831 2/28/2013 030695 PUMPTECH INC 0064330-IN WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES - N WWTP MECHANICAL SUPPLIES - N Page: 19 Packet Page 40 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200831 2/28/2013 030695 PUMPTECH INC (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 3,221.28 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 53.71 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 311.12 Total : 3,586.11 200832 2/28/2013 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000133747 INSCRIPTION POPOWSKA INSCRIPTION POPOWSKA 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 90.00 00000133748 INSCRIPTION WOOD INSCRIPTION WOOD 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 90.00 00000133749 INSCRIPTION MCANDREW INSCRIPTION MCANDREW 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 90.00 00000133856 INSCRIPTION LAROTANDA INSCRIPTION LAROTANDA 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 90.00 Total : 360.00 200833 2/28/2013 074014 SAIC ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT & 03-711 E1FM.SERVICES THRU 2/1/13 E1 FM.Services thru 2/1/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 4,788.38 Total : 4,788.38 200834 2/28/2013 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 13-0338 Unit 98 - 1" 900 Reel Swivel Unit 98 - 1" 900 Reel Swivel 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 198.25 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 22.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.98 Total : 241.82 Page: 20 Packet Page 41 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 200835 2/28/2013 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 200836 2/28/2013 073859 SIMMONS, SHELLY 200837 2/28/2013 073646 SIMPLEX GRINNELL 200838 2/28/2013 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC Invoice 198116 Al1OOTiluEel ONRa[191"RZ:1 68651816 1-779376 200839 2/28/2013 037330 SNO CO PLANNING & DEVLP SERV 1000323336 200840 2/28/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-9314-6 PO # Description/Account INV#198116 - EDMONDS PD TOW HONDA ACCORD #780YNG 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 Total ZUMBATOMIC 16698 ZUMBATOMIC 16698 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 ZUMBATOMIC 16700 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 ZUMBZTOMIC 16704 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total WWTP ANNUAL FIRE EXTINGUISHI WWTP ANNUAL FIRE EXTINGUISHI 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 Total Shop Supplies Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 Total 2013 SNOHOMISH CO TOMORRO\A 2013 Snohomish County Tomorrow C 001.000.39.519.90.49.00 Total 19827 89TH PL W Amount 158.00 15.01 173.01 281.25 120.00 198.75 600.00 354.00 33.63 387.63 32.03 3.04 35.07 7,096.00 7,096.00 Page: 21 Packet Page 42 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200840 2/28/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 19827 89TH PL W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.16 2026-2041-5 24000 78TH AVE W 24000 78TH AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 130.02 Total : 161.18 200841 2/28/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.20 2002-0256-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 32.72 2003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 85.04 2003-9895-6 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,467.38 2006-1131-7 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE \ LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE \ 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 224.86 2007-0685-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21200 84TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21200 84TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.20 2008-6520-2 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRI LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRI 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 190.16 2011-5141-2 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8400 219' PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8400 219' 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.20 2015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / P SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / P 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,895.55 2015-8215-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W Page: 22 Packet Page 43 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200841 2/28/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 44.92 2016-1195-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 46.23 2017-5147-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 115.01 2019-0786-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 43.18 2019-4248-9 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.519.91.47.00 95.43 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 362.62 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 362.62 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 362.62 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 362.62 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 362.60 2020-8787-0 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / ME' LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / ME' 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 324.12 2022-8912-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 116.72 2022-9166-2 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION 17 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION 17 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,203.00 2024-2780-3 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8602 188' Page: 23 Packet Page 44 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200841 2/28/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8602 188- 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.20 2024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,172.06 2025-1986-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 1400 OLY PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 1400 OL 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.16 2028-0763-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 32.44 2036-5215-1 5-CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOA 5-CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOA 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 695.53 Total : 16,757.39 200842 2/28/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2030-9778-7 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10( WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10( 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 27,401.28 Total : 27,401.28 200843 2/28/2013 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 0390009082 ACCT #00600009120 Advanced Contact fee on jointly owne 001.000.31.518.87.41.00 80.69 Total : 80.69 200844 2/28/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISK WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISK 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 4,470.90 Total : 4,470.90 200845 2/28/2013 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO March 2013 Standard MARCH 2O13 STANDARD INSURAN March 2013 Standard Insurance Pren 811.000.231.550 13,893.71 Total : 13,893.71 Page: 24 Packet Page 45 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200846 2/28/2013 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L97349 Edmonds TBD Audit Jan 2013 Edmonds TBD Audit Jan 2013 139.000.68.542.31.41.00 668.80 Total : 668.80 200847 2/28/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY s100439831.001 CIVIC FIELD LIGHTS CIVIC FIELD LIGHTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 35.51 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.37 S100440846.001 YOST POOL BUILDING YOST POOL BUILDING 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 41.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.92 S100440846.002 YOST POOL BUILDING YOST POOL BUILDING SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 64.07 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.09 Total : 154.26 200848 2/28/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100433777.001 FS 20 - Supplies FS 20 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 58.63 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.82 Total : 67.07 200849 2/28/2013 073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI TANIMURA 16483 KENDO 16483 KENDO 16483 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 122.50 KENDO 16485 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 318.50 Page: 25 Packet Page 46 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200849 2/28/2013 073621 073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI (Continued) Total : 441.00 200850 2/28/2013 073284 UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO March UHC 2013 MARCH UHC 2013 Gregory Wean UHC Health premium 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 927.29 March 2013 UHC Health Premiums 811.000.231.511 206,997.21 Total : 207,924.50 200851 2/28/2013 062693 US BANK 2985 MULTIPLE PURCHASES Electrical Work Permit 2189919P 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 2,189.70 Training 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 299.00 Total : 2,488.70 200852 2/28/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 1163631565 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service -Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 97.04 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 172.69 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 69.57 Cell Service -Parks Discovery Prograr 001.000.64.574.35.42.00 13.42 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 58.83 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 349.47 Cell Service-PD 104 Fund 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 188.41 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 26.86 Cell Service-PW Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 24.39 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm Page: 26 Packet Page 47 of 431 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200852 2/28/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 40.28 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 40.28 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 164.48 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 125.74 Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 42.35 Total : 1,413.81 200853 2/28/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 28797021 WWTP PART-TIME ADMIN TEMP HI WWTP PART-TIME ADMIN TEMP HI 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 494.91 Total : 494.91 200854 2/28/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 28761575 Admin Support Admin Support 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 488.80 Total : 488.80 200855 2/28/2013 071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES Bld2013.0050 Online permit overpayment Online permit overpayment 001.000.257.620 70.00 Total : 70.00 200856 2/28/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5818 Utility Billing - #9 Return Env (10,000; Utility Billing - #9 Return Env (10,000; 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 132.67 Utility Billing - #9 Return Env (10,000; 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 132.67 Utility Billing - #9 Return Env (10,000; 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 132.66 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 12.60 Page: 27 Packet Page 48 of 431 vchlist 02/28/2013 8:15:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 28 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 200856 2/28/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.60 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 12.61 Total : 435.81 200857 2/28/2013 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1014 FEB-13 RETAINER & JAN-13 BALAN Monthly Retainer - February 2013 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,390.00 Monthly Retainer balance owing - 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 390.00 Total : 13,780.00 111 Vouchers for bank code: usbank Bank total : 807,922.85 111 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 807,922.85 Page: 28 Packet Page 49 of 431 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA Revised 2/28/2013 Packet Page 50 of 431 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 5th Avenue Overlay Project c399 E2CC WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD Revised 2/28/2013 Packet Page 51 of 431 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WM d Res r WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC EOLB STR E1AB STR E1 DA c332 c342 c343 c354 c372 STM El FA c336 c339 STM E1FF c341 STM STM E1 FM c374 SWR E1GA c347 WTR c370 WTR E1JA c333 WTR E1JC WTR E1JE WTR c344 c345 c340 ds Museum Exterior Repairs Project Senior Center Roof Repairs Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming ntersection Improvements Sunset Walkway Improvements SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades Storm Contribution to Transportation Proiects lbr Develop -IPDES Capacity) Street & SR104 Storm Drainaae Alternatives Irerrinville Creek Culvert Replacement Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update 2011 Waterline Replacement Program 76th Av� Extension Edmonds General Facilities PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment 2012 Waterline Replacement Progran c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update IR � Improvement Project STR E2AC c404 Citvwide Safetv Improvements c405 lffwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair WTR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project Interurban Trail amw STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study Revised 2/28/2013 Packet Page 52 of 431 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements 012 Sanitary Sewe SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STM E3FB c406 STM E3FD c409 STM SWR E3GA c398 3 Citywide Drainage Repl 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) JlorthstreMe Abandon 2013 Sewerline Replacement Proiect Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program OVD Watermain Improvements STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project rive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Proaram E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01/08) c300 BNSF Double Track Project= SWR E8GD c301 Citv-Wide Sewer Improvements Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project albot Rd SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 2/28/2013 Packet Page 53 of 431 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STIR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STIR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STIR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STIR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 EBMA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 EBMB Marina Beach Additional Parking STIR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 EBGA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c300 EBGC BNSF Double Track Project SWR c301 EBGD City -Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STIR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 EOIA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 EOFC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 EOLA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STIR c329 EOAA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 EOLB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c336 E1 FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c339 E1 FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1 FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study Revised 2/28/2013 Packet Page 54 of 431 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1 FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STR c354 E1 DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 EOJA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 ElEA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1 FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1 FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c406 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 EYD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 EYE Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 2/28/2013 Packet Page 55 of 431 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c406 E31`13 SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC WTR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c409 E3FD WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA Revised 2/28/2013 Packet Page 56 of 431 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA STIR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STIR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 2/28/2013 Packet Page 57 of 431 PROJECT NUMBERS (Phase and Task Numbers) Phases and Tasks (Enaineerina Division Phase Title ct Construction ds Design pl Preliminary sa Site Acquisition & Prep st Study ro Right -of -Way Task Title 196 Traffic Engineering & Studies 197 MAIT 198 CTR 199 Engineering Plans & Services 950 Engineering Staff Time 970 Construction Management 981 Contract 990 Miscellaneous 991 Retainage stm Engineering Staff Time -Storm str Engineering Staff Time -Street swr Engineering Staff Time -Sewer wtr Engineering Staff Time -Water prk Engineering Staff Time -Park Packet Page 58 of 431 AM-5526 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 03/05/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Dave Earling Department: Mayor's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Information Submitted By: Committee Action: 3. C. Carolyn LaFave Subject Title Approval of list of Edmonds' businesses applying for renewal of their liquor license with the Washington State Liquor Control Board, February 2013. Recommendation Please approve the list of Edmonds' businesses applying for renewal of their WSLCB licenses. Previous Council Action Narrative The City Clerk's Office, the Police Department, and the Mayor's Office have reviewed the attached list and have no concerns with the Washington State Liquor Control Board renewing the liquor licenses of the listed businesses. WSLCB Feb 2013 Inbox Finalize for Agenda Mayor Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Final Approval Date: 02/21/2013 AttnehmPntc Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 02/21/2013 12:19 PM Dave Earling 02/21/2013 12:29 PM Started On: 02/21/2013 10:22 AM Packet Page 59 of 431 A& 4&115 dm W Washington State Liquor Control Board PO Box 43098, 3000 Pacific Ave. SE, Olympia WA 98504-3098, (360) 664-1600 RECEIVED MAYOR OF EDMONDS FEB 0 7 2013 121 5TH AVE NORTH EDMONDS. WA 98020 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR v °CDWashington State rn�i,a• - Liquor Control Board PO Box 43098, 3000 Pacific Ave. SE, Olympia WA 98504-3098, (360) 664-1600 www.liq.wa.gov Fax #: (360) 753-2710 w February 07, 2013 Dear Local Authority: RE: Liquor License Renewal Applications in Your Jurisdiction - Your Objection Opportunity Enclosed please find a list of liquor -licensed premises in your jurisdiction whose liquor licenses will expire in about 90 days. This is your opportunity to object to these license renewal requests as authorized by RCW 66.24.010 (8). 1) Objection to License Renewal To object to a liquor license renewal: fax or mail a letter to the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) Licensing Division. This letter must: o Detail the reason(s) for your objection, including a statement of all the facts upon which your objection or objections are based. You may include attachments and supporting documents which contain or confirm the facts upon which your objections are based. o Please note that whether a hearing will be granted or not is within the Board's discretion per RCW 66.24.010 (8)(d). Your letter or fax of objection most be received by the Board's Licensing Division at least 30 days prior to the license exgiratlon date. If you need additional 'time you must request that In writing. Please be aware, however, that it is within The Board's discretion to grant or deny any requests for extension of time to submit objections. Your request for extension will be granted or denied in writing. If objections are not timely received, they will not be considered as part of the renewal process. A copy of your objection and any attachments and supporting materials will be made available to the licensee, therefore, it is the Local Authority's responsibility to redact any confidential or non-disclosable information (see RCW 42.56) prior to submission to the WSLCB. 2) Status of License While Objection Pending During the time an objection to a renewal is pending, the permanent liquor license is placed on hold. However, temporary licenses are regularly issued to the licensee until a final decision is made by the Board. 3) Procedure Following Licensing Division Receipt of Objection After we receive your objection, our licensing staff will prepare a report for review by the Licensing Director. The report will include your letter of objection, as well as any attachments and supporting documents you send. The Licensing Director will then decide to renew the liquor license, or to proceed with non -renewal. 4) Procedure if Board Does Not Renew License If the Board decides not to renew a license, we will notify the licensee in writing, stating the reason for this decision. The licensee also has the right to request a hearing to contest non -renewal of their liquor license. RCW 66.24.010 (8)(d). If the licensee makes a timely request for a hearing, we will notify you. The Board's Licensing Division will be required to present evidence at the hearing before an administrative law judge to support the non -renewal recommendation. You may present evidence in support of your objection or objections. The administrative law judge will consider all of the evidence and issue an initial order for the Board's review. The Board members have final authority to renew the liquor license and will enter a final order announcing their decision. N 0 C CD m 5) Procedure if Board Renews License Over Your Objection rn NIf the Board decides to renew the license over your objection, you will be notified in writing. At that time, you may be o given an opportunity to request a hearing. An opportunity for a hearing is offered at the Board's discretion. If a hearing Ais held, you will be responsible for presenting evidence before an Administrative Law Judge in support of your objection to license renewal. The Board's Licensing Division will present evidence in support of license renewal. The Licensee may also participate and present evidence if the licensee desires. The administrative law judge will consider all of the evidence, and issue an initial order for the Board's review. The Board members have final authority to renew the liquor license and will enter a final order announcing their decision. For questions about this process, contact the WSLCB Licensing Division at (360) 664-1600 or email us at wslcb@liq.wa.gov. Sincerely, AEan E. Rathbun Alan E. Rathbun, Director, Licensing and Regulation Division LIO 664 07/10 v C CD a) C091080-2 WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD DATE: 02/07/2013 m w LICENSED ESTABLISHMENTS IN INCORPORATED AREAS CITY OF EDMONDS (BY ZIP CODE) FOR EXPIRATION DATE OF 20130531 a LICENSE LICENSEE BUSINESS NAME AND ADDRESS NUMBER PRIVILEGES 1. CAFE DE PARIS INC. CAFE DE PARIS 353524 SPIRITS/BR/WN REST SERVICE BAR 109 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 0000 2 . PHUNG, MARK JADE PALACE 362104 BEER/WINE REST - BEER/WINE PHUNG, SYLVIA 182 SUNSET AVE EDMONDS WA 98020 0000 3 . EMBELLISHED, INCORPORATED EMBELLISHED 409776 BEER/WINE REST - BEER/WINE 111 4TH AVE N BEER/WINE REST - BEER/WINE EDMONDS WA 98020 3115 4 . JACK MURPHYS BAR, INC. JACK MURPHYS BAR 408231 SPIRITS/BR/WN REST LOUNGE - 109 4TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020 3115 5 . PETOSA'S FAMILY GROCER, LLC PETOSA'S FAMILY GROCER 352464 GROCERY STORE - BEER/WINE 550 5TH AVE S SPIRITS RETAILER EDMONDS WA 98020 3403 6 . TAW PUB ENTERPRISES INC ENGELS PUB 351553 SPIRITS/BR/WN REST LOUNGE - 113 5TH AVE EDMONDS - WA 98020 3423 7 . LAS BRISAS RESTAURANT INC LAS BRISAS RESTAURANT 410169 SPIRITS/BR/WN REST LOUNGE + 201 5TH AVE S STE 101 EDMONDS WA 98020 3481 8 . THAI NGUYEN, INC. STAR MINI MART & DELI 364931 GROCERY STORE - BEER/WINE 7533 OLYMPIC VIEW DR STE A EDMONDS WA 98026 5524 v C CD m C091080-2 WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD DATE: 02/07/2013 co m LICENSED ESTABLISHMENTS IN INCORPORATED AREAS CITY OF EDMONDS a (BY ZIP CODE) FOR EXPIRATION DATE OF 20130531 0 A LICENSE LICENSEE BUSINESS NAME AND ADDRESS NUMBER PRIVILEGES 9 . MILOS ISLAND LLC ROMEOS RESTAURANT & PIZZERIA 369723 SPIRITS/BR/WN REST LOUNGE + 21110 76TH AVE W STE A EDMONDS WA 98026 7170 10. RAFE NEO-EDMONDS,L.L.C. SAFE' NEO 085094 BEER/WINE REST - BEER/WINE 21108 HWY 99 EDMONDS WA 98026 7217 11 . EUROPEAN FOOD LLC EUROPEAN FOOD 085273 GROCERY STORE - BEER/WINE 22931 HIGHWAY 99 EDMONDS WA 98026 8468 AM-5540 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 03/05/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: Review Committee: Type: City Clerk's Office Action Information Committee Action: Subject Title Approval of 2013 Taxicab Operator's License for Yellow Cab of Washington Inc. Recommendation 3. D. It is recommended that the City Council approve the 2013 Taxicab Operator's License for Yellow Cab of Washington Inc. Previous Council Action Taxicab Operator's Licenses are issued annually. Narrative Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.60 requires that the City Council approve Taxicab Operator's Licenses. A copy of the license application for Yellow Cab of Washington Inc. is attached. In addition, the Police Department reviewed the application and drivers. The Police Department has not received any complaints that would preclude this business from receiving a license. Attachments 2013 Taxicab Operator's License Application - Yellow Cab Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 02/28/2013 Reviewed By Dave Earling Sandy Chase Form Review Date 02/27/2013 02:01 PM 02/28/2013 09:18 AM Started On: 02/27/2013 11:33 AM Packet Page 65 of 431 _�pg cn,yQ� Y DU 0 t f 11 CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICATION — TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.60 Name of taxicab business: Ve �-&c - 4S7-( �� To 6) Name of Applicant: Address: Frnt Mune m0ale Initial LZI ,,� 3 9 j i `74 /*1 f- et-/ E0Md/V D 5 Driver's License No.: tv-x 0 City Stnrc Place of Birth: f M � Date of Birth: /,—, t a'TI e2 /1' A Please list name and address changes that have occurred within the last twa years preceding the current information: Previous Employment for Past Two Years: Employer: LPL LL,/ 6,46 Address: 7 Telephone Number: �� ~ `7Dates of Employment: i�2� LE 9 � Employer: Telephone Number: Attach additional sheet if necessary. Previous Record as a Taxicab Driver or Operator: Address: Dates of Employment: Have you ever been licensed as a taxicab driver or operator? 0 Yes 6 No If yes, explain: Where: /r when: iee7- Has this license ever been suspended, revoked, or denied? e Yes 101�o If yes, for what cause: Record of Conviction: Note: All criminal, driving and all other court histories will be checked) Have you ever been convicted of or forfeited bail for a crime, including all traffic offenses, for the preceding five years? O Yes CJ N o If yes, give a detailed account of the charge, the approximate date, the name of the Court, and the final disposition of the charge or charges: Information on Vehicles to be Operated: Make: rO �-J Year: 20 0 t Model: G P—G'7r)/v ill, ( a Vehicle Identification No.:. , 1",4 P 71 A/9 . 1 Z 6 7 Vehicle License No.: t T Make: ";? �-C) Year: 016) G> Model: Z Yn Vehicle Identifica/tion No.: _ - $� � l ytl YYX 2r2&41 Vehicle License No.: X W Make: f�Y Ck Vehicle Identification No.: , FA H P 7 t W -5 it t P3 Year: 2--(-"'-' q Vehicle License No.: U Make: D!'1 Year: Sri U -S- Vehicle Identification No.: 11)4 G—R� 4 R 3 S-6 Z b f 6- Model: Model: (r, (L UDC Vehicle License No.: /' 1-1 /-f3 Attach additional sheet Packet Page 66 of 431 List of Proposed Drivers (MUST BE KEPT CURRENT): Name: Last. List on file in the City Clerk's Office Address: Date of Birtl Name: Last: Address: Date of Birth: cense Number: Phone #: icense Number: Phone #: Name: Last: First MIS Driver's License Number: Address: Home Phone #: Date of Birth: , Attach additional sheet if necessary. -5 Jt` Financial Status of Applicant: i List any and all unpaid judgments and the nature of the transaction or acts giving rise to such judgment: Please attach Proof of Insurance as required by ECC Section 4.60.100. Signature of Applicant: Subscribed and sworn before day of Date: 02-I 1 -�-1 1 -3 LSEII/ (rint ame) NOTARY PUBLIC ippo.intment expires: 9-, , f , ISSUANCE OF LICENSE FEES: Application Fee for Taxicab Operator's License (for investigation).......................................................................... $100.00 Plus for each taxicab to be operated in the City of Edmonds.......................................................................... $30.00 Or after June 30 the fee for each taxicab shall be.................................................................................. $15.00 Plus for each driver ($5 licensing fee plus $20 investigation fee)................................................................... $25.00 Renewal for Taxicab Operator's License (for each taxicab to be operated in the City of Edmonds) ......................... $30.00 Foreach previously licensed driver................................................................................................................... $5.00 New drivers pay the $5 licensing fee and the $20 investigation fee ............................. TOTAL FEES PAID: .9 L4 W ('k) TREASURER'S RECEIPT NUMBER: CONDITIONS: 6 Yes 6 No If yes, describe: City Clerk:. Packet Page 67 of 431 Date: 0 DATE (MMIDD/YYYY) A`� o CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 4/17/2012 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES Pr-k_OW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED 2ESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). CONTA PRODUCER NAME:CT Sue Caskey Beecher Carlson Insurance Agency LLC PHONE . (541) 485-6633 FA7C (541)485-3946 2911 Tennyson Ave. E•MAtL ,sue.caskey@beechercarlson.com Suite 304 INSURER S AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIL # Eugene OR 97408 INSURERA:CO10ny Insurance Com an INSURED INSURER B Yellow Cab of Washington Inc INSURERC: 9907 7th Ave SE INSURERD: INSURER E : Everett WA 98208 INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER'.CL1241714bbtl KCVIJIUN IVUiI 0=11c: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. lNSR A L UBR POLICY EFF POLICY EXP LSMrT3 LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER M D/YYYY GENERALLIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 DAMAGE TO RENTED I E Ea c ,rr nce) PREMISE $ 100,000 it GOMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY MED EXP (Any oneperson) $ 5,000 A CLAIMS -MADE a] OCCUR 3L3991060 -1/18/2012 1/18/2013 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 GENT AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ Included COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ �{ POLICY PRO- LOC TOMOBILE LIABILITY Ea awidenti BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ ALL OWNED SCHEDULED TOS AUTOS NON -OWNED HIRED AUTOS HAUTOS(Pffaccldenll PROPERTY DAMAGE $ UMBRELLA LIAB OCCUR HCLAIMS-MADE EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIAB DIED RETENTION $ $ WORKERS COMPENSATION WC ST.ATU- OR - AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY YIN ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYE $ OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ (Mandatory in NH) N / A E L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT 1$ If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) Re: see attached vehicle list CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION (425)771-0266 City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Dan DeGrange/SUECA ACORD 25 (2010/05) ©1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved, i AICn9R,,n,n paa� ckntet Page 68 of 431 The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD MEMORANDUM Date: February 26, 2013 To: Huda Olsen From: Detective Trykar Subject: Taxi Cab Operator's License Renewal — YELLOW CAB I have been requested to run a background check on the above business. The resources needed to run an entire background check on a business is too great. Let it be said that every taxicab driver for this business that has submitted a taxicab driver's license through the City of Edmonds has had their background checked. With that said, I did check the Better Business Bureau website and noticed that the business received an A+ rating, the highest score possible. Also, the police department has not received any complaints to my knowledge that would preclude this business from receiving a business license. Respectfully, Detective S. Trykar City of Edmonds Police Department Packet Page 69 of 431 AM-5539 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 03/05/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Dave Earling Department: Mayor's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Tnfner"0+inn Subject Title Brain Injury Awareness Month Proclamation Recommendation Previous Council Action Submitted By: Committee Action: 5. Carolyn LaFave Narrative The Brain Injury Association of America (BIAA) and their network of state affiliates, including self -advocates, families and volunteers across the nation, will mark Brain Injury Awareness Month this March. A brain injury can happen anytime, anywhere, to anyone — a brain injury does not discriminate. With 1.7 million Americans sustaining a brain injury each year, early and equal access to care for all is the goal. Brain Iniury Awareness Inbox Finalize for Agenda Mayor Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Final Approval Date: 02/27/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 02/27/2013 01:31 PM Dave Earling 02/27/2013 02:01 PM Started On: 02/27/2013 09:53 AM Packet Page 70 of 431 �rIIirfamaftian City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor Brain Injury Awareness Month March 2013 WHEREAS, for many decades brain injury has been the silent or hidden epidemic, and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) are not just medical terms — they are challenging circumstances for those whose lives have been forever changed by a blow to the head or a neurological event; and WHEREAS, the Edmond's Brain Injury Group partner, Traumatic Brain Injury Survivors Network (TBISN), is a Washington -based organization with over 300 partners worldwide which provides services, meeting groups, information and education and works to instill hope for survivors of brain injury; it is not only the oldest organization of its kind in Washington State, but the Traumatic Brain Injury Survivors Network is the largest TBI and ABI support network in the world with affiliates in 43 states and 32 countries, endeavoring to bring about social change and awareness and prevention to communities; and WHEREAS, a Traumatic Brain Injury occurs every 21 seconds, and individuals with severe brain injury typically face five to ten years of intensive rehabilitation with cumulative costs exceeding $35 billion annually: this public health concern ranks as the leading cause of death and disability in children and young adults with over 52,000 deaths and, on an annual basis, 40,000 individuals over the age of 65 visit hospital emergency rooms for Traumatic Brain Injury as a result of a fall, leading to the hospitalization of 16,000 senior citizens and the death of 4,000 senior citizens; and WHEREAS, this year, The Edmond's Brain Injury Group, a Traumatic Brain Injury Survivors Network partner, celebrates its 2013 theme, "For Us By Us," by redefining brain injury with the success of TBI and ABI survivors who diligently make their own future for themselves as vital members of our community; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that I, David O. Earling, Mayor, do hereby proclaim March 2013 as Brain Injury Awareness Month in the city of Edmonds and encourage all citizens to join in this special observance. w David O. Earling, Mayor March 5, 2013 Packet Page 71 of 431 AM-5543 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 03/05/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Doug Fair Department: Municipal Court Review Committee: Type: Information Subject Title Annual Report - Municipal Court Judge Recommendation For information. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Please refer to the attached report. 2012 Annual Report 2012 Annual Report - Exhibits Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Doug Fair Final Approval Date: 03/01/2013 Committee Action: Information Attachments Form Review Date 02/28/2013 02:44 PM 02/28/2013 06:51 PM 03/01/2013 08:41 AM Started On: 02/28/2013 09:53 AM 71, Packet Page 72 of 431 EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT 2011 COUNCIL REPORT Filin s This year saw a significant decrease in filings from 7,919 in 2011 to 6,325 in 2012. We were down 32% in traffic infraction filings and 15% in criminal case filings. In contrast, parking infractions went up 37%. Overall this represents a 20% decrease from 2011 to 2012. For the four years from 2008 and 2011 we have had filings consistently in the 7,700 and 7,900 range. This significant change can be traced to officer injuries in the traffic division of the police department. Three of the four officers in the traffic division were injured during the year. One officer was out for a number of months. A second officer was out for five months. The third officer was out almost the entire year. The officers have returned to active duty and we should see filings increase in 2013. Revenues and Expenses In 2012 our gross revenues totaled $1,181,977. This was a decrease in gross revenues of $211,755 over 2011. The decrease is a natural result of fewer filings. The resulting net revenue to the City, after reimbursements to the State, was $743,504. We had projected revenue at 779,324. The $35,820 shortfall was about 4.5% short of our revenue projections. Packet Page 73 of 431 On the expense side of the ledger, the Court spent $723,687 which was $55,351 below our original budget estimate. This was a savings of about 7%. In 2012 both the revenues and expenses were down. However, our net revenues exceeded expenditures in 2012 by $19,817. Again, as a result of the decline in filings, this is a decrease from previous years. Passports Since March of 20025 when the Edmonds Municipal Court received its Passport Agent Designation Certificate from the US Bureau of Consular Affairs, we have processed 10,077 passport applications. Last year, the Court processed 515 applications, grossing $12,875. This is an increase of 112 applications over 2011 and represents an increase of almost 28%. This is the first increase in applications since 2007. Since inception passport revenue has grossed $286,940. EHM and SCRAM Monitoring The Edmonds Municipal Court utilizes Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM) as a jail alternative. This enables the judge to be more flexible when determining jail options. EHM eligibility is determined by using written criteria based on a statutory scheme developed for felony offenses. We outsource virtually all of our EHM except in very rare cases of the truly indigent. In those cases we simply collect enough to cover the costs of the monitoring. Likewise, we do not collect any money on the outsourced EHM. However, we do save the amount of money that would be spent were these defendants in jail. In 2012, 48 defendants used the EHM program saving 1,819 jail days. Packet Page 74 of 431 We also use an alcohol sensor -monitoring bracelet called a SCRAM bracelet. This device routinely monitors a defendant for the consumption of alcohol and immediately reports any violations. This is a useful tool in providing a pre-trial release option for defendants who might otherwise be held in custody. In 2012, 21 defendants utilized this program saving 1,023 jail days. In 2012 the City of Edmonds paid $64.38 a day for a defendant who was incarcerated in the Snohomish County Jail. In addition, every time a defendant reports to the Snohomish County Jail a one-time booking fee of $92.70 is charged to the City. Many of these expenses were saved when EHM or SCRAM is ordered in lieu of jail. In 2012) 69 defendants served 2,842 days using EHM and SCRAM. Using conservative estimates ($64.38 a day without booking fees) the citizens of Edmonds saved $182,968 because of the days that were not served in jail. In reality, not all of those days would be saved. Some of the EHM is required by statute on DUI and physical control cases. Also, some of the SCRAM defendants may have made bail so they would not have been in custody for the entire time they were on a SCRAM bracelet. However, this is the best estimate we are able to provide. Even if the number were half of that amount, it would still be significant. Community Service In addition to EHM, the Court offers community service options to defendants. A defendant may provide eight hours of service to a non-profit agency in lieu of a day in jail. Community Service is ideal for a defendant who has received a short jail sentence on a minor offense or for probation violations. It provides an excellent alternative to using jail space and spending tax dollars to house offenders. This program provides an opportunity to "give -back" to our community. Packet Page 75 of 431 In 2012, 115 defendants provided 4,316.25 hours of community service. This was a savings of 540 jail days and saved the City $34,765 in jail costs. Court Improvement Account Funds As you may recall, the City receives money from the State by virtue of having the judicial position an elected position. The City has received $77,074 from the State since 2006. This money has been set aside in a court improvement account. As of December 31, 2012 $39,090 has been expensed from this account. Between 2006 and 2012 these funds were used to make the following improvements: • Pour concrete steps and handrail outside the back entrance to the administrative office. • Provide a keyless entry to the backdoor and chambers. • Reconfigure the probation office for increased safety by routing probationers through an outside door, not the main entrance to the Court's administrative office. • Offset payments on an update to the security alarm system used in the public safety facility. • Purchased "panic buttons" for emergency dispatch in case of an emergency in court or at the counter • Wireless headsets for staff to use so they are not tethered to their desks • An enhanced probation monitoring program • Video court equipment for in -custody court hearings • Rewired the generator in the public safety complex to provide service to the court/council chambers and office during a power outage. Packet Page 76 of 431 The video court equipment continues to meet its objectives: increase safety, timely hearings for defendants and cost savings. Since its inception in January, 2010, we have only brought one or two inmates down for a court proceeding. Over the course of a normal year that number would be approximately 500. The safety implications are obvious. We doubled our capacity to hear in -custody proceedings. Not only does this reduce jail costs, it provides more timely hearings for the defendants. Police overtime expenses for transport dropped from $28,604 in 2009 to $2,651 in 2010 and were negligible in 2011 and 2012. That is a savings of over $75,000 in the last three years. At the end of 2012 we had $37,983 in our court improvement account. For 2013 we have dedicated a significant portion of that money to be combined with funds available from the City Clerk's office to initiate a document retention and retrieval system. This system will serve as the model for the entire City once it is implemented. The retention and retrieval system will further our goal of moving to electronic filing by 2014. This program will eliminate the need for paper files. This will not eliminate all use of paper but it will certainly reduce it. It will also result in staff time -savings. Once a file is created, a file and any documents in it will only need to be handled once. As it currently stands, a file is often handled numerous times before it is closed and stored in the archives. Staffing and Workload The Court employs an administrator, a probation clerk and four full- time clerks and one part-time clerk. As the Council is aware, this is a reduction of one-half clerk from 2011. We also lost a part-time clerk in 2009. As noted in the beginning of the report, we have had a significant decrease in filings over the past year. That has allowed us to absorb Packet Page 77 of 431 the reduced staffing. Should filing increase, as anticipated, I will be requesting that we reinstate the half-time position we lost in 2012. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has calculated the judicial workload to be 0.96 of a judicial full-time equivalent (FTE). In other words, based on the number and types of cases filed, Edmonds should have a full-time judge. It is currently set at .55 judicial FTE. In a 2012 survey of comparison cities, judicial reimbursement was the second lowest of all comparable cities. The judicial salary is probably the only salary in the City that is not at or near the mean of comparable cities. This disparity should be addressed in the next budget cycle. Packet Page 78 of 431 v C CD v CC FILINGS COMPARISON OF YEAR TO YEAR FILINGS - � I FILINGS Jan Feb March April May June July j Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 12012 464 578 551 397 590 452 6521 582 607 504-1 549 399 6,325 12011 696 721 727 522 638 750 780 603 507 719 629 630 7,922 2010 575 666 856 644 684 725 812 532 565 478 674 552 7,763 2009 570 734 805 609 709 715 648 515 793 535 697 523 7,853 2008 721 738 721 580 688 662 650 495 784 615 575 553 7,782 2007 1 501 550 575 468 512 5171 475 511 430 570 534 367 6,010 2006 881 767 657 571 773 608 616 565 4101 499 420 427 7,194 2005 334 328 364 355 479 522 379 385 435 622 548 567 5,318 v C CD Iv CC m 00 0 0 2U12 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr 111 291 300 285 203 IN 41 2 5 7 PIP 81 152 144 96 CASE FILINGS BY YEAR FOR I DWI; 1.1 UN IOIAL I 2011 5 33, 5ul 464 Jan 114 59 51 578 Feb 13 60 44 551 Mar 3 48 40 397 Apr 2007 TO 2012 I IT INI 4591 5 503 10 453 6 348 3 May 261 2 196 12 74 45 590 May 475 5 June 195 1 163 12 31 50 462 June 464 5 Jul 406 7 129 9 42 59 652 Jul 477 4 Aug321 61 1341 14 61 461 582 Aug 360 5 Sep 407 61 991 4 52 39 607 Sep 1 3601 2 Oct 2791 31 105 6 50 61 504 Oct 1 5011 9 Nov Dec 377 260 8 3 62 34 10 8' 28 461 64 549 Nov 1 4451 61 61 48 399 Dec 4741 Mar Nov IN PP DWI I CT CN TOTAL ZUUa 346. 0 116 15 42 56 575 Jan 370 6 140 17 571 76 666 Feb 526 5 208 15 56 46 856 Mar 444 9 51 8 57 75 644 Apray 482 11 77 9 46 59 684 M 480 7 66 15 61 96 725 June 562 7 88 12 63 80 812 Jul 291 3 100 18 59 61 532 A_uc 351 6 89 14 57 48 565 S� 316 3 62 8 40 49 478 Oct 416 2 104 13 791 60 674 Nov 339 5 64 14 63 67 552 Dec 923 64 1,165 158 680 7731 7 763 LT MOT 2007 IT !N PP DWI CT CN TOTAL 54i 9 23 16j 76 56 721 Jan 11 66 46 738 Feb 2008 Jan 5651 17 33 Feb Mar 4911 8 441 17 107 54 721 Apr 391 4 33 9 83 60 580 May 470 6 59 16 71 66 688 June 411 7 98 16 68 62 662 Jul 278 9 183 13 93 74 650 Aug225 7 US 110 51 57 495 Se 537 11 108 6 721 50 784 Oct 324 4 150 13 591 65 65 61 55 56 615 Nov 313 Uec 3931 5 126 5 575 553 3 391 7, TOTALS 4939 90; 1041 139 866 707 7782 86 20 421 60 721 112 13 71 72 727 75 12 49 35 522 30 11 57 60 638 143 11 55 72 750 160 10 57 72 780 104 11 Sol 73 603 38 8 401 59 507 87 10 621 50 719 651 17 40: 53 626 541 91 33 54 630 3II 6 115 131 781 47i 570 490 61 82 ill 84 611 734 595 11 63 10 72 541 805 3871 3 104 8 55 521 609 501 2 93 9 69 451 709 4361 6 118 10 65 80 715 3631 9 137 8 68 63 648 251 4 137 12 57 54 515 366 2 2821 13 61 69 793 349 8 681 11 46111 535 359 3 1861 10 681 71 697 271. 9. 126, 8 581 51 523 679 69 151i 123 771 0 7553 IT IN PP DWI _ CT CN TOTAL 168 5 215' 161 53 4 501 248 3 189 8 54 481 550 257 5 183 10 64 56 575 236 41 106 9 68 45 468 354 31 46 14 57 38 512 June 1 331 6 57 6 60 51 517 Jul 276 10 55 10 55 69 475 Aug301 9 90 10 55 46 511 Sep 241 17 69 11 47 45 430 Oct 1 359 9 67 8 78 491 570 Nov 1 352 18 42 16 59 47 534 Dec 1 199 7 34 81 ;i7 367 TOTALS 1 3,3281 96i 1,15P 12/1 731 575 6,U1U IT Infraction Traffic, IN Infraction Non -Traffic, PP Parking, DWI Driving While Intoxicated, CT Criminal Traffic, CN Criminal Non -Traffic REVENUES COMPARISON OF YEAR TO YEAR REVENUES CHECK Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Set Oct Nov Dec Total 2012 108,565 131182 124,351 92,5131 99,963 82,063 86,444 89,434 81753 104,955 100,776 79,978 1,181,977 2011 100,041 125,546 140,560 109,916 118,137 137,098 98,785 105,117 118,8231 111,272 111,695 116,762 1,393,752 2010 107,450 113,769 127,099 107,050 98,099 123,740. 113,873, 103,320 104,969 113,739 116,214 95 835 101,364 95,099 91,812 1,272,499 2009 106,559 98,123 157,578 65,047 91,613 96,496 96,986 85,163 109,3851 1,247,883 2008 88,296 114,990 108,632 112,682 113,566 102,743 118,644 97,303 93,525 117,070 84,767 91,356 1,243,574 2007 76,891 73,192 83,487 77,894 79 384 87,746 87,579 92,496 90,886 94,267 85 324 84,218 1,013,363 2006 68,746 97,74 85,711 79,751 78,791 85,305 81,980 93,533 81,955 74,0351 59,6441 61,877 949,075 Total b � $8,302,123 REVENUE STATUS REPORT 01/01/2012 THROUGH 12/31/2012 EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT REVENUES Appropriation Year- to- Date Balance Prct Collected 336.010.290.00 JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE 336.060.260.00 CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SPECIAL PROGRAMS 13,000 33,827 12,448 552 95.75% 99.69% 33,722 105 336.060.510.00 DUI - CITIES 9,500 7,440 2,060 78.32% 338.120.000.00 SHARED COURT COSTS 6,300 1,500 4,800 23.81% 338.190.000.00 AGREEMENT WITH LYNNWOOD COURT 1,050 750 300 71.43% 341.320.000.00 COURT RECORD SERVICES 1,050 153 897 14.57% 341.620.000.00 MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 150 339 -189 226.00% 341.990.000.00 PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 10 500 11,950 -1,450 113.81% 342.330.000.00 ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 68,300 63,279 5,021 92.65% 342.360.010.00 ELECTRONIC MONITORING 150 0 150 0.00% 342.360.030.00 ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 700 81 619 11.57% 342.370.000.00 BOOKING FEES 6,300 5,436 864 86.29% 342.900.020.00 CRIM CONV FEE DUI 700 683 17 97.57% 342.900.020.00 CRIM CONV FEE CT 5,900 4,695 1,205 79.58% 342.900.030.00 CRIM CONV FEE CN 2,100 1,851 249 88.14% 352.300.000.00 PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,500 10,414 86 99.18% 353.100.000.00 TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 353.100.020.00 NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 353.100.040.00 CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT 353.700.000.00 NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 353.700.020.00 OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 51,472 31,222 20,250 60.66% 285,000 273,127 11,873 95.83% 15,000 20,320 -5,320 135.47% 0 900 -900 0.00% 85.28% 112.12% 0.00% 1,250 1,066 184 354.000.000.00 PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 33,000 37,001 -4,001 354.000.010.00 PR - HANDICAPPED 800 0 800 354.000.030.00 PARKING INFRACTION LOC 600 40 560 6.67% 354.000.070.00 PARKING INDDISZONE 600 2,958 -2,358 493.00% 355.200.000.00 DWI PENALTIES 9,500 9,445 55 99.42% 355.200.010.00 DUI - DP ACCT 0 1,851 -1,851 0.00% 355.800.000.00 OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 50 404 -354 808.00% 355.800.010.00 CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 40,000 36,4121 3,588 91.03% 356.900.000.00 OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 600 234 366 39.00% 356.900.040.00 OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 11,500 14,073 -2,573 122.37% 356.900.080.00 COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 950 1,213 -263 127.68% 357.300.000.00 CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 120,000 122,545 -2,545 102.12% 357.310.000.00 JURY DEMAND COST 100 0 100 0.00% 357.330.000.00 PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 37,000 33,037 3,963 89.29% 357.350.000.00 COURT INTERPRETER COST 300 157 143 52.33% 359.900.000.00 MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,050 1,930 -880 183.81% 369.900.030.00 NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 525 828 -303 157.71% Grand Total 779,324 743,504 35,820 95.40% Packet Page 82 of 431 EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT 01/01/2012 THROUGH 12/31/2012 230.512.500 COURT OFFICE Appropriation Year- to- Date Expenditures Balance Prct Used 230.512.500.110.00 SALARIES 230.512.500.120.00 OVERTIME 377,422 368,049 136 9,373 764 97.52% 15.11% 900 230.512.600.230.00 BENEFITS 120,840 121,374 -534 100.44% 230.512.500.310.00 SUPPLIES 6,000 2,888 3,112 48.13% 230.512.500.350.00 MINOR EQUIPMENT 1,500 2,298 -798 153.20% 230.512.500.310.10 SUPPLIES -JUDICIAL 0 0 0 0.00% .230.512.500.350.10 SMALL EQUIPMENT -JUDICIAL 5,000 0 6,000 0.00% 230.512.500.410.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 27,000 37,525 -10,525 138.98% 230.512.500.410.01 PROF SVCS - INTERPRETER 230.512.500.420.00 COMMUNICATIONS 230.512.500.430.00 TRAVEL 230.512.500.450.00 RENTAL/LEASE 23,100 14,907 8,193 64.53% 2,500 2,241 259 89.64% 108.65% 0.00% 57.60% 0.00% 2,000 2,173 -173 0 100 -100 424 230.512.500.480.00 REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 576 230.512.500.480.10 REPAIR/MAINT JUDICIAL 700 0 700 230.512.500.490.00 MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 18,354 1,646 91.77% 230.512.540.490.00 JURY 1,350 0 1,3501 0.00% 'TOTAL COURT OFFICE 589,3121 570,621 18,691 96.83% 230.512.501 PROBATION 230.512.501.110.00 SALARIES 230.512.501.120.00 OVERTIME 109,263 90,717 18,546 83.03% 500 51,213 437 63 87.40% 230.512.501.230.00 BENEFITS 230.512.501.310.00 SUPPLIES 230.512.501.350.00 SMALL EQUIPMENT 230.512.501.410.01 PROF SVCS - INTERPRETER 230.512.501.420.00 COMMUNICATIONS 41,107 10,106 80.27% 4,500 7,901 599 92.95% 0 0 0 0.00% 16,500 9,610 6,890 68.24% 100 14 86 14.00% 230.512.501.430.00 TRAVEL 500 268 232 53.60% 230.512.501.450.00 RENTAL/LEASE 1,300 728 572 56.00% 230.512.501.480.00 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 496 4 99.20% 230.512.501.490.00 MISCELLANEOUS 230.523.200.510.00 HOME MONITORING - INTERGOVTL SVC 1,000 1,696 -696 169.60% 350 92 258 26.29% TOTAL PROBATION 189,7261 153,066 36,660 80.68% GRAND TOTAL EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT 779,038 723,687 55,351 92.89% Packet Page 83 of 431 PASSPORT REVENUE FROM 2002 TO 2012 1 Year Jan Feb March I April May June July Aug Sept I Oct Nov Dec Total 2012 8751 1,100 1,2501 1,300 1,325 1,075 950 1,425 575 475 1,375 1,150 12,875 2011 1,175 925 1,050 1,150 650 725 1,200 875 825 425 300 775 10,075 2010 16251 1325 1925 1475 12751 725 2300 1025 1175 625 675 6751 14,825 2009 1875 1825 2200 1625 2000 2800 1325 1825 1400 1325 550 1250 20,000 2008 3,690 2,580 2,500 1,975 1,925 1,900 1,475 1,650 1,100 1,375 1,600 1,025 22,795 2007 6,240 4,710 4,320 3,900 3,030 3,090 2,670 3,180 1,770 2,490 1,560 2,430 39,390 2,006 2,850 2,700 3,090 1,789 1,811 2,130 1,920 1,890 1,610 1,960 2,370 3,000 27,120 2,005 3,150 3,780 3,810 3,870 3,510 3,210 2,550 2,310 1850 1,890 1,290 2,130 33,350 2,004 6,360 5,430 5,2501 4,080 3,180 2,910 3,570 3,600 2,310 2,070 2,370 3,090 $44,220 2,003 1,980 4,650 4,2001 4,380 4,830 3,560 3,310 2,880 3,190 2,760 2,040 3,480 $41,260 2,002 0 0 735 1,605 1,815 1,365 1,590 3,270 1,830 3,150 2,130 3,540 $21,030 Total $286,940 l APPLICATIONS PROCESSED FROM 2002 TO 2012 Year Jan Feb I March April May June July Aug I Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 2012 35 44 50 52 53 43 38 57 23 19 55 46 515 2010 47 37 42. 46 26 51 29 29 48 92 35 41 73 66 33 47 17 12 25 27 31 403 2011 65 53 77 59 27 593 2009 75 73 88 65 80 112 53 56 53 22 50 800 2008 123 103 100 79 771 76 59 44 55 64 41 887 2007 208 157 144 130 101 103 89 106 59 83 52 81 1,313 2006 95 90 103 60 60 71 64 63 54 651 79 100 904 2005 105 126 127 129 117 107 85 77 62 631 43 71 1,112 2004 212 181 175 136 106 97 119 120 77 691 79 103 1,474 2,003 66 155 140 146 161 119 110 96 106 921 68 116 1,375 2,002 0 01 25 54I 61 46 531 109 611 105 71 118 701 Total I , 10,077 I AM-5537 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 03/05/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board Department: City Council Review Committee: Type: Information Tnfner"0finn Submitted By: Committee Action: Subject Title Annual Report - Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board and Arbor Day Proclamation. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Annual Report - Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board and Arbor Day Proclamation. Attachments Attach 1 - 2013 Council update Attach 2 - trees pay us back Attach 3 - 800TreeCitvUSABulletin 55stormwater Attach 4 - Heritage Tree Project -Sandy Seligmiller Attach 5 - Proclamation regarding Arbor Day Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 03/01/2013 Form Review Date 02/28/2013 02:44 PM 02/28/2013 06:51 PM 03/01/2013 08:41 AM Started On: 02/26/2013 11:29 AM 7. Jana Spellman Packet Page 85 of 431 City of Edmonds Tree Board Annual Council 2012 Recap & 2013 Goals Deliver on 3-5-2013 Power Point Presentation - 10 slides Accomplishments for 2012 o Tree City USA - 2nd annual Tree City USA designation o Outreach - Edmonds Alive, Watershed Fun Fair, Farmers Market o Education — Linden Lampman, WDNR Urban Forestry Program, o Lake Forest Park Urban Forestry Management Pan meeting and discussion o Community Tree Management Institute - Tree Board members Anna Heckman and Sandy Seligman (retired) participating o Projects - Edmonds Tree Canopy Cover Assessment, Heritage Tree Program, Outline for Tree Code Update, Tree City USA annual renewal Goals for 2013 • 3rd annual Tree City USA designation — annual renewal and growth award http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/index.cfm o Streamline $2 per Capita Requirement tracking throughout City departments o Arbor Day - Proclamation for Mayoral approval - included • Update City ordinances pertaining to trees and vegetation. Focus on definitions, enforcement and penalties. • Work with the City of Edmonds Climate Protection Committee to develop policy recommendations on tree canopy goals and stormwater mitigation for the City. • Continue progress on developing an Urban Forestry Management Plan and Heritage Tree program o Urban Forestry Plan ■ Tree Canopy Assessment — See attached o hqp://nextcily.or daily/entry/that-tree-on-the-corner-may-be-worth-more-than- your-house ■ Heritage Tree Program - see attached • Tree Board Needs: to complete City-wide projects: o City representative who can facilitate or administer (and help apply for) grant funds, and assist in the annual Tree City USA update. o Mayor's Signature on Annual Arbor Day Proclamation With much appreciation and thanks to Dave Timbrook, Rich Lindsay, Rob Chave, Kernen Lien, and Jana Spellman for Board advice and support Packet Page 86 of 431 Pacific Southwest Research Station scientists show that... a11nir 1= Longview, Washington, is the reference city for the i-Tree Streets program's Pacific Northwest climate region. Base data were collected there during the summer of 2001. To learn how to use this infor- mation to calculate costs and benefits for any community in the Pacific Northwest (shown in brown on the map), refer to the Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide at http://www. fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/tree—guides.php. To learn more about i-Tree Streets, visit http:// www.itrectools.org. Methods: * Benefits and costs were quantified for typical large, medium, and small deciduous trees and a conifer * The analysis assumed that trees were planted in a residential yard, public park, or street side with a 77-percent survival rate over 40 years * Tree care costs were based on results from a survey of municipal and commercial arborists * Benefits were calculated by using tree growth curves and numerical models that consider regional climate, building characteristics, air -pollutant concentrations, and prices Benefits analyzed: * Energy savings (electricity and natural gas) * Air pollution reduction (carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, airborne particles, and volatile organic compounds) * Runoff reduction (rainfall interception) Property vrac�Cet Page 87 of 431 Costs analyzed: * Tree purchase and planting * Pruning * Irrigation * Pest and disease prevention and control * Removal and disposal * Sidewalk repair * Leaf litter cleanup * Liability, legal aspects, and administration Project partners included the Longview Parks Department; Oregon State University Cooperative Extension; Western Forestry Leadership Coalition; Oregon State Department of Forestry, Urban and Community Forestry Program; Portland General Electric; Pacific Power; Puget Sound Energy; and the International Society of Arboriculture, Pacific Northwest Chapter. Resources: Anderson, L.M.; Cordell, H.K. 1998. Residential property values improve by landscaping with trees. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 9: 162-166. McPherson, E.G.; Maco, S.E.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q.; VanDerZanden, A.M.; Bell, N. 2002. Western Washington and Oregon community tree guide: benefits, costs, and strategic planting. Silverton, OR: International Society of Arboriculture, Pacific Northwest. 76 p. Neely, D., ed. 1998. Valuation of landscape trees, shrubs, and other plants. 7th ed. Urbana, IL: International Society of Arboriculture. 50 p. Sullivan, W.C.; Kuo, F.E. 1996. Do trees strengthen urban com- munities, reduce domestic violence? Arborist News. 5: 33-34. Wolf, K.L. 1999. Nature and commerce: human ecology in business districts. In: Kollin, C., ed. Building cities of green: proceedings of the 1999 national urban forest conference. Washington, DC: American Forests: 56-59. USDA UniledStates 4ftg&Forest ®PacificSouthwest Department Service Research Station of Agriculture May 2011 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportu- nity provider and employer. Pay Us Back In the Pacific Northwest Region US A Departted ent Forest Pacific Southwest �— Department Semite Research Station of Agriculture la A2t�� •�r `i''� s � . 'Yi1 � A large tree in the Pacific Northwest Will provide $2,820 in environmental and other benefits over its lifetime. That's over a 300-percent return on investment! Properly cared Trees produce benefits for us when for, trees are we plant and nurture them in our valuable and urban environments. The Urban growing assets Ecosystems and Social Dynamics worth over Program at the USDA Forest Service three times the Pacific Southwest Research Station investment. is assessing the ways that trees pay us back and their value to us. Ielhhqreeouano Healthy people Each year, 100 large, mature street trees * Remove 13 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) m Remove 123 pounds of other air pollutants * Catch about 54,900 gallons of rainwater Healthy communities Tree -filled neighborhoods * Report lower levels of domestic violence * Are safer and more sociable * Reduce stress of body and mind * Decrease need for medication, and speed recovery times Packet Page 88 of 431 Homeowner savings One well placed large tree Provides average savings of $7 on home air conditioning costs each year Better business In tree -lined commercial districts, shoppers report * More frequent shopping * Longer shopping trips * Willingness to pay more for parking * Willingness to spend 12 percent more for goods Higher property values Trees increase the resale value of houses • Each large front yard tree adds 1 percent to the sales price of a house • Large specimen trees can add 10 percent to property value F TaTo qo TaTe foT �Teeo Landscape trees provide benefits that far exceed the costs of planting and care over their lifetime. Environmental and aesthetic benefits, such as energy savings, stormwater runoff reduction, cleaner air, and higher property values, are consistently many times greater than tree care costs. The greatest benefits are stormwater treatment cost savings and higher property values. One large public tree, 40 years after planting, averaged.• Annual benefits ........................................ $71 Annual costs ................................................ $23 Annual net benefit .................................... $48 Over 40 years, 100 large public trees total.• Benefits .............................................. $282,400 Costs .................................................... $92,080 40-year net benefit ........................ $190,320 a 0 TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 55 Dr. James R. Fazio, Editor • $3.00 How Trees Can Retain Stormwater Runoff Trees in our communities provide many services beyond the inherent beauty they lend to streets and properties. One of the most overlooked and underappreciated is their ability to reduce the volume of water rushing through gutters and pipes following a storm. This means less investment in expensive infrastructure and - importantly - cleaner water when the runoff reaches rivers and lakes. Drop by drop, rainwater is stored on the leaves of trees, slowing and reducing runoff. The collective effect of this simple action can make a huge difference in a community. Have you ever stood under a tree that has served as an umbrella during a sudden downpour? Not a good idea when lightning is present, but otherwise the canopy offers welcome shelter. The next time you experience the umbrella effect, consider the amazing service each tree provides to the quality of our environment. Aside from keeping you dry, the leaves and bark of a tree retain a huge amount of water, allowing some of it to evaporate and some to more slowly reach the ground. Depend- ing on size and species, a single tree may store 100 gallons or more, at least until it reaches saturation after about one to two inches of rainfall. When mul- tiplied by the number of trees in a community, this interception and redistribution can be significant. It is estimated that the urban forest can reduce annual runoff by 2 — 7 percent. This reduction can be converted into dollar savings due to the use of smaller drainage and artificial retention systems. When trees are combined with other natural land- scaping, studies have shown that as much as 65 percent of storm runoff can be reduced in residen- tial developments. In fact, sometimes even 100 percent of rainfall can be retained on site. Through the collective action of leaves and the anchoring and absorbing effects of roots, trees also contribute to soil stabilization, cleaner water and the recharge of groundwater that serves as the drinking supply for over half the nation's popula- tion. The role of trees in stormwater retention and its resulting benefits to public health and municipal budgets deserves greater appreciation. It is one more reason why the planting and care of trees in our communities is of critical importance. Published by Arbor Day Foundation® 100 Arbor Avenue • Nebraska City, NE 68410 Packet Page 89 of 431 Pioneering Research Leads to Useful Applications For nearly a century scientists have been studying the influence of forests on rain and snow retention in the moun- tains. This is important for determining stream flows and making decisions about reservoir management and irrigation schedules. In 1996, scientists at UC-Davis and the USDA Forest Service took a new look at trees and rainfall retention. These studies focused on the potential of individual trees in urban settings. The work continues today, but research scientist Dr. Qin- gfu Xiao explained some of the early work he undertook with Dr. E. Gregory McPherson and other colleagues at the Center for Urban Forest Research at Davis, California. The idea was to develop methodology and mathematical models that would explain and predict how much rainwater is intercepted by the leaves and bark of trees. Eventually, this would be refined and described on a species by species basis because retention potential varies with tree structure, bark charac- teristics and other physical features. The end result has been Helpful Tools in the i-Tree Suite In 2007, a series of software programs began being released to help quantify the contributions of urban trees and serve as a modern guide in their management. Several of these aids clarify the value of trees in reducing rain runoff and helping to keep waterways clean. Z-Tree Streets (formerly STRATUM) focuses on the benefits provided by a municipality's street trees. It makes use of a sample or complete inventory to quantify and put a dollar value on the street trees' annual environmental and aesthetic benefits. i-Tree Hydro simulates the effects of changes in tree cover and impervious surface areas on stream flow levels and water quality. One use of this tool may help communities incorporate urban vegetation into meeting standards of the Clean Water Act. i-Tree SpedeS is designed to help urban forest- ers select the most appropriate tree species to plant or maintain based on environmental function and geographic area. i-Tree Vice uses national land cover data maps to assess a community's land cover, including tree canopy, and some of the ecosystem services provided by the existing urban forest. The effects of different planting scenarios on future benefits can also be modeled. the inclusion of this information in the i-Tree suite of soft- ware programs. These programs, in turn, provide empirical assessment of the benefits of urban trees and offer research - based guidance for cost-effective planting and care. The initial research was complicated. It went far beyond simply measuring the amount of water reaching the ground under a tree vs. on open land. Instead, it considered seasonal conditions, the `architecture' of the tree, and the angle, inten- sity and duration of rain storms. It even considered the size of raindrops! Importantly, leaf sizes, quantities and angles of attachment had to be evaluated, as well as the texture and amount of bark on limbs and trunk. Finally, apparatus was installed to help with measurements each time it rained. Eventually, rather than waiting for rain storms, the research- ers constructed simulators and used computer modeling to allow for as many test variations as desired. Using unique field apparatus, scientists were able to study what happens to rainwater as it is intercepted by urban trees. 2 • TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 55 • Arbor Day Foundation Packet Page 90 of 431 Important Ways a Tree Helps with Stormwater Management V-1 Precipitation Rainfall Iby leaves and bark i f ki '�`�'. �w- * •, + Si1 Evaporation, transpiration � • It N;t �R Stored � + water R.. I i n'4 F #i 1 FS I Stem flow Un-intercepted rain, Throughfall Heavy runoff Runoff Impervious - _ Leaf litter surfaces �� _ (nutrients, better soil Moisture uptake Roots Binds soil to structure) and storage prevent erosion Recharged watertable Trees help reduce stormwater runoff in several ways. One is to intercept falling rain and hold a portion of it on the leaves and bark. Part of this intercepted water will evaporate and part will be gradually released into the soil below. At the surface of the soil, fallen tree leaves help form a spongy layer that moderates soil temperature, helps retain soil moisture, and harbors organisms that break down organic matter and recycle elements for use in plant growth. This important layer also allows rain water to percolate into the soil rather than rushing off carrying with it oil, metal particles and other pollutants. Below ground, roots hold the soil in place and absorb water that will eventually be released into the atmosphere by transpiration. TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 55 • Arbor Day Foundation • 3 Packet Page 91 of 431 More Ways That Trees Can Help Whether standing alone to intercept rain or working in conjunction with water -retention facilities, trees can make significant contributions. Their benefits are practical and can save money for the community, but they also add beauty and that counts, too. Vegetative Swales As impervious surfaces spread with the increase of paved roads, parking lots, driveways and even former lawn areas, the use of swales is more important than ever. The poten- tial of this facility was well demonstrated by the Center for Urban Forest Research in a Davis, California, parking lot. Using a control area for comparison and after 50 storm events and 22 inches of rain, the researchers credited the swale with reducing surface runoff by 89 percent and reduc- ing pollutants by 95 percent. While some communities require swales in new devel- opments, the vegetated aspect is sometimes overlooked. Designing with plant materials appropriate to the climate and site is important, as is a plan for occasional mainte- nance, but the effort is most worthwhile. Not only can trees and other vegetation provide the benefits described on page 3, they add to the beauty of the area, help `calm' traffic, and Stormwater Basins A stormwater basin is similar to a swale but is generally not linear. Basins are often used in housing developments, especially if the streets and lots do not lend themselves to swales. Designs of basins vary widely. Some are simply con- crete boxes that look like fenced, un-peopled swimming pools. They are often eyesores and reduce the space to a single use that contributes little else than the retention of water. On the other hand, stormwater basins can be built to serve as picnic grounds or free play areas during dry weather. Others appear as natural areas, providing open space, wildlife habi- tat and a touch of beauty. offer the welcome cooling effect of shade in the summer. A swale with only rock or sod is depriving the neighborhood of a full return on its investment. A streetside swale can be attractive as well as useful in retaining and cleaning stormwater runoff. Fencing or hiding stormwater facilities out of view not only loses the opportunity to create an aestheti- cally pleasing site design, but also sends the message that stormwater is an attractive nuisance. While there are legitimate concerns for safety and liability, these concerns can usually be resolved with careful design consideration, such as specifying shallow facility depths with gentle side slopes. — From: Portland Stormwater Management Manual R Community policy can make the difference between ugly, single -use stormwater basins and those that provide not only function but open space, a refuge for wildlife, and a touch of beauty. 0 q R 4 • TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 55 • Arbor Day Foundation Packet Page 92 of 431 Structural Soil One of the most significant urban forestry developments in recent decades has been the design and use of structural soil. Pioneered by Dr. Nina Bassuk at Cornell University, structural soil can be used beneath sidewalks and parking lots to provide both the strength needed for paving or compaction and a livable environment for tree roots. Load pressure \ soil and pores \ crushed rock In some cases, the use of structural soil can result in zero runoff from a site. Silva Cells, crate -like structures filled with soil, have much the same engineering attributes as structural soil and provide even more growing space for Tree Pits Even traditional tree pits can contribute to retaining stormwater runoff. If engineered for water to drain into the pits (sloping pavement, curbs with inlets, etc.), these are called `stormwater-capturing tree pits.' Their usefulness is enhanced with greater soil volume and by connecting individual pits with trenches. Of course, as with structural soil, it is important for the subsoil to be able to receive percolating water or a drain system is necessary to prevent drowning the root system. roots. Either way, the result is healthier, more robust urban trees and more water retained onsite. There are several research -tested benefits provided by structural soil: • It provides a reservoir for runoff that can then percolate deeper into the subsoil and eventually groundwater. • It allows deeper, better root development. In turn, this means larger tree canopies, more intercepted precipitation and more uptake by roots for transpiration. • It can be used under paved areas where space for swales is not available. • Normal amounts of surface pollutants are intercepted before reaching waterways. Immobilized contaminants can then be transformed by soil microbes or taken up by roots. • Utilities can share the space. Notes: Type of soil will affect infiltration. Where soils do not accommodate a reasonable rate of percolation, drain pipes may be necessary. Too much pooling of water will cause tree damage or death. Also, where limestone gravel is used in the structural soil mix, pH may become higher than in the native soil. In this case, plant species that can tolerate more alkaline soil. Ri00 parian Buffers Trees along the shores of lakes and the banks of rivers and streams are more than decorations. Not only do their canopies intercept some of the rain and reduce its impact, their roots anchor the soil and help take up leached chemicals before they reach the body of water. Shrubs in the riparian zone also help slow flood water. Where banks are washed away or heavily impacted, a range of bioengineering techniques are available using natural materials for restoration. Development and the spread of impervious surfaces produced more stormwater runoff than could be absorbed by the banks of Pine Creek in the City of Maple Grove, Minnesota. The creek has now been restored using a combination of gradient control, rock `armor,' and planting native vegetation that will eventually include restored tree cover. Bioengineering techniques result in living, self - repairing systems that grow stronger with age. TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 55 • Arbor Day Foundation • 5 Packet Page 93 of 431 Cities Putting Trees to Work for Stormwater There is untapped potential in utilizing trees to address stormwater runoff in urban areas. Traditional approaches used by most municipalities to manage urban trees have focused on short-term aesthetic goals often to the detriment of tree health and full realization of ecosystem services provided by trees. Many municipalities are reluctant to expand tree programs due to budget, staffing, and liability issues. However trees are useful and valuable components of city stormwater infrastructure and provide measurable reductions in runoff volume and pollutant loads. Municipalities should explore opportunities to expand tree planting programs and incorporate trees into engineered stormwater systems. Trees are not just landscaping placed on top of city infrastructure, they are city infrastructure. Throughout the nation, communities of all sizes are beginning to include trees in their plans to meet federal standards for water quality. Many, however, are slow to see the relationship between trees and stormwater man- agement. Local tree boards need to embrace the chal- lenge of educating engineers, city officials and the general public about the potential of green infrastructure. The Portland Example Portland has perhaps the most comprehensive stormwater management program in the nation. With over 37 inches of precipitation annually and important rivers and streams for recreation and fish habitat running right through the city, it is little wonder that Portland places high priority on managing stormwater runoff. As new development occurs, city officials view sustainable stormwater management as the preferred alternative to the traditional piped approach, and mandate onsite stormwater management to the degree possible. According to Portland's Stormwater Management Manual, "Vegetation may be one of the most cost effective and ecologically efficient means available to improve water quality." The city's guidelines and strict regulations apply to: • Properties where new offsite discharges will occur or new connections to the public system are required. • Any project that develops or redevelops over 500 square feet of impervious surface. The city's goal is to have developments or other projects contain enough runoff onsite to handle the 3.4 inches of rain expected in a `10-year storm.' The following three steps keep trees in the picture while helping developers understand the city's goals and guide them through the application and permit processes: - Shirley Trier, Davey Resource Group 1. Create an informed project team. The project team must go "beyond traditional civil engineering expertise." It should include diverse disciplines, all prepared to integrate sustainable stormwater solutions early in the design process. Examples of such team participants include: landscape architects, geologists, geotechnical engineers, planners and licensed design professionals. 2. Maximize permeability, minimize offsite discharge. Maximize the site's permeability by retaining existing trees and greenspace and by using strategies like pervious pavement and ecoroofs. Minimize offsite discharge by creating a site design that limits pavement and building footprints. These strategies require integration of decisions at all levels of the project, from site planning to materials selection. 3. Use stormwater as a design element. Instead of pipes that hide water beneath the surface, green systems can work with natural land forms and land uses to become a major site design element. Starting in the conceptual design phase and with an evaluation of a site's infiltration potential and drainage patterns, designers can create a more aesthetically pleasing relationship to the natural features of the site and provide multiple benefits. This, in turn, can result in: • Recreational opportunities • Maximized land values • Improved project marketability • Landscape and screening requirements being met • Providing wildlife habitat • Providing environmental education G • TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 55 • Arbor Day Foundation Packet Page 94 of 431 Control `Grey to Green Initiative' Projects e In many established neighborhoods, Portland's infrastructure — like that in many American cities — is aging and needs to be repaired or replaced. Instead of traditional renovations, the `Grey to Green' approach implements the kind of techniques described in this bulletin. Incentives for going green include a reduction in stormwater user fees. To encourage tree planting, one incentive is that the city helps residents by paying a portion of new tree costs in addition to reducing fees. The larger the species at maturity, the larger the incentive! The city also promotes tree planting through the use of volunteers and by working with contractors on various projects. In all cases, the city's policy is to focus on green street improvements and private stormwater investments first, followed by traditional pipe replacement and upgrades where required and financially appropriate. Is it working? In one creek basin alone, the program: • Anticipates saving more than $58 million by integrating green infrastructure and pipe replacement and repairs, 40 percent less than the cost of traditional solutions. • Sewer backups and overflows are being reduced. • Potentially more than 20,000 residents and hundreds of small businesses will be engaged in stormwater initiatives. Throughout the city: • More than 900 green street facilities are being constructed and incentives were provided or are available for 150 targeted private improvement projects. • Over 10,000 new street trees and 60,000 seedlings in natural areas have been planted. • Habitat in environmentally sensitive areas is being restored, including the removal of invasive species and the planting of native tree and shrub species. Through partnerships with Friends of Trees and volunteers, street trees are being planted to help with stormwater management in Portland, Oregon. The results of using incentives for homeowners exceeded expectations with more than 1,000 new yard trees planted in the first years of the `Grey to Green' initiative. Other Blue Ribbon Cities The Environmental Protection Agency cites several other cities as leaders in the use of trees and other vegetation for stormwater management. These include: Chicago — Its green roof demonstration on the top of City Hall resulted in numerous others throughout the city, as well as heightened awareness about green infrastructure. Lenexa, Kansas — Using both regulatory and non - regulatory approaches, Lenexa has created riparian greenways through a stream setback ordinance, protecting natural areas and implementing other green infrastructure practices. Philadelphia — Demonstration projects and green infrastructure used in planning and development has saved the city approximately $170,000. Pittsburgh — In addition to having the first ever LEED certified convention center, Pittsburgh is using natural systems to help absorb, infiltrate, reuse and evaporate runoff. Seattle — Rain gardens, rain barrels, downspout disconnection, swales, green roofs and other green infrastructure techniques are being used along with a campaign to reduce impervious surfaces. MllWaukee — City funding is paying off in reduced runoff and improved water quality through downspout disconnects and several greening programs. Trees, shrubs and other vegetation atop the city hall building in Chicago help slow and retain stormwater runoff as well as reduce the urban heat island effect. The site has served as a demonstration of what can be done with beneficial results elsewhere in the city. TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 55 • Arbor Day Foundation • 7 Packet Page 95 of 431 5 EPA is the Source of Regulations and Help The Environmental Protection Agency was an outgrowth of the original Earth Day in 1970. It was created to establish and enforce environmental standards that "protect human health and safeguard the natural environment." Today the EPA is challenged to provide federal leadership in the area of stormwater management and other sustainable practices. The agency recognizes trees and other vegetation as part of the `best management practices' that can help it attain its goal of protecting the quality of our nation's water. For More Information Due to the technical nature of much of the material in this issue, its thorough treatment is well beyond the page limits of a bulletin. To find links and other sources that will provide more details, please visit arborday org(bulletins and click on No. 55. Conifers have even more rainwater interception potential than deciduous broadleaf trees, but both can have a significant im- pact on the volume and purity of storm runoff. Tree City USA Bulletin © 2010 Arbor Day Foundation. John E. Rosenow, publisher; James R. Fazio, editor; Karina Helm, graphic designer and illustrator. Special reviewers for this issue: Dr. Greg McPherson, Project Leader and Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station and Jennifer Karps, Grey -to -Green Coordinator, City of Portland (Oregon) Environmental Services. Published for the Friends of Tree City USA by 19Arbor Day Foundation° 100 Arbor Avenue • Nebraska City, NE 68410 arborday.org YCAB f°ER SOY INK Tree City USA Bulletin ORDER FORM Name Organization Address City State Zip Phone 1. How to Prune Young Shade Trees 1. 2. When a Storm Strikes 2. 3. Resolving Tree -Sidewalk Conflicts 3. 4. The Right Tree for the Right Place 4. 5. Living With Urban Soils 5. 6. How to Hire an Arborist 6. 7. How to Save Trees During Construction 7. 8. Don't Top Trees! 8. 9. Writing a Municipal Tree Ordinance 9. 10. Plant Trees for America! 10. 11. How to Prevent Tree/Sign Conflicts 11. 12. What City Foresters Do 12. 13. Trees for Wildlife 13. 14. How to Kill a Tree 14. 15. How to Recognize/Prevent Hazard Trees 15. 16. How to Recycle Shade Tree Materials 16. 17. How to Landscape to Save Water 17. 18. Tree City USA Growth Award 18. 19. How to Select and Plant a Tree 19. 20. A Systematic Approach to Building with Trees 20. 21. How Trees Can Save Energy 21. 22. Tree City USA: Foundation for Better Mgt. 22. 23. How to Conduct a Street Tree Inventory 23. 24. Trees and Parking Lots 24. 25. Tree Line USA 25. 26. Understanding Landscape Cultivars 26. 27. How to Manage Community Natural Areas 27. 28. Placing a Value on Trees 28. 29. How to Plan for Management 29. 30. Ten Tree Myths to Think About 30. 31. Tree Protection Ordinances 31. 32. Let's Stop Salt Damage 32. 33. How to Interpret Trees 33. 34. How to Fund Community Forestry 34. 35. Protect Trees During Underground Work 35. 36. How to Work with Volunteers Effectively 36. 37. Plant Health Care 37. 38. The Way Trees Work 38. 39. Putting Trees to Work 39. 40. Trees in the Riparian Zone 40. 41. Reduce Wildfire Risk 41. 42. Working With Children 42. 43. Selling Tree Programs 43. 44. What Ails Your Tree? 44. 45. Trees For Better Streets 45. 46. Data to Advocacy 46. 47. How to Bring `Nature Explore'to Your Community 47. 48. Teamwork Strengthens Community Forestry 48. 49. Trees and the Law 49. 50. Tree Campus USA 50. 51. Trees and Safety 51. 52. Making Good Use of Small Spaces 52. 53. What Tree is That - and Why? 53. 54. How to Grow a Great Tree Board 54. 55. How Trees Can Retain Stormwater Runoff 55. -Tree City USA Annual Report TOTALS: $ Annual Friends of Tree City USA Membership..................................................$15.00 $ Tree City USA Bulletin 3-Ring Binder......... $ 5.00 $ Complete Bulletin Set, in binders................$99.00 $ TOTAL PAYMENT: $ Order Tree City USA Bulletins online at arbordayorg this form and mail with your payment to: Arbor Day Foundation, 211 N.12th St., Lincoln, NE 68508 888/448-7337 1599 055 (Make checks payable to Arbor Day Foundation) 1 Issue $3.00 ea. $ or send Packet Page 96 of 431 50070901 City of Edmonds Heritage Tree Program Description and Information (for Edmonds Tree Board Webpage and promotional brochure ) The City of Edmonds has established a Heritage Tree Program as an opportunity to officially recognize trees of special or historical significance to the community. The program was established (put into ordinance/municipal code) in 20--, and procedures to implement it were put into place in 20--. Purposes of the Edmonds Heritage Tree Program are to: • Increase public awareness of trees and the importance and value of Edmond's urban forest • Help bring attention to and preserve unique and significant trees • Highlight trees as important parts of Edmonds' character and history • Encourage and engage citizens in their community Heritage Tree A tree or collection of trees that is acknowledged and valued for the unique characteristics that set it apart from other similar trees. The Edmonds Tree Board designates a Heritage Tree as: • Having historical significance to a person, place or event • Having attained significant size in height, canopy spread, or caliper for its age and species • Having special aesthetic qualities for its species • Prominently visible to the public • Possessing rare horticulture value • Not a hazard or obstruction • The owner of the tree agrees in writing to its being so designated • A nominated tree or trees can be publicly or privately owned. In the case of a tree known to be in the public domain, the Property Owner Agreement Form requirement is waived, and the Tree Board will make necessary inquiries. How to nominate a tree for Heritage Tree status: Please review ordinance/municipal code number 1234 and return the Heritage Tree Nomination Form and Property Owner Agreement Form to: Heritage Tree Program Edmonds City Hall 1234 street Edmonds, WA 98020 For additional questions, please contact Edmonds Tree Board at email address or at 425-123-4567. The determination process takes up to 3 months and includes an arranged visit by Tree Board members and an arborist (city, volunteer, or funded?), followed by a majority vote of the Tree Board. Accepted nominations will receive a Certificate and a botanical description of the tree with care information. The inventory of current Heritage Trees in Edmonds is here . Packet Page 97 of 431 `Standards Manual' and action items: Designation categories: There will be just one overall Heritage Tree category (to keep things simple). Management: A minimum of 2 Board members together, and an arborist (can be separately), will visit the tree at a convenient time, after contacting the nominator and the owner. They will make observations, take notes and a digital photo, and the arborist will fill out a form provided . The Board as a group will discuss nominees and determine acceptance on a regular basis, (perhaps every 3 or 6 months). Notification will be made to nominees as soon as possible. Accepted nominations will receive a Certificate and a botanical description of tree with care information. Steps needing participation from a Tree Board member: receive information conduct correspondence set up investigation visit, including arborist make visit present nomination(s) to Board and achieve determination manage paperwork and web information and updates, keep files (forms, arborist's notes, correspondence) generate award certificate and care information Follow up tree care options after acceptance: Partnerships may need to be developed with arborists, possibly including discounted help with pruning and advice (perhaps in trade for publicity). Getting the program up and running and excitement generated: Solicit Tree Board members and local arborists to consider trees they are aware of in the community that might fit the bill Ask local garden club for initial tree suggestions Advertise the Program locally Prepare an informational brochure (tri-fold single sheet) in quantity to hand out at every opportunity and event (volunteer writing and design, need funding or donation for printing) Is a small monetary donation appropriate from applicants or should a grant be applied for (with historical emphasis) to cover printing, stamps, brochure production, misc. costs? To implement will need: City Council and legal approval Municipal Ordinance or Code written and adopted per City requirements also: website page with nomination and owner permission forms arborist's tree evaluation form informational/promotional brochure certificate of Heritage designation mode of generating care instructions (by species) publicity of program with media and local organizations list of arborists (or maintenance support sources) Packet Page 98 of 431 City of Edmonds Heritage Tree Program Nomination Form Nominator: Name Address Phone (Day) (Eve) Email Tree Information: Location or address: Property Owner, if different (must agree to nomination): Name Address Phone (Day) (Eve) Species or common name (if known) Single or collection (how many?) Height: feet Crown: (approximate distance of total spread from one side to other) feet Circumferance: distance around trunk at 4.5 feet from ground inches ( approximate or measured) Age of tree: (if known or estimate) Condition: Appears Healthy Appears Diseased Has structural/pruning problem List any Historical facts about the tree (documented or estimatedl) What is the most noteworthy quality of the tree(s)? Size Aesthetic qualities Visibility Rare horticultural value Historical Other Explain why you think this tree/trees should be nominated for heritage distinction (use additional sheets as needed). Please include a photograph, if possible, and a simple location map. Submit to: Heritage Tree Program 1234 Street Edmonds, WA 98026 Phone: 425-123-4567 Fax: 425-123-4567 email: abcde@fghij.klm Packet Page 99 of 431 City of Edmonds Heritage Tree Program Property Owner Agreement Form In exchange for the City's designation of the subject tree as a Heritage Tree, the Property Owner agrees to protect, maintain and care for the Heritage Tree located on his or her property. The Property Owner agrees to abide by conditions set forth in the City of Edmonds Code, Section 12345, particularly: A. "A Heritage Tree or collection of trees is retained by the property owner and does not become the property or responsibility of the City — unless the tree(s) are city owned." B. "The property owner is responsible for all maintenance and liability issues pertaining to the tree or trees." C. Prior to removal of a Heritage Tree, a property owner must notify the Tree Board. The City strongly encourages all Heritage Tree property owners to retain these significant tree(s). Property Owner understands that sponsorships or assistance for care of the tree may be available from the City of Edmonds. As Property Owner of the (species) tree now being considered for special designaton, I hereby consent to its being designated a Heritage Tree by the Tree Board of Edmonds, Washington. Location (address, tax lot): Signed: Date: Submit to: Heritage Tree Program 1234 Street Edmonds, WA 98026 Approved by Edmonds Tree Board: Filed with Edmonds Heritage Tree Program and Website: Property Owner Phone: 425-123-4567 Fax: 425-123-4567 email: abcde@fghij.klm (Date) (Date) Packet Page 100 of 431 �rlarfamaf iloln City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor Arbor Day 2013 WHEREAS, in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and WHEREAS, the holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska; and WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the Nation and the world; and WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed in eighty-two communities throughout Washington State; and WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our pervious topsoil by wind and water, lower our heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife; and WHEREAS. trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood products; and WHEREAS, trees in our city increase our property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community; and WHEREAS, trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of joy and spiritual renewal; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that I, David O. Earling, Mayor, do hereby proclaim April 10, 2013 ARBOR DAY IN EDMONDS and urge all citizens to recognize and applaud the contribute ns of our State's greatest natural resource. David O. Earling, Mayor March 5, 2013 Packet Page 101 of 431 AM-5541 g City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 03/05/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted For: Valerie Stewart / Ian Duncan Submitted By: Rob Chave Department: Planning Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subiect Title Presentation on Sustainable Design (Valerie Stewart and Ian Duncan). Recommendation N/A Previous Council Action None Narrative A presentation entitled Sustainable Design was delivered at the January 9, 2013 Planning Board meeting by Vice Chair Stewart, Sustainable Building Advisor and Board Member Duncan, LEED AP Architect. It was recommended by Planning Board Members and two Architectural Design Board Members in attendance that this presentation go before City Council. The purpose is to broaden understanding of green building in the context of sustainability. Sustainable development and green building are terms that are used interchangeably. There are economic, environmental and social benefits of green building that are emphasized for present and future generations. • Environment: sustainability aims to protect the environment by minimizing the use of non-renewable resources, and using renewable resources at a rate they can be sustained. • Economy: sustainability aims at development an economy that is vital and dynamic and integrated with environmental goals. • Equity/Social Benefit: sustainability aims at ensuring that while achieving environmental and economic goals, all aspects of society are benefited and no aspects are society are harmed. Sustainable building design is a process that fully integrates the site along with architectural, mechanical, electrical, and other systems of the building to get the highest performance possible. All disciplines and project stakeholders work together from the very beginning in design workshops to set goals and objectives and determine how to achieve them. Whether a project is infill, redevelopment or a remodel, sustainable design principles should apply to minimize the impacts to the environment throughout the construction and lifetime of buildings. Resource depletion and environmental pollution too often are outcomes of conventional development. There has been much progress in green building in the region and nationally thanks to the evolution of policies, programs, and green building codes. LEED Neighborhood Development Program utilizes a point Packet Page 102 of 431 system and provides a way to evaluate and quantify development. LEED standards also exist for New Construction, Existing Buildings, Core and Shell, and Commercial Interiors. Other programs such as Built Green focus on residential projects. Green Globes rating system provides metrics through which building owners and operators can gauge a building's sustainability performance. Some case studies will be offered to illustrate the benefits of Sustainable Design, including our own PCC store. Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Rob Chave Final Approval Date: 03/01/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 02/28/2013 02:44 PM Dave Earling 02/28/2013 06:51 PM Sandy Chase 03/01/2013 08:41 AM Started On: 02/27/2013 12:29 PM Packet Page 103 of 431 AM-5545 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 03/05/2013 Time: 20 Minutes Submitted By: Rob Chave Department: Planning Review Committee: Type: Information Information Committee Action: Subject Title Update on Snohomish County buildable lands and population/employment projections. Recommendation No action required. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative J Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), the next mandatory plan update for the City of Edmonds comprehensive plan is 2015. This will be a significant milestone because the updated plan will need to be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) expressed as part of Vision 2040 (see Exhibits 1 and 2). Preliminary work has already begun within the region, and specifically within Snohomish County. Snohomish County Tomorrow is the designated organization used to collaboratively work on GMA countywide planning issues within Snohomish County, although most of the formal authority for countywide planning approvals rests with the County Council. Local jurisdictions are of course responsible for their own jurisdiction -level plans. The 'fact sheet' contained in Exhibit 5 has a helpful explanation of what's different about this next cycle of plan updates (notably the consistency requirement with the RGS). In short, rather than just collaborating within the County on distributing projected population and employment forecasts provided by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM), the distribution must be done in a way that is consistent with the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy -- that is, in line with the distribution by 'regional geography' outlined in the plan. Each city will be responsible for its own planning, but because of the new RGS consistency requirement, the Planning Advisory Committee of Snohomish County Tomorrow felt it was important to get an 'early read' of what the population and employment distributions might look like if alignment with the RGS was required. Material on this preliminary process is contained in Exhibits 6 and 7, with Exhibit 7 showing the most recent work on attempting to formulate preliminary planning targets for each jurisdiction to use as they embark on their various local planning processes. Packet Page 104 of 431 Exhibits 3 and 4 represent the most recent Buildable Lands Report completed by Snohomish County Tomorrow. This is a technical assessment required by State law, and is performed every five years. As noted in the report, it is a monitoring report intended to "monitor residential, commercial and industrial development, and the densities at which this development has occurred under each jurisdiction's GMA comprehensive plan and development regulations." The main purpose of this evaluation is to assess whether there are sufficient buildable lands available to accommodate growth within the relevant planning period (currently through 2025). In addition, the buildable lands information was useful in looking at future capacity for growth when reviewing the impact of distributing population and employment consistent with the RGS. For Edmonds, the main result of the work done thus far is to show that the City potentially has the capacity to accommodate its share of projected growth under the Regional Growth Strategy through the next planning period (2035). It will be up to the 2015 local planning process to confirm that this preliminary conclusion is true, and to make sure that the city is achieving both its local -- and regional -- responsibilities. Attachments Exhibit 1: Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy Exhibit 2: Vision 2040 Map/Poster Exhibit 3: Buildable Lands Report - Partl Exhibit 4: Buildable Lands Report - Part2 Exhibit 6: Snohomish County 2015 Plan Update Fact Sheet Exhibit 6: SCT Preliminary Growth Distribution Working Paper Exhibit 7: SCT Growth Target Worksheets Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Rob Chave Final Approval Date: 03/01/2013 Form Review Date 02/28/2013 04:28 PM 02/28/2013 06:52 PM 03/01/2013 08:41 AM Started On: 02/28/2013 11:53 AM Packet Page 105 of 431 VISION 2040 is a shared strategy for how and where the central Puget Sound region can grow to a forecast 5 million people and 3 million jobs by the year2040. The Regional Growth Strategy looks at how the region can distribute forecast growth, primarily within the designated urban growth area. The strategy is a description of preferred pattern of urbanization that has been designed to minimize environmental impacts, support economic prosperity, promote adequate and affordable housing, improve mobility, and make efficient use of existing infrastructure. The strategy provides regional guidance for counties, cities, and towns to use as they develop new local population and employment growth targets and update local comprehensive plans. The Regional Growth Strategy describes a pattern of vibrant urban areas and healthy rural and natural resource landscapes that reflects �,�r• r the region's commitment to people, prosperity and planet. The region's first growth management strategy, adopted in 1990 as the original VISION 2020, was developed to better integrate land use and transportation planning. it II RP u; Following guidance in the state Growth Management Act, VISION 2020 was updated in 1995 to provide a regional framework for focusing growth within the defined urban growth area, especially within compact urban communities and vibrant centers of activity. The strategy was also designed to help preserve rural areas and resource lands, address economic development, and advance more orderly patterns of development. VISION 2040 continues to emphasize the important role of centers and compact urban communities in accom- modating future population and employment. VISION 2040 envisions a future where: • The overall natural environment is restored, protected, and sustained. • Population and employment growth is focused within the designated urban growth area. • Within the urban growth area, growth is focused in cities. • Within cities, centers serve as concentrations of jobs, housing, and other activities. Mae Puget Sound Piegional Council — VISION 2040 E 13 • 106 of 431 • A better balance of job locations and housing is achieved, facilitated, and supported by incentives and investments. • Rural development is minimized. • Resource lands are permanently protected, supporting the continued viability of resource -based industries, such as forestry and agriculture. • Existing infrastructure and new investments are used more efficiently and effectively, and are prioritized for areas that are planning for and accommodating growth. • Meaningful steps are taken to reduce carbon emis- sions and minimize the region's contribution to climate change. Focusing Growth in the Urban Growth Area and in Centers The Growth Management Act identifies three distinct landscapes: urban lands, rural lands, and natural resource lands (i.e., agricultural, forest and mineral lands). The Act makes clear that the long-term sustainability of rural and resource lands is dependent on accommodating devel- opment within the designated urban growth area. Urban Land. Counties and cities are required to desig- nate an urban growth area where growth is intended to be concentrated as a means of controlling urban sprawl. Since the Growth Management Act's adoption, the region's counties, in consultation with their cities, have identified and designated an urban growth area with sufficient capacity to accommodate forecast growth. Part of the intent of designating the urban growth area is to help channel investments in infrastructure within already built-up areas — especially cities — and to dis- courage growth in rural areas. Cities and Unincorporated Urban Areas. Within the designated urban area, there are incorporated cities and unincorporated urban growth areas. Portions of the region's unincorporated urban areas are designated as potential annexation areas for cities. Since these potential annexation areas can typically receive urban services from adjacent cities, they should accommodate a greater share of growth in unincorporated urban areas than nonaffiliated areas. Centers. The emphasis on the development of centers throughout the region is at the heart of VISION 2040's approach to growth management. Centers are locations characterized by compact, pedestrian -oriented develop- ment, with a mix of different office, commercial, civic, entertainment, and residential uses. While relatively small geographically, centers are strategic places identified to receive a significant proportion of future population and employment growth when compared to the rest of the urban area. Centers of different sizes and scales — from the largest centers to the smallest — are envisioned for all of the region's cities. Concentrating growth in centers allows cities and other urban service providers to maximize the use of existing infrastructure, make more efficient and less costly invest- ments in new infrastructure, and minimize the environ- mental impact of urban growth. Centers create improved accessibility and mobility for walking, biking, and transit, and as a result play a key transportation role in the region. Regional growth centers are envisioned as major focal points of higher density population and employment, served with efficient multimodal transportation infra- structure and services. These regionally designated places are the primary locations for the arts, civic activity, commerce, and recreation. The regional growth cen- ters, with their concentration of people and jobs, form the backbone of the transportation network for the four -county region. Linking these centers with a highly efficient transportation system allows the region to take actions to reduce the rate of growth in vehicle miles trav- eled, especially by providing and expanding transporta- tion choices. Consequently, regionally significant centers should receive priority in regional and local investments in the infrastructure and services that are critical for sup- porting growth. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. The region also contains a number of manufacturing/industrial centers. These are existing employment areas with intensive, con- centrated manufacturing and industrial land uses that can- not be easily mixed with other activities. Manufacturing/ 14 VISION2040 — PugetSDMPegional Council Icket Page 107 of 431 industrial centers are intended to continue to accommo- date a significant amount of regional employment. Manufacturing/industrial centers have a different urban form and purpose than regional growth centers. They can be characterized as areas of large contiguous blocks served by the region's major transportation infrastructure, including roads, rail, and port facilities. These centers have generally developed an urban form suitable for outdoor storage and facilities, with large spaces for the assembly of goods. They do not typically contain residential uses. Protecting these centers from incompatible uses, as well as providing them with adequate public facilities and services, requires deliberate and careful planning. Good access to the region's transportation system, in particular, will contribute to their continued success. Rural Land. The region's varied rural areas offer a diverse set of natural amenities. Common elements of rural areas include small-scale farms, wooded areas, lakes and streams, and open spaces. Technically, rural lands are those areas that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. Rural develop- ment can consist of a variety of uses and residential patterns that preserve rural character. Natural Resource Lands. Most of the region's total land area is designated as natural resource lands. These areas include agricultural lands that have long-term sig- nificance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products, forest lands that have long-term significance for the commercial production of timber, and mineral lands that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals. The vast majority of this land falls under the forest lands designation, and much of this is protected under federal, state, and local regulations. I evelopment Patterns and Climate Change udies show that the infrastructure requirements, building erations, and transportation needs associated with w-density developmentpatterns result in roughly two d a half times the annual greenhouse gas emissions ano o times the energy used per capita compared to higher nsity development patterns. omparing High and Low Residential Density'in Journal of ban Planning and Development — March 2006) Critical Areas. The Growth Management Act requires that each city and county identify and protect critical areas before identifying areas of urban growth. Critical areas include both hazardous areas, such as floodplains and steep slopes, and environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands and streams. Critical areas also include zones that are important for protecting groundwater, fish, and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas. The Act requires that the best available science be used in the designation and pro- tection of critical areas. In practice, counties and cities do allow a certain amount of development in critical areas. In most jurisdictions, however, development can occur only under certain circumstances, such as when disrup- tion to critical areas is minimal. The Endangered Species Act, a federal statute protecting threatened and endan- gered species, can override rights to develop by prohibit- ing activities that might interfere with protected species. Development, Sustainability and the Climate. Since the adoption of the Growth Management Act, a transformational issue has emerged that has the po- tential to affect nearly every topic addressed by VISION 2040 and the future of the region: global climate change. Human factors associated with climate change include not only the methods we employ to create energy, travel, and manufacture and transport goods, but also the en- ergy requirements of the very communities and patterns of development created over the last 50 years. In response to the central challenge to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions while creat- ing more sustainable communities, VISION 2040 builds on the state Growth Management Act framework, as well as on the regional emphasis of focusing growth into centers. Packet Page 108 of 431 Puget Sound Piegional Council — VISION 2040 E 15 Distributing Growth Using Regional Geographies A hallmark of VISION 2040 is its Regional Growth Strategy that provides specific numeric guidance to achieve a development pattern with fewer environmental impacts and a more compact urban form. VISION 2040 provides guidance for the distribution of growth to regional geographies, which are defined by the idea that different types of cities and unincorporated areas will play distinct roles in the region's future. Cities, towns, and neighbor- hoods of various sizes and character will continue to offer a wide choice of living options. The region's original growth center concept fits within the regional geog- raphies framework, with centers of different sizes and scales envisioned for all cities. In the Regional Growth Strategy, the region's landscape has been divided into seven types of geographies. Metropolitan Cities (five cities) and Core Cities (14 cities, including unincorporated Silverdale) have cities with designated regional growth centers. These two groups of cities are and will be the most intensely urban places in the region. The Larger Cities (18 cities) category groups together the next tier of large cities that have similar amounts of population and employment. The Small Cities (46 cities) category is further subdivided into three types to reflect the wide variety of smaller cities and towns throughout the region, as well as the different roles they will likely play in accommodating forecast growth. Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas capture a wide variety of urban lands, both lightly and heavily developed. The transformation of these urban lands will be critical to the region's future success. Rural Areas and Natural Resources Lands are categories that describe the different types of unincorporated areas out- side the urban growth area, and include very low -density housing, working landscapes, and open space. These regional geographies provide a framework for the distribution of the region's forecast growth for the year 2040. The use of these geographies provides more speci- ficity than at the broader county level, yet it does not get too specific at the individual city level. (However, in some instances an individual city may stand alone within a regional geography category.) This framework provides clearer regional guidance about the roles of different types of cities in accommodating regional growth. A Guide for Growth Planning. The Regional Growth Strategy focuses the majority of the region's employment and housing growth into both Metropolitan and Core Cities, which together contain more than two dozen designated regional growth centers. The centers in these cities are intended to attract residents and businesses because of their proximity to services and jobs, a variety of housing types, access to regional amenities, high qual- ity transit service, and other advantages. Centers in other Larger Cities also play an important and increased role over time as places that accommodate growth. These are locations in and around traditional downtown main streets, town centers, neighborhood shopping areas, key transit stations, ferry terminals, and other transportation and service centers. These centers provide local and regional services and amenities, and are also locations of redevelopment and increased activ- ity, becoming more significant secondaryjob centers. At a smaller scale, locally identified city and town centers also serve similar roles for Small Cities, providing services and housing that support vital and active communi- ties at intensities appropriate to smaller municipalities. Growth in the unincorporated urban growth area would be prioritized in areas that are affiliated for annexation into incorporated jurisdictions. In the Regional Growth Strategy, significantly less residential growth would occur in the region's rural areas than the trend suggested in current adopted growth targets and plans. Future Adjustments. Cities were grouped into their respective regional geographies based on year 2000 population numbers from the U.S. Census, and PSRC employment numbers based on estimates derived from the Washington State Employment Security Department. The Regional Council recognizes that as cities continue to grow, both through net increase and through an- nexation of unincorporated areas, their population and employment levels may change significantly. To reflect these changes, it is anticipated that the Regional Coun- cil's Executive Board will make a technical amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy to potentially reclassify cities before the region's counties undertake the next round of Growth Management Act target -setting work. (This is anticipated to occur in 2011 or earlier.) 16 VISION 2040 — PugetSnndPiegionalCouncil cket Page 109 of 431 The Regional Growth Strategy by the Numbers The VISION 2040 growth strategy is com- prised of two parts. First is a growth concept that builds on the foundation provided in the Growth Management Act, emphasizing the role of the urban growth area and urban centers in accommodating future population and employment. The second part — the numbers by regional geographies — contains specific guidance for the distribution of growth. The regional geographies framework calls for focusing growth primarily into different catego- ries of cities, and recognizes the different roles of the region's counties in accommodating population and employment growth. The Regional Growth Strategy is intended to guide and coordinate the region's cities and towns as they periodically update local residen- tial and employment growth targets — based on population forecasts developed by the state Office of Financial Management — and amend their local comprehensive plans. The Regional Growth Strategy calls for different regional geographies to accommodate dif- ferent shares of population and employment growth — within the region as a whole, as well as within each county. While relative amounts may differ somewhat between counties, the roles of regional geographies within each county are consistent for the region as a whole. Within each county, the relative distribution of growth to individual cities will be determined through countywide target -setting, taking into account local circumstances. The distribution of growth in the Regional Growth Strategy was developed using Regional Council small area regional population and employment forecasts for the year 2040. When looking at the numbers in the tables that fol- low, the percentages of regional and county growth may be more useful for local planning than the specific numbers contained in the forecasts, as the numbers will change margin- ally in future rounds of regional forecasts. Puget Sound Piegional Council — VISION 2040 E 17 Packet Page 110 of 431 SNOHOMISH COUNTY . Reginel GrmNh Carder FWrMactuNg IMA4�d G"w bwm r FM F Nh Capacity haled Fr ,;w R.1 Regp lFbmd ey Ferny (JiEm 04 mh Arm B.-d- REGIONAL GEGGRAPHE$ Neemp.1w Cm Care Cdee Ln� Cr 5-1 G6 un�aiw urten Gw6i Prey R�ael I� Nalurel fmurea Lena IM'�eel Re rA F:eso— Lard IF--) 18 VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regio4Council 1cket Page 111 of 431 bUV,UVV 500,000 400,000 0 300,000 0 200,000 100,000 - 0 Metropolitan Cities Core Cities Larger Cities Small Cities UnicdUGA Rural Total M Snohomish County 20%-9o,000 9%-40,000 19%-85,000 8%-37,000 33%-148,000 10%-46,000 26%-446,000 M Pierce County 32%-127,000 20%-77,000 8%-32,000 13%-52,000 21%-81,000 6%-24,000 23%-393,000 E Kitsap County 26%-39,000 13%-19,000 11%-16,000 8%-12,000 26%-39,000 16%-25,000 9%-149,000 M King County 41%-294,000 32%-233,000 15%-1o8,000 5%-35,000 5%-34,000 3%-20,000 42%-724,000 Totallncrease 32%-550,000 22%-369,000 14%-240,000 8%-136,000 18%-302,000 7%-115,000 100%-1,712,000 2000 Base 1,007,000 601,000 403,000 210,000 586,000 470,000 3,276,000 bUU,000 500,000 400,000 T O G w 300,000 o _ - � a 200,000 100,000 il ■ o Metropolitan Cities Core Cities Larger Cities Small Cities Unic'd UGA Rural Total M Snohomish County 37%-91,000 14%-35,000 23%-56,000 6%-15,000 14%-34,000 6%-14,000 20%-246,000 E Pierce County 46%-97,000 19%-41,000 7%-15,000 14%-30,000 10%-22,000 3%-7,000 17%-212,000 E Kitsap County 22%-14,000 23%-15,000 8%-5,000 13%-9,000 27%-18,000 7%-4,000 5%-65,000 M King County 45%-311,000 38%-262,000 11%-74,000 3%-22,000 A-20,000 1%-5,000 57%-695,000 Totallncrease 42%-513,000 29%-354,000 12%-151,000 6%-76,000 8%-94,000 2%-30,000 100% - 1,218,000 2000Base 931,000 532,000 161,000 74,000 133,000 60,000 1,892,000 Puget SoundPgiooalCouncil-VISION2040 E 19 Packet Page 112 of 431 Urban Regional Geographies Metropolitan Cities. Each of the four counties in the region contains at least one central city that serves as a civic, cultural, and economic hub. At least one regional growth center — if not more — has been designated within each of these Metropolitan Cities to serve as a focal point for accommodating both population and employment growth. The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the five Metropolitan Cities to accommodate 32 percent of regional popula- tion growth and 42 percent of regional employment growth by the year 2040. (This is an increased role compared to current adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 24 percent of regional population growth and 40 percent of regional employment growth to occur in Metropolitan Cities.) It would be consistent with the spirit of the Regional Growth Strategy for the region's Metropolitan Cities to accommodate an even larger share of forecast regional growth. Metropolitan Cities (five cities, 222 square miles): Bellevue, Bremerton, Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma. � 14�, 4c, I'll E Metropolitan Cities in King and Pierce counties are expected to accommodate larger shares of their respective counties' growth than those in Kitsop and Snohomish counties. City ofBellevue 20 VISION2040 — PugetSDMPegional Council cket Page 113 of 431 Core Cities. The region also contains a number of other major cities with regionally designated growth centers, which are intended to accommodate a significant share of future growth. These cities are called Core Cities in the Regional Growth Strategy. These 13 cities (along with the unincorporated community of Silverdale) contain key hubs for the region's long-range multimodal transportation system, and are major civic, cultural, and employment centers within their counties. The Regional Growth Strategy envisions a major role for these cities in accommodating growth. The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the 14 Core Cities to accommodate 22 percent of the region's population growth and 29 percent of its employment growth by the year 2040. (This is an increased role compared to current adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 17 percent of regional population growth and 26 percent of regional employment growth to occur in Core Cities.) Core Cities (14 total —13 cities plus Silverdale, 212 square miles): Auburn, Bothell, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Kirkland, Lakewood, Lynnwood, Puyallup, Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, Silverdale, and Tukwila. 11 I J King County's Core Cities are expected to accommodate a much larger share of King County's growth than Core City shares of Kitsop, Pierce and Snohomish counties. lr�'Jla 71a City of Kent Packet Page 114 of 431 Puget Sound Piegional Council — VISION 2040 M 21 Larger Cities. The region also contains other Larger Cities that are grouped together because they each have a combined population and employment total over 22,500. This figure was a natural break among the region's 82 cities and towns. Many of these 18 cities are home to important local and regional transit stations, ferry terminals, park -and - ride facilities, and other transportation connections. Central places within this group of cities are expected to become more important subregional job, service, cultural, and housing centers over time. The Regional Growth Strategy envi- sions an expanding role for these cities in accommodating growth. The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the 18 Larger Cities to accommodate 14 percent of the region's population growth and 12 percent of its employment growth by the year 2040. (This is an increased role compared to current adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 8 percent of regional population growth and 7 percent of regional employment growth to occur in Larger Cities.) Larger Cities (18 cities,167 square miles): Arlington, Bainbridge Island, Des Moines, Edmonds, Fife, Issaquah, Kenmore, Maple Valley, Marysville, Mercer Island, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Monroe, Mukilteo, Sammamish, Shoreline, University Place, and Woodinville. The shares of county growth going to Larger Cities are fairly similar regionwide, with a somewhat lower share in Pierce County. CityofEdmonds 22 VISION2040 — PugetSDMPegional Council cket Page 115 of 431 Small Cities. The region's 46 smaller cities and towns (see sidebar on the following page) are expected to remain relatively small for the long term. Their locally designated city or town centers provide local job, service, cultural, and housing areas for their communities. These central places should be identified in local comprehensive plans, and become priority areas for future investments and growth at the local level. The Regional Growth Strategy envisions a moderate role for most of these cities in accommodating growth. The Regional Growth Strategy calls for 46 Small Cities to accommodate 8 percent of the region's population growth and 6 percent of its employment growth by the year 2040, which is similar to their current role in accommodating growth. This compares to current adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 10 percent of regional popu- lation growth and 9 percent of regional employment growth to occur in Small Cities. Small Cities (46 cities,136 square miles): See sidebar on page 24 for a list of Small Cities. Small Cities are located throughout the region and represent nearly two-thirds of the region's incorporated jurisdictions. Small Cities in Pierce County are expected to accommodate the highest share of regional Small City population growth. Cityofsumner Packet Page 116 of 431 Puget Sound Piegional Council — VISION 2040 M 23 The Region's Small Cities The region's Small Cities typically have a population well under 10,000, markedly smaller than the 31 Metropolitan, Core, and Larger Cities. Among the region's Small Cities are traditional suburbs, small residential towns, and cities in the rural area. The Regional Growth Strategy recognizes these distinctions. The following list show the groupings of various small towns. Cities Inside the Contiguous Urban Growth Area: These cities will likely receive a larger share of Small City growth due to their proximity to the region's larger cities, existing and planned transportation systems, and other supporting infrastructure. Over time, some of these cities may become Larger Cities, and assume an even greater role in accommodating regional growth and activity. Most, however, will remain relatively small over the long term. Algona, Black Diamond, Bonney Lake, Brier, Covington, DuPont, Edgewood, Fircrest, Gig Harbor, Lake Forest Park, Lake Stevens, Medina, Mill Creek, Milton, Newcastle, Normandy Park, Orting, Pacific, Port Orchard, Poulsbo, Ruston, Steilocoom, and Sumner. • Small Residential Towns: These very small towns are primarily residential, with little potential for accommodating a great deal of growth. They will likely remain quite similar to today, and receive a lesser share of Small City growth. Beaux Arts, Clyde Hill, Hunts Point, Woodway, and Yarrow Point. Free -Standing Cities and Towns: These cities are urban islands surrounded by rural and resource lands and separated from the contiguous urban growth area. They should serve as hubs for relatively higher density housing choices, and os job and service centers for surrounding rural areas. Due to their isolation from the rest of the designated urban growth area, they will likely receive a lesser overall share of Small City growth, and are not expected to grow as much as Small Cities within the contiguous urban growth area. Buckley, Carbonodo, Carnation, Dorrington, Duvall, Eatonville, Enumclaw, Gold Bar, Granite Falls, Index, North Bend, Roy, Skykomish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, South Prairie, Stanwood, Sultan, and Wilkeson. Mr Town ofHunts Point City ofSkykonnsh 24 VISION2040 — PugetSDMPegional Council Icket Page 117 of 431 Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas. Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas represent the largest amount of land area for any of the urban regional geography categories. These urban areas are quite diverse, with both lightly developed fringe areas and neighborhoods that are much more urban and nearly indistinguishable from surrounding incorporated jurisdictions. County buildable lands analyses suggest that these areas have the potential to accom- modate significant growth for the long term, and that there will be little need to significantly expand the designated urban growth area. The process for adjusting the urban growth area is provided in the Growth Management Act. Approximately 60 percent of the lands within the Unincorporated Urban Growth Area has been identified by cities as potential annexation areas, or is otherwise "affiliated" with cities for annexation. VISION 2040 envisions that in time most of the unincorporated area inside the urban growth area will be affiliated with existing cities. It is assumed that eventually all of this area will be annexed to or incorporated as cities. Based on information from the region's counties, approximately 70 percent of the population growth currently identi- fied for the Unincorporated Urban Growth Area is planned for locations that are already affiliated for annexation with existing cities and towns. These areas, which are closely related to their adjacent city, are expected to accommodate a larger share of overall unincorporated urban growth than unaffiliated areas. Careful planning and development of the unincorporated portions of the urban growth area are vital to ensure that they assume appropriate urban densities and an urban form that can be efficiently supported by regional and local infrastruc- ture and services. Planning and permitting that is well - coordinated between the counties and adjacent cities will be key to implementing the Regional Growth Strategy. The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the Unincorporated Urban Growth Area to accommodate 18 percent of the region's population growth and 8 percent of the em- ployment growth by the year 2040. (This is a somewhat decreased role in accommodating growth compared to current adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 30 percent of regional population growth and 15 percent of regional employment growth in the Unincorporated Urban Growth Area. Note that annexa- tions have also reduced the overall land area of the UUGA since 2025 targets were adopted.) Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (260 square miles): All four counties have designated unincor- porated urban growth areas, many of which are affiliated for annexation with incorporated cities and towns. The unincorporated urban growth area in Snohomish County has the highest share of anticipated population and employment growth, followed byKitsap, Pierce, and King counties. Puget Sound Piegional Council — VISION 2040 E 25 Packet Page 118 of 431 Rural and Natural Resource Regional Geographies m-,I Milk C.Eff p. "J sit W In addition to its focus on urban areas, the Regional Growth Strategy follows Growth Management Act guidance in sup- porting the long-term use of rural and designated natural resource lands for farming and forestry, recreation, cottage industries, mining, and limited low -density housing supported by rural levels of service. Cities and towns surrounded by or adjacent to rural and resource areas should provide the majority of services and jobs for rural residents, as well as more concentrated and varied housing options. The Regional Growth Strategy provides guidance on levels of residen- tial growth in rural areas, encourages the transfer of development from rural and resource areas into urban areas, and seeks to ensure that proposed levels of development are consistent with the character of rural and resource areas. Rural Areas. Rural lands will not develop urban service levels or characteristics, or accommodate a great deal of residential or employment growth. These areas are expected to retain important cultural, economic, and rural lifestyle opportunities in the region over the long term. VISION 2040 calls for reduced rural population growth rates in all counties. Rural population and employment growth in the Regional Growth Strategy represents a reduction in the share of growth compared to current adopted growth targets for the year 2025. If they must identify growth for rural areas at all, counties should be encouraged to plan for even lower growth — where possible — than contained in the Regional Growth Strategy. Rural Areas (1,464 square miles): All four counties have designated rural areas, which represent nearly 25 percent of the region's land area. Port Gamble, Kitsap County 26 VISION2040 — PugetSnndPiegional Council cket Page 119 of 431 Natural Resource Lands. Lands designated as agriculture, forest, and mineral areas are grouped together as natural resource areas. Resource lands will be permanently protected from incompatible residential and employment growth to safeguard them as important economic, cultural, and environmental assets, and to protect the long-term viability of resource -based industries. Even small amounts of residential growth in these areas can seriously interfere with produc- tive natural resource harvest and processing. Fragmentation of large, contiguous acreages through subdivision is also of particular concern. These areas will not accommodate significant future growth, and the Regional Growth Strategy does not distribute population or employment to them. Natural Resource Lands (3,863 square miles): Natural resource lands, representing 6o percent of the region's land area, have also been designated. Pierce County Puget Sound Piegional Council — VISION 2040 M 27 Packet Page 120 of 431 Conclusion The Regional Growth Strategy envisions Metropolitan, Core, and Larger Cities playing a stronger role in accom- modating forecast growth to help relieve development pressure on rural and natural resource lands. New targets will be developed that consider local circumstances and conditions. Some cities may need to reexamine their regional and local roles and approaches to accommodat- ing growth in order to plan for the pattern of growth presented in the strategy. The region's multicounty planning policies, presented in Part III, are designed to implement the Regional Growth Strategy. These policies guide countywide planning poli- cies and local comprehensive plans, helping to ensure that various planning efforts work together to achieve the region's vision for 2040. (Detailed background information and county -level detail for the guidance contained in the Regional Growth Strategy are contained in a technical report: Regional Growth Strategy Background.) 28 VISION2040 — PugetSDAPegional Council cket Page 121 of 431 VISION 2040 people - prosperity planet the Growth Management, Environmental, Economic and Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region How can the four counties of the central Puget Sound region grow to a forecasted 5 million people and over 3 million jobs by the year 2040 while enhancing the region's environment and overall quality of life? VISION 2040 answers that question with an integrated growth management, environmental, economic and transportation strategy. The Background The Puget Sound Regional Council adopted VISION 2040 in April 2008. It is the result of a 31/2 year public process undertaken by the region's elected officials, public agencies, interest groups, and individuals to establish a common vision for the future. VISION 2040 consists of: • An environmental framework • A regional growth strategy • Policies to guide growth and development • Implementation actions • Measures to track progress Toward a Sustainable Environment: A Framework for the Future VISION 2040 contains a new feature for regional planning, an environmental framework that sets the stage for the document's growth strategy, policies, actions and measures to better assure that the region grows in ways that are consistent with an environment that supports a high quality of life well into the future. It recognizes that the needs of the region's people, its economic prosperity, and the planet are tied together in a mutually supportive and interdependent way. A Regional Growth Strategy VISION 2040's regional growth strategy defines a preferred long-range growth pattern for the central Puget Sound metropolitan area. It looks at the growth forecasted for the region from the year 2000 through 2040, and provides guidance for how different parts of the region can accommodate population and employment growth and fit into an overall regional strategy. The growth strategy focuses the majority of the region's employment and housing growth into the largest cities, which contain more than two dozen designated regional growth centers. Designated centers in these cities are intended to attract residents and businesses because of their proximity to services and jobs, a variety of housing types, access to regional amenities, mass transit service, and other advantages. This focused strategy is designed to relieve growth pressure on sensitive environmental, rural and natural resource areas, as well as on smaller cities that will continue to offer a small-town lifestyle well into the future. Multicounty Planning Policies VISION 2040 establishes the region's multicounty planning policies under the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). The region's growth management policies are organized into six subjects: Environment, Development Patterns, Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Public Services. These policies play three key roles: (1) give official direction for implementing the regional growth strategy, (2) create a common framework for planning at various levels within the region, including countywide planning, local plans, transit agency plans, and others, and (3) provide the comprehensive policy structure for PSRC functional plans (the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Regional Economic Strategy). Actions and Measures VISION 2040 includes actions and measures. Actions identify ways to implement the policies. Measures provide specific indicators and a monitoring and feedback program to inform decision -makers on the progress being made to implement VISION 2040. VISION 2040: Recommitment, New Features, and a Fresh Approach VISION 2040 recommits the region to: • Focus growth in urban areas, concentrated in centers and compact communities. • Strengthen linkages between land use and transportation planning. • Preserve and protect rural and resource lands. • Address the needs of a diverse population. New features of VISION 2040 • Moves from a conceptual plan to a clear and specific numeric regional growth strategy based on forecast population and employment. • A revised structure for multicounty planning policies that includes goals, policies, actions, and measures. • An environmental framework for decision making and integration of growth management, transportation, and economic development planning. • An expanded environmental policy section that addresses habitat, water and air quality, and climate change. • Transportation policies emphasizing increased safety, more choices and better mobility through improved transit, ferries and roads, transportation pricing, and mitigating environmental impacts, particularly greenhouse gas emissions. • A strengthened economic section focused on business, people, and place based on the Regional Economic Strategy. • A new emphasis on housing affordability, supply and jobs/housing balance. • New policies that address the relationship between the built environment and health. • Attention to regional design. For More Information Please contact the PSRC Information Center at 206-464-7532 or info@psrc.org, or visit the PSRC website at psrc.org. Bremerto ry it KITSAP COUNTY i sr ■ 7 k- 4&-M. Puget Sound Regional Council October 2012 Puget Sound .I • 4r PORT OF TACOMA OF Er Evere PORT OF EVERETT w ft •r r S Bellevue 164 PIERCE COUNTY r SNOHOMISH COUNTY IF KING COUNTY VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy Regional Growth Center Manufacturing Industrial Center Commuter Rail High Capacity Transit Freight Rail Regional Roadway Ferry Urban Growth Area Boundary REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIES Metropolitan Cities Core Cities Larger Cities Small Cities Unincorporated Urban Growth Area Rural - Natural Resource Land (Agriculture) Natural Resource Land (Forest) acket Page 122 of 431 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) Planning Advisory Committee Recommendation February 14, 2013 Packet Page 123 of 431 SCT Planning Advisory Committee Recommendation February 1.4, 2013 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report DRAFT Introduction This report responds to and satisfies the review and evaluation requirements ofthe Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) in RCW 36 70A.215, co=. only referred to as the "buildable lands" statute. The report was prepared by staff from the county and the cities using the Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) process, the county's adopted multi jurisdictional process for GMA issues. This report includes much of the updated growth monitoring information typically produced for the SCT Growth Monitoring Report series. It, includes;the county's population and employment information through the year 2011, and thus rpdatesAhe SCT.2009-2010 Growth Monitoring Report. This report is thus intended to convey the monitoring information required of SCT by Countywide Planning Policy'GF-5(c) for the year 2012. BacklZround In 1997, the western W.a. to establish k review ana ev .t, and the dens 3rehensive plan evaluation of supply within densities obse mt Act (GMA) was amended to include new requirements for six ncluding Snohomish County) and the cities within those counties on programs that monitor residential, commercial and industrial at wh1ch this development has occurred under each jurisdiction's development regulations. Using this information, a periodic remaining suitable residential, commercial and industrial land Growth Areas (UGAs) to accommodate projected growth at development Report (BLR) "looksl adoption of GMA plans is required. As such, the Buildable Lands and compares planned vs. actual urban densities in order to determine whether the original plan assumptions pertaining to assumed densities and the adequacy of the urban land supply to the year 2025 were accurate. If the results of the buildable lands review and evaluation reveal that planned densities are not being achieved or that deficiencies in buildable land supply exist within UGAs, cities and counties are required to adopt and implement measures, other than adjusting urban growth areas, that are reasonably likely to ensure sufficient buildable lands throughout the remaining portion of the 20-year GMA planning period. In Appendix D of the Countywide Planning Policies, Snohomish County and its cities have identified a process for identifying and evaluating Packet Page 124 of 431 potential reasonable measures that may be taken by the cities or the county to address any buildable land supply shortfalls revealed by the review and evaluation program. It is important to note that the BLR analysis of additional urban area land capacity is not based solely on an inventory of vacant parcels. Instead, parcels with existing development that could be further developed over time under existing zoning (i.e., parcels containing enough surplus land to support additional development, or which can redevelop to more intensive uses) are also included in the buildable land supply. This is the third buildable lands review and evaluation report completed ly:Snohomish County and its cities. It is based on the methods and approaches first developed and used by the county and cities for the two previous buildable lands reports prepared by Snohomish County Tomorrow in 2002 and 2007. The current report evaluates whether there is sufficient suitable land within UGAs to accommodate the forecasted residential, commercial and industrh4f growth anticipated through the end of the 20-year GMA planning period,; currently 2025. Prior to 2011, the GMA required Snohomish County to:prepare a buildable lands report at least every five years, making a 2012 report the next in the BLR„ series for Snohomish County. In 2011, however, the buildable lands statute was amended to require updated buildable lands reports on an eight -year cycle, with the next report due no later than one year prior to the June 30, 2015 GMA deadline for updating of local comprehensive plans and development regulations in Snohomish County. SCT Planning AdvisoryCommittee (PAC) members considered the extended deadline and determined that they needed u'dated,buildable lands results much earlier thanthe new June 30, 2014 BLR deadline, in order to provide the`planning data needed to support the upcoming 2035 SCT growth target development and GMA plan update efforts. Hence, the current report'' results have been developed and published well over a year in advance of the new GMA deadline. As mentioned above, SCT is developing draft 2.0.3.5'population and employment growth targets to replace the 2025 targets currently contained in the Countywide Planning Policies. The new targets will help guide the GMA plan:updates in 2015. The development of the 2035 targets by SCT has been conducted concurrently with the finalizing of the draft 2012 Buildable Lands Report. Although the 2012 BLR is focused on evaluating the currently adopted targets to the year 2025, as required by GMA, it is worth noting that they are scheduled later in 2013 to be replaced by new; population and employment targets that extend to the year 2035. Process Using the SCT process, Snohomish County and its cities have conducted a review and evaluation of achieved urban densities, remaining anticipated growth, and the adequacy of the urban area land supply to accommodate the remaining projected residential and employment growth through 2025. This report is the result of that analysis and characterizes the capacity in UGAs as of April 1, 2011 based on densities achieved under GMA. The following sections describe additional inputs to the development of the 2012 Buildable Lands Report. Countywide Planning Policies and Procedures Report PAC Review Drat (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 125 of 431 In February 2000, the buildable lands review and evaluation program was established in Snohomish County with the adoption of amendments to Countywide Planning Policy UG-14 by the County Council. These amendments were recommended by Snohomish County Tomorrow and were intended to provide interjurisdictional guidelines for the development of the buildable lands report. One key requirement of CPP UG-14 (now called GF-7) was the development of a Procedures Report to establish general buildable lands definitions and methods, interjurisdictional data collection and data coordination issues, and city and county work program responsibilities. The Procedures Report was developed with consultant assistance from 8CONorthwest. The resulting report, entitled Recommended Methodology and Work Program fora Buildable Lands Analysis for Snohomish County and its Cities, was developed under the direction of a Technical Advisory Committee, and was approved by SCT in October 2000 as the guiding document for subsequent interjurisdictional technical work on the buildable lands program by city and county staff. Additional technical guidance for Snohomish County's Procedures Report came from Washington State's (CTED) report entitled "Issues in Designating Urban Growth Areas (Part I): Providing Adequate Urban Area Land Supply," released March 1992; and Washington State's (CTED) report entitled Buildable Lands Program Guidelines; released June 2000. The Procedures Report has been used to gene preparation of the 2002, 2007 and 2012 build steps to follow when conducting the buildabl optional approaches. The Procedures Report analysis, which can adapt to better tools and i with relevant data occurs'.. lly guide Snohomish.County jurisdictions during le lands reports. It provides a general set of basic ands analysis along with descriptions of various idined a flexible approach to the buildable lands -A availability over time, and as more familiarity SCT's Reduced Scope of Workfor'the 2012 Buildable Lands Report In 2010, Snohomish County Tomorrow was faced with a situation in which state grant funding for the upcoming buildable lands work had been cancelled statewide due to the severity of the state's budget difficulties. Local governments were also experiencing major budget challenges, and yet the GMA buildable lands reporting requirements for 2012 remained unchanged. After examining various. options, SCT recommended allocating a portion of their recommended budget to fund an Associate Planner;position during 2011 to work on the development history data and geographic information system (GIS) data for cities and the unincorporated UGAs. The County Council concurred with:SCT's funding recommendation for the 2011 budget. The additional one-year staff position helped to augment the resources needed for the 2012 BLR work, but it was acknowledged to be at a reduced level of support than previous BLRs had relied upon. Recognizing these constraints, SCT chose a scope of work for the 2012 report that was reduced compared with the previous BLRs. Specifically, data enhancement and development and testing of new buildable lands approaches were to be minimized. To reduce costs, the 2012 report would follow the methodology used for the 2007 BLR to the greatest extent possible. PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 126 of 431 3 Stakeholder Outreach for 2012 Report Part of the effort that Snohomish County Planning and Development Services staff made in preparing the 2012 report included contacting representatives of the two stakeholder groups PDS staff previously worked with for the 2007 report. One group represented developer, builder, and real estate interests. The other represented environmental and community group interests. Both groups expressed interest in reviewing the data and results as they were developed for the 2012 draft report. This was accomplished through several meetings and via email notifications to the main representative of both groups of the availability online of draft map and data results. Both groups were also aware of the reduced scope of work that county and city staffs were given for the 2012 report as a result of the staffing and budget cuts local governments had experienced since the 2007 BLR, and how reduced resources limited the ability of staff to work on potential enhancements to the data sources and methodology for the 2012 report Other opportunities exist for stakeholder input to the 2012 BLR through the SCT. Steering Committee review process. Following an SCT Steering Committee recommendation on a final 2012 report, the County Council will hold a public hearing on the..report prior to adopting a final version for Snohomish County. Uncertainties and Monitorin This report builds upon and attempts to improve the land capacity workdone by the county and cities for the initial GMA comprehensive plan adoption in the mid-4'990s, the 2002 and 2007 Buildable Lands Report, and for the 10-year GMA plan updates;n 2004-05. The authors and contributors to this reporthave endeavored to improve accuracy and ensure that the information and analysis has been subject to quality control and quality assurance processes. However, there are uncertainties inherent in any analysis that is based on forecasts of future activity, and the data methods used have limitations. Such uncertainties are not likely to significantly affect the major factual conclusions of the report., This report is not an attempt to filly analyze or depict the current market feasibility or availability of a particular parcel for 'immediate development, the affordability of land and availability of financing, the availability or capacity of infrastructure, or the pace at which individual parcels of land will develop in the future. Rather, this report is intended to provide useful information -and analysis'' for use in subsequent policy discussions and actions that evaluate and implement the GMA during the 20-year plan horizon in Snohomish County. This report has been developed using available information and reasonable methodological assumptions. However, as with any empirical analysis, there is an on -going need to monitor and assess the. methodological assumptions and data used in this report, in order to ensure the accuracy of future land capacity analyses for each UGA. PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 127 of 431 4 Summary of Key Results A primary purpose of the Growth Management Act (GMA), Chapter 36.70A RCW, buildable lands analysis is to determine whether there is sufficient suitable land to accommodate the adopted population and employment allocations in urban growth areas, and to identify any inconsistencies between actual and planned development patterns and densities where such inconsistencies may prevent local governments from accommodating projected growth. As established in Appendix D of the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs): In UGAs where a consistency problem has been found (e.g. not achieving urban densities or a lack of sufficient capacity), GMA (RCW 36.70A.215) and<Countywide Planning Policy GF-7 direct cities and the county to consider "reasonable':r0asures," other than expanding Urban Growth Areas UGAs to resolve the ineonsistene Below are the key observations from the draft 2012 SCT Buildable Lands Report, recommended by the PAC on February 14, 2013. These observations describe. the estimated capacity. shortfalls (termed "inconsistencies" under the GMA buildable lands statute] and capacity surpluses shown in the 2012 BLR. • Overall, at the countywide UGA level:. o Urban densities are being achie. o There is adequate land capacity population and employment grc Population with GMA comprehensive plans, and ite the adopted 2025 total UGA Pop Capacity 2011 CPP 2011-2025 2025 Total Additional Surplus vs. Estimated 2025I:Population Numeric Population 2011-2025 Shortfall (in Population Target _, Change Capacity P2RCa acityparentheses) UGA Total 595,713 759,919 ? 164,206 791958 196,245 32,039 Em toyment CPP __ _-- Emp Capacity 2011 2025 ! 2011-2025 2025 Total Additional Surplus vs. Estimated Employment Numeric Employment 2011-2025 Shortfall (in .Em loyment Tar et Change Capacity Em Ca acityparentheses) UGA Total 234 300 340,205 105,905 401,103 166,803 60,898 • UGA- and city -specific observations show: ' CPPs, App. D (Reasonable Measures); Guidelines for Review-, Applicable Policies. For the countywide UGA, additional 2011-2025 population capacity exceeds 2011-2025 projected UGA population growth by 32,039 (19.5%). This net overall UGA surplus population capacity results from a combination of UGAs showing excess capacity (totaling 37,928) above projected population growth, and those showing deficits (totaling-5,888), as shown in the UGA-specific table below_ PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 128 of 431 o At the individual UGA level, there appear to be 2025 population capacity shortfalls within the Arlington UGA, Gold Bar UGA, Monroe UGA, and Sultan UGA: UGA Population 2011 Estimated Population CPP 2025 Population Targets 2011-2025 Numeric Chan e 2025 Total Population ____gapacity Additional 2011-2025 Po Capacity Pop Capacity Surplus 'vs. Shortfall (in parentheses) Arlington UGA 18,489 27,000 8,511 25,467 6,978 (1,533) Darrington UGA 1,420 2,125 705 2,340 �920 215 Gold Bar UGA 2,909 3,500 �591 3,333„ 424 (167) Granite Falls UGA 3,517 6,970 3,453 8,651 5.134 1,681 Index UGA 180 190 10 � � 218 38 _ 28 Lake Stevens UGA 33,218 46,125 12,907 46,634 13,416 509 Marysville UGA 60,869 79,800 18,931 . : ':84,829 23960 5,029 Monroe UGA 18,806 26,590 7,784 24,782 5976' Snohomish UGA 10,559 _ 14,535 3,976 ` 14,907 4,348 ` 372 Stanwood UGA 6353 8,840 2,487 It 452. 5,099 2,612 Sultan UGA 4,969 11,119 6,150 8,739 3,770 (2,380) SW County UGA 434,425 533,125.:. 98,700 569,607 126,182 _ 27,482 UGA Total 595,713 759,919 L.164.206 791;9.8. 196,245 32,039 o At the individual city leve13'4, there appears :to .be a 2025 -population capacity shortfall within the Town of Darrington (although the Darrington UGA as a whole has enough capacity to accommodate the 2025 growth), and the cities of Monroe and Sultan. Within the SWUGA, which has enough overall capacity to accommodate the projected 2025, growth, there appear to be 2025 population capacity shortfalls within the cities of Bothell, Brier, Mi11,Creek, and Mukilteo: City Pop ulatio> 2011 Estimated :' Pa ulation CPP 2025 Population Targets 2011-2025 Numeric Change -_._- 2025 Total Population Capacity Additional 2011-2025 P_op Ca acity Pop Capacity Surplus vs. Shortfall (in parentheses) Arlington City 16,620 18,150 1,530 18,965 2,345 815 Bothell City .16,570 22,000 5,430 19,899 3,329 (2,101) Brier City 61.100 7,790 1,690 6,788 688 (1,002) Darrington Town 1,345uW 1,910 565 1,680 335 (230) Edmonds City 39.800 44,880 5,080 44.865 5,065 (15) EverettCity 101,148 123,060 21,912� 126,987 25,839 3,927 Gold Bar City 2,060 2,497 437 2,406 346 (91) Granite Falls City 3,317 4,770 1,453 5,532 2,215 762 3 Using April 1, 2002 city boundaries (the date at which city boundaries were used to develop the 2025 targets). 4 Capacity deficits of less than 100 are not considered to be inconsistencies. PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 129 of 431 2011 Estimated Population UP 2025 Population Targets 2011-2025 Numeric Change 2025 Total Population Ca acity Additional 2011-2025 Pop Capacity Pop Capacity Surplus vs. Shortfall (in parentheses) Index Town 180 190 10 218 38 28 Lake Stevens City 7,644 8,360 716 8,777 1,133 417 Lynnwood City 35,767 43,782 8,015 44,624 8,857 842 Marysville City 32,418 36,737 4,319 38,627 ° 6,209 1,890 Mill Creek City 14,554 16,089 1,535 15,117 563 (972) Monroe City 17,237 20,540 3,303 19,637 2,400 (903) Mtlk Terrace City 19,987 22,456 2,469 23,09.E '" 3,109 640 Mukilteo City 20,310 22,000 1,690 21,642': 1,332 (358) Snohomish City 8,838 9,981 1,143 10,802 1,964 821 Stanwood City 4,438 5;650 1,212 5,910 1,472 260 Sultan City 4,655 8,190 m 3,535 7,203 2,548 (987) Woodway Town 1,305 1,170 (135) 1,385 80 215 City Total 354,294 420,202 65,908`.. 424,161 69,867 3,960 o Within cities overall, there is adequate land capacity to accommodate the adopted 2025 total city population growth targets. o For all other UGAs and cities not mentioned in the bulleted text above, the BLR determined that there is adequate capacity fox accommodating the adopted 2025 population growth targets. o There are no individual UGAs or cities within UGAs where there is a 2025 Monitoring RCW 36.70A.215(4) also;requires annual monitoring of measures that are adopted to address those inconsistencies that are identified in the buildable lands analysis. According to Appendix D of the CPPs, that monitoring requirement is met in part through the buildable lands report. The 2007 Buildable Lands Report (2007 BLR) found that countywide, urban densities were being achieved within the UGA, and there was sufficient land capacity to accommodate adopted 2025 growth targets. It also made the same finding with respect to the great majority of individual UGAs and cities. However, the 2007 BLR did identify several inconsistencies. A summary of the findings of monitoring for those inconsistencies and the effect of measures PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 130 of 431 to increase consistency follows: • Monroe UGA. The 2007 BLR showed a population capacity shortfall of 2,519. Through joint planning between the city and county, reasonable measures were identified that had been adopted or were recommended in order provide additional population capacity. The 2012 BLR shows those measures increased consistency, but did not eliminate it entirely5_ There appears to be a remaining 2025 population growth target/capacity inconsistency in the Monroe UGA. • Lake Stevens UGA. The 2007 BLR showed an emr jobs. As a result of reasonable measures adopted by 2025 employment growth target/capacity • City of Bothell. The 2007 BLR showed a pc compared to the target for the area within tr 2002 boundary.6 The 2012 BLR shows that population growth target/capacity inconsistency in • City of Brier. The 2007 BLR shower to the target for the area within the e there appears to be a remaining 2025 in the City of Brier itv shortfall of 264 he city, the 2012 BLR shows no cy in the Lakd Stevens UGA. capacity shortfall "of 883 n.tsh :County portion of the city's ears to be a remaining 2025 the City of Bothell. capacity shortfall of 510 compared ndary. The 2012 BLR shows that owth target/capacity inconsistency • City of Lynnwood .The 2007 BLR showed a population capacity shortfall of 688 compared to the target for the area within the`city's 2002 boundary. As a result of reasonable measures adopted by the city the 2012 BLR shows no 2025 population growth target/capacity inconsistency in the City of Lynnwood. s Much of the remaining inconsistency is due to changed assumptions regarding the planned expansion of the Monroe Correctional Complex that the 2007 BLR expected to add population capacity. Since 2007, the state has dropped its expansion plans for the prison. As a result, the 2012 BLR capacity estimate does not include an expected capacity gain at the prison. 6 According to the 2007 BLR, City of Bothell staff indicated that there were methodological differences in the buildable lands analysis used in the King County portion of the City compared with the Snohomish County portion that pertain to the market availability reduction factors. On the King County side, the market availability reduction factors used were lower. City staff indicated that if the King County factors were used on the Snohomish County portion of the City, the City's population capacity would have been higher in the 2007 BLR. In addition, the City of Bothell stresses that they had surplus capacity of 1,323 households in the King County portion of the City (as documented in the King County 2007 Buildable Lands Report, September 2007) which they assert offsets the population deficit shown in the 2007 BLR of 883 for the Snohomish County portion of the City. PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 131 of 431 Methodology The UGA buildable lands analysis is a combination of six major steps and a several sub -steps. The 2012 buildable la unincorporated areas. the inventory by join of the countvwide 4ee were Baseline arcel-level data for both incorporated and ad associated parcel attribute data were established for .act of Assessor parcel data with an April 2011 version system (GIS) parcel map. Quality control checks ing of these two data sets in a GIS format to allow for of the buildable lands analysis, only parcels within the analysis. The spring 2011 date for theparcel GIS extract was chosen to coincide with the date at which both the base year population and employment estimates would be made for the 2012 report. For existing population, the baseline date is April 1, 2011 as established by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) population estimates for counties and cities. For existing employment, an extract of Washington State Employment Security (ESD) covered employment estimates, broken down into sub -areas of the county by the Puget Sound Regional Council, was obtained for March 2011. The concept of using April 2011 as the base point in time for the buildable lands inventory is an important one. The review and editing of the accuracy of the buildable lands inventory has to center on one particular date in order to be consistent across all jurisdictions. Since the most PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 132 of 431 9 recent state population and employment estimates for Snohomish County is close to this date, April 2011 was chosen as the base date for representing what was built and occupied as of that date. Therefore, it also represents the date at which additional holding capacity for population and jobs were calculated. Structures existing as of April 1, 2011 were considered developed and counted as part of the population or employment base, while everything proposed, built or occupied after that date was counted as future capacity for the 2012 report. Use of summer 2011 aerial photography for Snohomish County helped to verify the existence of structures at that time. Future land use and zoning information Likely future development is usually best predicted by city zoning or unincorporated county plan designation. For most cities, the zoning and the plan designation, are the same, For most unincorporated areas, however, the county's plan designation'sallow a range o 'implementing zones. In cities, zoning designations were used to predict future densities since it was determined to be the most reliable predictor of future residential densities and commercial/industrial intensities. In unincorporated areas however, the county's future land use (FLU) designations were used due to the frequent and likely continued rezoning :of property from lower to higher implementing zone categories within a plan designation prior to or concurrent with development of a property. The use of observed densities for County FLU designations. would thus incorporate the likely continued practice of rezoning to higher densities within the same FLU designation in the same way that has been observed during the recent past. The major exception do this is in unincorporated UGAs:where cities control the extension of utilities. Some cities require annexation before granting utility extensions and thus development approval. Where this is the case, the city's prezoning (or plan designations) and densities were used (Arlington.' Grante. Falls, Monroe, Snohomish, Sultan). In other unincorporated UGAs, consistency with the c ty' Aevelopment standards is required for the extension of city utilities to the unincorporated UGA (Marysville and;:Stanwood). For these areas, the analysis uses development,densities from actual projects in the unincorporated UGA. Minor exceptions to the use of adopted zoning and plan designations occur where the two are inconsistent or where there is —an existing non -conforming use. In some isolated instances, densities and FARs associated with the County's current zoning was determined to be more predictive than the more generalized future land use category. These situations were isolated to parcels in unincorporated UGAs with multi -family residential (MR), business park (BP), neighborhood business (NB), and rural conservation (RC) zoning. Economic units The 2012 report continues the approach, started with the 2007 BLR, of reorganizing parcels into "economic units." In most cases, parcels and economic units are synonymous. However, other situations warranted the combination of parcels or the division of a parcel based on location, PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013 ) Packet Page 133 of 431 10 ownership and/or land use. To approximate land assembly prior to development, economic units were created by merging parcels when common ownership was verified, but only if land use and zoning are consistent across all parcels. There are many other instances where a residence or commercial building spans across parcel lines. In these cases, an economic unit was also created. Other examples of parcel aggregation include businesses and parking lots on separate parcels, multiple parcel parks, buildings covering abandoned right-of-ways, adjacent buildings with common ownership and zoning, and pending development projects that spanned more than one parcel. Examples of economic units formed by dividing parcels would include those with split zoning, land removed for a functioning roadway, or parcels split by roadways or boundary lines. Economic units were also created by splitting existing parcels' where it was. evident that land use varied within the parcel. An example would be an unrecorded, phased development where a future development tract could be considered its own vacant parcel or a parcel that spans a lake. In cases where multiple parcels share identical boundaries and aze.considered "stacked" on one another (such as condominiums, mobile homes parks, and senior citizen exemptions), parcels were combined and quantitative values such as improvement and land assessments were summed. Note: Unless specifically stated otherwise, the'usc of the word "parcel" which follows means economic unit in this methodology. Pending development Since April 2011, development has taken place oa many of the parcels with additional capacity in the buildable lands inventory. Other parcels currently have pending applications for new construction. Some parcels had unoccupied new construction in April 2011. In these situations (recent development d_pending'applicatons received since April 2011, and new but still unoccupied buildings as of April 2011.), this report uses the actual development or pending application information (were this information is known) as the capacity on a given parcel. Pending residential and commercial/industrial projects in the UGA were added to the parcel database through fall 2012. This pending capacity information overrides the theoretical capacity estimates calculated by the capacity analysis. Theoretical capacity estimates (based on historic observed densities for developable parcels in the same plan/zone designation) are used for parcels without recenf orpending development. The use of actual or proposed development yields for pending projects is a more accurate way of estimating additional capacity than using the average densities achieved on comparable sites. For parcels with pending development, the property owner intent to develop is evident. Consequently, the market availability reduction factor (discussed later) is not applied for these parcels during the capacity calculations. Land Status Classifications PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 134 of 431 11 The land capacity analysis focuses solely on parcels within the current UGA boundary. Parcels in which potential capacity for additional development by the year 2025 is calculated were classified into three land status categories: vacant, partially -used, and redevelopable land. Parcels with pending development are not included in this classification process. Vacant. Vacant parcels are generally those where the Assessor's building improvement value is less than $2,000. Some exceptions include parks and cemeteries where there are no building improvements (this report considers them as unchanging, or constant uses). Conversely, paved parking lots in the downtown areas of Everett and Lynnwood often have assessed improvements over $2,000 but are still considered vacant. Redevelopable. Redevelopable parcels are those non -vacant parcels which the buildable lands analysis considers are candidates for potential demolition of the;>existing building and replacement by something new at some time during the 20-year GMA plan horizon. Identification of buildings as redevelopable begins with the ratio of improvement -to -land value, the UGA in which the parcel is located, the zoning;or plan designation, and the current use. For single family zoned or; .designated land, existing houses valued at less than $100,000 and 75% of the 14M value are considered:potentially redevelopable. If the parcel is too small to subdivide, then it is considered a replacement building, and no additional capacity is assigned to 1t : If the parcel is large enough to subdivide, and the improvement: value 'of the house is over $100,000, then it is considered par Oly-used and is analyzed undefthe conditions described below. For multi family, commercial, industrial, or mixed -use zoned or designated land, existing buildings valued at less than 100% of the land value are usually considered potentially redevelopable Exceptions include condominiums and certain; existing commercial uses. Gas stations are the most common commercial exception because they. require a high visibility location, which means the land is expensive, Wile the `condition of the building itself is of little importance to running the business. Similarly, many warehouse buildings are perfectly viable in a,.decrepit condition, and if the location is not attractive to other uses, it is unlikely to redevelop. Partially-used..:.Partially-used parcels are those where the model assumes that the existing building(s) use only a portion of the site and that additional development on the parcel is possible without demolition. Different criteria apply depending on the land classification: For single family residential zones, parcels normally must be at least twice the zoned lot size. For example, a house with RS-8,000 zoning must be on at least a 16,000 square foot lot. PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 135 of 431 12 For multi family zoned parcels, the building footprint must be less than 20% of the buildable parcel area. Further, the existing density must be less than the historic norm for the zone. (The development history shows that additions to existing multi -family buildings or complexes are relatively rare, and the predictions in the model support this.) For commercial, industrial, and mixed -use zones, the floor area ratio is usually less than 25% and the building improvement to land value ratio is greater than 100%. For uses such as restaurants, auto dealerships and, gas stations that require substantial amounts of parking, the floor area ratio is .less'than 10%111. Some existing buildings are in good condition but have enough extra land to lower the ratio below 100% and are modeled as partially used." [11 There are case -by -case exceptions, especially in places requirements are minimal. Use of Critical Areas to Establish the Buildable Information on critical area features within UGAs was buildable lands analysis. Critical area data was collected from various federal, state, county and city sources indicated in the table below Buffer data was added ley Snohomish County PDS staff for purposes of the Buildable Lands Report: They do not reprOsent'actual buffers, and have been averaged per wetland and stream classifzeations according to SCC 30.62A.320. Critical area and buffer and provide comments, included in additional .r their own data which w table below: Data Collection s) of e' re produced.'; for each UGA and MUGA for cities to examine •evisions were researched further by county staff and Biting. Some cities, to improve accuracy, provided PDS with ed into the layer. ; These city sources are also listed in the Data Source Watercourse Snohomish County Surface Water Management (SWM) Watercourse $offers j Snohomish County Planning and Development Services (PDS) Wetlands Snohomish County SWM and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Critical Area Slopes Snohomish County Department of Information Services (DIS) Waterbodies Snohomish County SWM, Buffers produced by PDS Floodplam Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodway FEMA Hydric Soils (Darrington) I Snohomish County DIS PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 136 of 431 13 Bothell Wetlands City of Bothell Public Works Flood Hazard Area (Everett) City of Everett Planning Department Everett Wetlands 5/17/12 and buffers City of Everett Planning Department Granite Falls SR 92 Bypass Wetland Survey Snohomish County Department of Public Works road survey (DPW) Stream Clip and Stream Buffers (Lake Stevens) City of Lake Stevens Planning Department Lake Stevens Area Wetlands with 95 foot Buffer City of Lake Stevens Planning Department Marysville Streams and Buffers City of Marysville; Planning Department Marysville Stream. Wetlands and Buffers City of Marysville Planning Department Marysville Wetlands and Buffers City of Marysville Planning Department Marysville Generalized Slopes City of Marysville Planning Department Monroe Streams City of Monroe Plamling Department Monroe Wetlands City'of Monroe Planning Department Monroe Buffers City of Monroe Planning Department Stanwood Flood Hazard Area I City of;$tanwood.Planning Department Sultan Flood Hazard Area Snohomish, County S WM After acquiring stream data, streams were buffered according to their fish habitat type per WAC 222.16.031 and SCC 30.62A.230. The City of Monroe provided stream data and buffer widths according to their Washington Department of Natural Resources type per Monroe City Code, The City of Marysville provided stream and buffer data classified per Fish Habitat type along with stream wetlands and buffers.. The following buffers were applied to stream data not provided by city staff. Stream Type Buffer Width Type 150 feet Type "F" with anadromous fish s ecies "' "150 feet Type "F"<without anadromous fish.spccies 100 feet Type "Np" 5 0 feet Type "Ns" 5 0 feet Type "U" 5 0 feet Waterbodies wit] same standards as were buffered according to their fish habitat type applying the Wetland data was acquired from both the National Wetland Inventory (2007) and the Snohomish County Wetland Inventory collected from the PDS County Stream and Wetlands Survey (1986) and the DPWISWM Drainage Needs Report (2002). These County data sources had been previously merged by Snohomish County DIS into one file. In order to obtain a maximum estimate of wetlands within Snohomish County, the NWI and County datasets were combined. Buffers were set at 110 feet, an average determined in the 2007 Buildable Lands Report originally derived from Washington State Department of Ecology statistics. A hydric soil layer was also applied in the Town of Darrington to account for forested wetlands not included in the above surveys, however buffers were not applied. PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 137 of 431 14 Critical area slopes were obtained from Snohomish County DIS. This data was originally generated from United States Geological Survey 10-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) which is based on various data sources including radar, satellite imagery and LiDAR flights. A buffer width of 25 feet was applied to the tops and toes of slopes greater than 33%. A 1999 DEM 20-foot contour data set was used for the NE quadrant of Sultan as LiDAR data was not available. Flood hazard data was also provided by DIS and is based on 1999 Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by FEMA. Depending on cities' development standards or.on their instruction, either the 100 year floodplain or floodway was displayed. Current Draffood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data was used for Sultan and Everett with city permission: This data was obtained from Snohomish County Surface Water Management and produced by FEMA, based on recent surveys of the Skykomish and Snohomish Rivers. The critical area features and buffers described above were merged into a composite GIS layer that was then overlaid on parcels. This GIS overlay process was then used to deduct critical areas and buffer areas from the total gross area of the parcel, to. arrive at an estimate of buildable acres within vacant, partially -used and redevelopable parcels Please note that the depiction of these featureson GIS parcel maps for the 2012 BLR is for general analysis purposes only — specifically, the development of the UGA-level buildable lands capacity estimates. They are not intended, nor are they at a sufficient level of detail and positional accuracy, to be used for a parcel -level determination of a parcel's actual development potential that would be obtained following submittal of a site specific development application. In addition, the criteria:used represent best approximations of what may be unbuildable in a typical situation. However, there aro specific instances.where these criteria would not automatically result in unbuildable area (e.g., 33% or greater slopes can still be developed with certain engineering.and development standards).. These criteria should therefore be viewed as representing "average"; situations xo.val of Major Utili. the Buildable Lands Inventory Another GIS data source for unbuildable land within UGAs was the Assessor's records on easements. Major.utility easements (power transmission lines, oil and gas pipeline easements, etc.) were overlaid on parcels, and the land area within parcels associated with the utility easement was deducted, from the total acres to arrive at buildable acres. In order to avoid double - counting areas that were both critical areas and utility easements, the critical areas plus buffers were merged with utility easements first before overlaying on parcels. Removal of Land Needed for New Transportation Arterials and other Capital Facilities Needs Using GIS, land required for the rights -of -way for proposed new arterials, as identified on the county's current arterial circulation plan map was removed from the buildable lands inventory. In addition, during review of the buildable lands parcel maps with cities, parcels acquired or to be acquired for major public purposes (where known) were identified and removed from the PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 138 of 431 15 buildable lands inventory. This included future school sites, parks and other municipal purposes uses. Accountingfor Unmapped Critical/UnhuildableAreas There is general consensus that existing GIS critical areas inventories are satisfactory for broad, areawide planning analysis, but that for site -specific purposes, these inventories are usually incomplete, especially with regard to smaller critical areas. There is acknowledgement that the information contained in these inventories best captures the larger critical area features, but that it is common during the more detailed site review at time of a project level' development application to discover additional smaller critical area features not documented in the inventory. In order to account for unmapped critical/unbuildable areas in the buildable lands analysis, a study of predicted vs. actual protected critical area acres (including buffers} and utility easements in all subdivisions and segregated lot condominiums recorded` during 2003 within both the cities and the unincorporated UGA was conducted by county staff. The results revealed that within the UGA overall, actual protected acres (in NGPAs or designated open space) and utility casements were underestimated by 4.4%. As in previous BLRs, a 5%,.upward`adjustment to total unbuildable acres when this calculation is performed at the parcel level has been continued for the 2012 analysis. Step 2: Development History — Residential, Commercial and Industrial (What density actually happens in each zone?) The history of residential, comm collected and evaluated for the 2 detailed development history dat 2007 reports (from January 1995 development activity, (through tb and commercial/industrial inters comprehensive plan or zoring df it and mixed use development in cities and the county was buildable lauds analysis. The period of time covered by the e was extended from the period covered in the 2002 and )ecember 2005) to include an additional 5 years of d of 2010).Residential densities (housing units per acre) (floor area ratios, or FARs) were summarized for cation within each jurisdiction. Gross acres,:gross residential:`densitics and gross commercial/industrial FARs were calculated using the total site area of the; subdivision or development. Buildable acres, residential densities and commercial/industrial FARs were calculated after deducting for critical areas, buffers and major utility easements Net('acres, net residential densities and net commercial/industrial FARs were calculated by subtracting non-residential uses (e.g., roads, parks, stormwater detention facilities, etc.) from theuildable acres. Please refer to the graphic on page 24 for a visual example of the differences in these definitions and the text below for more detailed definitions for different land use types. For single family residential development: 1 Gross residential density is the number of housing units divided by total area in acres. 2 Buildable area is the area of any use that alters the landscape, e.g. building lots, roads, PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 139 of 431 16 detention ponds, and tot lots. It does not include wetlands, critical area buffers, utility easements, or any area that is to remain unchanged. Buildable density is the number of housing units/buildable acreage. 3 Net residential area is the area used for residential building lots only. Typical land uses that are excluded from residential include roads, wetlands, Native Growth Protection Areas, recreational areas and detention ponds. The definition of single-family development includes more than just traditional detached homes. It also includes duplexes and segregated -lot condominiums. Townhouse condominium projects fitting this definition must have a separate lot for each dwelling unit:`=::Some duplex -style condominium projects fitting this definition have two lots per building while others have one lot per building. For multi -family, non-residential development, mixed -use projects: 1 Gross site area for each project is the total site area in acres. 2 Buildable site area is the gross site area minus protected critical areas and other unbuildable areas, such as power'. line easements. 3 Net site area is the buildable site area mini us'road dedications; Residential densities and commercial/industrial,de-Velopment'intensities were calculated as follows. The number of multi family units was divided by the gross, buildable and net residential acreage to obtain gross, buildable and net residential densities on a project -by -project m basis. For comercial-and.industrial uses, development intensity was calculated as a floor area ratio (FAR) statistic. The FAR wa's'derived on a project -by -project basis by dividing the square footage of usable employment space by the gross; buildable and net employment acres developed in order tp obtain the grross, buildable and net FAR for each project. In mixed -use projects (projects 'With both residential and commercial uses in the same structure), both the residential density and commercial FARs are reported. For employment uses, additional calculations were performed to translate observed FARs into estimates of employees per buildable acre. Square footage of commercial and industrial permitted structures vas first: Categorized into building type categories. For each building type category, an assumed percent distribution of square footage amounts into one of seven employment categories, based on the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS), was applied in order to estimate actual square footage of construction by employment category. The resulting square footage amounts were then divided by an assumed amount of square footage space needs per employee by employment category to obtain an estimate of jobs (and jobs per buildable acre) by employment category in permitted commercial and industrial structures: • Food Services = 200 square feet per employee • Other Services — 400 square feet per employee PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 140 of 431 17 • Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) - mini -storage warehouses only = 20,000 square feet per employee • Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) - other = 350 square feet per employee • Retail = 700 square feet per employee • Manufacturing = 500 square feet per employee • Wholesale, Transportation and Utilities (WTU) — 1,000 square feet per employee • Government/Education = 300 square feet per employee These estimates were derived from research previously conducted in Snohomish County, in cooperation with the Snohomish County Economic Development Council (1985 Snohomish County Business and Industrial Land Survey, updated in 1995 as th.&Employment Land Capacity Analysis for Unincorporated Snohomish County). This information was also compared with recent estimates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers a.nd was found to compare favorably. Additional work was recently done by ;county planning staff to convert former Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) information into the above NAILS employment categories by analyzing comparisons of Assessor parcel data and covered employment data from the Washington State Employment Security Department. (See separately published report entitled 2007 Buildable Lands Employment Density Study.),,. In some instances, the observed densities nay no longer accurately represent future densities for a variety of reasons. The creation of a relatively new plan designation or zone may result in very little development experience to draw from at this point in time. In these circumstances, the development history tables have been labeled with a eo umn heading marked "assumed," and the assumptions are based on a review of development in: "similar situations. There may also be situations in some jurisdictions where recent development regulations or plan changes may likely increase or decrease future densities compared with those previously observed in the same zone. In these cases, the replacement densities by plan/zone designation were also labeled "assumed" in the development history tables finally, if there was no development history experienced within a zone or designation between 199S and.2QI0, that portion of the development history tables was labeled "assumed." In all situations described above, if the zone was located in a city, city staff was consulted as to an appropriate and likely substitute future density assumption to use. 3: 1.aygmi _y--� a�� ucaixvaua -- t�aai�uuiGu� le Lands Inventorv:' (What is the land Development Densities to the as of 2011 The third step of the land capacity analysis process involved the use of the observed densities by plan designation as determined in the development history analysis. These observed residential densities (housing units by type per buildable acre) and commercial/industrial intensities (employees by employment category per buildable acre) were applied to the buildable acres of land (gross acres minus critical/unbuildable areas and their buffers) within either vacant, partially -used or redevelopable parcels as determined above, to estimate additional housing unit and employment capacity potentially remaining per parcel. (See attached graphic comparing gross vs. buildable vs. net density calculations.) This information was mapped by parcel and was reviewed for accuracy. PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 141 of 431 18 Calculation of Additional Housing Unit and Population Capacity When calculating additional residential capacity, the formula that applied observed densities by plan/zone to vacant, partially -used or redevelopable parcels, was performed on a parcel -by - parcel basis. Any fractional units that resulted from the parcel -level calculation of additional housing unit capacity were truncated (dropped). In addition, additional residential capacity was not assumed for parcels less than 3000 square feet in size. This resulted in the removal of many "sliver" parcels from the buildable lands inventory maps — parcels that are unlikely to develop due to their small size or irregular shape, and in which setback requirements are unlikely to be met. An example of how this formula was performed at the parcel level is shown below. Assume that a parcel (whether vacant, partially -used or redevelopable) has' an estimate. o. f buildable area of 3.5 acres. Also, assume that the parcel is located in a single £arnily'residential'zone in which there is an observed buildable density of 4.2 units per buildable: acre. This would result in an estimate of 14 additional units for the parcel: 3.5 buildable acres x 4.2 units per buildable acre 14 units Notice that the fractional amount of 0.7 units is dropped from the. additional capacity estimate for the parcel since this remainder represents land area assumed to be below minimum lot size requirements. Also, for redevelopable parcels, any existing housing units on parcels that are assumed to be redeveloped (i.e., assumed to be demolished) are subtracted from the estimate of additional housing unit capacity. Housing unit to popul rate and 2.9 average hi 2.0 average household rate and 1.2 average he family units, these deh information provided by se; formula for. this calculation Additional ,populatii average Household Continuing with the examp rate x 2.9 average househol apacity;estimates are: then calculated based upon 96% occupancy Ad size assumptions for,single family units, 92% occupancy rate and sumptions for multi family residential units; and 98% occupancy �14size `assumptions, for senior apartments. For single and multi- rhic assumptions were derived from review of the Census 2010 and ;y data for Snohomish County. For senior apartments, demographic for housing,providers in Snohomish County was relied upon. The s' as follows: = additional housing unit capacity x occupancy rate x above, 14 additional single family housing units x .96 occupancy size = an additional population capacity of 39 (with rounding). When calculating additional residential capacity, vacant building lots were handled separately from the theoretical capacity calculations using observed densities by plan/zone. Instead, if a vacant residentially -designated parcel was at least 3000 square feet in size, these parcels were counted as representing additional housing unit capacity, even though they may not meet the minimum lot size requirements of the current zone and would consequently not be shown as having additional capacity using the theoretical capacity calculation. It was assumed that these PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 142 of 431 19 vacant building lots could obtain legal lot status for a residential building permit and thus should be counted as capacity. In addition, if these vacant residential building lots were recently platted (i.e., sometime over the past 10 years), then the additional capacity associated with these parcels (along with all post - April 2011 development and pending development applications) were counted as a special subset of pending vacant capacity that would not be reduced for market reasons (i.e., the market availability reduction factor, discussed later). These lots have been platted and are ready or will soon be ready to be developed — the question of whether the market will support their development has already been answered, making the market availabil..ty reduction factor unnecessary. Some commercial zones also generate additional residential capacity since. most commercial zones in the county and in most cities allow residential development as a permitted use. This is apparent in the development history summary tables for most commercial zones. Consequently, to the extent that commercial zones have been used for new residential development (almost always multi -family development), these observed residential densities have been applied to commercial zones to predict future residential development.in lieu'of commercial development in commercial zones. Calculation of Additional Employment When calculating additional employment cap basis the assumed employees per buildable a( square footage of permitted coibmercial and buildable acres for each vacant, partially -use( employees that resulted from the parcel -level were rounded. For redevelopable'' footage of existing dernolist average category Cate icer per emp 3e4 on pages formula multiplies on a parcel -by -parcel each employment category (based on structures by plan/zone) by the amount of elopable parcels. Any fractional )n of additional employment capacity sting employment estimated on the parcel (based on the square l andndustrial structures on the parcel, categorized into one of that are..assumed to be redeveloped, i.e., assumed to be )m the estimate of additional employment capacity using the same ee assumptions for the current use classified by employment i-16. Due to the severity of the economic downturn experienced in Snohomish County since the 2007 BLR, a refinement to tle'2012 BLR total employment capacity calculation was applied in order to take into account the latent employment capacity in existing structures where businesses closed or employees were laid off during the recession. The official start of the recession was December 2007, so the spring 2007 employment estimates are the last pre -recession estimates by which to gauge the level of employment that can be accommodated in the existing commercial and industrial structures. In those few cases where major commercial or industrial buildings opened or were demolished after spring 2007, the capacity was adjusted accordingly. The steps for this alternative approach to calculating total employment capacity for the 2012 PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 143 of 431 20 BLR is described below: Total employment capacity equals remaining development capacity as measured for the 2012 BLR, plus 2007 employment, adjustedfor major demolitions or new commercial or industrial projects that opened after 2007 and are not already accounted for in the pending projects. Examples ofprojects that might create a need_for an adjustment would be big box stores or a large manufacturing facility. See page 25 for a visual representation of this revised employment capacity approach used for the 2012 BLR. Note that during a more typical economic situation, the preference would be to use the same employment capacity estimate methodology as in pastreports, and it is the intent to return to using that methodology in the future. Ste 4: Reductions for Uncertain How much of the land ca aci .is likely to be available for development by 2025?) Step 4 applies final reduction factors to the capacity results to account for uncertainties in infrastructure, and market and land availability. - Capital Facilities Analysis An assessment of sewer availability within UGAs Was.conducted. In. some very limited areas, the presumed lack of sewer availability during the entire W. A plan horizon resulted in the preclusion of further subdivision assumptions in some unincorporated UGA locations. This was due to the county's requirement to connect to sewers for subdivision approval within unincorporated UGAs. Uzi these areas, additional` eapacity through subdivision was not modeled. However, individual single family residential building permits on vacant building lots were modeled. In some unincorporated) urban locations, however, where connection to public sewer is not economically or technically, feasible, ;some low -density subdivision is possible using septic systems, although the circumstances allowing such exceptions are limited. These areas require issuance of an "unsewerable. urban enclave" determination by the relevant sewer purveyor. In 7 Includes the additionaof estimated job capacity associated with major structures built after 2007 (and not counted as pending capacity ih2012 BLR), and the subtraction of estimated job capacity associated with. major structures demolished after 2007 and>pnor"to spring 2011 as follows: Everett City +602 Lynnwood City +185 Arlington City +212 Marysville City +197 Monroe City +199 Mukilteo City +227 Snohomish City +664 Maltby (Uninc) -103 Lynnwood (Uninc) +255 Mill Creek (Uninc) +217 Mukilteo (Uninc) +110 Paine Field (Uninc) +432 PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 144 of 431 21 these situations, additional capacity at 2 units per buildable acre (assumed to be on septic systems) was modeled. These areas included an area in the northwest portion of the Monroe UGA and portions of the SWUGA near Picnic Point and Norma Beach. Concurrency Arrearage Reduction Factor The 2002 buildable lands methodology used by Snohomish County allowed for consideration of a concurrency arrearage reduction factor that was designed to estimate the amount of land currently affected by arterial units in arrears ("concurrency arrearage"),that will still not be able to develop by 2012. This same approach was used for the 2007 reportA'recent analysis (2012) from the Snohomish County Department of Public Works, however showed that there are currently no arterial units in arrears within the County. Conn reduction factor was zero for the 2012 buildable lands report. CC&R's (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) The 2002 buildable lands methodology used by Snohomish + removal of buildable parcels that were subject to CC&R.s ca prohibited further subdivision of the property. The presents date, no parcels with additional estimated capacity have bee] database that are also subject to CC&Rs that prohibit further of 25 CC&Rs provided to the county by thl in January 2003 was researched by staff an further development and subdivision of prc had additional housing unit capacity calcul due to the fact that these subdivisions were buildable lands botential yield assumntion< additional unit yields in Mi. Use R County concurrency arrearage mty also allowed for potential ned in private deeds that ysis takes this into account. To xnd in the buildable lands mdivision, of the property. A set Camano Association of Realtors mined`private restrictions on pefty, none of the.' plats to which they corresponded ited'in'the 2002 buildable lands database. This was already platted at the current zoning used for the As such, the buildable lands analysis calculated no since they: were already built -out under the zoning. During buildable lands parcel, map reviewfor the 2012 report, parcels acquired or to be acquired for major public or institutional purposes (where known) were identified and removed from the buildable lands. inventory. This included future school sites, parks and other municipal purposes uses. This also included the removal of land needed for future rights -of --way for proposed new transportation arterials during:Step 2 (buildable lands inventory) portion of the analysis. However, this process did not result in all future public purposes uses being accounted for. Other miscellaneous public purpose uses that would have been missed in this review process include future churches, day care facilities, pre-schools, private schools, jails, skateboard parks, small-scale institutional and municipal uses (water storage facilities, etc.). A 5% reduction factor was used to account for the uncertainty of land availability for development due to: new stormwater regulations requiring larger detention ponds (especially in the unincorporated UGAs), potential need for regional or local stormwater facilities, potential need for transmission line, utility, or road or rail rights -of -way, potential need of land for public or institutional uses like police/fire stations, churches, water supply storage facilities, wastewater PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 145 of 431 22 treatment and pump stations, landfills and transfer stations, cemeteries, libraries, daycares, small parks or open space, municipal offices, and other uses where we do not today have a specific map coverage to use (consistent with Section 2.5.4 on pages 5-37 of the Buildable Lands Procedures Report prepared by ECONorthwest). The use of a 5% miscellaneous public purpose reduction factor was supported by an analysis of the development history database for actual miscellaneous uses developed between 1995 and 2000. It was found that for all designations, the percentage of land developed during this time period that went to non -typical uses (such as churches, utilities, government services and other conditional uses) was only 0.86%. This doesn't entirely account for.all''public uses, such as parks. However, since steps were taken to remove future public uses;such as potential park and school sites from the buildable lands inventory so that they are not counted as buildable land in the first place, this analysis supports the use of an additional 5% reduction for this adjustment. It also takes into account the potential impact of larger storm watet.detentlon requirements on achieved densities in unincorporated UGAs due to the. adoption by the county„cif the 2005 Department of Ecology stormwater manual. In order to inform, future reports, this factor will be monitored over time. Market Availability Reduction Factor After a reasonable estimate has been made . parcels within a UGA.that.have remaining development potential, one of the last steps in 'calculating additional.capacity is to apply a market availability reduction factor. This step is intended to address the fact that not all developable land will be available for development over the GMA planning timeframe since not all landowners are willing to develop.:their propertyfor a variety of reasons (investment, future expansion, personal use, -participation in open space tax relief programs). The state publications on "Providing Adequate Urban Area Land Supply" (1992) and the "Buildable Lands Program Guidelines" (2000) both recommend that the methodologies "assume that a certain percentage of vacant, under-utilized, and partially=used lands will always be held out from development." g The 1992'state guidebook acknowledges that "information about land availability is difficult to obtain and,confirm." However, sortie suggestions were provided that were used by Snohomish County jurisdictions during 1993-95 when the original land capacity analyses were developed for the first UGA sizing process under GMA. In the 1992 state publication, survey research by the Real Estate Research Corporation was cited that indicated that in high demand suburban areas, S This step (the marketavailability reduction factor) is separate and distinct from the UGA safety factor calculation discussed previously in this report (and sometimes referred to as the "market factor" or "land market supply factor" as in RCW 36.70A.I 10). CTED's 1992 urban land capacity guidebook clearly distinguishes between these concepts by describing them in two separate steps: "Step 5. Subtract all parcels which you assume will not be available for development within your plan's 20-year timeframe. Assume that a certain percent of vacant, under-utilized, and partially -used lands will always be held out from development. Step 6. Build in a safety factor. If you are unable to monitor land supply on a regular basis, consider building in a safety factor of land in addition to your projected 20-year land area needs to assure adequate availability and choice at all times". PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 146 of 431 23 over half of the vacant landowners anticipated putting their land on the market for development within 5 years. Within 10 years, the percentage rose to 77%. For partially -used and under- utilized land, the report cites an analysis of King County plats in high demand suburban areas that concluded that up to 70% of partially -used and under-utilized land could be considered likely to be made available for development at greater densities within 20 years. Based on this research, many Snohomish County jurisdictions (including Snohomish County for unincorporated urban areas) in their 1993-95 land capacity analysis applied a 15% market availability reduction factor for vacant land, and at least a 30% market availability reduction factor for partially -used and redevelopable land. These reduction factors were generally consistent with the Marysville from a survey of Marysville area property own indicated that 28% of the owners of vacant and partially u land available for development now, or within the next: tw lands work conducted in 2002 among jurisdictions in.Kin€ availability reduction factors for cities that were and 10-20% range for redevelopable land. The resultsobtained by the City of ers' zri 1993 Results from the survey ;ed properties "did —not consider their my "'years." In addition, the buildable County resulted in the use of market in the 5-15% range for vacant land County UGA used generally higher percentages than the c county results were combined, an overall market reduction redevelopable parcels in the UGA resulted for residential p commercial and industrial parcels in the UGA. Results of a 2005 Snohomish County 15% for vacant land and 30% for part with Gilmore Research.Group to rese availability survey. Gilmore Researc. property within the Snohomish Coutil designed to obtain information direct] owners regarding their: intent to level Results from the survey support theu, factors for establishing land availabili the PDS document "Urban Land Avai orporated portions: of the King however, when the city and )r of 20% for both vacant and s, and 13% overall for roperty owner survey'also support the use of reductions of illy -used and redevelopable land. The county contracted •ch this question by conducting an urban land market conducted a'telephone survey of owners of developable UGA, including areas within cities. The survey was frorrz a,raandom sample of Snohomish County property or redevelop their property within the UGA over time. of the 15% and 30% market availability reduction F for development within the UGA to the year 2025. [See bility Survey," published June 14, 2005.] This survey research follows through on one of the recommendations contained in the final 2002 Buildable Lands Report for Snohomish County which emphasized that local governments should strive to improve the empirical basis for the assumptions and calculations underlying the estimates of remaining: development potential for property within the UGA. As a part of the buildable lands analysis, the land market availability reduction probably had the least amount of local data associated with it. This study helped to remedy this situation by generating local data that will provide a better understanding of urban property owner expectations for developing their land. Market -ready land status overlay A methodological refinement was added to the 2012 BLR analysis to address a unique capacity PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 147 of 431 24 issue brought about by the economic downturn experienced since the last BLR. Specifically, a "market -ready overlay" was added to the land status maps to denote sites without pending development but for which property owner intent to develop was evident. Consequently, the market availability reduction factor was not applied for these parcels during the capacity calculations. These sites included: developer -owned properties, development sites that are currently for sale, and development sites that are bank -owned due to foreclosure. Ste s 5 & 6: UGA Growth Tar et/Ca aci Comparisons What are the rowth tarfets, and is there enough land capacity?) Steps 5 and 6 compare the remaining population and employment growth anticipated to the year 2025 for cities and unincorporated UGAs/MUGAs with the additional population and employment capacity results obtained under step 4 (how much.land capacity is available for development by 2025?), to determine if the UGAs are capable of accommodating the projected growth. The GMA buildable lands statute requires that adopted<growth targets be used for this comparison. In Snohomish County, Appendix B of the County wide`' Planning Policies contain the adopted 2025 population and employment targets for cities; and unincorporated UGAs/MUGAs. These targets are the result.of the Snohomish County Tomorrow target reconciliation effort, completed in 2006 following the 10-year updates of city and county comprehensive plans. Remaining anticipated population and employment growth to the year 2025 is calculated as the difference between the 2025 targets.and 2011 population and employment estimates. This report answers the question of whether there is population and employment capacity sufficient to accommodate, the adopted growth targets, at the countywide UGA level, the individual UGA level, the city level; and, within the SWUGA, the MUGA level. If there is not enough lard capacity to accommodate the adopted growth targets, the GMA requires that reasonable measures be evaluated to remedy the capacity shortfall. RCW 36.70A 215 states: "Identify reasonable measures, other than adjusting urban growth areas, that will be take: to comply with the requiretents of this chapter". These requirements apply to both cities and the county. Appendix D of the Countywide Planning Policies provide local guidance on the process for'.reasonable r easures evaluation. PAC Review Draft (Feb-7-2013) Packet Page 148 of 431 25 v n 77 CD CD O A W SAMPLE DENSITY CALCULATION AND APPLICATION Development History: Observed Density ( 1995 - 2000 ) singla Fancily Detached wilts 20 Acre Site (40 test Stara wntor Crificaf Areas detention & and Buffers rands, (4 acres) (U acres) ( Gross vs. Buildable vs. Net Density ) GROSS DENSITY Dwelling Units 40 Gross Acres * 20 * Total Site Area (20 acres) BUILDABLE DENSITY 2 Units per Gross Acre Dwelling Units 40 40 Buildable Acres ** (20-8) 12 ** Total Site Area (20 acres) minus Critical Areas and Buffers (8 acres) NET DENSITY Dwelling Units 40 40 Net Residential (20-8-4) 8 Acres #** *** Total Site Area (20 acres) minus Critical Areas and Buffers (8 acres), minus Non -Residential Uses (4 acres) (e.g. roads, stormwater detention) 5 Units per Net Residential Acre Buildable Land: Future Density ( 2001 - 2012 ) Vacant 20 Acre Single Family Residentially Zoned Parcel 14 Buildable Acres at 3.33 Single Family Units per Buildable Acre = 46 SF Units * ( .62 factional unit is truncated ) T T v cc 0 0 0 w 2012 Buildable Lands Report — Visual Representation of the Methodology for Calculating Total Employment Capacity Standard Scenario 4000 3500 --- I I 3000 , I , + r I , I , 2500 I , I , ! I I , I 2000 , I , ' O 1500 1000 1 — Soo 3 i — 0 2007 Existing Total Buildings Employment Capacity F; 2025 Additional Development Capacity ❑Job Capacity in Existing Buildings i i 02007 Employment ® 2011 Employment ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional Major Buildings Built After 2007 That Opened Before Spring 2011 4000 -- — I_'2025 ___ i Additional 3500 - - -i - Development I , I , Capacity 3000 I , I , I I r!Adjustment , for Major 2500 Buildings Built ' Between 2007 & 2011 j2000 - ......... ------ ---------- _ ---- ❑Job Capacity in j Existing 1500 Buildings 1 1000 M 2007 Employment 500 0 2007 Existing Total Buildings Employment Capacity Major Buildings Demolished After 2007 and Before Spring 2011 4000 3500-�� 3000 i i- I ' I ' 2500 I ' I ' ' I ' I ' ' 2000 w.............i I I ' I Fu__- I ' 1500 1000 500 - — 2007 Existing Total Buildings Employment Capacity :T2025 Additional Development Capacity ■Adjustmentfor Major Buildings Demolished Between 2007 & 2011 ❑Job Capacity in Existing Buildings ®2007 Employment B 2011 Employment Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - February 14, 2013 PAC FINAL DRAFT Comparison of 2025 Population Targets with Total Population Capacity Estimates (DRAFT) DRAFT DRAFT DIFF: 2011 2012 BLR: 2012 BLR: Total Estimated 2011-2025 Total Pop Pop Gap Population CPP 2025 Addtnl Pop Cap Capacity minus (using Apr 1102 Population (using Apr 1102 (using Apr 1102 2025 Area city bdys) Targets city bdys) city bdys) Pop Target Non-S.W. County UGA 161,288 226,794 70,063 231,351 4,557 Arlington UGA 18,489 27,000 6,978 25,467 (1,533) Arlington City 16,620 18,150 2,345 18,965 815 Unincorporated 1,870 8,850 4,633 6,503 (2,347) Darrington UGA 1,420 2,125 920 2,340 215 Darrington Town 1,345 1,910 335 1,680 (230) Unincorporated 75 215 585 660 445 Gold Bar UGA 2,909 3,500 424 3,333 (167) Gold Bar City 2,060 2,497 346 2,406 (91) Unincorporated 849 1,003 78 927 (77) Granite Falls UGA 3,517 6,970 5,134 8,651 1,681 Granite Falls City 3,317 4,770 2,215 5,532 762 Unincorporated 200 2,200 2,919 3,119 919 Index UGA (incorporated) 180 190 38 218 28 Lake Stevens UGA 33,218 46,125 13,416 46,634 509 Lake Stevens City 7,644 8,360 1,133 8,777 417 Unincorporated 25,574 37,765 12,283 37,857 92 Marysville UGA 60,869 79,800 23,960 84,829 5,029 Marysville City 32,418 36,737 6,209 38,627 1,890 Unincorporated 28,451 43,063 17,751 46,202 3,139 Monroe UGA 18,806 26,590 5,976 24,782 (1,808) Monroe City 17,237 20,540 2,400 19,637 (903) Unincorporated 1,569 6,050 3,576 5,145 (905) Snohomish UGA 10,559 14,535 4,348 14,907 372 Snohomish City 8,838 9,981 1,964 10,802 821 Unincorporated 1,720 4,554 2,384 4,104 (450) Stanwood UGA 6,353 8,840 5,099 11,452 2,612 Stanwood City 4,438 5,650 1,472 5,910 260 Unincorporated 1,915 3,190 3,627 5,542 2,352 Sultan UGA 4,969 11,119 3,770 8,739 (2,380) Sultan City 4,655 8,190 2,548 7,203 (987) Unincorporated 314 2,929 1,222 1,536 (1,393) S.W. County UGA 434,425 533,125 126,182 560,607 27,482 Incorporated S.W. 255,541 303,227 48,862 304,403 1,176 Bothell City (part) 16,570 22,000 3,329 19,899 (2,101) Brier City 6,100 7,790 688 6,788 (1,002) Edmonds City 39,800 44,880 5,065 44,865 (15) Everett City 101,148 123,060 25,839 126,987 3,927 Lynnwood City 35,767 43,782 8,857 44,624 842 Mill Creek City 14,554 16,089 563 15,117 (972) M€lake Terrace City 19,987 22,456 3,109 23,096 640 Mukilteo City 20,310 22,000 1,332 21,642 (358) Woodway Town 1,305 1,170 80 1,385 215 Unincorporated S.W. 178,884 229,898 77,320 256,204 26,306 UGA Total 595,713 759,919 196,245 791,958 32,039 City Total 354,294 420,202 69,867 424,161 3,960 Unincorporated UGA Total 241,419 339,717 126,378 367,797 28,079 POt' 9#Mge 151 of 431 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report (DRAFT) Table _. Comparison of April 1st Population Estimates and 2025 Population Targets for SWUGA Cities and Unincorporated MU (All estimates, targets and capacity comparisons below are based on 2002 city boundaries) Area 2011:': ....Estimated. Po ulation Reconciled 201.1-2025 CPP 2025 Numeric Pop Tarclets Change 2025 Total ° .: Additional Population 2011-2025 Capacity, Pop CapacityCapadty Pop Capacity - Surplus vs, Shortfall S.W. County UGA Total 434,425 533,125 98,700 560,607 126,182 27,482 Incorporated S.W. Total 255,541 303,227 47,686 304,403 48,862 1,176 Unincorporated S.W. Total 178,884 229,898 51,014 256,204 77,320 26,306 Bothell Area 39,760 52,565 12,805 53,782 14,022 1,217 Bothell City (part) 16,570 22,000 5,430 19,899 3,329 (2,101) Unincorporated MUGA 23,190 30,565 7,375 33,883 10,693 3,318 Brier Area 8,199 11,085 2,886 9,468 1,269 (1,617) Brier City 6,100 7,790 1,690 6,788 688 (1,002) Unincorporated MUGA 2,099 3,295 1,196 2,680 581 (615) Edmonds Area 43,420 49,346 5,926 49,159 5,739 (187) Edmonds City 39,800 44,880 5,080 44,865 5,065 (15) Unincorporated MUGA 3,620 4,466 846 4,294 674 (172) Everett Area 145,184 172,226 27,042 179,674 34,490 7,448 Everett City 101,148 123,060 21,912 126,987 25,839 3,927 Unincorporated MUGA 44,036 49,166 5,130 52,687 8,651 3,521 Lynnwood Area 60,632 78,117 17,485 85,198 24,566 7,081 Lynnwood City 35,767 43,782 8,015 44,624 8,857 842 Unincorporated MUGA 24,865 34,335 9,470 40,574 15,709 6,239 Mill Creek Area 54,747 71,321 16,574 75,199 20,452 3,878 Mill Creek City 14,554 16,089 1,535 15,117 563 (972) Unincorporated MUGA 40,193 55,232 15,039 60,082 19,889 4,850 Mountlake Terrace Area 20,010 22,561 2,551 23,135 3,125 574 Mountlake Terrace City 19,987 22,456 2,469 23,096 3,109 640 Unincorporated MUGA 23 105 82 39 16 (66) Mukilteo Area 32,545 36,910 4,365 37,887 5,342 977 Mukilteo City 20,310 22,000 1,690 21,642 1,332 (358) Unincorporated MUGA 12,235 14,910 2,675 16,245 4,010 1,335 Woodway Area 1,305 1,340 35 6,337 5,032 4,997 Woodway Town 1,305 1,170 (135) 1,385 80 215 Unincorporated MUGA - 170 170 4,952 4,952 4,782 Paine Field Area (Uninc.) - - - - - Larch Way Overlap (Uninc.) 3,370 4,390 1,020 6,097 2,727 1,707 Lake Stickney Gap (Uninc.) 7,161 11,864 4,703 11,535 4,374 (329) Norma Beach Gap (Uninc.) 2,695 3,320 625 3,932 1,237 612 Silver Firs Gap (Uninc.) 15,398 18,080 2,682 19,205 3,807 1,125 Pop#(Wpa 152 of 431 �l 40000 Non -SW UGA Pop Target[Capacity Comparison 35000 30000 25000 23960 20004 18931 15000 129DA3415Eq 10004 8511 x PU =; :z�;; 7784 may'" fi978 ;�� . 5134 e e 5976 5099 6150 50DO 3453 < ° 3976 4348 v.„ 770 705 920 591 424^"i;= 0 ,Fs 10 38 02011-25Pop Growth M2011-25AddtnIPopCap Packet Page 153 of 431 City (2002 Bdys) Pop Target/Capacity Comparison 30000 25000 20000 15000 - 10000 2 5000 FL El 0 Z\ -,Z� 0�1 6" Z��- o� -'Oo e,+ 5z,. 06 "Z z .6 5� 106 AG 4P oft A C� F 13 2011-25 Pop Growth E 2011-25 Addtnl Pop Cap7l Packet Page 154 of 431 Non -SW UGAs: Additional Pop Capacity by Housing Type Addtnl SA Pop Cap 3% Additional Pop Capacity by land Status 30 Packet Page 155 of 431 SWUGA: Additional Pop Capacity by Housing Type Addtni SA Pop Cap 3% Additional Pop Capacity by Land Status Packet Page 156 of 431 Total UGA: Additional Pop Capacity by Housing Type Addtnl SA Pop Cap 3% Additional Pop Capacity by Land Status Packet Page 157 of 431 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - February 14, 2013 PACDRAFT Comparison of Employment Estimates and 2025 Employment Targets for UGAs, Cities, and the Rural/Resource Area DRAFT 2011-25 DRAFT Total Addtnl Employment Employment DIFF: 2007 2011 CPP 2025 Capacity Capacity Total Emp Cap Estimated Estimated Employment (using Feb 112002 (using Feb 112002 minus Area Employment Employment Target City Bdys) City Bdys) 2025 Emp Target Non-S.W. County UGA 54,227 46,644 80,628 62,632 109,476 28,848 Arlington UGA 10,178 8,660 15,360 15,695 24,355 8,995 Arlington City 9.884 8,326 14,350 11,221 19,547 5,197 Unincorporated 294 334 1,010 4,474 4,808 3,796 Darrington UGA 652 500 535 3,568 4,068 3,533 Darrington Town 652 498 415 2,010 2,508 2,093 Unincorporated - 2 115 1,558 1,560 1,445 Gold Bar UGA 194 223 210 536 759 549 Gold Bar City 193 218 210 536 754 544 Unincorporated 1 5 - - 5 5 Granite Falls UGA 944 760 2,200 1,832 2,592 392 Granite Falls City 943 757 2,109 1,808 2,565 456 Unincorporated 1 3 91 24 27 (64) Index UGA (incorporated) 26 20 70 6 26 (44) Lake Stevens UGA 5,031 4,003 6,615 3,985 7,988 1,373 Lake Stevens City 1,349 1,052 1,805 848 1,900 95 Unincorporated 3,682 2,951 4,810 3,137 6,088 1,278 Maltby U GA (unincorporated) 3,917 3,190 4,960 4,752 7,942 2,982 Marysville UGA 13,075 12,316 24,008 20,277 32,593 8,585 Marysville City 10,874 9,539 16,851 9,748 19,287 2,436 Unincorporated 2,201 2,777 7,157 10,529 13,306 6,149 Monroe UGA 9,939 7,779 12,390 5,179 12,958 568 Monroe City 9,516 7,666 11,800 4,650 12,316 516 Unincorporated 423 113 590 529 642 52 Snohomish UGA 5,437 4,871 6,730 2,556 7,427 697 Snohomish City 4,695 3,592 4,900 1,725 5,317 417 Unincorporated 742 1,279 1,830 831 2,110 280 Stanwood UGA 3,802 3,456 5,550 2,978 6,434 884 Stanwood City 3,526 3,110 4,790 1,698 4,808 18 Unincorporated 276 346 760 1,260 1,626 866 Sultan UGA 1,032 866 2,000 1,468 2,334 334 Sultan City 1,031 862 1,970 1,468 2,330 360 Unincorporated 1 4 30 - 4 (26) S.W. County UGA 189,773 187,656 259,577 103,971 291,627 32,050 Incorporated S.W. 164,561 162,183 219,473 84,059 246,242 26,769 Bothell City (part) 15,241 13,616 15,840 5,500 19,116 3,276 Brier City 354 319 430 104 423 (7) Edmonds City 11,770 11,664 12,190 2,926 14,590 2,400 Everett City 88,319 92,855 130,340 48,165 141,020 10,680 Lynnwood City 28,533 24,233 38,550 19,862 44,095 5,545 Mill Creek City 4,620 4,346 4,544 1,595 5,941 1,397 Mountlake Terrace City 7,360 6,725 8,039 3,479 10,204 2,165 Mukilteo City 8,293 8,369 9,450 2,413 10,782 1,332 Woodway Town 71 56 90 15 71 (19) Unincorporated S.W. 25,212 25,473 40,104 19,912 45,385 5,281 UGA Total 244,000 234,300 340,205 166,803 401,103 60,898 City Total 207,250 197,823 278,743 119,777 317,600 38,857 Unincorporated UGA Total 36,750 36,477 61,462 47,026 83,503 22,041 EmUaoVmPage 158 of 431 DRAFT Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report Table x. Comparison of Employment Estimates and 2025 Population Targets for MUGAs and Citie: (using April 1, 2002 City Boundaries) Area 2007 Estimated::.' Employment 2011 , Estimated Emplo ment'r Reconciled' CPP 2025 Em .Tar ets DRAFT Addtnl Emp Capacity.: 2011-2025 DRAFT Total Employment Capacity Diff: Total Emp.Cap = 2025 Tar et Total SW UGA 189,773 187,656 259,577 103,905 291,561 31,984 Incorporated S.W. Total 164,561 162,183 219,473 84,059 246,242 26,769 Total of Uninc. Areas within SW UGA shown below 25,175 25,470 40,104 19,846 45,316 5,212 Bothell MUGA 16,753 14,996 17,380 5,971 20,967 3,587 Bothell City (part) 15,241 13,616 15,840 5,500 19,116 3,276 Unincorporated* 1,512 1,380 1,540 471 1,851 311 Brier MUGA 426 388 564 107 495 (69) Brier City 354 319 430 104 423 (7) Unincorporated** 72 69. 134 3 72 (62) Edmonds MUGA 11,934 11,835 12,604 2,977 14,812 2,208 Edmonds City 11,770 11,664 12,190 2,926 14,590 2,400 Unincorporated 164 171 414 51 222 (192) Everett MUGA*** 95,200 98,989 137,715 52,750 151,739 14,024 Everett City 88,319 92,855 130,340 48,165 141,020 10,680 Unincorporated 6,881 6,134 7,375 4,585 10,719 3,344 Lynnwood MUGA 31,652 27,772 43,950 23,469 51,241 7,291 Lynnwood City 28,533 24,233 38,550 19,862 44,095 5,545 Unincorporated 3,119 3,539 5,400 3,607 7,146 1,746 Mill Creek MUGA 8,105 7,372 8,919 3,986 11,358 2,439 Mill Creek City 4,620 4,346 4,544 1,595 5,941 1,397 Unincorporated 3,485 3,026 4,375 2,391 5,417 1,042 Mountlake Terrace MUGA 7,377 6,740 8,059 3,523 10,263 2,204 Mountlake Terrace City 7,360 6,725 8,039 3,479 10,204 2,165 Unincorporated 17 15 20 44 59 39 Mukilteo MUGA 11,571 11,166 14,530 5,744 16,910 2,380 Mukilteo City 8,293 8,369 9,450 2,413 10,782 1,332 Unincorporated 3,278 2,797 5,080 3,331 6,128 1,048 Woodway MUGA 88 70 710 260 330 (380) Woodway Town 71 56 90 15 71 (19) Unincorporated 17 14 620 245 259 (361) Paine Field Area 3,666 4,622 8,847 3,624 8,246 (601) Larch Way Overlap 1,815 1,630 1,955 628 2,258 303 Lake Stickney Gap 255 694 830 - 694 (136) Norma Beach Gap 137 68 90 (aka Meadowdale Gap) Silver Firs Ga 757 1,311 3,424 866 2,177 1,247 9 of 431 Non -SW UGA Emp Target/Capacity Comparison 50000 40000 30000 20277 20000 1s6ss 116 10000 4752a 6a7g`0" 3558 26123985 2978 e. 35 144 01832 1859255B 2094 1134 1468 0 No� F�\y \�a�f ��5 \�� `�� `,may c�y�`\� o\4 Go\a�ac O c �a 02011-25 Emp Growth ®Addtnl Emp Cap I Packet Page 160 of 431 1.16I1IIII7 30000 10000 nil MUGA Emp TargetlCapacity Comparison 23469 161 5744 4225 3624 2977 3986 3523 3364 176107 769 1547 13i 644Z60 325 628 136 0 22 0 2113 666 I ore` �`\et o�ay ae�et` �eoa `ee� �eGe �\�eo a�a� Q\e�a �aA A eaGr Q`ty I\,et 132011-25 Emp Growth ®Addtnl Emp Cap City (2002 Bdys) Emp Target/Capacity Comparison 50000 40000 30000 4« 20000 10000 0 "oa e�� 0�`ee�a�ocay t(ie`eSo� a\5 ae `'tee e�ooa� IAA Gees n to fie` '0, moo o `y �ac� oa �acooa a� 02011-25 Emp Growth Addtnl Emp Cap J� Packet Page 161 of 431 Non -SW UGA: SWUGA: Additional Emp Capacity by Land Status Part -Used 5% Additional Emp Capacity by Land Status Redev 39% APar,-Use,d 6% i� Packet Page 162 of 431 Total UGA: i Additional Emp Capacity by Land Status Redev Pad -Used s% �b Packet Page 163 of 431 Arlington UGA Population 30,000 25,000 20,000 C O 15,000 7 n 0 a 1a,oao 5,000 Snohondslt County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report -December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Pop -A. Arlington UGA Population —Total 2025 Population Capacity — 50 % of 2005-2025 Addtnl Pop Capacity 2005 Population Estimate----2002-2025 Pop Growth Target Projection Annual Population Estimates (pre -Census 2010) —Annual Population Estimates (past -Census 2010) Table Pop -A. Arlington UGA Population Statistics (A) T) (C) (D) (E) (F) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 2005-11 Change Pop Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnl as % of 2005-25 jiff, (Census -Est) Change CPP Pop Change 2025 Pop Cap Addtnl Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pop No. Pet. 2011 = B - A Tar et = l7 - A Pop Cap = E - A = C 1 F '100 12,552 13,347 13,920 15,213 15,783 16,126 16,567 17,226 17,554 17,662 17,686 18,489 803 4.51 la,489 2,364 27,000 10,874 25,467 9,342 25.3% N m N N O A W Arlington LIGA - Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT . Addltional Housing Unit Capacity Additicnal Housing Unit Capacity -Acres--- - [before reductions) after reductions} -- Additional Pop u€ation Ca aci ' _. ` . - -. - - -.Jurisdiction -- - Land Status_. Market Ready - : Zone : - .. Total Unbuildable _.Buildable Surplus - SF - - -MF' Sr. Apts... Total - SF - - - - MP"' ; Sr. Apts. ' - Totall SF - - MF - - Sr. Apts. - - - ToW City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDi NO OTRO 0,71 0,117 01593 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 RHD 1.059 0 1.059 0 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 25 0 0 25 RLMD 28.284 2.479 25.805 0 233 c 0 133 133 0 0 133 370 0 0 370 RMD 1,959 0,332 1,627 0 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 25 0 C 25 Sum 32.012 2.929 29.083 0 155 0 0 155 155 0 0 255 432 0 0 432 Sum 3Z,012 2.929 z9.083 0 155 0 0 155 155 0 0 155 432 0 0 432 (2) VACANT OTBD - 1 1.008 0,344 0.664 0 7 0 0 7 6 0 0 6 16 C c 16 OTBD - 2 0.105 0 0.105 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 C 2 OTBD - 3 0.172 0 0.172 0 1 c 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 DTRD 0.797 DA39 0.657 0 9 c 0 9 7 0 0 7 20 0 0 20 RHD 5,305 3,215 2.09 0 0 21 10 31 0 17 8 25 0 31 9 41 RLMD 22871 15.185 7.686 0 27 0 0 27 22 0 0 22 61 0 D 61 RMD 20.607 0.239 10.369 0 42 2 0 44 34 2 0 36 94 3 D 97 Sum 40.665 19.123 21.743 0 87 23 10 120 7C 19 8 97 196 34 9 239 MARKET READY CTBD-3 0.23 0.009 0.221 0 1 C 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 RHD 21.188 10552 10.626 0 6 123 65 194 6 127 62 194 16 215 73 3D3 Sum 21417 1C.561 10.857 0 7 123 65 195 7 117 62 185 19 215 73 3D6 Sum 62.282 29.683 32.599 0 94 146 75 315 77 135 70 222 Z14 249 82 545 (3) PARTUSE CTRD 13.302 0.54 W.761 6.215 68 0 0 68 45 C 0 45 126 0 0 126 RHD 0.992 0 0.992 0.671 C 7 4 11 0 5 3 7 0 9 3 12 RLMD 144.742 48.433 96.31 84.62 292 0 0 292 194 0 c 194 541 0 0 541 RMD 32.389 2.098 30.292 21.486 71 0 C 71 47 0 0 47 131 0 0 131 Sum 191.426 51.071 140.355 112.992 431 7 4 442 787 5 3 294 798 9 3 810 Sum 191.426 51.071 140.355 112.992 431 7 4 442 297 5 3 294 798 9 3 810 {4) REOW OTBD -1 2.084 C.425 1.66 a C 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 OTBD - 2 1.659 0 1.659 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 OTRD 3.163 0.061 3.102 0 26 0 0 28 19 0 0 19 52 0 0 52 RHD B.828 D.784 8,043 0 -1 84 40 123 -1 56 27 82 -2 103 31 132 RLMD 47.205 33.215 13.99 0 42 0 0 42 28 0 0 28 78 0 0 78 RMD 30.048 0.002 30,046 0 97 4 0 101 65 3 0 57 19C 5 0 184 Sum 92,988 34.488 59.5 0 166 90 40 296 110 60 27 197 307 110 31 449 MARKET -READY DTRD 1.671 0 1.671 0 20 0 0 20 19 0 0 19 53 0 0 53 RMD 8.242 2.449 5.792 0 21 1 c 22 20 1 0 21 56 2 0 57 Sum 9.913 2.449 7,453 0 41 1 C 42 39 1 0 40 108 2 0 110 Sum 102.901 36,937 65.963 0 207 91 40 338 149 61 27 237 416 112 31 559 city (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 399.62 120.62 268.001 112.992 887 244 119 1250 668 201 99 969 1859 370 117 2345 Additional Housing Unit Capacity - Additional Housing Unit. Ca pa city .: Acres-. .. :.(before reductions) ., :. _. :.(after reductions} .-., AddWonalPopuiatlan Capacity: Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone - - Total - Unbuildable - Buildable. surpiusl SF MF :Sr-, Apts, - - Total - - SF - MF Sr. Apts, Totall SF MF - Sr: Apts. - Total City (as of Apr-12)' (1) PENDING RLMD 3.744 0,294 3.449 D 18 C 0 18 18 0 0 18 50 0 0 50 SR- TDR 2.756 0 2.755 C 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 6 17 0 0 17 Sum 6.5 0.294 6.205 c 24 0 0 24 24 0 0 Z4 57 0 0 67 Sum 6.5 0,294 6,205 0 24 c 0 24 24 0 0 24 67 0 0 67 4- _ (2)VACANT RLMD 5.067 0.399 4.689 0 17 0 0 17 24 0 0 14 38 0 0 38 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 10 RMD 1.021 0 1.021 0 4 0 0 4 3 0 D 3 9 0 0 9 0 07 5R-TDR 103,587 17,408 $5,179 0 429 42 0 471 408 4C 0 447 1135 73 0 1208 n Sum 109.695 17.807 91.688 0 450 42 0 492 425 40 C 464 1182 73 0 1255 77 W Sum 109.695 17.807 91.888 0 450 42 C 492 425 40 0 464 1182 73 0 1255 cQ (3)PARTUSE RHO 21.995 2.908 19,097 18,718 13 217 116 345 9 144 77 230 24 266 91 380 N RLM D 23.227 3.076 20A52 17.205 59 0 0 59 39 0 0 39 109 0 0 109 0) RMD 1.024 0 1.024 0.733 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 6 W SR -TDR 84.393 21.474 62,919 61,863 306 29 0 335 291 28 0 319 809 51 0 860 O Sum 130.64 27.458 103.182 98.539 391 246 116 743 341 172 77 589 948 317 91 1355 A W MARKET -READY RHO 9.429 0 9.429 9.177 6 106 57 169 5 101 54 161 16 185 64 265 Sum 9.429 0 9.429 9.177 6 106 57 169 5 101 54 151 16 185 64 265 Sum 140.C68 27.458 112,611 107.716 387 352 173 912 347 273 131 750 964 502 155 1620 (4)REDEV RHD 13.972 0.766 13.205 0 7 153 Bo 240 5 102 53 160 13 197 63 263 RLMD 6.074 4.203 1.871 0 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 7 SR -TDR 115.439 78.721 37.719 0 185 17 0 202 176 16 0 192 489 3C C 919 Sum 136.485 83.69 52.796 0 196 170 80 446 184 118 53 355 509 217 63 789 Sum 136.485 83.69 52,796 0 196 170 Bo 446 184 118 53 355 509 217 63 789 City (as of Apr-12) Subtotal ° 392.749 129.249 263.5 107,716 1057 564 253 1874 980 431 184 1593 7722 792 218 3731 ` -outside of Gty Apr-2002 boundaries '.. Additional Housing Unit Capacity Additional Housing Unit Capacity .. Acres :(before reductional after reductions) - Additional Population Capacity Jurisdictlnn Land Status MarketReady Zone Total Unbulldable 8ulldable -Sur fusl SF MF -Sr, Apts. Total SF MF- 5%Apts. -' - :. Total - - SF - MF -- Sr. Apts. - .: Total Unincorporated (2) VACANT SR -MP 5.63 0,001 6.63 0 33 0 0 33 27 0 0 27 74 0 0 74 Sum 6.63 0.001 6.63 0 33 0 0 33 27 0 0 27 74 0 0 74 Sum 6.63 0.001 6.63 D 33 0 0 33 27 0 0 27 74 0 0 74 (3) PARTUSE SR -MP 56.211 15,084 41.177 38,63 - 190 0 0 190 126 0 0 126 352 0 0 352 ULDR 25.71 3,407 22.304 17,356 53 0 0 53 35 0 0 35 9B 0 C 98 Sum 81,921 18,49 63.431 55,986 243 0 0 243 162 0 0 162 450 0 0 45C Sum 81,921 18.49 53.431 55.986 243 0 0 243 162 0 0 162 450 0 0 4S0 (4) RED EV SR -MP 29.637 6.125 23.511 0 108 0 0 108 72 0 0 72 200 a 0 200 ULDR 54,042 26,701 27.341 0 96 0 0 96 64 0 0 64 178 0 a 179 Sum B3.679 32.828 50.952 0 204 0 0 204 136 C C 136 378 0 0 37B Sum 83.679 32,828 50.852 0 204 0 0 204 136 0 C 136 378 0 0 378 Unincorporated Subtotal 172.231 51.319 120.912 55.986 480 0 0 480 324 0 0 324 902 0 0 902 UGA Total 953.6 301.188 652.413 276.694 2424 SOB 372 3604 1972 632 283 7885 5483 1162 335 6979 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3 of 10 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December 13, 2012 PACDRAFT Figure Eni Arlington UGA Employment . .................. .. ... .. . . -...-. __- _,. . ._ __.__..._.. .. .... _ 25,000 2Q000 r a) is 95,000 .- cL 5,000 �2 Y i/l N I� a0 T O N rt O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ty Arlington UGA —Total 2025 Employment Capacity — 50% of 2D05-2D25 Addtri€ Emp Capacity 2005 Employment Estimate ----2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection SIC Annual Employment Estimates'-A-NAICS Annual Employment Estimates" Table Eni Arlington UGA Employment Statistics ]Numeric .. zuzs Ivumeeie:: :.I Dial: rHaaml as.-zs 2002 is zD02 Change CPF. Emp ''' Change j; - 20z5. Emp Cap Artdtnl Emp Cap 2D04 ` 20D I .r SIC NAfCS 2003 2004 d2005 200g . , �607 20M 2009 2010 2D'l = B :- A Target p - A :Et; Cap::;= E "- A =' C ! P •1:00` 9,428 8,901 8,418 8,800 8,730 9,437 10,015 10,200 1D,178 9,969 5,955 8,285 8,660 -1,355 15,360 5,345 24,355 14,340 -9.40/a The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAILS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system. Data for 2002 is shown using both systems. In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAILS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates. Employment m Arlington UGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres . Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone...:. Total Unbuildable Buildable. Surpiusj Before Reductions After Reductions rn 00 City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING HC 10.559 0 10.559 0 279 279 c� Sum 10.559 0 10.5S9 0 279 279 Sum 10.559 0 10.559 0 279 279 (2) VACANT GC 13.S81 1.754 11.827 0 203 164 GI 75.153 7,341 68,912 0 763 616 HC 19.022 0 19.022 0 581 469 LI 1,026 0 1.026 0 11 9 NC 1.756 0 1.756 0 25 20 OT3D - 1 0.643 0 0.643 0 25 20 OT9 D- 2 0.105 0 0.105 0 4 3 OTBD - 3 0.172 0 0.172 0 7 6 Sum 112.457 9.095 103,352 0 1619 1307 MARKET -READY BP 125,395 2.432 122.963 0 1599 1519 GC 97.548 12.194 85.363 0 1466 1393 GI 61.596 0 61.696 0 684 650 HC 12,85 1.501 11.249 0 344 327 LI 59.182 22.491 36.691 0 378 359 NC 8.81 1.919 6.891 0 99 94 OTBD - 3 0.23 0.009 0.221 0 8 8 Sum 365.711 40,637 325.074 0 4578 4349 Sum 478.168 49.732 428.436 0 6197 5656 (3) PARTUSE GC 16.958 4.835 12.123 9.016 155 103 GI 24,999 5.312 19.687 12.76 149 99 HC 25.149 0.241 24.909 7,731 192 128 LI 6.855 0,181 6.675 1.349 14 9 Sum 73.962 10,568 63.393 30.856 510 339 Sum 73.962 10.568 63,393 30.856 510 339 (4) REDEV GC 38.368 6.717 31.652 0 463 308 GI 177.544 4,544 173 0 1472 979 HC 43.32 0.165 43.155 0 1114 741 LI 83.84 8.351 75.4B9 0 769 511 MS 1.995 0 1.995 0 110 73 NC 16.394 0.712 15.682 0 226 150 OTBD - 1 3.852 0.624 3.228 0 65 43 OTB D - 2 8.394 0.157 9.237 0 221 147 1212712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5 of 10 OTBD - 3 5.279 0,619 4.661 0 173 115 Sum 378.986 21.888 357.098 0 4513 3068 C m v MARKET -READY GC 2.434 0.893 1.541 0 26 25 ° HC m 2.276 0 2.276 0 68 65 NC 1.449 0 1.449 0 21 20 Sum 6.158 0,893 5.265 0 115 109 0 Sum 385,145 22,781 362,363 0 472B 3177 W City (as of Apr-021 Subtotal 947.834 83.081 864.752 30.856 11714 9451 Acres ..Additional Employment capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready______Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surp.lusl Before Reductions After Reductions City (as of Jun-12)* (2) VACANT GC 13.128 1.709 11.419 0 196 158 HC-N 35.68 1.395 34.285 0 257 208 HC 47.087 1.359 45,729 0 1398 1129 Sum 95.896 4.463 91,433 0 1851 1495 Sum 95.896 4.463 91.433 0 1851 1495 (3) PARTUSE HC-N 5.546 0 5.646 5.103 38 25 HC 1.472 0.085 1.387 0.478 12 8 Sum 7.11E 0.085 7.033 5.581 50 33 Sum 7.118 0.085 7.033 5.581 50 33 (4) REDEV BP 11.622 1.28 10.341 0 134 89 GC 101.569 19.724 81.845 0 1360 904 HC-N 63.016 5.613 57.403 0 395 263 HC 82.015 5.303 76.711 0 2314 1539 Sum 238.221 31.921 226.3 0 4203 2795 Sum 258.221 31.921 226.3 0 4203 2795 City (as of Jun-12) Subtotal • 361.235 36.469 324.766 5.581 6104 4323 * - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status . Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions . After Reductions Unincorporated (4) REDEV BP 10.239 0.838 9.401 0 122 81 Sum 10.239 0.838 9,401 0 122 81 Sum 10.239 0.838 9.401 0 122 81 Unincorporated Subtotal 10.239 0.838 9.401 0 122 81 UGA Total 1319.308 120.388 1198.919 36.437 17940 13855 12/2712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 6 of 10 T v CD m 0 0 0 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Arlington UGA Table ;XX.- Development History (1995 to 2010) Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Acre in Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density I Plan Develo ment Developed Develo ed Units Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Employment Per Acre Assumed Within City Zones: R-LMD (Residential Low to Moderate Density) Single Family 280.01 100% R-MD (Residential Moderate Density) Single Family 78.3I 97% Multi -Family 2.74 3% Total 81.06 100% ,-HD (Residential High Density) 1,030 3.68 3.68 - - - - - 341 4.21 4.21 - - - - - 27 0.33 0.33 - - - - - 368 4.54 4.54 - - - - - Single Family 1.53 5% 18 0.59 0.74 (l) - - - - - Multi -Family 16.87 56% 283 9.32 11.61 (l) - - - - - Senior Apartments 11.95 39% 303 9.98 6.22 (1) - - - - - Total 30.35 100% 604 19.90 18.56 (1) - - - - - - Much of the past senior apartment development in R-HD has been on sites long -owned by senior housing providers whereas little of the remaining evelopable R-HD land is in such ownership. Future development is therefore likely to include a smaller share of senior housing. To account for this, ie assumed densities give full weight to both past single- and multi -family development but only 1/2 weight to past senior apartment development. Old Town Residential District Single Family 0.30 100% 4 13.21 13.21 - - - - - uburban Residential (TDR receiving area) Single Family No developrnent has used TDR yet 5.00 - - - - - Multi -Family 0.50 - - - - - Total 5.50 - - - - - Arlington UGA 12/27/2012 1 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 7of10 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Arlington VGA CD X.X: Development History (1995 to 2010) v Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable units / Floor Estimated Estimated Employment o Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Acre in Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density w Plan Development Developed Developed units Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Employment Per Acre Assumed Suburban Residential (Master Plan area) Single Family No development has. used the Master Plan proees 5.00 - - - - - Neighborhood Commercial Non -Residential 3.09 100% - - - 11,665 0.09 44.40 14.36 14.36 Old Town Business District (combines all three subdistricts) Multi -Family 0.17 5% 4 1.07 1.07 - - - - - Non -Residential 3.57 95% - - - 54,608 0.35 142.13 39.85 39.85 Total 3.74 100% 4 1.07 1.07 54,608 0.34 142.13 38.02 38.02 General Commercial Non -Residential 27.36 100% - - - 221,792 0.19 469.81 17.17 17.17 Highway Commercial (new) Non -Residential 20.26 100% - - - 248,485 0.28 619.28 30.56 30.56 Highway Commercial (infill) Non -Residential 9.71 100% - - - 97,983 0.23 242.04 24.93 24.93 Business Park No Development; Relatively'New Zone - N. D:evelopiisent, Relatively New Zone 13.00(2) 2- BP is a new zone created in tandem with. an update to the airport area master plan. It allows for a range of typical industrial- and airport -related uses. Arlington VGA 2 Development Summary 12/2712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 8 of 10 0 v CD m V N 0 A s DRAFT Arlington UGA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) Zone or IType of Plan I Development Light Industrial Non -Residential 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Acres Acres Dwelling Acre in Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density 7eveloped Developed Units Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Employment Per Acre Assumed 1491 100% - - - 153,538 0.24 153.54 10.30 10.30 Aviation Flightline (3) Non-Resdential 6.73 100% - - - 89,904 0.31 72 10.73 10.73 3- Aviation Flightline is a relatively new zone that relies on a sample from projects from a now obsolete zone called simply "Industrial" when the permits were issued. All of the projects modeled here are now zoned Aviation Flighline and are typical development type that would be expected in General Industrial (new projects) (4) Non -Residential 93.02 100% - - - 605,691 0.15 1,032 11.09 11.09 General Industrial (in%ll) (4) Non -Residential 199.39 100% - - - 1,224,273 0.14 2,332 11.69 11.69 4- The General Industrial data includes a number of projects with Industrial zoning when the permits were issued. All of the projects modeled here are now zoned General Industrial and are typical development type that would be expected in 01, Medical Services (5) Non -Residential 7.19 100% - - 158,353 0.51 396 55.04 55.04 5- Medical Services is a relatively new zone that only applies to Cascade Valley Hospital (CVH) and surrounding parcels. The data here is a combination of past expansions at CVH and an estimate of a future expansion. The data also anticipates the redevelopment of an existing house on the Public/Semi-Public D 16pment Occurs on A. Case'wby-Case Basis . - Development Occurs on a Case -by -Case Basis - Arlington UGA 3 Development Summary 12/2712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 9 of 10 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Arlington UGA Table X : Development History (1995 to 2010) Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Acre in Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Employment Per Acre Assumed Within Unincorporated Plan Designations Urban Low Density Residential Single Family 87.62 100% 415 4.74 3.68(6) - - - - - 6- The City of Arlington currently requires that unincorporated subdivisions conform to R-LMD standards in order to receive city utilities. This has not always been the case and the sample of unincorporated projects includes a mixture of projects that meet ULDR and R-LMD standards. Most of the uncorporated areas designated as ULDR are pre -zoned as R-LMD. Urban Medium Density Residential Single Family 35.35 100% 244 6.90 Note (7) - - - - - 7- Very little unincorporated UMDR designated land remains in the Arlington UGA. The City has pre -zoned the UMDR areas as R-HD, a zone that is modeled to produce 18.56 units/acre (see R-HD for more). Urban Commercial Non -Residential 37.98 100% - - - 538,319 0.33 847 22.31 17.17(8) 8- The remaining unincorporated Urban Commercial land is pre -zoned as General Commercial by the City. This report assumes that the UC land will develop to GC standards. (Urban Industrial Non -Residential 8.85 100% - - - 107,460 0.28 93 10.54 NIA (9) 9- All of the industrial land in the Arlington. UGA has been annexed. This historic information on development in Urban Industrial is included for reference purposes only. Arlington UGA 4 Development Summary 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 10 of 10 Darrington UGA Population 2.509 ZOO Ml Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Pap-B. Darrington UGA Population —Total 2025 Population Capacity — 50 % of 2005-2025 Addtnl Pop Capacity 2005 Population Estimate ----2002-2025 Pop Growth Target Projection tAnnual Population Estimates (pre -Census 2010) —Annual Population Estimates (post -Census 2010) Table Pop-B. Darrington UGA Population Statistics (A) (g) (C) iD) (E) (F) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 2.005-11 Change Pop Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addinl as % of 2005-25 Diff. (Census -Est) Change CPP Pop Change 2025 Pop Cap AddW Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pop No. Pct. 2011 = B - A Target - D - A Pop Cap = E - A = C ! F '100 1,315 1,451 1,468 1,516 1,534 1,563 1,593 1,513 1,625 1,631 1,631 1,422 -200 -12.61/. 1,420 -143 2,125 562 2,340 777 -18.4% Darrington UGA-Add itional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) a) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT 0 77 m _U ...Add€tlonal Housing unit Capacity-' Additional Housing Unit Capacity -- . Acres - -- . (before reductions} - -' (after reductohs! Additlonal Population Capacity ... Jurisdiction, ., - Land Status Market Ready Zone Total UnbuPdab€e Buildable s7plusj SF - MF Sr. Apts. Total - - 51, MP Sr. Apts. -' Totall 51, MF Sr. Aots. - Total Ln City (as of Apr-02) (2) VACANT RSF 24.926 5,943 15.983 0 S6 0 0 56 45 0 0 45 126 0 0 126 Sum 24,926 5.943 1B.983 0 55 0 0 56 45 0 0 45 126 0 0 126 A W MARKET -READY RSF 7.929 2,219 5.609 0 14 0 0 14 13 0 0 13 37 0 0 37 Sum 7.828 2.219 5.609 0 14 0 0 14 13 0 0 13 37 0 0 37 Sum 32.754 8.161 24.592 0 70 0 0 70 59 0 0 59 163 0 c 153 (3)PARTU5E R5F 51.165 7.47 43.695 36.796 96 0 0 86 57 0 0 57 159 C C 159 5um 51.165 7A7 43.695 36.796 B6 0 0 86 57 0 0 57 159 C 0 159 Sum 51.165 7A7 43.595 36.796 86 0 0 86 57 0 C 57 159 0 0 159 (4) REDEV RSF 4.69 0.39 4.3 0 7 0 0 7 5 C 0 5 13 0 0 13 Sum 4.69 C.39 4.3 0 7 0 0 7 5 C 0 5 13 0 0 13 Sum 4.69 C.39 4.3 0 7 0 0 7 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 City (as of Apr-021 Subtotal 88.609 15.022 12.589 36,796 153 0 0 163 120 0 0 120 335 0 0 335 -` Additlonal Housing Unit Capacity Additional Housing Unit Capacity . Acres - - -. (before reductions) _'.(after reduRlonSi": _ - Additional PopulationCa acity- --Jurisdiction - Land Status. Market Ready Zone: -' Total Unbulldable Buildable Surplus -` SF .. , MF Sr. Apts. - - Total - SP - MF - Sr. Apts, . .:. Total -. - SF - - MF . Sr. Apts. - Total City (as of Apr-12) ` (2) VACANT RSF 11,966 3.666 8.301 0 22 0 0 22 18 0 0 18 49 0 0 49 Sum 11.956 3.566 8.301 0 22 0 0 22 18 0 0 18 49 0 0 49 Sum 11.956 3.666 8301 0 22 0 0 22 18 0 0 18 49 0 0 49 City (as of Apr-12) Subtotal' - 11.966 3666 8.301 0 22 0 0 22 18 0 0 l8 49 0 0 49 '-outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries Additional Housing Unit Capacity Additional Housing.Unit Capacity Acres - - (before reductions( --- (after reductionsj.-" Additional Population Capacity' Jurisdiction Land Status : Market Ready :;. Zone Total - Unbuildable Buildab€e Surplusl SF - - MF 5r, Apts..: -` Total "' SF MF Sr. Apts: -- .- Total SF - MF- Sr, Total Unincorporated {2) VACANT ULDR3 118.992 77.932 41.05 0 111 0 0 111 90 0 0 90 250 0 .Apts. 0 250 Sum 118.982 77.932 41.05 0 111 0 0 111 9C c 0 90 250 0 0 250 MARKET -READY ULDR3 13.936 13.835 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 Sum 13.936 13,835 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 Sum 132,818 51,767 4105 0 113 0 0 113 92 0 0 92 255 0 0 255 (3jPARTUSE ULDR3 52.779 12.988 39.791 36.728 93 0 0 93 62 0 0 62 172 0 0 172 Sum 52.779 12.988 39,791 36.728 93 0 0 93 62 0 0 62 172 0 0 172 Sum 52,779 12.988 39.791 36.728 93 0 0 93 62 0 0 62 172 0 0 172 (4)REUEV UL)R3 36.4 12.954 23.446 0 59 0 0 59 39 0 0 39 109 0 0 109 Sum 36.4 12.954 23,445 0 59 0 0 59 39 0 0 39 109 0 0 109 Sum 36.4 12.954 23.446 0 59 0 0 59 39 0 0 39 109 0 0 109 Unincorporated Subtotal 221.997 117.71 104.26E 36.728 265 0 0 265 193 0 0 193 536 C 0 536 UGA Total 322.572 197.948 185.177 73.524 450 0 0 450 331 0 0 331 920 0 0 920 Sy'I 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 6 Darrington UGA Snohomish County Toniorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report -December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT --Total 2025 Employment Capacity — 50% of 2005-2025 Addtnl Emp Capacity ---2005 Employment Estimate ---2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection tSICAnnuai Employment Estimates"—Ar—NAICS Annual Employment Estimates' Table Emp-B. Barrington UGA Employment Statistics mploymerlt [ stimates 2005-11 2005-25 .: 2005-25 20.05 1 4 Change Numeric . J2025. � Nurneric.; Totat', Addtnl as',°/a of2D05-25 2002 2002 Change CPP Emp >.Change 2D25. Emp Cap Addtnl imp Cap 2Do0' 0 2001 t SiC. NAICS> 2003 ''2004 205 20D6 2007 2008 2009 2010 � 201' =8 A :Target = b - A: :Emp.Ca = E - A C 1 P'`10Di. 609 538 371 364 499 601 594 68e 552 662 514 451 500 -94 535 (59) 4,068 3,474 -2.7% ' The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAICS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system. Data for 2002 is shown using both systems. In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates. Emplgvnrent T Darrington UGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT CD T CD Acres Additional Employment Capacity : Jurisdiction Land Status ::' 'Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surplus Before Reductions After Reductions o a City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING C 0.64S 0 0.645 0 32 32 Sum 0.645 0 0.645 0 32 32 Sum 0.645 0 0.645 0 32 32 (2) VACANT C 8.998 0 8.998 0 77 62 LI 261.367 64.811 196.556 0 1808 1460 Sum 270.365 64.811 205,554 0 1885 1522 MARKET -READY C 0.351 0 0.351 0 3 3 Sum 0.351 0 0.351 0 3 3 Sum 270.716 64.811 205.905 0 1888 1525 (3) PARTUSE C 13.95 0.264 13.686 5.924 50 33 LI 105.765 49.261 56.504 24.262 222 148 5um 119.715 49.525 70.19 30.186 272 181 Sum 119,715 49.525 70.19 30.186 272 181 (4) REDEV C 10.352 0 10,352 0 75 50 Ll 11.627 0 11.627 0 103 68 5um 21.979 0 21.979 0 178 118 Sum 21.979 0 21.979 0 178 118 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 413.055 114.336 298.719 30.186 2370 1856 Acres:. Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status : Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable : Surplusl Before Reductions . After Reductions Unincorporated (2) VACANT UI 283,337 77.139 206.199 0 1897 1532 Sum 283.337 77.139 206,199 0 1897 1532 v'� 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 4 of 0 7 77 T v m 00 0 Unincorporated Subtotal UGA Total Sum (3) PARTUSE Sum Sum (4) REDEV Sum Sum 283,337 77.139 206.199 0 1897 1532 UI 2.909 0.01 2.899 2.739 25 17 2.909 0.01 2.899 2.739 25 17 2.909 0.01 2.899 2.739 25 17 UI 1.852 0 1.852 0 17 11 1.852 0 1.852 0 17 11 1.852 0 1.852 0 17 11 288.098 77.149 210.95 2.739 1939 1560 701.153 191.495 509.669 32.925 4309 3416 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5 of 6 DRAFT Darrington UGA T m Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Buildable % Buildable Residential Development Non -Residential Development Floor Estimate Estimated Employment Zone or Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density Non -Res. Area d Total Employment Density Plan Type of Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within Town Zones (and assumed for County Plan Designations) SFR (ULDR-3) Single Family 4.37 100% 12 2.75 2.75 - - - - - Commercial Non -Residential 9.89 100% - - - 72,580 0.17 84 8.52 8.52 Industrial (UI) Non -Residential 148 100% - - - 16,892 0.11 32 9.21 9.21 Darrington UGA 12/27/2012 1 Snohomish County Pianning and Development Services Development Summary 6 of 6 Gold Dar UGA Population 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 C O b 2,000 a O a 1,500 1,000 Boo Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands ,Report -December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Pop-C, Gold Bar UGA Population —Total 2025 Population Capacity — 50% of 2005-2025 Addtnnl Pop Capacity ^^2005 Population Estimate----2002-2025 Pop Growth Target Projection —A —Annual Population Estimates {pre -Census 2010) -Annual Population Estimates (post -Census 2010) Table Pop-C, Gold Bar UGA Population Statistics (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (P) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 2005-11 Change Pap Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnl as % of 2005-25 Diff. (Census -Est) Change CPP Pop Charge 2025 Pap Cap Addlni Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 Pop No. Pct. 2011 = 13 - A Target = 17 - A Pop Cap = E - A = C ! P 1100 2,782 2,792 2,817 2,836 2,828 2,833 2,883 2,961 3,013 2,959 2,990 2,923 -67 -2.3% 2,909 76 3,500 667 3,333 500 15.2% Gold Bar UGA - Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Additional Housing Unit Capacity _. Additional Housing Unit Capacity Acres - - (before reductions) -- I - _(after rad"ctionS) Additional Population Capacity -- - Jurisdiction . ., . Land Status Market Ready. Zone . Total Unbui€dable - Buildable -- . Surplus SF -MF : Sr. Apts. .. Total SF MF Sr. Apts. .. Total - 5F - MF Sr. Apts, - Total City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING R12500 7.975 0.301 7.575 0 22 0 0 22 22 C 0 22 61 0 0 61 R9600 0.2 0 0.2 0 1 0 0 1 1 c 0 1 3 0 0 3 Sum 8.176 0.301 7.975 0 23 0 0 23 23 0 0 23 64 0 0 64 Sum 8.175 0.301 7,875 0 23 0 0 23 23 0 0 23 64 0 0 64 (2)VACANT R12500 48.059 23.357 24.701 0 65 0 0 65 52 0 0 52 146- 0 0 145 R7200 0.939 0 0.938 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 4 R9600 1.369 0.313 1.056 0 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 9 Sum 50.365 23.67 26.695 0 71 0 0 71 57 0 0 57 160 0 0 160 sum -90.365 23.67 26.695 0 71 0 0 71 57 0 0 57 160 0 0 160 (3)PARTUSE R12500 39,776 23.36 16.416 14.961 33 0 0 33 22 C 0 22 61 0 0 61 R7200 1-6 0 1.6 1.438 4 0 0 4 3 C 0 3 7 0 0 7 R9600 10,897 4.122 6.765 5.48 15 0 0 15 is C 0 10 28 0 0 28 Sum 52.263 27.492 24.781 21379 52 0 0 52 35 0 0 35 96 0 0 95 Sum 52.263 27.482 24.781 21.779 52 0 0 52 35 0 0 35 96 0 0 96 (4)RfDEV R12500 3.274 0.726 2.548 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 9 R9600 7.138 3.494 3.544 0 9 0 0 9 6 0 0 6 17 0 0 17 Sum 10.412 4,22 6.192 0 14 0 0 14 9 0 0 9 26 0 0 26 Sum 10.412 4,22 6.192 0 14 0 0 14 9 C 0 9 26 0 0 25 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 121.217 55.674 65.543 21.779 160 0 0 160 124 0 0 124 346 0 0 345 . Addltlona€ Housing UnIt Capacity -Additional Homing Unit Capacity Acres :. - ..:� ' -, _(before reductions) � . � - � � . - �- � (after reductions) Additional Population Capacity Jurisdiction :-' ... Land Status Market Ready Zone .Total -... Unhuildablp - Buildable surplus 'SF MF Sr. Acts. Total - - SF - MF Sr.Apts. Total - SIF MF Sr. Apts. 7otal Unincorporated (1} PENDING ULDR3 0.491 0 0,451 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 6 Sum 0.491 0 0,491 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 6 Sum 0.491 0 0,491 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 6 (2}VACANT ULDR3 8.763 3.845 4,916 0 28 0 0 28 23 0 0 23 63 0 0 63 Sum 9,763 3.845 4.916 0 28 0 0 28 23 0 0 23 63 0 0 63 Sum 9.763 3.845 4.919 0 28 0 C 28 23 0 0 23 63 0 0 63 (3) PARTUSE ULDR3 21663 0.227 2.436 2.244 5 0 0 5 _ 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 9 Sum 7,663 0.227 2,436 2.244 5 C C 5 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 9 Sum 2,563 0.227 2,436 2,244 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 9 Unincorporated Subtotal 11.917 4.072 7.845 2,244 35 0 0 35 28 0 0 28 78 0 0 78 UGA Total 133,134 59.746 73.389 24.023 195 0 0 195 152 0 0 152 424 0 0 424 12127/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 5 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report -December 13, 2012 PACDRAFT Figure Emp-C. Gold Bar UGA Emptoyment i i 700 500 500 E 400 o n W300 200 �.------.M��...M �,�. .�.�....�..�...,«.n....�,»,...�.�•.�..,«..�.�. �..,�.>..,...,, .».., .�, .m .�...�-m -�.�-- -�:... -��= =__=�_-amra. mw��....�.�M��.� m.�v�.�s____`_�___: 100 E o � 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 o r N a m rn o O O O O O O O O O O O N ry N N� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N pN N N N N N —Total 2025 Employment Capacity — 50% of 2005-2025 Aci Emp Capacity ^2005 Employment Estimate ----2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection —m iC Annual Employment Estimates"—d,--NAICS Annual Employment Estimates* Gold Bar UGA Table Emp-C. Gold Bar UGA Employment Statistics Nu gEric ' 2025 Numeric .', Total Addtnl as>% Of 2005-25 2002 2002 . .: Chari.ge CpPEmp Change ',: 2025' Emp: Cap AddinlEmpiGap ., . 2000. 2001 i': SIC .'.NAICSr.': 2003 >2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ' 2009 2010 2011' = B -: A Tar at = D - A: Em 'Ga : E - A =iC ! F 41.00. 149 188 175 181 197 218 202 223 194 221 230 216 223 21 210 8 759 557 3.8% ` The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAIGS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly dirt arent UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system, Data for 2002 is shown using both systems. In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates. L'mplovment 0 C v 00 w 0 w Gold Bar UGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT ..Acres . Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready . Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions' After Reductions City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING GC 5.496 0 5.496 0 4 4 Sum 5.496 0 5,496 0 4 4 Sum 5.496 0 5.496 0 4 4 (2) VACANT CB 0.902 0 0.902 0 14 11 GC 5,616 0,339 5,276 0 79 64 Sum 6.518 0.339 6,179 0 93 75 Sum 6,518 0.339 6.179 0 93 75 (3) PARTUSE GC 9.435 0.236 9.199 6,315 96 64 Sum 9.435 0.236 9,199 6.315 96 64 Sum 9.435 0.236 9.199 6.315 96 64 (4) REDEV CB 4.165 0 4.165 0 54 36 GC 41.193 2,015 39.177 0 575 382 Sum 45.357 2.015 43.342 0 629 418 Sum 45.357 2.015 43.342 0 629 418 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 66.807 2.59 64.216 6.315 822 561 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 4 of 5 DRAFT Gold Bar UGA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Zone or Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within City Zones (and as modeled for County Designations) R 12500 (and Single Family ULDR-3) 83.63 100% 217 2.59 2.59 - - - - -I R 9600 Single Family 4.82 100% 16 3.32 3.32 - - - - - R 7200 Single Family ,:; No Data <' 3.32 - - - - - CB Non -Residential 2.99 100% - - - 25,299 0.19 44 14.62 14.62 GC Non -Residential 5.50 100% - - - 53,200 0.22 53 9.68 15.00 (l) 1- The sample for GC is limited to one project, Arctic Refrigeration, that is a low -employment -density wholesale distributor. It is likely that future retail, service, and restaurant development in GC will provide higher densities per acre. For modeling purposes, the assumed employment density by job sector in GC is: 6 Retail, 6 Services, 2 Food Services, and 1 FIRE. Gold Bar 12/27/2012 1 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 5 of 5 Granite Falls UGA Population �g0o0 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 c 0 b 5,C00 a 0 d 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - Deeenther 13, 2012 PACDRAFT Figure Pop-D. Granite Fails UGA Population —Total 2025 Population Capacity — 50%of 2005-2025Add1nl Pop Capacity — 2005 Population Estimate---•2002-2025 Pop Growth Target Projection —1—Annual Population Estimates (pra-Census 2010) —Annual Population Estimates (post -Census 2010) Table Pop-D. Granite Falls UGA Population Statistics (A) (B) {C) (D) (E) (F) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 20D5-11 Change Pop Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnl as % of 2005-26 Diff. (Census -Est) Change CPP Pap Change 2025 Pop Cap Addtnl Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pop No. Pct. 2011 = B - A Target = D - A Pnp Cap = E - A = C / F *100 2,497 2,658 2,909 3,063 3,156 3,207 3,242 3,348 3,446 3,487 3,489 3,511 22 0.6% 3,517 310 6,970 3,763 8,651 5,444 5.7% Granite Falls UGA - Additionat Population Capacity (Z012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Additional Housing Unit.Capacity : - Additional Housing Unit capacity Acres . . . - before reductions - - (after reductions) .,. . Additional. PBpulatiau Capacity, Jurisdidinn Lahti Status, :-, , . Matket Ready . - .-. Zone Tota€ Unbuilda6le Buildable Surpius SF Mr . $t. Apts. . Totull SF Mr Sr. Apts. -.- -Total SF ' : MF'' Sr: Apts. Total Cfty (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING R 9600 1,906 0.136 1.768 0 11 0 0 11 11 0 0 11 31 0 0 31 Sum 1.906 0438 1.766 0 11 0 0 11 11 0 0 11 31 0 a 31 Sum 1.906 0138 1768 0 11 0 0 11 11 0 0 11 31 0 0 31 (2)VACANT COD 7,763 0 7763 0 9 10 0 19 7 8 D 15 20 15 0 35 DT 2500 2579 0,022 2556 0 22 0 0 22 18 0 0 18 49 0 0 49 GC 1.56E 0 LESS 0 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 6 0 6 MR 21.353 5,549 15.894 9 D 133 137 320 0 107 151 25B 0 198 178 375 R 7200 0.55 0 0.55 0 2 0 a 2 2 0 D 2 4 0 0 4 R 9600 53.647 22.944 30.703 0 114 0 0 114 92 0 0 92 256 0 0 256 Sum 87.457 28515 58.941 0 147 147 187 481 119 119 151 388 330 219 178 725 MARKETREADYCBD 3.008 0 3,008 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 9 0 9 GC 15.409 3,143 12,257 0 0 36 0 36 0 34 0 34 0 63 0 63 MR 13.842 4,397 944E 0 0 80 113 193 a 76 107 183 0 140 126 256 R 7200 60.506 3TS88 22,617 0 85 0 0 85 81 0 0 81 225 0 0 225 Sum 92.766 45.428 47.337 0 85 121 113 319 81 115 107 303 225 212 1Z6 563 Sum 180.222 73.943 106.279 0 222 258 300 800 199 234 258 691 555 430 304 1289 (3)PARTUSE DT 2500 1.916 0 1.816 1.386 13 0 0 13 9 0 0 9 Z4 0 0 24 MR 7.131 C.014 7,117 6,293 0 52 73 125 0 35 49 93 0 64 57 121 R 7200 7.546 0.418 7.228 6.319 22 0 0 22 15 0 0 15 41 0 0 41 R 9600 26.412 19.527 6.885 6.476 23 0 0 23 15 0 0 15 43 0 0 43 Sum 42.905 19.96 22.945 20.473 58 52 73 183 39 35 49 122 107 64 57 228 Sum 42.905 19.96 22-945 20.473 58 52 73 183 39 35 49 122 107 64 57 228 (4) REDEV CBD 2.822 u 2.922 c 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 5 0 5 DT 2500 23.327 2.468 20.859 0 185 0 0 285 123 0 0 123 343 0 0 343 GC 34.343 5.216 29.127 0 -17 80 0 63 -21 53 0 42 -31 98 0 66 MR 16.393 3.709 12.635 0 -15 104 145 234 -10 69 96 156 -28 227 113 213 Sum 76.985 11.392 65,493 0 153 188 145 486 102 125 96 323 283 230 113 677 MARKET -READY GC 2.665 0.949 1.715 0 -1 5 0 4 -1 5 0 4 -3 9 0 6 R 7200 11.157 7.295 3.862 0 13 0 0 13 12 0 0 12 34 0 0 34 Sum 13,822 8.244 5.578 0 12 5 0 17 it S 0 16 32 9 0 40 Sum 90,707 19.636 71.071 0 165 193 145 503 113 130 96 339 315 239 113 667 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 31574 113.578 202.063 20.473 466 513 519 1497 962 398 403 1163 luau 732 474 2215 Additona Housfrtg Unit Capacity.. .. Additional Huusing Unit Capacity - Acres - . . - - . (before reductions) - - (afterreductions) --Additlonal Pnpulatibn Ca pacity . - Jurisdiction Land Status - Market Ready . . _Zone: - 'Total.-.. Unbulldable- : Buildable .', 5urp€us SF MF Sr, Apts. . :Total - 'SF- MF Sr. Apts.. - -Total -. SF-. 0 MP Sr, Apt,.-. -Total City (as of Apr-12) ` (2) VACANT R 7200 3.843 1909 1.933 0 7 0 0 7 6 0 u 6 16 0 0 16 Sum 3.643 1.909 1933 0 7 0 0 7 6 0 a 6 16 0 0 16 MARKET -READY R 9600 93.202 32,209 60,993 0 227 0 0 227 216 0 0 216 600 0 0 600 Sum 93.202 3L209 50.993 0 227 0 0 227 216 0 0 216 600 a 0 600 Sum 97.044 34,118 62.926 0 234 0 0 234 221 0 0 221 615 0 0 616 (3) PARTUSE R7200 35.593 0 35.593 34.166 127 0 0 127 84 0 D 84 235 0 0 235 Sum 35.593 0 35593 34,166 127 0 0 127 84 0 9 64 235 0 0 235 MARKET READY 87200 91.969 10.152 71.817 72.053 270 0 0 270 257 0 0 257 714 0 0 714 1212712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2of8 N O C N N N 00 v O A W Sum 91,969 10.152 71.817 71.053 27D 0 0 270 257 0 0 257 714 0 C 714 Sum 117561 10.152 107.409 105.219 397 0 0 397 341 0 0 341 949 0 0 949 {4) REDSV MR 20.93 5.011 15.839 0 -4 133 187 316 -3 88 124 210 -7 16e 146 302 R 7200 25.783 0 25.793 0 93 0 0 93 62 0 0 62 172 0 0 172 Sum 46,714 5.091 41.523 D 89 133 187 409 $9 88 124 272 165 163 146 474 Sum 46,714 5.091 41.523 0 89 133 187 409 59 Be 124 272 165 163 146 474 City (as of Apr-12) Subtotal " 261A3 9 49361 21L958 105.219 720 133 187 3040 621 Be 124 834 1730 153 146 2039 ' -outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries Additicnal Housing Unit Capacity Addi ional Housing Unit Capacity Acres - (be€ore reductions) - after reductions - - Additional Po olatien Ca acity Jurisdiction Land Status _. Market Read ..- Zone Unbulidable Buildable 5urplusl SF- MF Sr. Apts, Tctaq 5P MF - Sr. Apt, - Total Sr MF Sr. Apts... . .Total Unincorporated (1) PENDING ULDR 0.886 0,413 CA73 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 a 1 3 a 0 3 Sum 0.886 0413 0.473 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 a 1 3 a ❑ 3 Sum 0.886 0,413 0,473 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 (2) VACANT MR 2.906 0.596 2,21 0 0 18 26 44 0 15 21 36 0 27 25 51 ULDR 2.105 0.48 1.625 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 Sum 4.911 1.076 3,835 0 6 18 26 So 5 15 21 40 13 27 25 65 MARKET -READY ULDR 0.967 0.654 0323 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 Sum 0.967 0,654 0.313 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 Sum 5.878 1.73 4.147 0 7 18 26 51 6 15 21 41 16 27 25 68 (3) PARTUSF MR 2.815 0.669 2.146 1.692 0 13 18 31 0 9 12 21 0 16 14 30 ULDR 92.798 18.265 74.523 69.091 248 0 0 248 165 0 0 165 459 0 0 459 Sum 95.03 19.935 76.669 70.783 248 13 i8 279 165 9 12 186 459 16 14 489 Sum 95.603 18.935 76.669 70.783 248 13 18 279 165 9 12 186 459 16 14 489 (4) RED LV MR 2.83 0.445 2.396 0 0 20 28 48 0 13 19 32 0 24 22 46 ULDR 66.315 25.216 41.1 0 148 0 0 148 98 0 0 98 274 0 0 274 Sum 69,146 25.661 43.485 0 143 20 28 196 98 13 19 130 274 24 22 320 Sum 69145 25.661 43.485 0 149 20 28 196 98 13 19 130 274 24 22 32C Unincorporated Subtotal 17L512 46.738 124.774 70.783 404 51 72 527 270 36 52 358 752 67 61 880 UGA Total 748,571 209,777 538.795 196.475 1590 697 777 3064 1253 522 579 2355 3490 962 581 5134 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3 of 8 i�U Snohomish County Tonzorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December 13, 2012 PACDR4FT Figure Enrl Granite Falls UGA Employment 2,500 2,000------------- Gr _ — — ---------------- LLI - 000-- -.,_�.-A,--- �^- �----------,..-...._,,,,,e.n,m..,n.n----.m.,..,..,..,.m.-.,.-",,,.",-....m---------..--,,.----.m...,.,.."..m-..------_,-_,_----- 500 N N N N O O 4 O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N ry N N N ry ry N ry ry ry N N N N —Total 2025 Employment Capacity — 50% of 2005-2025 Addtnl Emp Capacity Employment Estimate ---•2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection —SIC Al Employment Estimates* —&—NAICS Annual Employment Estimates* Granite Falls UGA Table Emp-D. Granite Falls UGA Employment Statistics Employment Estimates 2005 11 20o5-25 ZD05-Z5 2005.1 [Change Numenc ::::2025 NumerEc!.! Totaf' Addihl as'0/ of 2o05-25 2002 :-; 2002 Change CPP Emp Ctlan�e ;',. 2025 : Emp Cap , gddtni Emp Cap 2600.. 2001 ,: SIC r'1 NAICS !''2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 =(8) A Tar et (I)):- A Emp Ca - 5 -:(A : = C 805 875 802 826 952 945 1,030 1,030 944 935 871 a04 760 -270 2,200 1,170 2,592 1,562 -17.3% * The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAICS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system. Data for 2a02 is shown using both systems. In additior, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates- Employment N CD T v CD m CO 21 Granite Falls UGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres Additional Employment Capacity. Jurisdiction Land Status :: Market Ready Zone Total '::Unbuildable . Buildable Surplus Before Reductions After Reductions City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING DT 2500 2.16 0.038 2.122 0 58 58 R 7200 2.323 0.913 1.41 0 13 13 Sum 4.483 0,951 3,532 0 71 71 Sum 4.483 0.951 3.532 0 71 71 (2) VACANT CBD 7.763 0 7.763 0 177 143 GC 1.761 0 1.761 0 32 26 1 4,562 0.168 4.394 0 35 28 IR 0.182 0 0.182 0 2 2 LI 4.92 0.011 4.909 0 35 28 Sum 19,188 0.18 19.008 0 281 227 MARKET -READY CBD 3.008 0 3,008 0 68 65 GC 15.409 3.143 12.267 0 221 210 Sum 18,418 3.143 15.275 0 289 275 Sum 37.605 3.322 34.283 0 570 501 (3) PARTU5E CBD 11.283 0 11.283 7.861 107 71 1 74.787 27.032 47.755 42.219 338 225 IR 3.115 0 3.115 2.588 26 17 Ll 6.821 0.461 6.36 5.369 38 25 Sum 96,006 27,493 68.513 58.038 509 338 Sum 96,006 27.493 68.513 58,038 509 338 (4) REDEV CBD 15.239 0 15.239 0 293 195 GC 36.476 5.545 30.931 0 549 365 1 4.612 1.842 2.77 0 22 15 IR 2.4S4 0 2.454 0 25 17 LI 8.367 0 8.367 0 60 40 Sum 67.147 7.387 59.76 0 949 631 MARKET -READY GC 2.66S 0.949 1.715 0 31 29 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5 of 8 m N 77 m m v CD m c8 0 0 W Sum City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal LI 7.777 0.409 7.368 0 53 50 Sum 10.442 1.358 9.084 0 84 80 77,589 8.745 68.844 0 1033 711 215.683 40.511 175.172 58.038 2183 1622 Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready tone Total Unbuildable . Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions . After Reductions City (as of Jun-12)* (4) REDEV IR 4.176 0.345 3.831 0 39 26 Sum 4.176 0.345 3.831 0 39 26 5um 4.176 0,345 3,831 0 39 26 City (as of Jun-12) Subtotal * 4.176 0.345 3,831 0 39 26 * - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries UGA Total 219.859 40.856 179.003 58.038 2222 1648 iF�ININ11E1_ Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 6 of 8 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report anite Falls UGA hie X_X: Development History (1995 to 2010) % Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Zone or Plan Development Developed Developed Units zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp, Per Acre Assumed Development Within City Zones (and as modeled for County Designations) Rural 2.3 acre Single Family ........... No Data .. . 0.43 No Data R-9600 Single Family 83.32 100% 31I 3.73 3.73 - - - - R-7200 Single Family 25.36 100% 93 3.67 3.80 (l) - - - - - 1-The sample of projects in R-7200 is weighted towards older projects and City staff expect future development to achieve higher densities as the zoning alrea. DT-2500 Single Family No Data 10.00 Na Data - Multiple Residential Multi -Family 0.72 61% 10 8.55 8.55 - - - - - Senior Apartments 0.45 39% 14 11.97 11.97 - - - - Total 1.1.7 100% 24 20.52 20.52 - - - - - Central Business District (New Projects) Multi -Family 0.59 14% 7 1.70 1.70 - - - - - Commercial 3.53 86% - - - 32,960 0.19 94 22.76 22.76 Total 4.12 100% 7 1.70 1.70 32,960 0.18 94 22.76 22.76 Central Business District (IuFll Projects) Commercial (w/caretalcer apts) 3.99 100% 1 0.25 0.25 35,168 0,20 54 13.54 13.54 Granite Falls 12/27/2012 1 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 7 of 8 T m C m T m CD m i9 N 0 a w DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Palls UGA XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) Buildable Buildable Residential Development Non -Residential Development Units 1 Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Zone or Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp, Per Acre Assumed meral Commercial (New Projects) Multi -Family 2.52 40% 32 5.08 3.00(2) - - - - - Senior Apartments 1.68 27% 45 7.14 - - - - - - Commercial 2.10 33% - - - 18,036 0.07 26 4.09 18,00(2) Total 6.30 100% 77 12.22 3.00(2) 18,036 0.07 26 4.09 18.00(2) GC has had a disproportionate share of residential development on sites lacking a high degree of commercial visibility. The remaining developable sites iter access and higher traffic counts; therefore, the City expects most of the future development in GC to be commercial in nature. The expected tribution ofjobs by sector in GC is: 7 Retail, 7 Services, 3 Food Services, and 1 FIRE. meral Commercial (infill Projects) Commercial No Data 0.00 (3) No Data 20.00(3) There have not been any examples of commercial infill in GC yet; however, the expectation is that any new buildings or additions will be entirely nmercial, The expected distribution ofjobs by sector for GC infill projects is: 8 Retail, 8 Services, 3 Food Services, and I FIRE. 1Industrial IndustrialNo Data - No Data 8.00 (4) 4- There has been no development in Industrial yet. The expected distribution of jobs by sector is: 4 Manufacturing, 3 WTU, and']'' Services. Industrial/Retail Non -Residential No Data'_ - No Data 10.00(5) 4- There has been no development in Industrial/Retail yet. The expected distribution ofjobs by sector is: 3 Manufacturing, 3 WTU, and 3 Services, 1 Retail, Light Industrial Industrial (wlcaretaker apts) 7.78 100% 2 0.26 0.26 71,880 0.21 56 7.1.7 7.17 Granite Falls M Development Summary 1212712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 8of8 Index UGA Population 25D ne W. Fid Snolronrislr County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report -December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Pop-E. Index UGA Population —Total 2025 Population Capacity — 50 % of 20D5-2025 Addtni Pop Capacity - 2005 Population Estimate ---•2002-2025 Pop Growth Target Projection — Annuai Population Estimates (pro -Census 2010) —m—Annual Population Estimates (post -Census 2010) Table Pop-E. Index UGA Population Statistics (A) (6) (C) (D} (E) {F) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 20D5-11 2005-25 20D5-25 2005-11 Change Pop Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnl as % of 2005-25 DiR. (Census -Est) Change CPP Pap Change 2025 Pap Cap Addtni Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2D03 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20D9 2010 Pop No. Pet. 2011 = B - A Target = b - A Pop Cap = E - A = C 1 F *100 157 180 160 150 157 155 155 160 160 155 165 178 13 7.9% 180 25 190 35 218 63 39.7% Index UGA- Additional Population Capacity (21312 BLR) c1 Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT (D - - Acres Additional Housing unit Capacity (hefcre reductions) - - Additional Housing Unit Capacity: - {after reductions) - Additional Population Capacity lurisdiction Land Status --` Market Ready Zone Tota€ . Unbuildable- - Buildable - SurplusSurplusl SF ME Sr, Apts. Total - 'SF MI' Sr. Apts. l' Total - SF - - MF . Sr. Apts, - Total 41 City (as of Apr 92} (2) VACANT EXISTING 4.136 2.292 1.944 0 12 0 0 12 10 0 0 10 27 0 0 27 p SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Sum 4.136 2.292 1.844 0 12 0 0 12 10 0 a 10 27 0 0 27 Sum 4.136 2.292 1.944 0 12 0 0 12 10 0 0 10 27 0 0 27 (3) PARTUSE EXISTING 1.904 0,085 1.819 1.323 6 0 0 6 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 21 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Sum 1.904 0.085 1.818 1.323 6 0 0 6 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 Sum 1.904 0.085 1.818 1.323 6 0 0 6 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 6.04 2.377 3.662 1.323 18 0 0 113 14 0 0 14 38 0 0 36 UGA Total 6.04 2.377 3.662 1.323 18 0 0 18 14 0 0 14 3S 0 0 38 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 4 0 0 C m v CD m 0 A W Index UGA Snohomish Counts Tonrorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December• 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT —Total 2025 Employment Capacity 50% of 2005-2025 Addtnl Emp Capacity - 2005 Employment Estimate ----2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection —SIC Annual Employment Estimates" —NAICS Annual Employment Estimates* Table Enrl Index UGA Employment Statistics .............. ... ....... ... ...... . ..... .......... Empioyrt ent Estimates 2005-11 2005-25.. ': 2005-25 2005-11 Change Nlimeflc 2025 Numeric Total Acidtir l . . as A & 2005-25 20C2 '' 2002 I` Gtiarrgs CPP'Emp Change `: 2025 .' Emp. Cap flddtrll Emp Cap. 2004 2001SIC :' NAICS `I 2003 2004 2005 2006 ..2007 , ..2008 .2009 2010 2011 - B - A Tar et =<D - A ..''Em Ca r. _ E - A = C'l 51 51 44 44 35 21 20 23 26 28 24 24 20 0 70 50 26 6 0.0 % The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAICS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system. Data for 2002 is shown using both systems. In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates. Employment J DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Town of Index Table Ian: Development History (1995 to 2010) Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / AcrTA Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Acres Acres Dwelling in Totalnsity Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Zone Tvne of DOVelOnment Develoned Developed Units Zone umed Square Feet Ratio I Emp. Per Acre Assumed Town of Index 1212712012 1 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 4 of 4 Lake Stevens UGA Population 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 G O 25,000 7 a 0 a 20,00 15,000 10,000 5,000 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lairds Report - December I3, 20I2 PAC DRAFT Figure Pop-F, Lake Stevens UGA Population Table . Lake Stevens UGA Population Statistics (A) (8) (0) (D) (E) (F) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 2005-11 Change Pop Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addlnl as % of 2005-25 DiH. (Census -Est) Change CPP Pop Change 2025 Pop Cap Addtnl Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 Pop No. PcL 2011 B - A Target = D - A Pop Cap = E - A = C ! F *100 25,096 26,120 26,828 27,672 26,366 2B,560 29,174 29,B96 30,664 31,359 32,930 32,896 -34 -0.1% 33,218 4,658 46,125 17,565 46,634 15,074 25.6% Lake Stevens UGA _ Additional Population Capacity J2012 BLR) Dec 21/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT CD Additional Housing unit Capacity.:'.: Additional Housing Unit Capacity - . . . -Acres - - (before reductions) reductions) - Addltlonal Population Capacity N - _Jurlsdiction Land Status ._�...Market Ready - .:.: .Zane Total :Unbuildable".-::Buildable-... surplussurplusl SF MF -Sr.Apts. _-Total - 5F ,(after - MF ^Sr.Apts. - -Total --.5F-.-.- MF...5r:Apts, :---Total OD N a; City (as of Apr-02} (1) PENDING MFR 0.284 0 0.284 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 14 0 0 14 00 PBD 25.94 25,94 0 0 112 0 0 112 112 0 0 112 S12 0 0 312 UR 0.67 0,169 0.501 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 W WR 1.45 1.162 0.299 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 Sum 28,344 27,271 1.074 0 1.19 0 0 119 119 0 0 119 331 0 0 331 Sum 28,344 27.271 1.074 0 119 0 0 119 119 0 0 119 331 0 0 331 (2) VACANT MFR 13.627 12.722 0.906 0 4 6 10 20 3 5 8 15 9 9 9 27 SR 18.799 9.866 8.933 0 36 0 0 35 29 0 0 29 81 0 0 81 UR 16.574 14.095 7.478 0 13 0 0 13 10 0 0 10 29 0 0 29 Sum 49,001 36.683 12,317 0 53 6 10 69 43 5 8 55 119 9 9 138 MARKET -READY SR 2,122 0.229 1.993 0 7 0 0 7 7 0 0 1 19 0 0 19 UR 2.926 0.059 2.868 0 15 0 0 15 14 0 0 14 40 0 0 40 Sum 5.048 0.287 4,761 0 22 0 0 22 21 0 0 21 58 0 0 58 Sum 54.048 36.97 17.078 0 75 6 10 91 54 5 8 77 177 9 9 196 (3) PARTUSE HUR 2.158 1.565 0,503 0.289 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 SR 36.201 4,861 31.34 22,568 73 0 0 73 49 0 0 49 135 c 0 135 UR 14.618 3.475 1L142 7.563 33 0 0 33 22 c 0 22 61 0 0 61 WR 4.788 1.654 3134 2.105 7 c 0 7 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 Sum - 57.774 11.556 46.219 32.525 113 2 0 115 75 1 0 76 209 2 0 212 Sum 57.774 11.556 46,219 32.525 113 2 0 115 75 1 0 76 209 2 0 212 (4) REDEV HUR 2.613 1,623 1.05 0 -1 8 0 7 -1 5 0 5 -2 10 0 8 MFR 12.311 3.93 8,381 0 0 58 99 157 0 39 66 104 0 71 77 148 MU 1,97 0 1.97 0 -3 6 0 3 -2 4 0 2 -6 7 c 2 SR 17.154 2.067 15.087 0 45 0 0 45 30 0 c 30 83 0 0 83 UR 14.443 4.983 9.461 0 31 0 0 31 21 0 0 21 57 0 a 57 WR 3.99 0.611 3.379 0 8 0 0 8 5 0 0 3 15 0 0 15 Sum 52.541 13.213 39.328 0 8o 72 99 251 53 48 66 167 148 89 77 314 MARKET READY UR 9.84 4.07 5.769 0 30 1 0 31 29 1 0 29 79 2 0 91 Sum 9.84 4.07 5.769 0 30 1 0 31 29 1 0 29 79 2 0 91 Sum 62,381 17,284 45,097 0 110 73 99 282 82 49 66 196 227 90 77 395 City(as of Apr-02)Subtotal 202,548 93.08 109.467 32,525 417 81 109 607 340 55 74 468 945 101 87 1133 Additional Housing Unitrapacity ... Additional Housing Unit Capacity. " Acres - (before reduttlohs) (after reductions) - Add€tldnaf Population Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready _ Zone'- Total - Unbuifdable Buildable Surplusl Surplus SF -. .MF Sr. Apts. Total --Sr MP Sr.Apts. Total -SF - -MF -Sr.Apts, Total City (as of Apr-12) (1) PENDING CD 0.165 0 0.165 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 HUR 19.09 1.891 17.199 0 124 126 0 250 124 126 0 250 345 232 0 577 MFDA 69.265 39.384 29.891 0 289 0 0 288 288 0 0 288 802 0 0 802 MFR 2178 0.304 1.874 0 32 0 0 32 32 0 0 32 89 0 0 89 MUN B,296 2.224 6.073 0 55 0 0 55 55 0 0 55 153 0 0 153 SR 80.761 42.325 38.437 0 307 0 0 307 307 0 0 307 855 0 0 855 UR 113,343 41,049 72,295 0 537 0 0 537 537 0 0 537 1495 0 0 1495 J WR 2.847 0.006 2.841 0 17 0 0 17 17 0 0 17 47 0 0 47 Sum 295,944 127.181 168.764 0 1361 126 0 1487 1361 126 0 1487 3789 232 0 4021 Sum 295.944 127.181 168.764 0 1351 126 0 1487 1351 126 0 1487 3789 232 0 4021 (2)VACANT HUR 24.407 15,071 9.396 0 3 73 0 76 2 59 0 61 7 103 0 115 N MFR 3.696 2.4 1.296 0 5 9 16 30 4 7 13 24 11 13 15 40 n MS 2.744 0.201 2.543 0 0 62 0 62 0 50 0 50 0 92 0 92 W MU 1.581 0,503 0.978 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 MUN 0.324 0 0.324 0 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 6 0 6 tp SR 27.079 28,264 8.815 0 43 0 0 43 35 0 0 35 97 0 0 97 N UR 43.893 19.068 24.824 0 128 0 0 128 103 0 0 103 288 0 0 288 Cp WR 7.292 4.234 3.05E 0 14 0 0 14 11 0 0 11 31 0 0 31 co Sum 121.026 59,841 51.174 0 193 151 16 360 156 122 13 291 434 224 15 673 O_ A W MARKET -READY HUR 11.974 7.398 4.576 0 3 35 0 38 3 33 0 36 8 61 0 69 MS 2.55 0 2.55 0 0 63 0 63 0 60 0 60 0 110 0 110 MUN 3.452 1.065 2.388 0 0 35 0 35 0 33 0 33 0 fit 0 61 SR 12.379 8.999 3.39 0 13 0 0 13 12 0 0 12 34 0 0 34 UR 11,901 10.732 1,169 0 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 24 0 0 24 Sum 42,256 28.195 14.061 0 25 133 0 158 24 126 0 150 66 232 0 299 Sum 163,271 98,036 65.235 0 218 284 16 518 180 248 13 441 Boo 457 15 972 (3)PARTUSE HUR 53.978 9.095 44.884 34.341 0 257 0 257 0 171 0 171 0 314 0 314 MFR 0,986 0,489 0,493 0.211 0 1 2 3 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 3 MUN 0.635 0.29 0.345 0.151 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 SR 84.916 17.563 67353 52.145 191 0 0 l81 120 0 0 120 335 0 0 335 UR 125.313 24.086 101.228 71.039 320 0 0 320 213 0 0 213 592 0 0 592 WR 8,947 3,74 5,207 3.531 12 0 0 12 8 0 0 8 22 0 0 22 Sum 274.776 55.262 219.514 161.418 513 260 2 775 341 173 1 515 950 318 2 1269 MARKET -READY HUR 1.391 0.094 1,297 0.945 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 12 0 12 UR 4.516 1.658 2.859 2.608 14 0 0 14 13 0 0 13 37 0 0 37 sum 5.908 1.752 4,156 3.553 14 7 0 21 13 7 0 20 37 12 0 49 Sum 280.684 57.014 223.67 164.971 527 257 2 796 354 180 1 535 987 330 2 1319 (4)REDEV HUR 159.512 46.835 111,676 0 -65 893 0 828 -43 594 0 551 -120 1093 0 972 MFR 11.481 4.802 6.678 0 20 53 85 158 13 35 57 105 37 65 66 168 MS 4.281 0.126 4.155 0 0 102 0 102 0 68 0 68 0 125 0 125 MU 5.244 4.585 0,659 0 -1 2 0 1 -1 1 0 1 -2 2 0 1 MUN 26.307 3.499 22,308 0 -24 933 0 309 -i6 221 0 205 -44 407 0 363 SR 38.968 15.366 23.602 0 69 0 0 69 46 0 0 46 128 0 0 128 UR 96.874 30,801 66.073 0 304 8 0 312 202 5 0 207 563 10 0 573 WR 6.478 2,74 3,732 0 10 0 0 10 7 0 0 7 19 0 0 19 Sum 348.145 108,756 239.389 0 313 1391 85 1789 208 925 57 1190 579 1702 66 2348 MARKET READY HUR 37.072 20.769 15.303 0 -5 133 0 126 -5 126 0 122 -13 232 0 219 SR 4,061 0,796 31255 0 12 0 0 12 11 0 0 11 32 0 0 32 Sum 41.133 21,565 19.568 0 7 133 0 140 7 125 0 133 19 232 0 251 Sum 389.278 130,321 258.957 0 320 1524 85 1929 21.S 1051 57 1323 598 1935 66 2599 City(as of Apr-12)Subtota3* 1129.178 412.552 715.626 154.971 2426 2201 103 4730 2110 1505 71 3786 5874 2954 83 8911 • - outslde of Clty Apr-2002 boundaries '. .-. Additional Housing Unit CapacAy -Additional Housing Unit Cdpatlty Acres- - - - (before redUction s] (after reductions) Additional population Ca aci - Jurisdiction. .. Land Status Market Ready Zone Total UnWildable Buildable. Surplus _ SF :M.F Sr, A u.: -.. -. Total - - 5F MF Sr. Apts. - Total - - 5F MF Sr. Apts: Total Unincorporated (1)PENDING ULDR 38.297 10.353 27.944 0 159 0 0 169 159 0 0 169 470 0 0 470 UMDR 5,361 0,082 5,778 0 58 a 0 56 58 0 0 58 151 0 0 161 Sum 43.557 10.435 33.222 0 227 0 0 227 227 0 0 227 632 0 0 632 Sum 43.657 10.435 33.222 0 227 0 0 227 227 0 0 227 632 0 0 632 _� (2)VACANT OLDS 22,659 10.197 12,492 0 50 0 0 60 48 0 0 48 135 0 0 135 Sum 22.669 10,197 12.492 0 60 0 0 60 48 0 MARKET -READY ULDR 5.804 0 5.804 0 29 0 0 29 28 a Sum - 5.E04 0 5.904 0 29 a 0 29 28 0 Sum 28.493 10.197 18.296 0 89 a 0 89 76 0 (3)PARTUSE ULDR 308,134 72.795 255.339 197,431 905 0 0 903 600 0 UMDR 0.581 0 0.581 0.384 2 1 0 3 1 1 Sum 305.715 _ 72.795 735.92 197.815 905 1 0 906 602 1 MARKET -READY ULDR 1.864 0.527 1.336 0.842 4 0 0 4 4 0 54m 1.864 0.527 1.336 0.842 4 0 0 4 4 0 54m 310,578 73.323 237,255 198.657 909 1 0 910 606 1 (4)REDEV ULDR 113,796 26.092 87.704 0 390 a 0 390 259 0 Sum 113-796 26.092 67.704 0 390 0 0 390 259 0 MARKET -READY ULDR 10,479 1.033 9.446 0 45 0 0 45 43 0 Sum 10,479 1.033 9.446 0 45 0 0 45 43 0 54m 124.275 27.126 97.149 0 435 0 0 435 302 0 Unincorporated Subtotal 507,004 121,08 385,923 198.657 1660 1 0 1661 1211 1 UGA Total 1839.73 626.712 1212.016 396.153 4503 2283 212 6998 3651 1661 0 46 135 0 0 135 0 28 77 0 0 77 a 28 77 0 0 17 0 76 212 0 0 212 0 600 1572 0 0 1672 0 2 4 1 0 5 0 602 1675 1 0 1677 0 4 11 0 0 11 0 4 11 0 0 11 0 606 1686 1 0 1687 0 259 722 0 0 722 0 259 722 0 0 722 0 43 119 0 0 119 0 43 119 0 0 119 0 302 841 0 0 841 0 1211 3371 1 0 3372 145 5465 10190 3056 170 13415 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT N Figure Emii Lake Stevens UGA Employment 9,000 ..,........, v I N 8,000 N O p 7,000 A-- - -----{ j--- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —_,..gym ... .... 6,0W - ---- -- -- 5,o00 -_ - -- ------- - ----^-- -- _ ---------^- E .,-----.-----'_ _.-.- ------ 7 - — -- ----- . �� - " �-.�.^. ----------,--,---,-.-,�.,--.-.----.-.-,--.-,-..----.-----_,----_,��,__-�.----_---- a,aaa E ---- l w 3,000 l I 2,000 f 1,000 Q N N N O O O N O O O N N O O O N O O ry N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry ry N Lake Stevens UGA ---Total 2025 Employment Capacity — -50% of 2005-2025 Addinl Emp Capacity 2005 Employment Estimate ---2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection --*--SIC Annual Employment Estimates"--A—NAICSAnnual Employment Estimates' Table Emp-F. Lake Stevens UGA Employment Statistics (A) ..:': (B) I; (C).. (D (E7 (FY'. Employment Estir ;ales 2045=11 , 2005 25 , 2005.-25 2005=11 Change NurtlencQ25 . Numeric . Total `` 4ctdt i1 as /; of 2005.25 2002 ` 2402 Change CFP Emp Change 2025 Emp Cap Adfnl Emp Cap . 2000 :20.01 SIC NAICS' 2003 2004 .. '2005 200$ NV 2008 2009 2010 2011 ' =' B ' -' A Tar et = b -(A) ' Em Ca - E - A = C ! F .100: 3,625 3,526 3,799 3,919 4,061 4,033 4,475 4,695 5,031 4,822 4,417 4,201 4,003 -472 6,615 2,140 7,988 3,513 -13.41/. ' The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAILS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different LJGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system. Data for 2002 is shown using both systems, In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates. Employment Lake Stevens UGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) 21./2012 PAC FINAL DRAFT Dec - m n CD Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Ready Zane Total. Unb.uildable Surplus "'Before Reductions After Reductions ...Market .`.Buildable CD N City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING P/5P 16.844 3.033 13,81 0 14 14 C) N Sum 16,844 3,033 13.81 0 14 14 o Sum 16,844 3.033 13.81 0 14 14 A W (2) VACANT CBD 0.637 0.348 0.289 0 4 3 GI 8.807 0-591 8.216 0 63 51 LI 0.997 0.296 0.691 C 11 9 PBD 0.722 0 0.722 0 11 9 Sum 11.1S3 1.235 9.918 0 89 72 MARKET -READY PBD 18.048 8,572 9.476 0 147 140 Sum 18.048 8.572 9.476 0 147 140 Sum 29.2 9.606 19.394 0 236 212 (3) PARTUSE CBD 0.623 0 0.623 0.08 1 1 GI 2,564 0 2.564 1.655 13 9 L€ 0.886 0 0.886 0.155 2 1 MU 1.502 0 1.50Z 0,594 9 6 Sum 5,575 0 5.575 2.483 25 17 Sum 5,575 0 5.575 2.483 25 17 (4) REDEV CBD 5.817 1.546 4.271 0 57 38 GI 47,167 8,49 36.677 0 236 157 LB 4.117 0.92 3.196 0 50 33 U 5.535 2.606 2.929 0 46 31 MU 3.92 0,441 3.36 0 52 35 PBD 3.72 2.141 1.579 0 24 16 Sum 70,176 16,144 54.032 0 465 309 Sum 70,176 16,144 54,032 0 465 309 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 121.795 28.984 92.811 2.483 74D 551 Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status- MarketReady Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surpiusj Before Reductions After Reductions City (as of Jun-12)* (1) PENDING BD 2.911 1.211 1.6 0 75 75 CD 3.252 3.252 0 0 51 51 HUR 35.021 1.15E 33.863 0 75 75 Sum 41.084 5.621 35.463 0 201 201 Sum 41.084 5.621 35.463 0 201 201 (2) VACANT RD 22.077 6.293 15,784 C 553 447 MS 2.744 0.2D1 2.543 0 25 20 MU 1.581 0.03 0,978 0 15 12 MUN 0.324 0 0.324 0 1 1 NB 0.708 0 0.708 0 11 9 Sum 27.435 7.097 70.337 0 605 489 0 c� N d CD m N 0 to o_ A w MARKET -READY CD 0.601 0 0.601 0 11 10 GIDA 6.993 4.815 2,178 D 16 15 LB 0.965 0 0.965 0 15 14 MS 2.55 0 2.55 D 25 24 MUN 3.452 1.065 2.388 0 7 7 Sum 14.561 5.86 8.681 0 74 70 Sum 41.996 12.977 29.019 0 679 559 (3) PARTUSE BD 8.239 1.989 6.25 3,755 132 88 CD 6.052 0.191 5.862 1,913 34 23 LS 1.304 0 1.304 0.405 6 4 NB 1.445 0.774 0.671 0.098 2 1 Sum 17,041 2.953 14,087 6.171 174 116 Sum 17.041 2.953 14.087 6.171 174 116 (4) REDEV ED 43,578 19,697 23.891 0 837 557 CD 9.07 2.772 6.298 0 97 65 LB 2.209 0.119 2.09 0 21 14 MS 0,766 0 0.766 0 7 5 MU 5.244 4.585 0.658 0 10 7 MUN 25.944 3.296 22.648 0 68 45 NB 16,161 10,111 6.05 0 75 50 5um 102,972 40,571 62.401 0 1115 741 MARKET -READY CD 40.985 21.139 19.846 0 345 328 NB 0.867 0,253 0,614 0 7 7 Sum 41.R53 21.392 20.46 0 352 334 Sum 144,824 61.963 82,861 0 1467 1076 City (as ofJun-12) Subtotal* 244,946 83.515 161.431 6.171 2521 1951 * - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries ACres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total :UnbuildableBuildable SVPILS1 Before Reductions After Reductions Unincorporated (2) VACANT Ui 8,631 0.036 8.595 0 105 85 Sum 8,631 0.036 9,595 0 105 85 5um 8.631 0.036 8.595 0 105 85 (3) PARTUSE UI 9.493 1.225 8.268 6.953 84 56 5um 9.493 1.225 8.268 6.953 84 56 5um 9.493 1.225 8.268 6.953 84 56 (4) REDEV UI 51.77 11.888 39,981 0 473 315 5um 51.77 11.888 39.881 0 473 315 5um 51.77 11.889 39.881 0 473 315 Unincorporated Subtotal 69.894 13.15 56.744 5.953 662 455 UGA Total 436,635 125,649 310,986 15,607 3923 2957 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Lake Stevens UGA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Acre in Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Zone I Develo meet Develo ed Devela ed Units Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Employment Per Acre Assumed Within City Zones: Suburban & Waterfront Residential Single Family 167.77 100% 670 3.98 4.00 (1) - - - - Multi -Family 0.70 0% 4 0.02 0.00 (l) - - - - Total 168.46 100% 674 4.00 4,00 (l) - - - - - 1- The densities assumed in Suburban and Waterfront Residential simplify the historic development by including the one multi -family project, a four - unit condominium consisting of two duplex buildings, with the single-family densities. Urban Residential Single Family 32.15 96% 181 5.43 5.43 - - - - Multi -Family 1.18 4% 10 0.30 0.30 - - - - Total 33.33 100% 191 5.73 5.73 - - - - High Urban Residential Senior Apartments 5.22 100% 54 10.35 8.25 (2) 2- A lower desnities is assumed in High Urban Residential than was observed because the only project built so far has been Ashley Point Alternacare, a senior- and disabled -only housing project, whereas traditional multifamily development is what would normally be expected (albeit at lower densities). Multi -Family Residential Single Family 1.33 24% 19 3.40 3.40 - - - - - Multi -Family 2,01. 36% 45 8.05 8.05 - - - - - Senior Apartments 2.25 40% 72 12.87 12.87 - - - - - Total. 5.59 100% 136 24.32 24.32 - - - - - Planned Business District Proposed Commercial (3) 15.28 100% - - - 94,200 0.14 237 15.51 15.51 3- There has been no development yet in PBD. An expired project called "Centennial Center" is being used to estimate likely future densities. Lake Stevens UGA 12/27/2012 1 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 8of11 N m N O Cn a A w DQ C' DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Lake Stevens UGA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units 1 Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Acre in Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Zone Development Developed, Developed Units Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Employment Per Acre Assumed Mixed Use Mixed Use 0.32 100% 1 3.12 3.12 7,818 0.56 22 69.57 15.51 (4) ,ocal Business Commercial 1.13 100% - - - 1,138 0.02 3 2.22 15.51(4) Ventral Business District Commercial 0.10 100% - - - 1,064 0.24 2 14.73 15.51(4) - The sample size of development in the Mixed Use, Local Business, and Central Business District zones is too small to be reliable. As a ubstitute, the employment density from Planned Business District is being used. This approach is similar to the 2007 Buildable Lands .eport where the unincorporated employment density for the Urban Commercial plan designation was used. Use of PBD instead of UC ties ie assumed densities to city standards. ub-Regional Commercial Commercial 1.89 100% - - - 17,388 0.21 33 1.7.65 17.65 ,ight Industrial (5) Industrial and ColYunercial 2.28 100% 1 0.44 0.44 27,058 0.27 36 15.67 15.67 ,eneral Industrial (5) Industrial and Commercial 21.63 100% 2 0.09 0.09 168,868 O.18 164 7.57 7.57 - Residential density estimates are being retained because of the occasional caretaker units in the industrial zones. Lake Stevens UGA 12127/2012 2 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 9 of 11 v C CD CD N O rn O A w DRAFT Lake Stevens UGA Table AY: Development History (1995 to 2010) p�0 Buildable Buildable Type of Acres Acres Zone Development Developed Developer 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Units / Dwelling Acre in Units Total Zone Non -Residential Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Density Non -Res. I Area Total Employment Density Assumed Square Feet Ratio Employment Per Acre Assumed ............... ............. ......... .......... ... I....... Business District New'Zone --No Data 35.00 (6} ..... 6- The new Business District zone is expected to develop in an business park format of 1-3 story office and industrial buildings with some other supporting uses. The employment by job sector is assumed to be: 18 Services, 7 Manufacturing, 5 FIRE, 3 Food Services, and 2 Retail. (Commercial District New Zone -- A.ssumecl.to be Comparable to Sub -Re �Main Street Business 25,Q0 1p.04 (7) 7- The employment by job sector in Main Street Business is expected to be 5 Food Services and 5 Services. Mixed -Use Neighborhood (New Projects on Vacant Land or Redeveloped Sites) (8) Mixed -Use. New Zone -, No Data 15 New Zone No Data 3 8- The employment by job sector in MUN zoning for new projects is assumed to be 3 Servcies. xed-Use Neighborhood (Infill development on Partially -Used Sites) Mixed Use New Zone -- No Data 15 New: Zone`=- NO Data: - ............................._........... . ighborhood Business New Zone -- Assumed to be Comparable to Local Business Lake Stevens UGA 3 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 10 of 11 0 v CD m N O 0 A W DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Lake Stevens UGA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Acre in Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Zone Development Developed Developed, Units Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Employment .Per Acre Assumed ;Within County Plan Designations: 'Urban Low Density Residential (2000 to 2010 Sample) Single -Family 201.06 100% 1,005 5.00 5.00 - - - - - Urban Medium Density Residential (2000 to 2010 Sample) Lake Stevens UGA 4 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Maltby UGA Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report -December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT —Total 2025 Employment Capacity --- 50% of 2005-2025 Aci Emp Capacity p^m^-2005 Employment Estimate ---•2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection SIC Annual Employment Estimates" A NAICS Annual Employment Estimates' Table Enrl Maltby UGA Employment Statistics Employment Estimates . 2005=1 t 2005 25 '.' 200$-25 2005 11 Change Numeric 2025 Numeric:': Total: ..Addtnl as 'A of20�J5-25 2002 2002 . Change CPP Emp Change.< 2025` Emp. Cap Addlnl Emp Cap. 2000.' 2001 SIC NAICS 2003 .:'2004 12005 2006 .2007 :2008 2009 2010 2011 = 6 A Target: 1] -.(A) '` Em Ga = E - A s= C / P *100' 1,677 2,064 2,107 2,395 2,879 3,078 3,388 3,811 3,917 3,546 2,837 3,136 3,190 -178 4,960 1,592 7,942 4,574 -3,9% " The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAICS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system. Data for 2002 is shown using both systems. In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates. Employment T v N 0 0 a W Maltby UGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total Unbuild.able Buildable Surplus ' Before Reductions; After Reductions Unincorporated (1) PENDING UI 58.599 17.409 41.19 0 423 423 Sum 58.599 17.409 41.19 0 423 423 Sum 58.S99 17.409 41.19 0 423 423 (2) VACANT U I 36.027 13.72 22.307 0 487 393 Sum 36.027 13.72 22.307 0 487 393 MARKET -READY UCOM 27.983 16.26 11.723 0 190 181 Ul 18.035 4.11 13.925 0 304 289 Sum 46.018 20.369 25.649 0 494 469 Sum 82.045 34.09 47.955 0 981 863 (3) PARTUSE UCOM 8.491 0.353 8.138 6.117 99 66 UI 99.002 5.62 93.382 60.763 81S 542 5um 107.493 5.973 101.52 66.88 914 608 Sum 107,493 5.973 101.52 66.88 914 608 (4) REDEV UCOM 17.079 0 17.079 0 276 184 UI 188.835 33.403 155.432 0 3016 2006 Sum 205.914 33.403 172.511 0 3292 2189 MARKET -READY UI 2.923 0.722 2.201 0 48 46 Sum 2.923 0.722 2.201 0 48 46 Sum 208.837 34.125 174,712 0 3340 2235 Unincorporated Total 456.974 91.597 365.377 66.88 5658 4128 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 3 DRAFT Maltby UGA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units I Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density Zone or Plan Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total: Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development In Unincorporated Designations Urban Industrial — New Projects Non -Residential 93.04 100% - - - 1,309,298 0.32 2,029 21.81 21.81 Urban Industrial -- Infill Projects Non -Residential 90.23 100% - - - 728,414 0.19 1,213 13.44 13.44 Urban Commercial -- All Projects Non -Residential . No Date 4.05 (1) No Bata 16.1$ (1) 1- In the absence of new development in Urban Commercial in the Maltby UGA, the Urban Commercial densities of the Southwest UGA are being used. Maltby UGA 12/27/2012 1 Snohomish County Planning and development Services Development Summary 3 of 3 MarysviVe UGA Population 9D,o0o 60,000 70,000 ecxu 0 50 000 .p a a o 40,000 4 30,000 2quoa 10,000 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lauds Report - December 13, 2012 PACDRAFT Figure Pop-G. Marysville UGA Population N N fV [�! N � ry N ry N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n[ N ry ry N N N n —Total 2025 Population Capacity — 50 % of 2005-2025 Addtni Pop Capacity ^ 2005 Population Estimate ----2002-2025 Pop Grewth Target Projection —Annual Popuiatlon Estimates (pre -Census 2010) --4—Anrual Population Estimates (post -Census 2010) Table Pop-G. Marysville UGA Population Statistics (A) {8) (G) (D) (E) (F) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 2005-11 Change Pop Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnl as % of 2005-25 Diff. (Census -Est) Charge CPP Pop Change 2025 Pop Cap Addtnl Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pop No. Pot. 2011 = B - A Target = D - A Pop Cap E - A = C / F *100 47,424 49,847 50,828 52,089 52,978 53,926 55,034 56,695 57,771 58,539 59,216 60,183 965 1.6% 60,869 6,942 79,800 25,874 64,829 30,902 22.5% N C m N tQ N N O A W Marysville UGA - Additiona€ Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Additional Housing Unit Capacity . Addttiona€ Housing Unit Capacity - Acres (before reductions) ,-(a.fter reducticnc) -, - Add€ tonal Population Capacity Jurisdiction.:.::.:`.:. Land Status '; ..Morket Ready Zone .. - - Total Unbuildable . > BLIFdable .. Surplust 5F : MF".S%Apts: -.. Total � � . - SF MF . Sr. Apts. Tctall SP: .- :- N4I, Sr. ApLs..' -`-' Total city (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING MU 11.072 0 11L072 0 0 204 0 204 0 204 0 204 0 375 0 375 R12 MFL 2.981 0 2.981 0 0 36 0 36 0 36 C 36 0 66 0 66 Rib MFM 52917 7.379 44.538 0 184 79 0 263 194 79 C 253 512 145 0 658 R28 MFH 0.767 0 0.767 0 1 19 0 20 1 19 0 20 3 35 0 38 R4.55rM 17,009 L622 15,387 0 63 0 0 63 63 0 0 63 175 0 0 175 R6.5 SFH 22,487 9.812 12.675 0 86 0 0 Be 66 0 0 86 239 0 0 239 Sum 106.233 19.813 87,419 0 334 338 0 672 334 338 0 672 930 622 0 1552 Sum 106.233 18.813 87,419 0 334 338 0 672 334 338 0 672 930 522 0 1552 (2) VACANT DC 11.27 3.186 8,094 0 1 28 0 29 1 23 0 23 2 42 0 44 GC 26.924 0.274 26.65 0 0 5 0 5 0 4 0 4 0 7 0 7 GC(MUO) 2.066 0 2,066 0 0 19 0 19 0 15 0 15 0 28 0 28 MU 1.194 0 1,194 0 0 9 0 9 0 7 0 7 0 13 0 13 R12 MFL 1.541 0 1,541 0 8 5 0 13 6 4 0 1n 18 7 0 25 R18 MFM 33.053 11.56 2L493 0 - 59 246 0 305 48 199 0 245 133 366 0 498 R26 MFH 1.195 0 1.195 0 C 7 15 22 0 6 12 18 0 10 14 25 R4,5 SFM 25.997 12.257 11639 0 60 0 0 60 48 0 0 48 135 0 0 135 R6.5 SFH 6.686 3807 2.979 0 15 0 0 15 12 0 0 12 34 0 0 34 R8 SFH-SL 0-753 0 0.753 0 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 9 Sum 110.578 31085 79.493 0 147 319 15 491 119 258 12 388 330 474 14 919 MARKET -READY GC 109.223 15.036 94.187 0 C 20 0 20 0 19 0 19 0 35 0 35 MU 52.695 18.595 34.1 0 0 277 0 277 0 263 0 263 0 484 0 484 R18 MFM 1.695 0.011 1.685 0 4 19 0 23 4 18 0 22 11 33 0 44 R4.5 SFM 8,819 2.772 6.046 0 26 0 0 26 25 0 0 25 69 0 0 69 R6.5 SFH 8.264 0.925 7.238 0 34 0 0 34 32 0 0 32 90 0 0 90 Sum 180.597 37.34 143.257 0 64 316 0 380 61 300 0 361 169 552 0 722 Sum 291.175 68.425 222.75 0 211 635 15 851 180 559 12 749 Soo 1026 14 1540 (3)PARTUSE 88-MU 1.754 0.954 0.799 0.478 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 MU 4.694 0 4.694 4.063 0 32 0 32 0 21 0 21 0 39 0 39 R12 MFL 3.208 0 3.208 1.799 10 7 0 17 7 5 0 11 19 9 0 27 R18 MFM 1.968 0.649 1,319 0.647 0 6 0 6 0 4 0 4 C 7 0 7 R4.5 SFM 158.611 29.592 127.019 102.903 411 0 0 411 273 0 0 273 761 0 0 761 R6.55FH _ 70.738 8.37 52.368 46.665 191 0 C 191 127 0 0 127 354 0 0 354 R8 SFH-SL 5.952 0 5.952 3.238 19 0 0 19 13 0 0 13 35 0 0 35 Sum 244.925 39.565 205.359 159393 621 48 0 679 420 32 0 452 1158 S9 0 1227 MARKET -READY R6.5 SFH 2.671 0.054 2.617 1,855 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 21 0 0 21 Sum 2.671 0.054 Z.617 1.855 8 0 0 8 a 0 0 8 21 0 0 21 Sum 247.595 39.619 207.916 161.648 639 48 0 697 427 32 0 459 1189 59 0 1249 (4)REUEV DC 15582 0 15.582 0 0 46 0 46 0 31 0 31 0 56 0 55 GC 18,403 0 18.403 0 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 5 C 5 GC(M 00) 13.326 0 13.326 0 -21 119 0 98 -14 79 0 55 -39 146 0 107 MU 38,545 0.835 37.91 0 -55 285 0 230 -37 190 0 153 -102 349 0 247 R12 MFL 6317 0 6317 0 10 20 0 30 7 13 0 20 19 24 0 43 Rib MFM 36.3 0.434 35.865 0 -2 353 0 351 -1 235 0 233 -4 432 0 428 R28 MFH 2O.667 0.146 20.521 0 -1 103 241 333 -1 68 154 221 -2 126 181 305 R4.5 SFM 94.006 36.278 57.729 0 225 0 0 225 150 0 0 150 417 0 0 417 R65 SFH 43,377 17,445 25,932 0 104 0 0 104 69 0 0 69 193 0 0 193 RR SFH-SL 0.723 0 D.723 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 01 /02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2of11 0 O C N N CO N N_ W O A Cl) Sum 287.347 55.137 232.209 0 26Z 930 231 1423 174 GIB 154 946 485 1138 181 1804 MARKET -READY DC 5.659 1.946 3.713 0 0 13 0 13 C 12 0 12 0 23 0 23 MU 1.766 0 1.766 0 -1 14 0 13 -1 13 0 12 -3 24 0 22 R18 MFM 0.624 0 0.624 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 10 0 10 R28 MFH 0.513 0 0.513 0 0 2 6 8 0 2 6 8 0 3 7 10 Sum 9.563 1.946 6.616 0 -1 35 5 40 -1 33 6 38 -3 61 7 65 Sum 295.909 57.084 238.825 0 261 965 237 1463 173 652 1-99 994 482 1199 197 1869 City (as of Apr-02)Subtota[ 940.912 193.941 756.971 161,648 1445 1986 252 3683 1114 1579 171 2865 3101 2906 202 6209 Additional Housing Unit Capacity - - Additional Housing Unit Cjpa&y Acres (before reductions} - - . (after reductions) Additional Population Capacity Jurisdiction -.-.'.Land Status - Market Ready .� . _ Zone Total - Un6uilda6ie - Buildable - Surplusl SF W Sr. Apts, . �.. Total Si'. ME - Sr. Apts. - Totall SF'- - ME -Sr, Apts, Total City (as of Apr-12) " (1) PENDING GC LW 39,859 0,371 39,487 0 -3 328 0 325 -3 328 0 325 -8 604 0 595 - R12 MFL 0.459 0 0.459 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 9 0 9 R18 MFM 19.241 0.128 19.112 0 59 240 0 299 59 240 0 299 164 447 0 606 R4.5 SFM 41.363 8.458 32.904 0 158 0 0 158 158 0 0 158 440 0 0 440 R6-18 MFL 4,629 0 4,629 0 40 0 0 40 40 0 0 40 ill 0 0 ill R6.5 SFH 161.398 35.317 126.081 0 783 0 0 783 783 0 C 783 2190 0 0 2180 Sum 266.948 44.275 222.673 0 1037 573 0 1610 1037 573 0 1610 2887 1054 0 3941 Sum 266.948 44.275 222,513 0 1037 573 0 1610 1037 573 0 2610 2887 1054 0 3941 (2) VACANT GC LW 19.567 0,283 19.284 0 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 6 0 6 MU 7.75E 0 7.758 0 0 62 0 62 0 50 0 50 0 92 0 92 MU LW 6.772 0,096 6,685 0 0 54 0 54 0 44 0 44 0 80 0 90 R12 MFL 29,176 8.368 20,807 0 1l6 81 0 197 94 65 0 159 261 120 0 381 R18 MFM 0.722 0 0.722 0 2 8 0 10 2 6 0 8 4 12 0 16 R4-8 SFH 10.981 0 10.981 0 65 0 0 65 52 0 0 52 146 0 0 146 R4.5 SFM 13.321 3.191 10.13 0 Al 0 0 41 33 0 0 33 92 0 0 92 R6-1R MFi 12.614 0,254 12,36 0 73 73 0 146 - 59 59 0 118 164 109 0 273 R6.5 SFH 81.923 29,395 52.528 0 241 0 0 241 195 0 0 195 542 0 0 542 Sum 182,833 41.577 141.256 0 530 28z 0 820 434 228 0 662 1209 419 0 1528 MARKET READY GC LW 18.813 0 18.813 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 7 0 7 RSS MFM 13.129 4.381 8.747 0 25 101 0 1z6 24 96 0 120 66 117 0 243 R4.5 SFM 1.693 . 0.637 1.056 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 R6-18 MFL 3.63 0 3.63 0 21 21 0 42 20 20 0 40 56 37 0 92 R6.5 5F1H 53.976 16.194 37.782 C 176 0 0 176 267 C 0 167 465 0 0 465 Be SFH-SL 9.725 0 9.725 0 77 0 0 77 73 0 0 73 204 0 0 204 SUm 100.966 21.212 79.753 0 303 126 0 429 288 120 0 408 801 220 0 1022 Sum 283,799 62,79 221.009 C 841 408 0 1249 722 347 0 1070 2011 639 0 2550 (3) PARTIJSE MU 14.619 0.454 14.165 11.59 0 91 0 91 0 51 0 fil 0 Ili 0 ill R12 MFL 2.517 0 2.517 1.997 10 7 0 17 7 5 0 11 19 9 0 z7 R18 MFM z,558 0.075 2,493 1,685 4 18 0 22 3 12 0 15 7 22 0 29 R4-8 SFH 59.79 0.002 59.789 54.09 314 0 0 314 209 0 0 209 581 0 C 581 R4,5 5FM 262..316 56,414 205.9C2 157,778 604 0 0 604 402 0 0 4C2 - ills 0 0 ills R6-18 MFL 64.287 0.809 63.478 55,656 317 317 0 634 211 211 0 422 587 388 0 975 R6.5 5FH 364.873 35.384 329.439 266.653 1139 C 0 1139 757 0 0 757 2109 0 0 2109 R85FH-SL 11.914 0 11,914 11.273 89 0 0 89 59 0 0 59 165 0 C 155 Sum 792.874 93.137 689.736 560.732 2477 433 0 2910 1647 288 0 1935 4585 530 0 5116 MARKET -READY MU 0.965 D 0.988 C.747 0 6 0 6 C 5 0 6 0 10 0 10 R12 MFL 2.962 0.201 2.761 2,379 13 9 0 22 12 9 0 21 34 16 0 50 R6-18 MFL 7.251 0 7.251 6.34 36 36 0 72 34 34 0 68 95 63 0 158 R6.5 SFH 33.353 13.066 20.287 17.86 80 0 0 80 76 0 0 76 212 0 0 212 Sum 44,554 13.266 31.288 27.325 129 51 0 180 123 48 0 171 341 89 0 430 - Sum 827,428 106A04 721-024 588.057 2606 484 0 3090 1770 336 0 2106 4927 619 0 5546 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3of11 (4)REDEV CB MU MU LW R12 MFL R18 MFM R4-S SFH R4,5 SFM Ft6-18 MFL R6.5 5FH RS SFH-SL Sum MARKET -READY MU R4.5 SFM Ft6-18 MFL R6.5 SFH Sum Sum City (as of Apr-12) Subtotal * ' - outside of City Apr-2002 houndarie5 UGA Total 45.021 6.545 39.476 0 0 1 C 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 20.584 2.322 18.262 0 -8 145 0 137 -5 96 0 91 .15 177 0 163 77.909 0.114 77.195 0 -13 623 C 610 -9 414 0 406 -24 762 0 738 35.638 6.739 20.899 0 153 122 0 265 102 74 0 176 283 137 0 420 15.413 1.393 14.02 0 20 155 0 175 13 103 0 116 37 190 0 227 53.432 0.146 53.296 0 301 0 0 301 200 0 0 200 557 0 0 557 87.251 32.498 54.753 0 193 0 0 198 132 0 0 132 367 0 0 367 32.629 O.O1S 32.61 0 172 188 0 360 114 125 0 239 319 230 0 549 149.514 11.281 138.233 0 590 0 0 590 392 0 0 392 1092 0 C 1092 12.713 0 12.713 0 98 0 0 98 65 0 0 65 181 0 0 181 530.103 61.657 468.446 D 1511 1224 0 2735 1005 914 0 1819 2797 1498 0 4295 18,727 4.759 13,967 0 -3 113 0 110 -3 107 0 1D5 -9 198 0 190 101.688 45.025 56.663 0 245 0 0 245 233 0 0 233 648 0 0 648 6.229 0.047 6.182 0 34 36 0 70 - 32 34 0 67 90 63 0 153 38.141 9.576 28.565 0 124 0 0 124 118 0 0 118 328 0 0 328 164,795 59.407 105.377 0 400 149 0 549 380 142 0 522 1058 260 0 1318 694,887 121,064 573,823 0 1911 1373 0 3284 1395 956 D 2340 3855 1755 0 5613 2073.062 334.533 1738.529 598.057 6395 2838 0 9233 4914 2212 C 7126 13680 4071 0 17751 8013.974 518.474 2495.5 749.705 7840 4824 752 12916 6028 3791 171 9991 16791 6977 202 23960 01 /02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 4of11 Snohomish Caunty Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December 13, 2012 PAC DRA F`T Figure Emp-H. Marysville UGA Employment 35,000 F.. . ..... ... ........ . ... . . ....... .,..,..,..,.. ., .,..,..,..,., .........., 30,000 i 25,000 I i 2o,aaa _ - ----- - n___- --- - --------- o-- - - Q. 15,000 _ - - --- " _ _ ___ _ __ lu_ ____ _ 11 10,000 5,000 I 0 o cv n m n m rn a N n a n ca m o .n a o a o o a o o a o o N ry rr% N o a a a a o o a o o a o o a a o 0 O o 0 0 N N n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Marysville UGA —Total 2025 Employment Capacity — 50% of 2005-2025 Addtnl Emp Capacity m- F2005 Employment Estimate ----2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection -FSIC Annual Employment Estimates* NAICS Annual Employment Estimates' Table Emp-H. Marysville UGA Employment Statistics (A) (B)h (�)' {D) (E) (F)i' Emplcyri ant Estimates 2005-� 1 2p05-25 2005-25 200541 Change Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnl as'/o of2005-25 2002 . 2002 ,';: Change COP Emp Change 2025 . Emp Cap Addtnl Emp Cap 260A 2001 `` SIC i; NAICS 2003 i 2004 2005 2006 200"7 2008 2009 2010 2011< B.'><A Tar et = ❑ -.A : '<Em Ca . _ E -.' A =' C 1 F •100' 10,539 11,179 10,977 11,246 11,509 11,429 11,638 11,821 13,075 13,300 12,236 12,167 12,316 678 24,008 12,370 32,593 20,955 3.2% " The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAICS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system Data far 2002 Is shown using both systems. In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates. Employment Marysville UGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres Additional.Employment.Capacity Jurisdiction ' Land Status Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surplus Before Reductions: After Reductions City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING CB 20.65 0.124 20.526 0 234 234 DC 2.769 0 2.769 0 55 55 GC 9.233 0.128 9.105 0 58 58 LI 12,614 0,045 12.569 0 63 63 MU 11.072 0 11.072 0 180 180 R6.5 SFK 0.669 0.035 0.634 0 30 30 Sum 57,007 0.332 56.674 0 620 620 Sum 57.007 0.332 56,674 0 620 620 (2) VACANT CB 2.709 0 2.709 0 50 40 DC 11.27 3.186 8.084 0 281 227 GC 37.209 9.522 27.687 0 461 372 GC (MUO) 2.066 0 2.066 0 35 28 LI 89.824 0.229 89.595 0 916 740 MU 1.194 0 1,194 0 17 14 NB 5.056 1.782 3.274 0 60 48 Sum 149.328 14.719 134.608 0 1820 1470 MARKET -READY CB 2.347 0 2.347 0 43 41 GC 115.745 15.036 100.709 0 1709 1624 LI 105.14 9.832 95.308 0 974 925 MU 52.695 18.595 34.1 0 493 468 Sum 275.927 43.463 232.464 0 3219 3058 Sum 425.255 58.182 367.073 0 5039 4528 (3) PARTU5E 88 - MU 22.467 12.318 10.149 7.229 104 69 CB 0.9 0 0.9 0.305 7 5 GC 12,762 1,175 11.587 1.694 21 14 LI 76,957 0.704 76.253 25.897 344 229 MU 5.127 0 5.127 4,161 59 39 NB 0.328 0 0.328 0.083 2 1 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 6 of 11 m m m T m m 0 a w Sum 118.542 14.198 104.344 39.368 537 357 Sum 118,542 14.198 104,344 39.368 537 357 (4) REDEV CB 40.214 2,24 37.974 0 613 408 DC 22.041 0 22.041 0 527 350 GC 83,098 3.43 79.668 0 907 603 GC (MUC) 14.863 0 14.863 0 225 150 GI 1.047 0 1.047 0 9 6 LI 82.091 6.187 75.904 0 675 449 MU 53,593 0.835 52.758 0 753 501 NB 0.46 0 0.46 0 9 6 Sum 297.406 12.692 284.714 0 3718 2472 MARKET -READY DC 6.404 1.946 4.457 0 70 67 LI 15.507 0 15.507 0 147 140 mu 1.766 0 1.766 0 25 24 NB 0.522 0 0.522 0 9 9 Sum 24.198 1.946 22.252 0 251 238 Sum 321,605 14.638 306.966 0 3969 2711 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 922,408 87.351 835.057 39.368 10165 8216 Acres Additional Employment Capacity - Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone .. , Total Unbuildable Buildable surplusl Before Reductions After Reductions City (as of Jun-12)* (1) PENDING CB 24.272 4.736 19.536 0 357 357 GC LW 44.23 2.539 41.691 0 735 735 LI 76.254 7.425 68.829 0 1807 1807 MU LW 0.165 0 0.165 0 3 3 R6.5 SFH 9.953 0.069 9.884 0 62 62 R8 SFH-SL 48.564 2.162 46.402 0 100 100 Sum 203,438 16.929 186.508 0 3064 3064 Sum 203.439 16.929 186.508 0 3064 3064 (2) VACANT CB 22.004 1.541 20.463 0 378 305 GC LW 19.567 0.283 19.284 0 327 264 LI 9,581 1.82 7.761 0 79 64 01 /02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 7of11 T m m T m m N_ 00 2, w "j-j MU 7.758 0 7.758 0 112 90 MU LW 6.772 0.086 6,685 0 97 78 Sum 65.681 3.729 61.952 0 993 802 MARKET -READY CB 9.804 0.477 9,327 0 172 163 GC LW 20.627 0 20.627 0 350 333 LI 339.748 47.713 292.035 0 2982 2833 Sum 370.179 48.19 321.989 0 3504 3329 Sum 435.861 51.919 383,941 0 4497 4131 (3) PARTUSE CB 8.623 2.114 6.509 4.594 111 74 MU 14,619 0.454 14.165 11.59 165 110 MU LW 0.407 0 0.407 0.055 1 1 Sum 23.649 2.569 21.08 16.239 277 184 MARKET -READY MU 0.988 0 0.988 0.747 11 10 5um 0,988 0 0.988 0.747 11 10 Sum 24.637 2.569 22.069 16.985 288 195 (4) REDEV CB 132.389 15.892 116.498 0 2150 1430 GC 1.6 0 1.6 0 15 10 LI 28,477 7.554 20.923 0 213 142 MU 20.584 2,322 18.262 0 264 176 MU LW 77.69 0.714 76.976 0 1107 736 NB 1.049 0 1.049 0 19 13 Sum 261.789 26.482 235.307 0 3768 2506 MARKET -READY Ll 113.027 8,013 105,014 0 1072 1018 MU 18.727 4.759 13.967 0 202 192 5um 131.754 12.772 118.981 0 1274 1210 5um 393.543 39.254 354.288 0 5042 3716 City (as of Jun-12) Subtotal * 1057,478 110.672 946,807 16.985 12891 11105 * - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries UGA Total 1979.B86 198.023 1781.864 56.353 23056 19321 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 6of11 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Marysville UGA N m Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) v m Residential Development Non -Residential Development o Units i Acre Floor Estimated Estimated Employment � Buildable /o Buildable AZone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Employment Per Acre Assumed Within City Zones.- * 4.5 Single Family 198.22 100% 873 4.40 4.40 - - - - - R 6.5 Single Family 123.30 100% 587 4.76 4.76 - - - - - R 4-8 Single Family New Zone / No Data 6.00 - - - - - R 8 Single Family 0.41 1.00% 4 9.74 8.00(1) - - - - - 1- The sample of development in R-8 is limited to two duplex condos on existing lots. The assumed density matches the zoning because some development with be single- family detached, not just duplexes. R 12 Single Family 24.98 76% 186 5.62 5.62 - - - - - Multi -Family 8.09 24% 131 3.96 3.96 - - - - - Total 33.07 100% 317 9.58 9.58 - - - - - R 6-18 ..................................................................................... Single Family . 6.00 Multi -Family soloss New Zone is No Data 6.00 Total 12.00 R 18 Single Family 9.55 31% 90 2.96 2.96 - - - - - Multi -Family 20.88 69% 353 11.60 11.60 - - - - Total 30.44 100% 443 14.55 14.55 - - - - - Note: The sample used for R-18 excludes two large single-family condominiums because such projects are not likely on the remaining developable R-18 land. R28 Single Family 0.66 12% 6 1.12 1.12 - - - - - Multi Family 2.60 49% 37 6.93 6.93 - - - - Senior Apartments 2.08 39% 70 13.11 13.11 - - - - Total 5.34 100% 113 21.16 21.16 - - - - - Marysville UGA 1 Development Summary 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 9 of 11 T m 0 m T m m N N O 0 A DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Marysville UGA Table XX. Development History (1995 to 2010) Buildable % Buildable Residential Development Non -Residential Development Units / Acre Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Employment Per Acre Assumed ommunity Business (and Neighborhood Business) (New Projects) Non -Residential 55.46 99% - - - 528,998 0.22 1,018 18.16 18,16 Mixed Use 0.61 1% 2 0.04 0.04 8,055 0.00 16 0.29 0.29 Total 56,07 100% 2 0.04 0.04 537,053 0.22 1,034 18.45 18.45 ommnnity Business (Infr1I Projects) Non -Residential 14.76 100% 2 0.14 0.00(2) 178,311 0.28 359 24.30 24.30 !- One of the infill projects in CB was on a site that included both existing commercial and a duplex, all of which remain. This report assumes that all additional infill space vill be commercial. )owntown Commercial (New Projects) Non -Residential 1.64 55% - - - 26,041 0.20 74 24.75 24.75 Mixed Use 1.35 45% 11 3.68 3.68 12,002 0.09 30 10.04 10.04 Total 2.99 100% 11 3.68 3.68 38,043 0.29 104 34.79 34.79 )owntown Commercial (Infrll Projects) Non -Residential 5.12 100% 1 0.20 0,00(3) 64,892 0.29 97 18.98 18.98 i- One of the infill projects in DC was on a site that included both existing commercial and a house, all of which remain. This report assumes that all additional infill space will )e commercial. ieneral Commercial (New Projects) Non -Residential 73.43 98% - - - 821,093 0.25 1,255 16.79 16.79 Mixed Use 1.32 2% 18 0.24 0.24 5,570 0.00 14 0.19 0.19 Total 74.76 100% 18 0.24 0.24 826,663 0.25 1,269 16.97 16.97 General Commercial (Infrll Projects) Non -Residential 3.13 100% 1 0.32 0.00(4) 24,655 0,18 39 12.57 12.57 4- One of the infill projects in GC was on a site that included both existing commercial and a mobile home, all of which remain. This report assumes that all additional infill space will be commercial. s` Marysville UGA 2 Development Summary 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 10 of 11 m 7 m T m CD m N 0 A DRAFT Marysville UGA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable % Buildable Units 1 Acre Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Employment Per Acre Assumed General Commercial with Mixed Use Overlay (New Projects) Non -Residential 1.41 49% 1 - - 30,005 0.24 48 16.65 16.65 Multi -Family 1.47 51 % 28 9.70 9.70 - - - - - Total 2.89 100% 29 10.05 10.05 30,005 0,24 48 16.65 16.65 Mixed Use (Assumed to also apply to 88th Street Mixed Use) Non -Residential 3.47 44% - - - 36,869 0.11 103 12.99 1299 Mixed -Use 0.59 7% 11 1.38 1.38 6,899 0.02 11 1.44 1.44 Multi -Family 3.90 49% 54 6.78 6.78 - - - - - Total 7.96 100% 65 8.16 8,16 43,768 0.13 1.15 14.44 14.44 Light Industrial (and assumed to also apply to GI due to a small sample size in GI) Non -Residential 88.24 100% 1 0.01 0.00(5) 644,596 0.17 900 10.20 10.20 ':5- A new mini -storage project in Ll includes a manager's apartment. This report simplifies things by assuming that no more caretaker apartments will be built. Light Industrial (Infill Projects) Non -Residential 8.91 100% 2 0.22 0.00(6) 52,220 0.13 119 13.32 13.32 6- Two of the infill projects in LI add industrial uses to parcels with existing homes that remain. This report assumes that all additional infill sapce will be industrial. '^7 Marysville UGA 0 110212D 13 3 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 11 of 11 Monroe UGA Population Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report -December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Pop-H. Monroe UGA Population 30,a0a , - .......,.. -, ........,.,.,_.............................._. - 25,000 - - - - 20,000 - - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 15,000 a P a 10,000 —Total 2025 Population Capactty — 50% of 2005-2025 Addtnl Pop Capacity ^-2005 Population Estimate----2002-2025 Pap Growth Target Projection — Annual Population Estimates (pre -Census 2010) —*--Annual Population Estimates (post -Census 2010) Table Pop-H. Monroe UGA Population Statistics (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Past - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 2005-11 Change Pap Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnl as % of 2005-25 Diff. {Census -Est) Change CPP Pop Change 2025 Pap Cap Addtnl Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pop No. Pct. 2011 = B - A Tar et = D - A Pop Cap = E - A =CIF 100 15,364 15,741 16,240 16,729 17,047 17,499 17,751 17,945 18,217 18,383 18,318 18,781 463 2.51h 18,806 1,307 26,590 9,091 24,782 7,263 17.9% N c) C CD N tO CD N fV Cl) O A W Monroe UGA - Additiona[ Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT mnsoiction Lano xar CRy (as of Apr-04 4) PENDING Sum {2)VACANT Sum (3)PARTUSE Sum (4) REDEV 59M City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal J Market Ready Zone'.i --- Total DC 1.267 MR6000 1.913 MUC 0.911 R4 3.237 Ui 6.269 UR960a 1.547 Sum 15.143 15.143 DC 0.406 MR6000 1,05 MUC 4.571 MUNC - 0.261 R4 20.815 SR15000 1.228 U116000 4.157 UR9600 4.613 Sum 37.101 MARKET -READY MR6000 13.487 R4 10.959 Sum 74.446 61.547 MR6000 0.941 MUNC 0.581 R4 38.994 UR6000 23.991 UR9600 46.1 Sum 110.607 MARKET -READY MR5000 1.036 R4 2,001 Sum 3.117 113.774 DC 9.468 MR6000 7.595 MUC 13.963 MUNC 10.947 R4 32.307 UR6000 3.521 URD600 27.992 Sum 105.784 MARKET -READY MR6000 4,21 R4 29.312 Sum 33.522 139.306 32912 _ - Acres l4ldable -- Buildable -Surplus OJ18 OS46 0 0.01 1903 0 0.261 0.65 0 0.037 3.199 0 0 5.269 0 0 1.547 0 1.926 14.117 0 1.02E 14.117 0 9 0.406 0 0.085 0.965 0 1.055 3.516 0 0 0.261 0 20A15 0 0 1.229 9 0 0-952 3.205 0 3.574 1039 0 27,709 9.392 0 L22 12.266 0 3.611 7348 0 4,891 M514 0 32.54 29.007 0 0 0.941 0,554 0 0581 0.581 8.179 30,814 27,925 1,045 22,947 13,631 6,013 40,087 34.52 25,237 95,37 77,21 0 1.036 6.853 0 2,081 1,821 0 1117 1673 15.237 98,487 79.883 5549 3,919 0 0 7.585 0 1.683 22.282 0 0 1GA47 0 8.244 24.063 0 0 cSS 3 466 0 0.352 27.639 0 15.883 89.901 0 0,051 4,159 0 3.094 26.217 0 3.145 30.377 0 19.028 120.277 0 67,831 261,889 79,883 I Additional Housing Unit Capacity Additiona l Housing Unit Capacity SI ..., befarE eductions (. } - I (after reductlons) -:' �... Additional Population Capaclty '- �'. SF - - MF Sr, Apts, �� Total sr MF Sr. Apts. Totall. SF - MP Sr. Aptr. - Total 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 7 0 7 17 a a 17 17 a 0 17 47 0 0 47 4 20 0 24 4 20 a 24 11 37 0 48 21 0 0 21 21 0 0 21 58 0 0 58 33 0 0 33 33 0 0 33 92 0 0 92 7 0 0 7 7 0 a 7 19 a 0 19 82 24 0 106 82 24 0 106 228 44 0 272 82 24 0 106 82 24 0 106 228 44 0 272 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 4 2 8 3 13 2 6 2 10 4 12 3 19 2 8 0 10 2 6 0 8 4 12 a 16 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 a 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 21 1 0 22 17 1 0 18 47 1 0 49 7 9 0 7 6 0 0 6 16 0 a 16 37 18 3 58 30 15 2 47 83 27 3 113 31 110 54 195 29 105 51 185 82 192 60 335 28 0 0 28 27 9 0 27 74 0 0 74 59 110 54 223 56 105 51 212 156 192 60 409 96 128 57 281 86 119 54 259 239 219 63 521 1 4 1 6 1 3 1 4 2 5 1 8 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 5 0 5 105 0 0 106 70 0 0 70 196 0 9 196 68 1 0 69 45 1 0 46 126 1 0 127 147 0 0 147 98 0 0 98 272 0 0 272 322 9 1 332 214 5 1 221 596 11 1 508 2 7 3 12 2 7 3 11 5 12 3 21 7 0 0 7 7 0 0 7 19 0 0 19 9 7 3 19 9 7 3 18 24 12 3 39 331 16 4 351 223 13 4 239 620 23 4 647 0 15 0 15 0 10 0 10 0 18 0 18 -4 59 26 81 -3 39 17 54 -7 72 20 85 -6 31 0 25 -4 21 0 17 -11 38 0 27 -13 71 0 58 -9 47 0 39 -24 87 0 63 79 6 0 79 53 0 0 53 146 0 0 146 13 0 0 13 9 0 0 9 24 0 0 24 117 0 0 117 78 0 0 78 217 0 0 217 186 176 26 388 124 117 17 258 344 215 20 580 8 37 18 63 8 35 17 so 21 65 20 106 103 0 0 103 98 0 a 98 272 0 0 272 111 37 18 166 1c5 35 17 158 294 65 20 378 297 213 44 554 229 152 34 416 638 280 40 958 806 381 105 1292 620 308 92 1019 1725 Soo 108 2400 Additiona[ Housing Unit CapacSty .. - Additional Housing Un€( Capacity . 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 9 .., ., .,., Acres ., .,.,. . -, - .,.. (befpre [edyctions) `. ,: - (after reductions] Additional %pulatlan Capacity Jurlsdlctlon - , band Status „Market Ready. , .�- .Zone' - . Total Unbuildable - Buildable Surplus - SF MF Sr. Apts. - - Total -� - 5F ' .. ME. Sr. Apts, >,. Total SF. MF Sr.:Apts. Total 0 77 CCD City (as of Apr-12) " (2) VACANT R4 14.176 1.717 12.459 0 47 0 0 47 38 0 a 38 106 0 0 106 Sum 14.176 1.717 12459 0 47 9 0 47 38 0 0 36 106 D 0 106 N CQ CD MARKET -READY R4 8.04 0529 7.511 0 29 0 0 29 28 0 0 28 77 a a 77 N N OR9600 20.417 0.12 20,296 0 90 0 0 90 86 0 0 66 238 0 0 238 A Sum 28.456 0.649 27.307 0 119 0 0 119 113 0 0 113 315 D 0 315 Sum 42.633 2.366 40.266 0 166 0 0 166 151 0 0 151 420 0 0 420 A (3)PARTUSE R4 23.351 1,585 21.766 20,011 76 0 0 76 51 0 0 51 141 0 0 141 UR9600 62.901 6,971 55.93 52-091 226 0 0 226 150 a 0 ISO 419 0 0 415 Sum 96.252 8.556 77.595 72AO3 302 0 a 302 201 0 0 201 559 0 0 559 MARKET -READY R4 17.12 0,133 16.987 16,282 53 0 0 63 60 0 0 6o 167 0 0 167 UR9600 14.201 0,007 14,194 11477 53 0 0 58 55 0 0 55 153 0 0 153 Sum 31.321 0.14 31A81 29.758 121 0 0 121 115 0 0 115 320 0 0 320 Sum 117.572 8.696 108,876 161.861 423 0 0 423 315 0 0 316 879 0 0 979 (4) REDEV R4 29,771 1.74 28,032 0 107 0 0 107 71 0 0 71 198 0 0 198 UR9600 10.918 6.025 10,893 0 45 0 0 45 3o 0 0 30 83 0 0 83 Sum 40,689 1.765 38.925 0 152 0 0 152 101 0 0 101 281 0 0 281 Sum 40.689 1.765 38925 0 152 0 0 152 101 0 0 101 281 0 0 281 City (as of Apr-12) Subtotal * 200.894 12.827 188.,067 101.861 741 0 0 741 558 0 0 568 1581 0 0 1581 `- outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries Additional Housing Unit Capacity - Additional Housing Unit Capacity Acres - - {before reductions( ,- . - . (after reductions) _ Additional Population Capacity - Jurisdiction .- Land Status Market Ready -Zane-. - .Total Unhulldable Buifdab€e- ,Surplus - -SF MF Sr. Apls. .Total - SF--- - MF Sr. Apts.-?otal... SF- MF..Sr. Apts. Total Unincorporated (1) PENDfNG UR6000 4.243 0 4.243 0 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 28 0 0 28 Sum 4.243 0 4.243 0 10 a 0 10 10 0 0 10 28 0 0 28 Sum 4.243 0 4.243 0 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 28 0 0 28 (2) VACANT R4 30,718 15.364 15.354 0 60 0 0 60 48 0 0 48 135 0 0 135 Unsewer 4.806 1.578 3.228 0 9 0 0 9 7 0 0 7 20 0 6 20 UR6000 17.532 4.077 13.454 0 79 13 0 92 64 1D 0 74 17S I9 0 197 UR9600 2.661 0 2.661 0 11 0 0 11 9 0 0 9 25 0 0 25 Sum 55.717 21.019 34.698 0 159 13 0 172 128 10 0 139 351 19 0 377 MARKET -READY ULUR 25.981 1.009 25.972 0 155 25 0 ISO 147 24 0 171 410 44 0 454 UR600o 25.271 3.606 21.664 0 129 21 0 ISO 123 20 0 143 141 37 0 378 Sum 52.251 4.615 47.636 0 284 46 0 330 270 44 0 314 751 80 0 332 Sum 10739 8 25.634 82.334 0 443 59 0 502 398 54 0 452 1109 100 0 1208 (3) PARTUSE R4 11364 2.054 9.809 8.94 34 0 0 34 23 a a 23 63 0 0 63 UR600D 11.184 0.378 10.806 9.54 54 7 0 61 36 5 0 41 IOU 9 0 109 UR9600 23.446 4.584 18.862 15.259 60 0 0 60 40 0 0 40 111 0 0 111 Sum 46,494 7.017 39.477 33.739 149 7 0 155 98 5 0 103 274 9 0 283 Sum 46.494 7.017 39.477 33.739 149 7 0 155 98 5 0 103 274 9 0 283 14) REDEV R4 7T572 37.375 40.196 0 149 0 0 149 99 0 a 99 276 D 0 276 UR6000 18.222 1.85 16.371 0 90 14 D 304 60 9 0 69 167 17 a 194 UR9600 4.552 0.671 3.881 0 9 0 0 9 6 0 0 6 17 0 0 17 Sum 100345 39.996 60.449 0 248 14 0 262 165 9 0 174 459 17 0 476 Sum 100.345 39.595 5OA49 D 248 14 0 262 165 9 0 174 459 17 0 476 Unip60rpOrated Subtotal 259.05 72.547 186.503 33.739 849 80 a 929 672 68 0 740 1870 125 0 1995 UGA Total 789,664 153.205 636,459 215.483 2395 461 105 2962 1860 376 92 2327 5176 691 IDS 5976 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3 of 9 Snohomish County Tomorrow 1011 Buildable Lands Report -December 13, 1011 PAC DRAFT _ .... �... Figure Emp-I. Monroe UGA Employment l4,009 ..................................................... ............... ..... - - - m N.-------` - ----"` .»......-..«..,...,..,o,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,.,.+ -- W` '-_- -�x+� ».».,m .:..» .,. .., a, .:..,�«..,--------«P-«P,..-�,,.o--�.-......,...�..,F,,.®.®..,.,....®.,....,,..�...,..,,. ,,,..,. ,«,... ,.,.......,... �.-m.---......--...... a..<. 8�000 -^-_--`.�---.�.-- E 0 a s,009 �w i I� 4,000 2,000 1 0 N N V N N N N 4 4 P P ry N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Total 2025 Employment Capacity — 50%of 2005-2025Addtnl Emp Capacity 2005 Employment Estimate ---2402-2425 Emp Growth Target Projection -+-SIC Annual Employment Estimates"--*--INAiCSAnnual Employment Estimates" Table Emp-i. Monroe UGA Employment Statistics Monroe UGA 12,390 3,4481 12,958 4,016 29.0% ' The State of Washington Employment Security Department row uses the NAICS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system. Data for 2002 is shown using both systems. In addlfion, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates. Employment T Monroe UGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) CD Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT v CD Acres Additional Employment Capacity . . ^' Jurisdiction Land Status-1Vlarkef Read y zone Total Unbuildable : Buildable .'. ;Surplus � fore Reductions.::. Before After Reductions City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING GC 25.535 2.48 23.055 0 248 248 LI 0.75 0 0.75 0 50 50 LOSA 31,778 22,674 9,104 0 38 38 SC 1.149 0.792 0,357 0 12 12 Sum 59.211 25.945 33.266 0 348 348 Sum 59.211 25.945 33.266 0 348 348 (2) VACANT DC 0.406 0 0.406 0 40 32 GC 0.978 0.614 0,365 0 6 5 LI 6.636 0 6.636 0 171 138 MUC 4.571 1.055 3,516 0 53 43 MUNC 0.261 0 0.261 0 4 3 SC 4.953 2.052 2.801 0 41 33 Sum 17.705 3,721 13.994 0 315 254 MARKET -READY GC 8.061 2.909 5.252 0 92 87 Ll 5.083 1.428 3.655 0 94 89 PO 0.903 0 0.903 0 35 33 Sum 14.047 4.237 9.81 0 221 210 Sum 31.752 7.958 23.794 0 536 464 (3) PARTUSE LI 3.3 0 3.3 1.716 24 16 MUC 11.411 0 11.411 8.88 135 90 MUNC 0.581 0 0.581 0.581 9 6 SC 6.117 1.719 4.398 0.326 5 3 Sum 21.409 1.719 19.69 11.503 173 115 5um 21.409 1.719 19.69 11.503 173 115 (4) REDEV DC 18.124 6,515 11.609 0 1144 761 GC 13.779 1.207 12.572 0 132 88 LI 22.087 0.122 21,965 0 505 336 TJ 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5 of 9 MUC MUNC PO 5C 5um MARKET -READY PO 5C Sum Sum City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 21,319 1.757 19.563 0 264 176 11,947 0 11.947 0 174 116 3.213 0 3.213 0 126 84 2.664 1.188 1.476 0 22 15 93,134 10.789 82.345 0 2367 1574 0.998 0 0.998 0 35 33 6.001 1.221 4.781 0 70 67 6.999 1,221 5.778 0 105 100 100.133 12.01 88.123 0 2472 1674 212,506 47.632 164.874 11.503 3529 2601 Acres .: Additional Employment Capacity . Jurisdiction _:' =land Status .. Market Ready Zone, Total Unbuildable ,Buildable Surplus ,.. ' Before Reductions .After Reductions City (as of Jun-12)* (1) PENDING GC 22.125 0 22.125 0 145 14S Sum 22.125 0 22.125 0 145 145 Sum 22.125 0 22,125 0 145 145 (4) REDEV Ll 7.508 3.181 4.326 0 111 74 Sum 7,508 3.181 4.326 0 111 74 Sum 7.508 3.181 4.326 0 111 74 City (as of Jun-12) Subtotal * 29.633 3.181 26.4S2 0 256 219 * - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries UGA Total 242.139 50.813 191326 11.503 3785 2820 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 6 of 9 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Monroe UGA T CD Table XX. Development History (1995 to 2010) m CD N% Residential Development Non -Residential Development o Buildable Buildable Units / Acre Floor Estimated Estimated Employment w Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within City Zones UR-9600 Single Family 325.39 100% 1,447 4.45 4.45 - - - - - !UR-6000 Single Family 13.04 93% 69 4.95 6,00(2) - - - - - Multi -Family 0.91 7% 8 0.57 1.00(2) - - - - - Total 13.95 100% 77 5.52 7.00(2) - - - - - 2- This report assumes higher densities in UR-6000 than have been observed in the past due to changes in the Planned Residential Development regulations that took place in December 2007. MR-6000 Single Family 3.92 27% 38 2.62 2.62 - - - - - Multi -Family 8.56 59% 132 9.10 9.10 - - - - - Senior Apartment 2.03 14% 65 4.48 4.48 - - - - - Total 14.51 100% 235 16.20 16.20 - - - - - Downtown Commmercial (New Projects) Mixed -Use 0.12 27% 2 4.44 4.44 2,775 0.14 7 16.43 16.43 Non -Residential 0.33 73% - - - 17,427 0.89 38 83.89 83.89 Total 0.45 100% 2 4.44 4.44 20,202 1.03 45 100.33 100.33 Monroe UGA 1 Development Summary 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 7 of 9 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Monroe UGA T m Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) N% Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units /Acre Floor Estimated Estimated Employment W Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Emp, Per Acre Assumed Downtown Commercial (Infill Projects) Non -Residential 0.79 100% - - - 16,218 0.47 25 31.82 31.82 General Commercial (and General Industrial) (New Projects) Non -Residential 64.84 100% 1 0.02 0.00(3) 630,166 0.22 1,137 17.54 17.54 !General Commercial (and General Industrial) (Infill Projects) Non -Residential 27.49 100% - - - 295,736 0.25 435 1.5.82 15.82 Light Industrial (New Projects) Non -Residential 98.88 100% 1 0.01 0.00(3) 1,560,120 0.36 2,537 25.65 25.65 Light Industrial (Infill Projects) Non -Residential 9.29 100% 1 0.11 0.00(3) 175,656 0.43 132 14.25 14.25 3- This report is not modeling the incidential rate of future caretaker units in General Commercial or Light Industrial zoning. Professional Office (4) Non -Residential 6.14 0% - - - 96,546 0.36 241 39.29 39.29 Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (4) Multi -Family 1.26 34% 16 4.29 4.29 - - - - - Mixed -Use 1.22 33% 11 2.95 2.95 6,838 0.04 18 4.89 4.89 Non -Residential 1.25 34% - - - 14,960 0.09 41 11.06 11.06 Total 3.73 100% 27 7.25 7.25 21,798 013 59 15.96 1596 Monroe UGA 2 Development Summary 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 8 of 9 DRAFT Monroe UGA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) 2012 Buildable Lands Report oho Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Acre Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed 4- The City of Monroe revised its zoning in 2012, changing most of what had been Professional Office to Mixed Use Commercial or Mixed Use Neighborhood Center. The remaining PO zoning is limited to Valley General Hospital and the surrounding area. For modeling purposes, only selected projects built with PO zoning are being modeled as such and many of the projects not being modeled as PO are being modeled as MUNC instead. Use Commercial (New Projects) I Nia Data (New Zone} 3.00 hlo Data (Nevv Zoned 15.00 (5) 'Mixed Use Commercial (Infill Projects) 5 Monroe UGA 3 Development Summary 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 9 of 9 Snohomish UGA r E Population 16,6o0 14,6CC 12,000 10,000 C O 6,000 3 a c 2 6,noo 4,000 2,000 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Pop -I. Snohomish UGA Population a N o r'a� a o N o 'o a �2 m m S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry —Total 2025 Population Capacity — 50 % of 2005-2025 Addtnl Pop Capacity ---2005 Population Estimate----2002-2025 Pop Growth Target Projection Annual Population Estimates (pre -Census 2010) —Annual Population Estimates (post -Census 2010) Table Pop -I. Snohomish UGA Population Statistics (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 2005-11 Change Pop Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnl as % of 2005-25 Diff, (Census -Est) Change CPP Pap Change 2025 Pop Cap Addtnl Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pop No. Pct. 2011 = 8 - A Target = D - A Pop Cap = E - A = C ! F *100 10,118 10,176 10,194 10,165 10,098 10,111 10,193 10,251 10,261 101389 10.525 10,456 -59 -0.7% 10,559 448 14,535 4,424 14,907 4,796 93% Snohomish UGA - Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) v Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT 0 cu Additlonaf Housing Unit Capacity.. - Additional Housing Unit Capacity Acres _ '.. - ,before reductions ._ - -` -.. .. ... after reductions) .. -i Addltlonal'Po ulatfonCapacity - N .luris.diction.. ._Land Status., 'Market Ready.::Zone. . �- Total,:. Unbuildable�.., Buildable ':Sure€ug - :-�� SF .- MP Sr. Apts. .: .. Total �.-SF ME - Sr. Apts. �Total - SF .MF Sr. Apts.,� - -Tota€ N W N City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING BP 4.585 2340 2.237 0 48 0 0 48 48 0 0 48 134 0 0 134 00 5FRES 36.857 19.SS3 17.004 0 118 0 0 118 118 0 0 11$ 329 0 0 329 W 5um 41.442 22,201 19.241 0 166 0 0 166 165 0 0 166 462 0 0 462 Sum 41.442 22.201 19.241 C 166 0 0 166 166 0 0 166 462 0 0 462 (2) VACANT BP 2.072 0.351 2.722 0 5 1 0 6 4 1 0 5 11 1 0 13 cam 14.315 5.77 8.546 0 8 76 0 84 6 61 0 68 18 113 0 131 HE 0.544 0 0,544 0 0 6 0 6 0 5 0 5 0 9 0 9 HDRES 0.792 0.373 0.419 0 1 6 D 7 1 5 0 6 2 9 0 11 LDRES 0.123 0 0.123 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 C 2 MDRES 1.093 0375 0.717 0 3 1 0 4 2 1 0 3 7 1 0 8 Mu C.565 C C.565 0 0 4 1 5 0 3 1 4 0 6 1 7 PLCHK 1.991 J. 178 0,813 0 4 10 0 14 3 8 0 11 9 15 0 24 5FRES 17.518 10,534 6.985 0 38 0 0 38 31 0 0 31 85 C 0 85 Sum 39.013 18.58 2C.433 C 60 104 1 165 48 84 1 133 135 1SS 1 290 MARKET -READY BP 2.443 0,079 2,363 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 5 0 5 cam 1.358 0 1.358 0 1 12 0 13 1 11 0 12 3 21 0 24 HE 0,083 0,083 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 Sum 3,884 0,163 3.721 0 2 15 0 17 2 14 0 16 5 26 C 32 Sum 42.097 18.743 24.154 0 62 119 1 182 50 98 1 149 140 181 1 322 (3) PARTUSE LDRES 0.37 0 0.37 0.232 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 C 2 MORES 1.584 C.343 1.241 0.753 2 2 0 4 1 1 0 3 4 2 0 6 5FRES 60.03 14.401 45,628 29.086 127 0 0 127 84 0 0 84 235 0 0 235 Sum 61.983 14.745 47.239 30,071 130 2 0 132 86 1 0 88 241 2 0 243 Sum 61.983 14.745 47.239 30.C71 130 2 0 132 96 1 0 88 241 2 0 243 (4) REDEV BP 4,206 0,933 3,273 0 -1 5 0 4 -1 3 0 3 -2 6 0 4 cam 24,386 2.976 21.41 0 5 160 0 185 3 120 0 123 9 220 0 230 HB 9.179 1.C96 8.084 0 -12 85 0 73 -8 57 0 49 -22 204 0 82 HDRES 4,489 0,046 4.444 0 -26 75 0 49 -17 So 0 33 -48 92 0 44 MDRES 15A65 6.699 8.766 0 19 27 1 47 13 18 1 31 35 33 1 69 MU TO37 0.845 3.192 0 -4 26 12 34 -3 17 8 23 -7 32 9 34 PLCHK 30.189 3A42 26.746 0 -37 379 0 342 -25 252 0 227 -59 464 0 395 SFRES 15.004 5.798 9.205 0 43 0 0 43 29 0 0 29 80 0 0 80 Sum 106.954 21.634 85.119 0 -13 777 13 177 -9 517 9 517 -24 951 10 937 Sum 106.954 21.934 85.119 0 -13 777 13 777 -9 517 9 517 -24 951 10 937 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 253,275 77,523 175,753 30,071 345 898 14 1257 294 616 9 920 819 1134 11 1964 Additional Housing UnIt Capacity Additicna€ Rousing Unit Capacity ..- Acres - - (before reductions) (a leer reductions} _ ' Additlonal Population Capacity: Jurlsdiction Land Status Market Read - - Zone Total - Unbuiidable Buildable - SurplusSurplusl SF MP Sr: Apts. .. Totai SF ME .Sr. -Apts. Total SF ME Sr. A pt5. - TotaE City (as of Apr-12) " (1) PENDING 5FRES 16.503 7,36 9.143 0 55 0 0 55 5S 0 0 55 153 0 0 153 Sum 16.503 7.36 9.143 0 55 0 0 55 55 0 0 55 153 0 0 153 Sum 15.503 7,36 9.143 0 55 0 0 55 55 0 0 55 153 0 C 153 (2) VACANT BP 19.838 18.234 1.604 0 4 1 0 5 3 1 0 4 9 1 0 10 com 6.282 6.282 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 _2 4 0 0 4 MORES 0.087 0 0.027 0 1 a 0 1 2 0 0 1 7 0 0 2 C' 0110212013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 8 SFRES 21.007 5.376 15.631 0 83 0 C 83 67 0 0 67 197 0 0 187 Sum 47.214 29.992 17.322 0 90 1 0 91 73 1 0 73 202 1 0 204 Sum 47.214 29.892 17322 0 90 1 0 91 73 1 0 73 202 1 0 204 (3) PARTUSE MURES 0.959 0 0.958 0.652 2 2 C 4 1 1 0 3 4 2 0 6 SFRES 55.112 17.618 39 094 30.074 143 0 0 143 95 0 0 95 255 0 0 255 Sum 56.57 17,618 39,052 30.726 145 2 0 147 95 1 0 98 268 2 0 271 Sum 56,57 17.618 39.052 30.726 145 2 C 147 95 1 0 98 268 2 0 271 (4)REDEV BP 73.169 23.073 50.097 0 -9 73 C 64 -6 49 0 43 -17 69 0 73 cam 2.727 2.052 0.675 0 C 6 0 6 0 4 0 4 0 7 0 7 LDRES 7.551 3.409 4,142 0 29 0 0 29 19 0 0 19 54 0 0 54 5FRES 40.521 16.706 23.915 0 108 0 0 108 72 0 0 72 200 0 0 200 Sum 123.968 45.24 78.728 0 128 79 0 207 85 53 0 13S 237 97 0 334 MARKET -READY 5FRES 5.328 4.056 1.272 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 Sum 5.328 4.056 1.272. 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 Sum 129.297 49.296 80 0 133 79 0 217 90 53 0 142 250 97 0 347 City (as of Apr-12) Subtotal " 249.6B3 104.166 145.518 30,726 423 82 0 505 314 55 0 359 874 101 0 975 ' - outside of City Apr-2002 boundarles Additional Housing Unit Capacity' -- :.Additional Housing Unit Cepaclty - Acres- - - before reductions { 1 .-- - after reductions ( ) Additional Populat[on Capatity. furisdiction - - iandStatus .- Market Ready.. Zone Total Unbuildabie. Buildable - SurplusSurplusl SF - MF---Sr.Apts. Total :SF `-- MF- Sr, A ts Total SF _ -MF::- Sr. q =. -Total Unincorporated (2) VACANT SFRES 12.372 5.202 7.17 0 37 0 0 37 30 C 0 30 83 0 0 83 Sum 12,372 5.202 7.17 0 37 0 0 37 30 0 0 30 83 0 0 83 Sum 12.372 5.202 7.11 D 37 0 0 37 30 0 0 30 63 D a 83 (3)PARTUSE 5FRES 217.522 69.246 148,276 123.14 607 0 C E07 404 C 0 404 1124 0 0 1124 Sum 217.522 69.246 149 276 123.24 607 0 0 607 404 0 0 404 1124 D a 1124 sum 217,522 69.246 148.276 123.14 607 0 0 607 404 0 0 404 1124 0 0 1124 (4)REDEV 5FRES 38.414 12,267 26.147 0 109 0 0 109 72 D 0 72 202 0 D 202 Sum 38.414 12,267 26.147 a 109 0 0 109 72 0 0 72 202 0 D 202 Sum 39,414 17,267 26.247 0 109 0 0 109 72 0 C 72 202 0 D 2D2 Unincorporated Subtotal 268.308 96,716 181,592 123,14 753 0 0 753 SD6 0 0 506 1409 0 0 14D9 UGA Total 771.767 268.405 502.863 183,937 1521 990 14 2515 1114 671 9 1795 3102 1235 11 4348 [IjI(Ij N17,14] Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3 of 8 Snohomish UGA Snohomish County Tontorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - Deceynber 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Emp-J. Snohomish UGA Employment —Total 2025 Employment Capacity — 50% of 2005-2025 Addtnl Emp Capacity •2005 Employment Estimate ----2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection --*—SIC Annual Employment Estimates`--*—NAICS Annual Employment Estimates* Table Emp-J. Snohomish UGA Employment Statistics . ............ ........ .......... ... .... Erhployr�jent t st�rY �tes �p05-1 t 2005-25.. 200.5-25 2005-11 Change Numeric . 2025 Numeric Total AdIdtnl as,%of 2005-25 2002 2002 Change CPP Emp Change C: 2025; Enip'Cap Addtnl EmplCap 2000:I 2001 SlC... NAICS '' 2003 2604 2005 2006 2607 2008 2009 2010 2011 B - A Tar et C - A': Errs Ga = E :- A =:' C f lz"100 4,868 4,712 4,842 4,964 5,045 4,931 5,353 5,442 5,437 5,453 5,330 4,938 4,B71 -482 6,730 1,377 7,427 2,074 -23.2% " The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAICS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system. Deta for 2002 Is shown using both systems. In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates. Employment Snohomish UGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BL.R) C Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL. DRAFT T v CD CD Acres Additiorial Employment Capacity o Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions After Reductions w City (as of Apr-02) (2) VACANT BP 2.072 0.351 1.722 0 29 23 COM 13,668 5,122 8.546 0 118 95 H B 0.544 0 0.544 0 12 10 IND 0.195 0.162 0.033 0 1 1 MU 0.565 0 0.565 0 7 6 PLCHK 0.85 0 0.85 0 14 11 Sum 17.894 5.635 12.26 0 181 146 MARKET -READY BP 2.443 0,079 2.363 0 41 39 COM 1.358 0 1.358 0 19 18 Sum 3.801 0.079 3.721 0 60 57 Sum 21.695 5.714 15.981 0 241 203 (3) PARTU5E BP 0.625 0.051 0.574 0.267 5 3 COM 2,218 0 2.218 0.426 9 6 Sum 2.843 0.051 2,792 0.693 14 9 5um 2,843 0,051 2.792 0.693 14 9 (4) REDEV BP 5.385 1,016 4,369 0 75 50 COM 13.371 1.305 12.067 0 135 90 HB 5,234 0.218 5.016 0 106 70 IND 0.305 0.139 0.166 0 4 3 MU 4.8 1,047 3.754 0 45 30 PLCHK 19.202 2.273 16.929 0 251 167 Sum 48.298 5.998 42.3 0 616 410 5um 48.298 5.998 42.3 0 616 410 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 72.836 11.763 61.073 0,693 871 622 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5 of 8 Acres: Additional Employment Capacity T � F Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable , Buildable Surplusl ., Befo,.,.,..ed re Reductions ` 'After Reductions _ _ m City (as of Jun-12)* (1) PENDING BP 13.553 4.237 9.316 0 89 89 Sum 13.553 4.237 9.316 0 89 89 5um 13.553 4.237 9,316 0 89 89 (2) VACANT BP 19,768 18,164 1,604 0 28 23 Sum 19.768 18.164 1.604 0 28 23 Sum 19,768 18.164 1.604 0 28 23 (3) PARTUSE BP 3.976 1,182 2,794 1.37 24 16 Sum 3.976 1.182 2.794 1.37 24 16 Sum 3.976 1.182 2.794 1.37 24 16 (4) REDEV BP 78.685 27.174 51.511 0 854 568 COM 2.727 2.052 0.675 0 9 6 Sum 81.413 29.226 52,187 0 863 574 Sum 81.413 29.226 52.187 0 863 574 City (as of Jun-12) Subtotal * 118.709 52.809 65.9 1.37 1004 701 * - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries Acres . Additional Employment Capacity . Jurisdiction Land Status _ Market Ready Zone ` Total Unbuildable Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions After Reductions Unincorporated (3) PARTUSE 0.477 0 0.477 0,284 5 3 Sum 0.477 0 0,477 0.284 5 3 Sum 0.477 0 0.477 0.284 5 3 Unincorporated Subtotal 0.477 0 0.477 0.284 5 3 UGA Total 192.022 64.572 127.45 2.347 1880 1326 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 6 of 8 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Snohomish UGA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) T v CD Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment ° Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acrre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density 1' Zone or Plan Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within City Zones Single Family Single Family 46.98 100% 251 5.34 5.34 - - - - - LDR Single Family I.26 100% 9 7.12 7.12 - - - - - MDR Single Family 16.07 76% 93 4.4I 4.4I - - - - - Multi -Family 4.79 23% 83 3.94 3.94 - - - - - Senior Apartment 0.22 1% 8 0.38 0.38 - - - - - Total 21.08 100% 184 8.73 8.73 - - - - - HDR Multi -Fancily 1.00 100% 1.9 1&97 18.97 - - - - Business Park Multi -Family 5.75 8% 96 1.30 1.30 - - - - - Mixed -Use 7.36 10% 22 0.30 0.30 116,143 0.04 15 0.20 0.20 Non -Residential 61.01 82% - - - 699,177 0.22 1,164 15.71 15.71 Total 74.12 1.00% 118 1.59 1.59 815,320 - 1,179 15.91 15.91 Commercial (New Projects) Single Family 0.83 8% I0 0.98 0.98 - - - - Multi -Family 1.77 17% 50 4.92 4.92 - - - - - Mixed -Use 2.67 26% 43 4.24 4.24 32,734 0.07 65 6.45 6.45 Non -Residential 4.89 48% - - - 37,950 0.09 82 8.03 8.03 Total 10.15 100% 103 10.14 10.14 70,684 0.16 147 14.48 14.48 Commercial (Infill Projects) Non -Residential 5.96 100% - - - 64,966 0.25 128 21.52 21.52 Snohomish UGA 1 Development Summary 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 7 of 8 DRAFT Snohomish UGA m Table NX: Development History (1995 to 2010) T v m 00 w 0 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density Zone or Plan Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Historic Business Multi -Family 1.28 40% 24 7.41 7.41 - - - - Mixed -Use 1.04 32% 16 4.94 4.94 16,260 0.12 43 13.39 13.39 Non -Residential 0.92 28% - - - 11,640 0.08 30 9.38 9.38 Total 3.24 100% 40 12.36 12.36 27,900 0.20 74 22.78 22.78 Mixed Use (excluding mini -storage) Multi -Family 2.00 48% 38 9.04 9.04 - - - - - Mixed -Use (w/Senior Apartments) 1.09 26% 21 5.00 5.00 6,680 0.04 17 3.97 3.97 Non -Residential 1.12 27% - - - 18,567 0.10 35 8.31 8.31 Total 4.20 1000/0 59 14.04 14.04 25,247 0.14 52 12.29 12.29 Pilchuck District Mixed Use No'Data (New Zone) . 15.00 h10 Data (Neu Zone) :' 15.00 Industrial Non -Residential 1.21 100% - - - 26,508 0.50 30 24.75 24.75 Snohomish UGA 2 Development Summary 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 8 of 8 Stanwood UGA Population 14,000 12,000 10,000 6,000 0 3 a 0 a 6,000 4,000 2,0011 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December ]3, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Pop-J. Stanwood UGA Population —Total 2025 Population Capacity — 500,5 of 2005-2025Addtnl Pop Capacity ^m^^y2005 Population Estimate----2002-2025 Pop Growth Target Projection —'—Annual Population Estimates (pre -Census 2010) Annual Population Estimates (post -Census 2010) Table Pop-J. Stanwood UGA Population Statistics (A) (P) (C) (D) (E) (F) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 2005-11 Change Pop Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnt as % of 2005-25 Diff. (Census -Est) Change CPP Pop Change 2025 Pop Cap Addtnl Pop Cap 2000 2D01 20D2 2003 2004 2D05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pop No. Pct 2011 = B - A Target = D - A Pop Ca = E - A = (Q ! F *10c 4,318 4,369 4,479 4,582 4,753 5,046 5,483 5,746 5,981 6,121 6,237 6,364 127 2.0% 6,353 1,307 B,B40 3,794 11,452 6,406 20AA% Stanwood I Add iitionaI Popufation Capacity (2012 BLR} Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Additional Housing Unit Capacity ::. - .Additional Housing Unit Capacity .` Acres - -_- _ :(before reductions) --,. I :,.;...: -{after reductions)'. Additional Popu{abort Capacity �. Jurisdlctl,n .-`. land Status Market Ready. - - . - . Zone-- -.. Total - Unhulidable SF MF - Sr, Apt5 - .Totall SF :.: MF Sr. Apts.. Total .- -SF - MF - - Sr. Apts. Total City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING GC 9.777 0.074 9.702 0 3 100 0 193 3 too 0 103 8 184 0 192 5119,6 3.133 C.294 2.838 0 8 0 1 8 8 0 0 8 22 0 0 22 Sum 12.909 0.369 12.541 0 11 100 0 111 11 100 0 111 31 184 0 215 Sum 12.909 0.369 12.541 0 11 100 0 111 11 ICU 0 111 31 184 0 215 (2) VACANT MR 6.863 3,015 3.848 0 5 46 11 52 4 37 9 50 11 68 10 90 SR 12A 0.776 007 0.705 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 7 0 0 7 SR 5.0 15.209 0.321 14.898 0 2 143 C 145 2 115 ❑ 217 4 212 0 217 SR 7.0 3.723 1.554 2.169 C 9 0 0 9 7 0 ❑ 7 20 0 0 20 5R 9.6 1.138 0.156 0.983 0 5 0 0 5 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 Sum 27.709 5.115 22.594 0 24 189 11 224 19 153 9 181 54 281 10 345 MARKET READY GC 3.955 0.13 3.725 0 0 3 8 11 0 3 8 10 0 5 9 14 MR 3.939 0.834 3.105 0 5 38 10 53 5 36 10 50 13 66 11 91 SR 7.0 23.911 10.955 12.956 0 58 0 0 58 55 0 0 55 153 0 C 153 Sum 31,705 11.919 19.786 0 63 41 18 122 60 39 17 116 157 72 20 25B Sum 59,414 17.034 42.38 0 87 230 29 345 79 192 26 297 221 352 31 604 (3l PAIFI SR 12.4 0.733 0 0.733 0.577 1 C 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 C 2 SR 5.0 2A32 0 2A32 1,265 0 10 0 10 C 7 0 7 0 12 0 12 - SR 7.0 8.98 0.008 8.973 5.5 24 0 0 24 16 ❑ 0 16 44 0 0 44 SR 9.6 8.333 0.648 7,685 5.219 14 0 0 14 9 0 0 9 26 0 0 26 Sum 20,479 0.656 19323 13.563 39 10 0 49 26 7 0 33 72 12 0 84 Sum 20.479 0.556 19.823 13.563 39 10 0 49 26 1 0 33 72 12 0 84 (4) REDEV GC 2A21 0.536 1385 0 0 1 4 5 0 1 3 3 0 1 3 4 MR 10.139 2.572 7.566 0 2 90 23 115 1 60 15 76 4 110 18 132 SK 5.0 0.826 0.261 0.565 0 -2 5 0 3 -1 3 C 2 -4 6 0 2 SR 9.6 0.66 0 0.66 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 C 1 2 0 0 2 TN 27.823 0 27,823 0 139 139 0 278 92 52 C ISE 257 170 0 427 Sum 41.869 3,359 39,499 0 140 235 27 402 93 156 18 267 259 288 21 568 MARKET READY MR 0.387 0,231 0.156 0 C 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 Sum 0.387 0.231 CABS 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 Sum 42.235 3.6 38.656 0 140 236 27 403 93 157 18 263 259 299 21 570 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 135.058 21.659 113.4 13.563 277 576 56 909 209 455 44 709 583 838 52 1472 Additional Housing. Unit Capacity ' Additional, Housing UnitCapacII `Acres �. .- b9{oYe reductions) :. . - (after -reductlohs) -_ - . Additional Population Capacity Jurisdiction . Lard Status - Market Read - . Zone Total Unbuildable Builciab€e Surplus SF MF Sr. A�ts. _: -- : - Total . ` SF MF , Sr. Acts. -' Total - :- 5F - I ' Sr. Aptsr - - Total City (as of Apr-12j ° (1) PENDING MR 1.381 0 1.381 C 0 24 C 24 0 24 0 24 0 44 0 44 SR 7.0 2.538 0 2.538 0 13 0 C 13 13 C 0 13 36 0 0 36 SR 9.6 63.702 26.425 37.277 C 242 0 C 242 242 C 0 242 674 0 0 674 Sum 67.621 26.425 41.195 0 255 24 0 279 255 Z4 0 279 719 44 0 754 Sum 67,621 26.425 41.195 0 255 24 0 279 255 24 0 279 710 44 0 754 (2) VACANT 5R 5.0 19,168 10.962 8.206 0 0 80 0 80 0 6S 0 65 0 119 0 119 _ SR 9.6 16.292 10.073 5.129 0 22 0 0 22 18 0 0 18 49 0 0 49 Sum 35.37 21.035 14.335 0 22 80 0 102 18 65 0 82 49 119 0 168 r• 01 /0212013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2of8 MARKET -READY MR SR 9.6 C Sum 7 N Sum ED (8) PARTUSE 6c SR 1.0 O SR 9.6 N A Sum sum O_ (4) REDEV MR W SR 9.6 TN Sum MARKET -READY MR Sum sum City (as of Apr-12) Subtotal ` x - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Unincorporated (2) VACANT Sum MARKET -READY Sum sum {3jPARTUSE Sum Sum (4) REDEV Sum MARKET -READY sum Sum Unincorporated Subtotal UGA Total 5.268 3.203 2.C65 0 3 25 7 35 3 24 7 33 8 44 8 59 18.C17 11.202 6.815 C 25 0 C 25 24 C 0 24 66 0 0 66 23.285 14.405 8.88 C 28 25 7 60 27 24 7 57 74 44 8 126 59.655 35.44 23.215 0 50 WE 7 162 44 88 7 139 124 163 8 294 0.913 0 0.913 0.548 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 70.059 10 60.06 53.23 170 0 0 170 113 0 0 113 315 0 0 315 70,972 10 50.973 53,778 172 0 0 172 114 0 0 114 318 0 0 318 70.972 10 60.973 53,778 172 0 0 172 114 D 0 114 318 0 0 319 11,927 2.306 9.621 0 11 118 31 160 7 78 21 106 2D 144 -24 189 62.702 11.947 50.755 0 160 0 0 260 SC6 0 0 106 296 0 0 296 19.912 0 19.912 0 99 99 0 198 66 66 0 132 183 121 0 304 94.541 14.253 80.288 0 270 217 Al 518 180 144 21 344 500 266 24 790 3.272 0.379 2.893 D 3 35 8 46 3 33 8 44 8 61 9 78 3.272 0.379 2.893 0 3 35 8 46 3 33 8 44 8 61 9 78 97,912 14,631 83,181 0 273 252 39 564 182 178 28 398 508 327 33 868 295.06 86.496 208.564 53.778 750 381 45 1177 596 290 35 921 1660 533 41 2234 Additional Housing Urit Capacity : Additional Housing Unit Capacity '- Acres (before reductions . `: (after reductions) -- - Additional Po u€ation Capadty - Total Unbuildable. Buildable Surplus . - :- - SP - MF Sr. Apts. Total 5F - :-.. . mr Sr. Apts.. Total ;.SF MF Sr. Apts. Total 69.47 15.428 53.042 0 178 0 0 178 144 0 ❑ 144 400 0 0 400 68,47 15,428 53.042 0 178 0 0 178 144 0 C 144 400 0 0 400 7.674 1,506 6,158 0 9 75 20 105 9 72 19 100 24 133 22 179 7.674 1.506 6.168 0 9 76 20 105 9 72 19 100 24 133 22 179 76.144 16,934 59121 0 157 76 20 283 152 72 19 243 424 133 22 579 65.615 18.781 46.833 42.399 135 0 0 135 90 0 0 90 250 0 0 250 65.625 18.781 46.833 42.399 135 ❑ 0 135 90 0 D 90 250 0 0 250 55.615 18.781 46.833 42.399 135 0 0 135 90 0 D 90 250 0 0 25C 119,807 37.387 81,42 0 268 0 0 268 178 0 0 178 496 0 0 496 118.BC7 37.387 81.42 0 258 0 0 259 178 0 0 178 496 D 0 496 13.833 0.527 13.306 C -1 17 36 52 -1 16 34 49 -3 30 40 67 13.933 0.577 13.306 0 -1 17 36 52 -1 16 34 49 -3 30 40 67 132.64 37.915 94.726 0 767 17 36 320 177 16 34 228 494 30 40 563 274.399 73.63 200.769 42,399 589 93 56 738 419 B8 53 561 1167 263 63 1393 704.517 181.785 522.733 109.74 1616 1050 158 2824 1224 $33 132 2191 3410 1534 156 5099 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3 of 8 N 0 C m v Cl) fu A N O A W Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT --- 2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projeciion yr SIC Annual Employment Estimates*NAICS Annual Employment Estimates" i Stanwood UGA Table Emp-K. Stanwood UGA Employment Statistics Employmett Estimates 2005-11 2005 25 200.5 25 2005-11 Change `. Numeric 2025 Numeric'_ Total` Adiitnl as%of2t)05-25 2002 2002 . Change GPP Emp Change .' 2025J Err p Cap Addtnl Emp Gap 200.O i 2001 $IC r NAICS" : 2003 2004 2005 20013 2407 2008 2009 2010 2011 8.:= A. .. <'far et C - A'' Erri :Ca = E - A =' C f F '1nd 2,980 3,173 3,081 3,167 3,257 3,394 3,493 3,600 3,802 3,756 3,629 3,350 3,456 -37 5,550 2,057 6,434 2,941 -1.3% * The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAICS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system. Data for 2002 is shown using bath systems, In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAILS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates. Employment N CD T v CD m N A W O A Stanwood UGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status .. Market Ready Zone .., Total Unbuildable .;Buildabie Surplusl Before Reductions : .After Reductions City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING MB2 0.488 0 0.488 0 11 11 Sum 0,488 0 0.488 0 .11 11 MARKET -READY MB2 0.679 0 0.679 0 53 53 Sum 0.679 0 0.679 0 53 53 Sum 1.167 0 1.167 0 64 64 (2) VACANT GI 29.057 10.14 18.916 0 404 326 LI 15.513 3.79 11,723 0 251 203 MB1 1.87 0.14 1.73 0 36 29 MB2 3.579 0 3.579 0. 82 66 Sum 50.019 14,071 35.948 0 773 624 MARKET -READY GC 3.855 0.13 3.725 0 69 66 MB2 5.852 1.119 4.733 0 108 103 Sum 9.708 1,249 8.458 0 177 168 Sum 59.726 15.32 44.407 0 950 792 (3) PARTUSE GC 2.08 0.029 2.051 0.607 13 9 LI 14.112 3,675 10.436 2,088 45 30 MB1 0.724 0 0.724 0.044 1 1 M132 0.799 0 0.799 0,505 12 8 Sum 17.715 3.704 14.01 3.244 71 47 Sum 17.715 3.704 14.01 3,244 71 47 (4) REDEV GC 3.66 0.571 3.089 0 55 37 GI 3.004 0.465 2.539 0 54 36 LI 9.369 8.543 0.826 0 18 12 M131 7.281 0 7.281 0 133 88 M132 16.102 0 16.102 0 295 196 Sum 39.416 9.578 29,837 0 555 369 MARKET -READY MB2 0.526 0 0.526 0 10 10 0110212013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5 of 8 m N 77 m T v CD m N A A O_ A Sum 0.526 0 0.526 0 10 10 Sum 39.941 9.578 30.363 0 565 379 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 118.549 28.602 89.946 3,244 1650 1282 Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land .Status Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable; .Buildable - Surplus Before Reductions After Reductions City (as of Jun-12)* (4) REDEV NB 1.32 0 1.32 0 33 22 Sum 1.32 0 1.32 0 33 22 Sum 1.32 0 1.32 0 33 22 City (as of Jun-12) Subtotal * 1.32 0 1.32 0 33 22 * - outside of City Apr--2002 boundaries Acres -Addifional Employment Capacity :.. Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone :. Total Unbuildabie Buildable :': Surplus Before Reductions After. Reductions Unincorporated (2) VACANT 14.001 12.335 1,665 0 36 29 Sum 14.001 12.335 1.665 0 36 29 Sum 14.001 12.335 1.665 0 36 29 (3) PARTUSE UI 18.705 5.453 13.252 11.874 254 169 Sum 18.705 5.453 13.252 11.874 254 169 Sum 18.705 S.453 13.252 11,874 254 169 (4) REDEV 8.753 0.809 7.944 0 178 118 UI 7.582 2.8 4.783 0 102 68 Sum 16.336 3.609 12,727 0 280 186 MARKET -READY 57.367 9.197 48.17 0 993 943 Sum 57.367 9.197 48.17 0 993 943 Sum 73.702 12.805 60,897 0 1273 1130 Unincorporated Subtotal 106.408 30.594 75.814 11,874 1563 1328 UGA Total 226.277 59.196 167.08 15.118 3246 2632 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Plannfng and Development Services 6of8 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Stanwood UGA N 0 Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) v CD N Residential Development Non -Residential Development (n Buildable % Buildable Units / Acre Floor Estimated Employment wZone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Non -Res. Area Estimated Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within City Zones (and County Plan Designalions required to build to City standards) SR-12400 Single Family 61.88 100% . 167 2.70 2.70 - - - - - SR-9600 (and both ULDR and UMDR) Single Family 119.31 100% 409 3.43 3.43 - - - - - SR-7000 Single Family 14.50 100% 66 4.55 4.55 - - - - - SR-5000 Multi -Family 7.01 100% 69 9.84 9.84 - - - - - TN (Traditional Neighborhood) Single Family 5.00 - - - - - Newu Zane' No Development Yet Multi -Family 5.00 - Total' - 10.00 - - - - - MR (Multi -Family Residential) Single Family 2.08 16% 21 1.62 1.62 - - - - - Multi -Family 8.56 66% 161 12.42 12.42 - - - - - Senior Apartments 2.32 18% 44 3.40 3.40 - - - - - Total 12.96 100% 226 1.7.44 17.44 - - - - - 1� 1 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 7 of 8 DRAFT Stanwood UGA CD Table X: Development History (1995 to 2010) T v cc CD N A rn 0 w 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable % Buildable I Units 1 Acre Floor Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Non -Res. Area Estimated Employment Density Plan Development Develoned Develoned Units Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Fmp I Per Acre I Assumed General Commercial -- New Projects Senior Apartments 4.03 10% 113 2.73 2.73 - - - - - Mixed Use 2.24 5% 54 1.30 1.30 15,290 0.16 37 0.88 0.88 Non -Residential 35.19 85% - - - 325,291 0.19 736 17.76 17.76 Total 41.46 100% 167 4.03 4.03 340,581 0.19 773 18.64 18.64 General Commercial -- Infrll (Modeled by removing senior apartments and mixed -use projects from the new projects list) Non -Residential 35.19 100% - - - 325,291 0.19 736 20.86 20.86 Light Industrial (and Urban Industrial) Non -Residential' No New,Develop.ment in L.I -'Assumed Employment Density Adjusts City of Monroe LI Zone by 20%for Roads 21.38 General Industrial -- (Excluding Twin City Foods Reconstruction) Non -Residential 3.35 100% - - - 37,570 0.26 28 8.25 21.38 (1) 1- The sample of projects in GI is too small to be reliable. For modeling purposes, GI will use the same assumptions as LI. MB-I (Mainstreet Business I) Non -Residential 0.73 I00% - - - 6,002 0.19 15 20.34 20.34 MB-11(Mainstreet Business II) Non -Residential 14.91 100% - - - 162,946 0.25 342 22.96 22.96 NB (Neighborhood Business) (and Urban Commercial) Non -Residential 1.01 100% - - - 11,515 0.26 29 28.59 28.59 01/02/2013 2 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 80€8 Sultan UGA 7� Population 12,000 10,000 8,000 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Pop-K. Sultan UGA Population —Total 2025 Population Capacity — 501/ of 2005-2025 Addtn€ Pop Capacity 2005 Population Estimate 2002-2025 Pop Growth Target Projection Annual Population Estimates (pre -Census 2010) —s,—Annual Population Estimates (postCensus201C) Table Pop-K. Sultan UGA Population Statistics (A) (B) (C) (D) (F) (F) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 2005-11 Change Pop Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnl as % of 2005-25 Oft (Census -Est) Change CPP Pop Change 2025 Pop Cap Addtnl Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pop No. Pet. 2011 = B - A Target = 0 - A Pop Cap = E - A = C / F 100 3,695 4,124 4,258 4,443 4,482 4,571 4,785 4,879 4,899 4,904 4,920 4,966 46 0.9% 4,969 399 11,119 6,548 8,739 4,169 9A% Sultan UGA -Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) bec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Additional Housing Unit Capacity AddiuonatHousing Unit Capacity - Acres -.. Addifonal.Pdpulation Capacity (before reductions) .(after reductions} - ' Jurisdiction : ' ... Land Status .. Market Ready - - tone - --Total . �-Urbulldabie _. Buildable - Surplus :- - SF... . -' MF ' Sr. Apts. Total - SF MF 5r. Apts. Total .5F - Mr Sr, Apts. Total City(as of Apr-02) (1)PENDING LMD 30,801 17.251 13-55 0 115 0 0 115 115 0 0 115 320 0 D 320 MD 3.547 0 3.547 0 22 0 0 22 22 0 0 22 61 D 0 61 Sum 31348 1A251 17097 0 137 0 0 137 137 0 0 137 381 0 0 381 Sum 34,348 17.251 17.097 0 137 0 a 137 137 0 0 137 381 0 0 391 (2) VACANT HD 1.831 C 1.831 0 12 0 0 12 10 0 0 10 27 0 0 27 LMD 35.808 22.977 12.831 0 39 0 0 39 31 0 C 31 88 0 0 88 MD 41,103 21,305 19,798 0 85 3 0 Be 69 2 0 71 191 4 0 196 Sum 78"742 44,282 34.46 0 136 3 0 139 110 2 0 112 305 4 0 310 MARKET READY MD 18.525 9.188 9.338 0 41 2 0 43 39 2 0 41 108 3 0 112 Sum 18.526 9A88 9,338 0 41 2 0 43 39 2 0 41 108 3 0 112 Sum 97.263 53.47 43.799 0 177 5 0 192 149 4 0 153 414 8 0 422 (3) PARTUSE HD 8.179 0 8.178 4.635 24 0 0 24 16 0 0 16 44 C 0 44 LMD 94.395 45.752 38.643 34.643 102 C 0 102 58 0 0 68 189 0 0 189 MD 91.314 32.761 58.553 49.75 212 7 0 219 341 5 0 146 392 9 0 401 Sum 183.887 78,513 - 105.374 89.028 338 7 0 345 225 5 0 229 626 9 0 634 MARKET -READY HD 33.247 9.195 24.052 23.546 166 10 0 176 158 10 0 167 439 17 0 457 MD 2.7 0 2.7 2.248 10 0 0 10 10 C 0 10 26 0 0 26 Sum 35.947 91195 26.752 25.793 176 10 0 186 167 10 0 177 465 17 0 493 Sum 219.934 87.708 132.126 114.821 514 17 0 531 392 14 0 406 1091 25 0 1117 (4) REDEV H❑ 4.193 0 4.193 C 24 1 C 25 16 1 0 17 44 1 0 46 LMD 37.419 28.692 9.726 0 24 0 C 24 16 C 0 16 44 0 0 44 MD 66.886 36.652 30.194 C 119 6 0 125 79 4 0 83 220 7 0 228 Sum 108.499 65.385 43.113 C 157 7 C 174 111 5 D 116 309 9 0 S18 (4)REDEV MARKETREADYHD 2.161 0 2.161 0 13 0 C 13 12 C 0 12 34 0 0 34 LMD 77.348 44.331 33.016 0 104 0 0 104 99 C 0 99 275 0 0 275 Sum 79.509 44.331 35.177 0 117 0 0 117 111 0 0 111 309 0 0 309 Sum 188.006 109.715 78.29 0 284 7 0 291 222 5 0 227 619 9 0 627 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 539A56 269.144 271.312 114.821 2112 29 0 1141 9C0 23 0 923 2505 43 0 2548 Additional Housing Unit Capacity Additional Housing Unit Capacity Acres - {before raductions)- - (after reductions) - - Additional Population Capacity - . lurlsdlctlonLand Market Ready, Zone :.' '�.'.�.� .. Total. To..l. Unbulldable ` Buildable.. Sur plus ... N .. SF. . MF St.Ap 'Ants. .. .Total :"::. 5F MF '. Sr, Apts,. -' Total ' SF..-> r MF- .'Sr; Apts.. -Total Unincorporated (1)PENDiNG ULDR 2.165 0.69 1.476 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 Sum 2,165 0.69 1.476 0 4 6 0 4 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 Sum 7,165 0.69 1,476 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 (2) VACANT ULDR 25.592 21A24 4.168 0 12 0 0 12 10 0 0 10 27 0 0 27 UMDR 4.889 0.792 4,097 0 13 0 0 13 10 0 0 10 29 0 0 29 Sum 30,481 22.216 8.265 0 25 0 0 25 20 0 0 20 56 0 0 56 Sum 30.481 22,216 8,265 0 25 0 0 25 20 0 0 20 56 C 0 56 (3)PAR7USE ULDR 167.613 98.844 68.769 61.375 185 0 0 185 123 0 C 123 343 0 0 343 UMDR 4.813 2.184 3.63 3.369 1C 0 0 i0 7 0 C 7 19 0 0 19 Sum 172.425 1C0.028 72.399 54.744 195 0 0 195 130 0 C 130 361 0 0 361 D1/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 6 Sum (4) REDEV 5um Unincorporated Subtotal UGA Total MARKET -READY ULDR 39,585 3.057 36.513 35.758 115 0 0 115 109 0 0 109 304 0 0 304 Sum 39.585 3.067 36,518 35.758 115 0 0 115 109 0 0 109 304 0 0 304 212.011 103.094 108.916 100.502 310 0 0 310 239 0 0 239 665 0 0 555 UWR 164.366 91.915 82.451 0 244 0 0 244 162 0 0 162 452 0 0 452 UMOR 9.934 5.03 4.904 0 13 0 0 13 9 0 0 9 24 0 0 24 Sum 174.3 86.945 87.355 0 257 0 0 257 171 0 0 171 476 0 0 476 MARKET -READY ULDR 2.273 0.178 2.096 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 Sum 2.273 0,178 2.096 a 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 176.573 87.123 39.45 0 262 0 0 262 176 0 0 176 489 0 0 489 421.23 213.123 208.1c8 1co.5o2 601 0 0 601 439 0 0 439 1222 0 0 1222 960,686 481.267 479.42 215.323 1713 29 0 1742 1339 23 0 1362 3727 43 D 3770 01 /02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3 of 6 2,500 2,000 1,50o C a E T 2 a Sirohornish County Tomorrow 20U Buildable Lands Report- December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Emp-L. Sultan UGA Employment E1,000 L-.^.^.------ ._---------�,�.----.�.^.»»_----^,�..»�,-^.^----.^.,��.-- --- ---,^.m^.-------,----�.----^.-- - 500 P Q O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry ry ry N N N N N N N Sultan UGA —Total 2025 Employment Capacity — 50% of 2005-2025 Addtnl Emp Capacity —^2005 Employment Estimate ---2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection --SIC Annual Employment Estimates" --NAICS Annual Employment Estimates* Table Emp-L. Sultan UGA Employment Statistics Ernployrrrent Estimates 2005-91 2005-25 2405-2:5 2405=11 Change Numeric 2025 Numeric Totat Addtnl as%of2045.25 2002 ': 2002 :' Change Change 2025 ': Emp Gap. Addril Emp Cap 2070 2001 SiC NAICS. 20a 2011 C'Aaret ': -A<ECa ' E >A = C Y F ':100' 912 862 860 581 942 920 1,031 1,010 1,032 1,069 908 922 866 -165 2,000 969 2,334 1,303 -12,71/. The State of Washinglon Employment Security Department now usas the NAICS system of r assifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different LGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system. Data for 2002 Is shown using both systems" In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates, Employment Sultan UGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres, Additional Employment Capacity . >, Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total . Unbuildable Buildable Surplus Before Reductions After Reductions City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING P/I 6.352 0.218 6,134 0 17 17 Sum 6.352 0.218 6.134 0 17 17 Sum 6.352 0.218 6.134 0 17 17 (2) VACANT ED 36.523 23.19 13.332 0 189 153 HOD 28.983 4.031 24.952 0 325 262 UC 0,55 0 0.55 0 12 10 Sum 66.055 27.221 38.834 0 526 425 MARKET -READY HOD 41.262 24.304 16.957 0 221 210 Sum 41,262 24.304 16.957 0 221 210 Sum 107.316 51.525 55.791 0 747 635 (3) PARTUSE ED 11.737 6.375 5.362 3.076 44 29 HOD 44.472 19,561 24.911 18.499 240 160 Sum 56.209 25.936 30.273 21.575 284 189 Sum 56.209 25.936 30,273 21.575 284 189 (4) REDEV ED 24.31 11.359 12.952 0 175 116 HOD 43.54 15.609 27.931 0 363 241 UC 5.099 0 5.099 0 98 65 Sum 72.95 26.967 45.982 0 636 423 MARKET -READY HOD 2.819 0 2,819 0 37 35 Sum 2.819 0 2.S19 0 37 35 Sum 75,769 26.967 48.802 0 673 458 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 245.646 104.647 141 21.575 1721 1299 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5 of 6 v v m CD m N CJ7 N O_ A W DRAFT Sultan UGA Table X%: Development History (1995 to 2010) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Units Buildable Buildable Acre in Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Plan 1 Development 1 Developed 1 Developed I Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within City Zones (and County Plan Designations required to build to City standards) Low -Moderate Density (ULDR and UMDR) Single Family 45.69 100% 147 3.22 3.22 - - - - Moderate Density Single Family 75.93 97% 352 4.64 4.64 - - - - - Multi -Family 2.66 3% 30 0.38 0.38 - - - - - Total 78.59 100% 382 4.86 4.86 - - - - - High Density Single Family 31.51 96% 223 7.08 7.08 - - - - - Multi -Family 1.33 4% 15 0.46 0.46 - - - - - Total 32.84 100% 238 7.25 7.25 - - - - Economic Development Non -Residential (1) 20.72 100% 3 0.14 0.I4 242,931 0.27 297 14.34 14.34 I- Several single-family caretakers quarters are included in the non-residential category. Highway Oriented Development Non -Residential 8.76 100% - - - 43,217 0.11 76 8.67 13.00 (2) 2- The sample size for Highway Oriented Develoment is small and includes one site (Barmon Lumber) which may not be fully developed and a high proportion of low employment density gas stations (this is important because the market for gas stations appears to now be saturated). Future employment densities are assumed to be 13 employees/buildable acre because future development is expected to use each site more intensively. The assumed employment by sector is as follows: 6 retail, 4 food services, and 3 other services. ban Center Non -Residential 0.45 100% - - - 4,155 0.21 9 19.84 19.84 City of Sultan 01/02/2013 1 Snohomish County Planring and Development Services 6 of 6 Southwest Ca. U& Population 500 000 500,04U 400,040 c 0 b 300,040 a 0 a zoo,o40 100,004 Snohomish Couno Tomorrow 20I2 Buildable Lauds Report- December 13, 20I2 PAC DRAFT Figure Pop-L. Southwest County UGA Population N v p a 6 6 C 6 6 O 6 ry N N [� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry ry —Total 2025 Population Capacity — 50% of 2005-2025 Addtnl Pop Capacity ^^^-2005 Population Estimate ---2002-2025 Pop Growth Target Projection —Annual Population Estimates (pre -Census 2010)—Annuat Population Estimates (post -Census 2010) Table Pop-L. Southwest County UGA Population Statistics (A) (3) (C) (D) (E) (F) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 2005-11 Change Pop Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnl as % of 2005-25 Diif. (Census -Est) Change CPP Pop Change 2025 Pop Cap Addtnl Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 pop No. Pct. 2011 = B - A Target = D - A Pop Cap E - A = G 1 F *100 389,869 375,964 380,579 384.715 398,722 396,053 406,285 414,187 419,659 424,050 427,543 432,020 4,477 1.01A 434,426 38,373 533,125 137,072 560,607 164,555 23.3% Bothell MUGA - Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Additional. Unit apacity Additio ..... Acres . Additional Populatbrn Capacity - .-- :., Ibeforeusing reductions) I (after reductions)Capacity Jurisdiction --Land Status -- Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surplus - SF -MF Sr.Apts. Total '5F -MF Sr.Apts. Ictall SF - MF. Sr.Apts. -. Total City (as of Apr-021 (1) PENDING R 2,800, OP 1.242 0.023 1.219 0 12 0 0 12 12 0 0 12 33 0 0 33 R 5,401)a 0.252 0.043 0.209 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 5 R 5,400d 10.151 1.551 8.6 0 25 0 0 25 25 0 0 25 70 0 0 70 R 7,200 9.39 0.5 7.889 0 34 0 0 34 34 0 C 34 95 0 0 95 R 8,400 2.051 0 2.051 0 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 28 0 0 28 49,600 58.307 12,971 45.336 0 177 0 0 177 177 0 0 177 493 0 0 493 R9,500, (LID), 5.42 3,345 7.075 0 3 D 0 3 3 0 0 3 8 0 0 8 NCFWCHPA Sum 85.923 18.433 67.39 0 263 0 0 253 253 0 0 263 732 0 0 732 Sum - 85.813 18,433 67.38 0 263 0 0 253 253 0 0 263 732 0 0 732 (2) VACANT R-AC, OP, LI 16.578 16.548 0.029 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 7 0 a 7 R 2,800 1.495 1.199 0.295 0 5 C C 5 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 R 4,000 0.194 0.021 0.173 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 R 40,000, 1.1 0.436 0.664 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 (Li D), NCFWCHPA R 5,400a 1.981 1,389 0,592 0 1 3 0 4 1 2 0 3 2 4 0 7 R 5,400a, 2.991 0.558 2.423 0 5 14 0 19 4 11 0 15 11 21 0 32 (LID), NCFWCHPA R 5,400a, 0.729 0.609 0.12 C 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 NCFWCHPA R 5,400d 0.22 0 0.22 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 R 9,400 0.847 0.435 0.412 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 4 R 9,600 57.112 44.836 22.276 0 81 0 0 81 65 0 0 65 182 0 0 182 R 9,600, 2.353 1.879 0.474 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 NCFWCHPA Sum 95.6 67.921 27,679 0 101 20 0 121 82 16 0 98 227 30 0 257 MARKET -READY R-AC, DP, LI 2.837 2.837 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 R 4,000 4.21 3.741 OA69 0 0 8 0 8 a 8 0 8 0 14 0 14 R 40,D00, 12.052 8.352 3.7 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 (LID], NCFWCHPA R 5,400a 2.251 1.495 0.756 0 1 4 0 5 1 4 0 5 3 7 0 10 R 5,400a, 4.899 4.989 0 0 1 a a 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 li-ID), NCFWCHPA R 5,400a, OP 5.562 4.933 1.73 0 16 0 0 16 15 0 0 15 42 0 0 42 R 7,200 4.351 2.875 1.476 0 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 6 16 0 0 is R 9,500 9.212 0 8.212 0 27 0 0 27 26 0 0 26 71 0 C 71 Sum 45.364 29.021 16.343 0 56 12 0 68 53 11 0 65 148 21 0 169 Sum 140.964 96.942 44.022 0 157 32 0 189 135 28 0 162 375 51 0 426 (3) PARTUSE R 2,800, OP 6.191 5.062 1.128 0.887 4 7 _ 0 11 3 5 0 7 7 9 0 16 R 4,000 0.672 0 0.672 0.433 0 8 0 8 0 5 C 5 C 10 0 10 R 4,000, OP, 2.838 1.283 1.556 0.957 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 C 5 0 5 C6 R 40,000, 27.92 3,384 24.536 22.266 18 0 0 18 12 0 0 12 33 0 0 33 {LID), NCFWCHPA 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2of10 R 5,400a 3.924 1.494 2.43 1.887 2 9 0 11 1 6 0 7 4 11 0 15 R5,400a, 26,332 9,194 17,198 14.616 25 82 0 108 17 55 0 72 48 100 C 148 � (LID), CD NCFWCHPA ' N R 5,400a, 3.943 2.57 1,273 0.767 1 3 0 4 1 2 0 3 2 4 0 6 NCFWCHPA � N R 5,4COd 3.444 0.622 2.822 1.637 8 0 0 8 5 0 0 5 15 0 0 15 Cn R 7,200 23.811 1.914 21.897 15.558 54 0 0 54 36 0 0 36 100 0 0 100 p R 8,400 1,221 0.393 0.928 0,617 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 A R 9,600 234.199 46.756 187,442 145.556 421 0 0 421 280 0 0 280 779 0 0 779 Cl) R 9,500, 5.313 3.998 1.315 0.986 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 5 NCFWCHPA R9,500, (L10), 9.157 5.043 4.114 2.955 9 0 0 9 6 0 0 6 17 0 0 17 NCFWCHPA Sum 348.913 81,702 267,21 209.323 548 113 0 561 364 75 0 440 1015 139 0 1153 MARKET READY R 40,000, 14.059 4.221 9.839 9.237 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 24 0 0 24 (1_0), NCFWCHPA R 7,200 4.883 3,476 1.407 1.136 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 R 9,600 2.514 C,739 1,775 1,529 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 Sum 21,456 8,436 13,02 11,902 18 0 0 18 17 C 0 17 48 0 0 48 Sum 370.369 90.138 280.231 221.225 566 113 D 679 382 75 0 457 1062 13R 0 1200 (4) REDEV R-AC, OP, L! 1.017 0.68 0.337 0 0 2 C 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 R 2,800 2.509 1.299 1.221 0 14 C C 14 9 0 0 9 26 0 0 26 R 2,800, OP 3.069 0.094 2.974 0 11 24 0 35 7 16 0 23 20 29 0 50 84,000 0,454 0 0.454 0 -1 8 0 7 -1 5 0 5 -2 10 C 8 R 40,000, 5,558 0 5.558 0 5 C 0 5 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 9 (UD), NCFWCHPA R 5,400a 6.326 2.757 3.569 0 4 20 0 24 3 13 0 15 7 24 0 32 - R 5,400a, 20342 12.626 7,915 0 13 46 0 59 9 31 0 39 74 56 0 80 (UD), NCFWCHPA R 5,400a, 0,676 0,187 0.489 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 NCFWCHPA R 5,400a, OP 8.47 2.956 5.514 0 52 0 0 52 35 0 0 35 96 0 0 96 R 7,200 10.347 3.762 6.585 0 14 0 0 14 9 0 0 9 26 0 D 26 R 8,400 1.328 0 1.328 0 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 7 R 9,600 135,951 40.955 94,996 0 238 0 0 238 158 0 0 159 441 0 0 441 R 9,600, 2.S29 1.513 1.016 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 NCFWCHPA 119,600,(LID), 2.504 1.173 1.33 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 6 ❑ 0 6 NCFWCHPA Sum 201.279 67.992 133.296 0 359 102 0 461 239 68 0 307 665 125 0 789 MARKET -READY R 2,900 1.129 0,735 0.394 0 4 0 0 4 4 D 0 4 11 0 C 11 R 4,000, OP, 5.697 3.17 2.727 0 -1 13 0 12 -1 12 0 11 -3 23 0 20 C8 R 40,000, 4.945 O.B59 4.087 C 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 8 0 0 8 (LID}, NCFWCHPA R 7,200 4.896 0567 4.329 0 17 0 0 17 16 D 0 16 45 0 0 45 R 9,600 3.194 1.001 2.192 0 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 6 16 0 0 16 R9,60D,{1_113), 15.198 5.873 9.325 D 31 D ❑ 31 29 0 0 29 82 0 0 82 NCFWCHPA Sum 35.259 12.205 23.054 D 60 13 0 73 57 12 0 69 159 23 0 181 Sum 236.538 90.198 156.34 0 419 115 0 534 296 80 0 376 823 149 0 971 12127/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3 of 10 N c� 0) tU tp City (as of Apr-02)Subtotal 833,683 285.71 .. Acres 547.973 221.225 1405 . Additional - - - 260 0 Housing Unit Capacity {before reductions) 1665 : 1075 183 0 Addit€oral Housing Unit Capacity -..- - (after reductions) 1259 2993 - Additional 336 0 Population Capatit 3329 Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready. _. 2cne - ,_. Total Unbulldable Buildable Surp€us - � : 5F - MF Sr. Apts. .... Total - . - SF. .. MF Sr. Apts: . Total - . SF - MF Sr, Apts: - ' Total Ln Unincorporated (1)PENDING UCENTER 9.203 6.948 2.255 0 0 274 0 274 0 274 0 274 0 504 0 504 IJCOM 0.535 0.01 0.525 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 14 0 0 14 UHDR 7.399 0.982 6.517 0 34 46 0 80 34 46 0 80 95 85 0 179 VLOR 225.945 41.782 184.163 0 1421 3 100 1524 1421 3 100 1524 3956 6 118 4079 UMDR 29.845 7.091 21.754 0 24C 0 0 240 249 0 0 240 668 0 0 568 Sum 271.927 56.713 225.224 0 2700 323 100 2123 1700 323 100 2123 4733 594 118 5445 Sum 271.927 56.713 215.214 0 1700 323 100 2123 1700 323 100 2123 4733 594 118 5445 (2)VACANT UHDR 26.325 22.838 3.487 0 26 19 0 45 21 1S 0 36 58 28 0 87 ULDR 33.947 13.824 20,123 0 114 0 D 114 92 0 0 92 256 0 0 256 UMUR 3.551 1.633 1.918 0 18 0 D 18 15 0 0 15 40 0 0 40 UVILL 1,171 D 1.171 0 0 24 2 26 0 19 2 21 0 36 2 38 Sum 54,994 38.295 26.7 0 158 43 2 203 128 35 2 164 355 64 2 421 MARKET -READY UHDR 17.127 17.127 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 a 0 1 3 0 0 3 ULDR 0.968 0.532 0.436 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 8 0 0 8 UMDR 4.779 0.011 4,768 0 43 2 a 45 41 2 0 43 114 3 0 117 Sum 22.874 17.67 5,204 0 47 2 0 49 45 2 0 47 124 3 0 128 Sum 87.869 55.965 31.994 0 205 45 2 252 172 37 2 210 490 67 2 549 (3)PARTUSE UHDR 7.283 1.151 6.032 3.791 24 17 0 41 16 11 0 27 44 21 0 65 ULDR 337.482 83.341 254.141 176.453 885 0 0 885 589 0 0 589 1638 0 0 1638 UMDR 35.985 8.427 28.559 20.949 175 3 0 178 116 2 0 118 324 4 0 328 Sum 381.65 92.918 288.732 201.192 1084 20 0 1104 721 13 0 734 2007 24 0 2031 MARKET -READY UHDR 0.577 0 0,577 0,361 2 1 0 3 2 1 0 3 5 2 0 7 ULDR 1.176 0,699 0.427 0.269 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 UMOR 10.205 1.434 8.771 8.043 73 4 0 77 59 4 0 73 193 7 0 200 Sum 11.908 2133 9.775 8.572 76 5 0 81 72 5 0 77 201 9 0 210 Sum 393.559 95.052 298.507 209.864 1160 25 0 1195 793 18 0 811 2208 33 0 2241 (4)REDEV UCENTER 8.302 4.772 3.53 0 0 122 33 155 0 81 22 103 0 149 26 175 UHDR 27.482 5.057 22.415 0 128 111 0 239 85 74 0 159 237 235 0 373 ULDR 195,832 82,332 1135 0 514 0 0 514 342 0 0 342 952 0 0 952 UMDR 15.103 0.687 14.415 0 1D7 3 0 110 71 2 0 73 198 4 0 202 UVILL 3.05 0.913 2.137 0 -5 44 3 42 -3 29 2 28 -9 54 2 47 Sum 249.769 93.771 155.998 0 744 280 36 1060 495 185 24 705 1377 343 28 1748 MARKET -READY UCENTER 5.836 4.403 1,433 0 -3 49 13 59 -3 47 12 55 -8 86 15 92 ULDR 18.443 2.786 15.657 0 87 0 0 87 83 0 0 83 230 0 0 230 UMDR 17.266 12.348 4.918 0 37 2 0 39 35 2 a 37 98 3 0 101 UVILL 7.205 0 7.205 0 -5 159 21 174 -5 150 20 165 -13 276 23 286 Sum 48.75 19.537 29.213 0 116 209 34 359 110 199 32 341 307 365 39 710 Sum 293.518 113.308 185.211 0 860 499 70 1419 605 385 56 1046 1584 708 66 2458 Unincorporated Subtotal 1051.873 321.038 730,835 209.864 3925 882 172 4979 3270 762 158 4191 9104 1403 196 10693 MUGA TOTAL 1885,556 606.748 1R78.808 431.089 5330 1142 172 6644 4345 945 158 5449 12097 1739 186 14022 l_fJ 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 4 of 10 T CD T v CD Bothell MUGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres Additional Employment Capacity N � Jurisdiction Land Status Market Read y Zone Total T __ _ Unbuildable Buildable Surplus Before Reductions : After Reductions 0 City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING OP 4.092 1.84 2.252 0 88 88 OP, CB, Ll, 21.33 14.214 7.116 0 1585 1585 MVSO OP, GC 11.312 6.751 4.561 0 2 2 R 4,000, OP, 16.208 5.059 11.15 0 158 158 CB Sum 52.942 27.863 25.079 0 1933 1833 Sum 52.942 27.863 25.079 0 1933 1833 (2) VACANT OP, LI 12.581 1.09 11.491 0 488 394 Sum 12.581 1.09 11.491 0 488 394 MARKET -READY OP, U 14.234 4.902 9.333 0 397 377 Sum 14.234 4.902 9,333 0 397 377 5um 26.815 5.992 20.823 0 885 771 (3) PARTU5E OP, LI 10.11 6.068 4.042 2.009 258 258 R 41000, OP, 2.839 1.283 1.556 0.857 10 7 CB Sum 12.948 7.35 5.598 2.866 268 265 Sum 12.949 7.35 5.598 2.866 268 265 (4) REDEV CB 6.457 4.54 1.917 0 47 31 OP, CB, GC 1.953 0.378 1.574 0 9 6 OP, CB, MVSO 7.68 3.159 4.52 0 87 58 R-AC, OP, CB 2.511 2.055 0.456 0 13 9 R-AC, OP, CB, 1.063 0 1.063 0 28 19 LI R-AC, OP, CB, 27.143 9.055 18.087 0 863 574 MVSO R 4,000, OP, 5.292 4.623 0.669 0 8 5 CB W N 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 6 of 10 m N 7 77 T v CD m N U1 W O_ A w Sum 52.098 23.811 28,287 0 1055 702 MARKET -READY CB 17.774 7.144 10.63 0 211 200 NB 2.798 0 2,798 0 72 68 R 4,000, OP, 6.381 3.17 3.211 0 38 36 CB Sum 26.954 10.314 16.64 0 321 305 Sum 79.052 34.125 44.927 0 1376 1007 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 171.757 75.331 96.427 2.866 4362 3875 Acres - ....... Additional Employment .Capacity.' Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total . Unbuildable ' Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions After Reductions Unincorporated (1) PENDING UCENTLR 1.187 0.769 0,418 0 35 35 ULDR 9.468 6,594 2.875 0 125 125 Sum 10.655 7.363 3.292 0 160 160 Sum 10.655 7,363 3.292 0 160 160 (2) VACANT UVILL 1.171 0 1.171 0 11 9 5um 1.171 0 1.171 0 11 9 Sum 1.171 0 1.171 0 11 9 (4) REDEV UCENTER 4.928 1.729 3.199 0 83 55 UVILL 3.05 0.913 2.137 0 14 9 Sum Unincorporated Subtotal M UGA Total Sum 7.978 2,642 5.336 0 97 65 MARKET -READY UCENTER 5.836 4.403 1.433 0 39 37 UVILL 7.205 0 7.205 0 72 68 Sum 13.041 4.403 8.638 0 111 105 21,019 7.045 13.974 0 208 170 32.845 14.407 18.437 0 379 339 204,602 89.738 114.864 2.866 4741 4214 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 7of10 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Bothell MUGA v Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) T v `°o % Residential Development Non -Residential Development Units lAcre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Cn Buildable Buildable ° Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling g in Total Density t3' Square 9Y Area Total Employment Densit � Plan Develo ment Develo ed Develo ed Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within City Zones R-40,000 Single Family No Data Available'' 1.00 ........ N:o Data.Avaiialle ..... . - R-9,600 Single Family 133.45 100% 447 3.35 3.35 - - - - R-8,400 Single Family No Data Available.;: 4.00 No Datai,vailable - R-7,200 Single Family 13.69 100% 58 4.24 4.24 - - - - - R-5,400 detached Single Family 3.98 100% 21 5.27 5.27 - - - - - R-5,400 attached Single Family 15.11 30% 115 2.29 2,29 - - - - Multi -Family 35.20 70% 301 5.98 5.98 - - - - - Total 50.30 100% 416 8.27 8.27 - - - - - R-5,400 attached, Office Park Single Family 4.93 100% 47 9.73 9.73 - - - - - R-4,000 Multi -Family 8.04 100% 153 19.02 19.02 - - - - - Bothell MUGA 1 Development Summary 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 8 of 10 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Bothell MUCA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units 1 Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zoue or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Plau Development Developed, Developed, Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed R-4,000, OP, CB Multi -Family - 0% - - 5.00 (1) - - - - - Non -Residential 16.15 100% - - - 97,261 0.14 191 11.81 11.81 1- The only project built in R-4,000, OP, CB so far has been the Lakeside Safeway Shopping Center. Since the zoning allows both housing and commercial uses, and the remaining developable sites include locations appropriate for both, this report assumes a mix of residential development in addition to the past mix of non-residential uses. R-2,800 Single Family 0.35 100% 5 14.39 14.39 - - - - - R-2,800, OP Single Family 8.78 47% 93 5.02 5.02 - - - - - Multi -Family 9.73 53% 153 8.27 8.27 - - - - - Total 18.51 100% 246 13.29 13.29 - - - - - R-AC, OP, LI Single Family 10.92 54% 94 4.63 4.63 - - - - - Multi -Family 9.38 46% 200 9.85 9.85 - - - - - Total 20.30 100% 294 14.49 14.49 - - - - - R-AC, OP, CB (and NB) Non -Residential 14.05 100% - - - 133,385 0.22 401 28.51 28.51. R-AC, OP, CB (MVSO) Non -Residential 5.46 100% - - - 144,782 0.61 362 66.25 66.25 OP, CB (MVSO) (and both CB and OP) Non -Residential 13.1.0 100% - - - 134,815 0.24 348 26.58 26.58 r� Bothell MUGA 12/27/2012 2 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 9of10 DRAFT Bothell MUGA Table AA: Development History (1995 to 2010) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed OP, CB, GC (and OP, GC) Non -Residential 0.64 100% - - - 5,612 0.20 8 12.59 12.59 OP, CB, LI (MVSO) (and R-AC, OP, CB, U.) Non -Residential 3.94 100% - - - 86,148 0.50 215 54.66 54.66 OP, LI. Non -Residential 72.05 100% - - - 1,329,077 0.42 3,059 42.46 42.46 Bothell MUGA 1212712012 3 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 10 of 10 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report -December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Emp-M. Southwest County UGA Employment 350,000 300,000 25o,Qo0____________________'____- -__ ...,.. — ...,,. — — — ....... ...... ..... — — — — — — ..... ..... ...... .W... ...... ..,W.. - ..,.. ... - ----- 2QQ,000 --- C _"' fx 'k50,00Q E sa,aaa a 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 o a a o 0 0 0 0 0 o a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N [V N N N N N —Total 2025 Employment Capacity — 50 % of 2005-2025 Addtnl Emp Capacity Employment Estimate ---2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection tSIC Annual Employment Estimates" f NAICSAnnual Employment Estimates' Table Emp-M, Southwest County UGA Employment Statistics SW County UGA 259,577 66,753 f 291,627 118,803 1 The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAILS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system, Data for 2002 is shown using both systems. In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have been incorporated into the estimates. -_i Employment Brier MIJGA-Addition aI Population Capacity (2012 BLR) m Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT m (D Additional. Housing Unit Capatity Additional Housing -Unit. Capacity -. . N .. Acres - - - - - .:.:. (Wcf reductions) - - (after reductions) - Additlonal,Populatlon Capacity (D Jurisdiction. - .,: -.- . La. nd.5tatu.5 -, ,.Market Ready:`.:. Zone. - Total. _ Unbuifdab€e Buildable Surplus SF Mr' Sc.Apts. .Total SF - MF sr. Apts:. Total - - . - SF MF Sr. Apts. N W City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING RS 12500 30.539 5.662 24.877 0 68 0 0 68 68 0 0 68 1R9 0 0 189 O Sum 30.539 5,662 24.977 0 68 0 0 68 68 0 0 68 189 0 0 189 A sum 3C.539 5.662 24.977 0 69 0 0 68 68 0 0 68 189 0 0 199 W (2)VACANT RS 12500 36,244 23,967 12.277 0 40 0 0 40 32 0 0 32 90 0 0 90 Sum 36.244 23.967 12.277 0 40 0 0 40 32 0 0 32 90 0 0 90 Sum 36.244 23.967 12.277 0 40 0 0 40 32 0 0 32 90 0 0 90 (3)PARTUS€ RS 12500 117,99 34,493 83.497 64,69 147 0 0 147 98 0 0 98 272 C 0 272 Sum 11Z99 34,493 83,497 64,68 147 0 0 147 98 0 0 98 272 0 0 272 MARKET -READY RS 12500 4.427 3,251 1.175 0.955 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 Sum 4.427 3.251 1.175 0.955 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 Sum 122.417 37.745 94.672 65.635 149 0 0 149 100 0 0 100 277 0 0 277 (4)REDEV RS12500 43.939 8.57 35.369 0 71 0 0 71 47 C 0 47 131 0 0 131 Sum 43.939 8,57 35,369 0 71 0 0 71 47 0 0 47 131 0 0 131 Sum 43.939 9.57 35.369 0 71 0 0 71 47 0 0 47 131 0 0 131 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 233.139 75,944 157,195 65,535 328 0 0 328 247 0 0 247 688 0 0 688 '.Addltionai Housing Unit Capacity - - Additional Housing Unit Capacity. - - Acres - -. - - - (before reductions) :-" {after reductions Additional Population Capacity. Jur€$diction Land Status . Market Ready : Zone - .. Total Unbulldable Buildable... 5urplosl SIF - MF - Sr. Ants, - - Total -- : 5F MF : Sr. Apts. - Totall SIF MF Sr. Apts. -Total City {as of Apr-14 * (2} VACANT RS 12500 2.46 0.249 2.211 0 6 C 0 6 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 sum 2.46 0.249 2.211 0 6 0 0 6 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 Sum 2.46 0,249 2,211 0 6 0 0 6 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 (3) PARTUSE RS 17500 9.122 0 9.122 6.306 13 0 0 13 9 0 0 9 24 0 0 24 Sum 9122 0 9.122 6.306 13 0 0 13 9 0 0 9 24 0 0 24 Sum 9.122 0 9.122 6.306 13 0 0 13 9 0 0 9 24 0 0 24 (4)REDEV RS 12500 4,542 0 4.542 0 8 0 0 8 5 0 0 5 15 0 0 15 Sum 4.542 0 4.542 0 8 0 0 8 5 0 0 5 15 0 0 15 Sum 4.542 0 4.542 0 8 0 0 8 5 0 0 5 15 0 0 15 City (as of Apr-12) Subtotal * 16.124 0.249 15.875 5.305 27 0 0 27 19 0 0 19 52 0 0 52 * - outside of City Apr-20C2 boundaries Addlmnal Hous{ng Unit Capacity..- ., Additional Housing Unit Capacity - -- - Acres.--,. -_ -, (beforereductiors) (after reductions) AddltionalPopuidtidnCa acity Iurlsdiction - - - Land 5tafus Market Ready - - - ' Zone - Total Urhulldabie Buildable Surplusl SIF - MF -... Sr. Apts.. .Tots[ � ::. SF.:... : MIF Sr. Apts, . Total ` - . . -SF - MF Sr. Apts.. -Total Unincorporated (1) PENDING ULDR 7.629 3.453 4.176 0 32 0 0 32 32 0 0 32 89 C 0 89 Sum 7.629 3.453 4.175 0 32 0 0 32 32 0 0 32 59 0 0 89 Sum 7.629 3.453 4.176 0 32 0 0 32 32 0 C 32 89 0 0 89 (2)VACAN7 ULDR 16.957 14-56 2.397 0 16 0 0 16 13 0 0 13 36 0 0 36 VMDR 6.275 6.137 0,139 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 4 Sum 23.233 20.697 2.536 0 18 0 0 18 15 0 0 15 40 0 0 40 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 6 Sum 23.233 20.597 2.536 0 18 0 0 18 15 0 6 15 40 0 0 40 0 07 n (3l PARTUSE ULDR 50.46 17.374 33.096 22.029 106 0 0 106 70 0 0 70 196 0 0 296 77 UMDR 16.642 8.204 8.437 7.291 66 3 0 69 44 2 0 46 122 4 0 126 Sum 67.101 25.578 41.523 29.31 172 3 0 175 114 2 0 116 318 4 0 322 Sum 67.101 25.578 41.523 29.31 172 3 0 175 114 2 0 116 318 4 0 322 (D 00) (4)REDEV ULDR 72.954 12.448 10.505 0 42 0 0 42 28 0 0 28 78 0 0 78 41 Sum 22.954 12.448 10.506 p 42 0 0 42 28 0 0 28 78 0 0 78 O_ A Sum 22.954 12.448 10.566 0 42 0 0 42 28 0 0 28 76 0 0 78 W Unincorporated Subtotal 120.918 62.176 58.741 29.31 264 3 0 267 139 2 0 191 526 4 0 529 MUGA TOTAL 370.181 138.369 231.812 101.251 519 3 0 622 455 2 0 457 1266 4 0 1269 12/2712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3 of 6 Brier MUGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres .: Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total . Unbuildable Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions After Reductions City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING RS 12500 2.238 1.2 1.038 0 46 46 Sum 2.238 1.2 1.038 0 46 46 Sum 2.238 1.2 1.038 0 46 46 (4) REDEV BN 2.58 0 2.58 0 34 23 Sum 2.58 0 2.58 0 34 23 Sum 2.58 0 2.58 0 34 23 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 4.818 1.2 3.618 0 80 69 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5 of 6 DRAFT City of Brier m Table XX: Development History (2000 to 2010) T v cc m N rn 0 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Acre Floor Estimated Estimated Employment' Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Non -Res. Area Total Employment Density Zone Type of Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed City of Brier 12/27/2012 1 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 6 of 6 -10 a) 77 (D � pt Edmonds MUGA-Addit'€€oval Dec 1312012 - PAC Population Capacity (2D12 BLR} FINAL DRAFT Acres Additional Houeing Unit Capacity .,-,.. (before raducdgnsl - AddltibnaE Housing UnEt Capacrty after rea Uctians� Additionai Population. Capacity (D lurisdiitldn - . LandStatus.Market Ready- . Zone -.Total.-.- Unbullda6ie Buildable .Surplus - Sf:..- ...MF.-.Sr.A ts. .-'-Total 'SP - MF Sr,Apts. Total - .-'-SE' -' -MF Sr. Apts. .. -. Total N CY) v City f Apr-02) (1) PENDING BC-EW 01806 01281 0,524 0 0 60 0 60 0 60 C 60 0 110 0 110 p BD4 01159 C 0,169 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 C 3 8 C 0 8 CG2-CMU 11301 0 1,301 0 -1 150 0 149 -1 150 C 149 -3 276 0 273 W MPl 2,105 0.889 1,216 0 0 97 0 97 0 97 0 97 0 178 0 179 RM-1.5-CMU 0123 0 0, 123 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 C 1 3 0 C 3 RM-1.5 0.303 0 0.303 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 14 0 0 14 Residential RM-2.4-CMU 0.688 0 C.68B 0 17 0 0 17 17 0 0 17 47 0 0 47 am-EW 1.039 0.306 0.653 0 0 29 0 29 0 29 0 29 0 53 0 53 RS-10 3.252 0345 2.707 0 9 a 0 9 9 0 0 9 25 0 0 25 RS-12 7.447 4.588 2.859 0 13 0 0 13 13 0 0 13 36 0 0 36 RS-20 7,009 4,522 2.487 0 13 0 0 13 13 0 C 13 36. 0 0 36 RS-6 1.204 C.403 0.801 0 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 6 17 0 0 17 RS-8 16.128 2.509 13.619 0 63 0 0 63 63 0 0 63 175 0 0 175 RS-MP 2.397 0.261 2.225 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 6 Sum 43.961 14.385 29.576 C 131 336 C 457 131 336 0 467 365 619 D 983 MARKET -READY CG-HS 14.528 4.015 10.512 0 0 350 0 350 0 350 0 350 0 644 0 544 Sum 14.529 4.D16 10512 0 0 350 0 350 0 350 0 350 0 644 0 644 Sum 58.489 18.402 40.C98 0 131 686 0 917 131 666 0 817 355 1262 0 1627 (2( VACANT CG-H99 0.538 0.231 03D7 C 1 0 C 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 C 2 MP2 21.419 17.372 4.C47 0 C 121 0 121 0 98 0 98 0 180 0 180 RM-1.5-CMU 0.715 0 0.715 0 1 8 10 19 1 6 8 15 2 12 9 24 RM-1.5 1.044 0.654 0.39 0 1 7 0 8 1 6 0 6 2 10 0 13 Residential _ RM-2.4-CMU O.244 0 0.244 0 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 2 2 3 0 5 RM-2,4 1,852 0.622 1,231 0 6 14 0 20 5 11 D 16 13 21 0 34 Residentiai RM-3-H99 2.724 0.147 2.577 0 0 27 0 27 C 22 0 22 0 40 0 40 RS-10 1.629 0.105 1.323 0 5 C 0 5 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 RS-12 25.Oa5 13.977 11058 0 57 0 0 57 46 a 0 46 128 0 0 228 RS-20 22.355 17.073 5.261 0 32 0 0 32 26 0 0 26 72 D 0 72 RS-6 5,252 2,711 2541 0 26 O 0 26 21 0 C 21 58 0 0 58 RS-R 18.698 6,756 11,942 0 59 0 0 59 48 0 C 48 133 0 0 133 Sum 101.505 59.65 41.855 0 189 179 10 378 153 145 8 305 425 266 9 700 MARKET READY CG-H99 3.65 0 3.65 0 0 6 3 9 0 6 3 9 D 10 3 14 RM-1.5 H99 1.791 0 1.791 0 4 20 27 51 4 19 26 48 11 35 30 76 RM-1.5 1AU9 C.039 1.371 0 C 28 0 28 0 27 0 27 0 49 0 49 Residential Sum 6.361 0.039 6.822 0 4 54 30 88 4 51 29 84 11 94 34 138 Sum 109.367 59.689 48.678 0 193 233 40 466 156 196 37 399 435 360 43 939 (3( PARTUSE RS-10 14.649 0.237 14.412 8.924 27 0 C 27 18 C 0 18 50 0 0 50 RS-12 37.362 6,341 31,021 20.516 47 0 0 47 31 C 0 31 87 0 0 87 RS-20 6.484 3.386 3.C98 2L029 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 6 RS-5 9.067 0.471 8.596 4.77 21 0 C 21 14 0 0 14 39 0 0 39 RS-8 37.921 2.52 35.401 21.084 74 0 0 74 49 0 0 49 137 0 D 137 RS-MP 3A72 0.234 3.239 2A29 12 0 0 12 8 0 0 8 22 0 0 22 Sum 108.954 13.188 95.766 59352 184 D 0 184 122 0 a 122 341 0 0 341 Sum 10&954 13.188 95.766 59352 184 0 0 194 122 0 0 122 341 0 0 341 12127/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 12 (4( REDEV RC-H99 2.151 0.288 1.862 0 0 28 19 47 C 19 13 31 0 34 15 49 BC 5.754 0.214 5,539 0 0 86 66 152 C 57 44 lot 0 105 52 157 BD1 L723 0 1.723 0 0 7 n 7 C 5 0 5 0 9 0 9 tD BD2 11.348 0.299 11.05 0 -14 158 112 256 -9 105 74 170 -26 193 88 755 8D3 2,739 0.8 1.939 0 0 3C 21 51 0 20 14 34 0 37 16 53 BD4 0,117 0 0,117 0 -1 4 2 5 -1 3 1 3 -2 5 2 5 d) BDS 3.SB6 0 3.596 0 -27 96 c 69 -19 64 0 46 -50 117 0 67 N CG-1-199 26.006 0.946 25,06 0 -1 42 12 53 -1 28 8 35 -2 51 9 59 00 CG2-CMU 4.297 O.s67 3A29 0 0 8 2 10 0 5 1 7 0 10 2 11 O C62-H99 23.757 L554 22-203 0 -2 60 25 83 -1 40 17 55 -4 73 20 89 W rVMU 3.423 0.352 3,031 0 0 49 37 Be 0 33 25 57 0 6C 29 89 OR 0.118 0.023 0,095 0 -1 2 0 1 -1 1 0 1 -2 2 0 1 RM-1.5-CMU 8.74 0.019 8.721 0 2 90 118 210 1 60 78 140 4 110 92 206 RM-1.5 H99 1.21 0,047 2.152 0 -6 11 15 20 -4 7 10 13 -11 13 12 14 RM-1.5 27.872 3.267 24.604 0 -7C 491 0 421 -47 327 C 280 -130 but 0 471 Residential RM-2.4-CMU 12.508 0.061 12.447 0 C 91 0 91 0 61 0 61 0 ill 0 111 RM-2.4 14.226 1.137 13.09 0 10 141 0 151 7 94 0 100 19 173 0 191 Residential RM-3 2.233 0 2.233 0 -10 20 0 10 -7 13 0 7 -19 Z4 0 6 RS-10 9.739 0 9.739 0 24 0 0 24 16 0 0 16 44 0 0 44 RS-12 15.151 3.882 11.269 0 18 0 0 18 12 c 0 12 33 0 0 33 RS-2c 3.264 1.965 11799 0 1 0 0 1 1 C O 1 2 0 0 2 RS-6 4.729 C.374 4.355 C 12 0 0 12 8 0 0 8 22 0 0 22 RS-8 46.525 3.09 43.435 c 122 0 0 12Z 81 0 0 81 226 0 0 Z76 Sum 231.215 19.225 211.99 C 57 1414 429 1900 38 940 285 1264 106 1730 335 2171 MARKET -READY BC-EW 0.979 0.24 0.639 0 -2 10 7 15 -2 In 7 14 -5 17 8 20 CG-1-199 5.603 1.C71 5.531 0 0 11 5 16 0 10 5 15 0 19 6 25 CG2 1.111 0 L111 0 0 3 1 4 0 3 1 4 0 5 1 6 RM-1.5 1.16 Ices 1.091 0 -2 22 0 20 -2 21 0 19 -5 38 C 33 Residential RM-2.4 0.18 0 0.18 0 0 2 O 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 C 3 Residential Sum 9-932 1.379 9.553 0 -4 48 13 57 -4 46 12 54 -11 84 15 88 Sum 241,147 20.605 220.542 0 53 1452 442 1957 34 986 298 1318 95 1914 350 2259 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal - 516.957 111,883 4C5.074 59.752 561 2391 482 3424 444 1868 334 2646 1236 3437 .193 SC65 - Additional Housing Unit Capacity. Additional Housing Unit Capacity ... . .. Acres :.:: before reductions ) (after reductions( Additional Population rapacity -- 706dlct1on.. , . Land StaWS Market Ready Zone J.- --Total - -UnbOdable Buildable Sur p lus -:5F- - - - ME - Sr. A ts: - : Total _ - - :5F. - . ME Sr. Apts. Total - SF - - MF - Sr. Apts. Total Unincorporated {1}PENDING UMDR 1,723 0 1.723 0 18 0 0 18 18 0 0 18 50 0 0 5o Sum 1.723 0 1,723 0 18 0 0 18 18 C 0 18 So 0 0 50 Sum 1.723 0 1.773 0 18 0 C is 18 C 0 is 50 0 0 50 (2{ VACANT UMDR 0.619 0 0.619 c 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 9 Sum 0.619 0 0.629 O 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 9 MARKET -READY UMDR 0,598 0,012 0.676 0 6 0 0 5 6 0 0 6 16 0 C 16 Sum 0.688 O.C2 0,676 0 6 0 0 6 6 0 c 6 16 0 C 16 Sum 1.307 0.012 1.295 0 10 0 0 10 9 0 0 9 25 0 0 25 (3) PARTUSE UMDR 25.425 0,329 25.096 13.211 too C O 100 67 0 0 67 185 0 C 185 Sum 25.425 0.329 25.096 13.211 too C 0 100 57 0 0 67 185 0 0 185 Sum 25.425 0.329 23L96 13.211 NO 0 0 too 67 0 0 57 185 0 0 185 (4) REDEV UCOM 6.917 L216 5,701 0 0 17 1 18 0 11 1 12 0 21 1 22 UHDR 5.958 0 5.959 0 9 27 0 36 6 19 0 24 17 33 0 50 �7 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3 of 12 Sum (D N Unincorporated Subtotal O MUGATOTAL A W UMDR 28,265 0.643 27.622 0 156 0 0 155 104 0 9 104 289 0 0 289 Sum 41.141 1.959 39,281 0 165 44 1 219 110 29 1 140 305 54 1 360 MARKET READY UHDR 2.29 0 2.19 0 13 11 0 24 12 10 0 23 34 19 0 54 Sum 2.19 0 2.29 0 13 11 0 24 12 10 0 23 34 19 0 54 43.33 1.859 41.471 0 178 55 1 234 122 40 1 162 340 73 1 414 71.785 2.2 69.585 13.211 306 55 1 362 216 40 1 256 600 73 1 674 588.742 114.003 474.659 72.963 067 2436 483 3786 660 1908 335 2902 1836 3510 394 5739 1212712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 4 of 12 r cJ`! Edmonds MUGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres Additional EmploymentCapacity , Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable. Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions After Reductions City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING BC-EW 2.511 0.81 1.701 0 27 27 BD2 0,331 0 0.331 0 1 1 BN 0.959 0 0.959 0 10 10 BP 0.785 0 0.785 0 21 21 CG-H99 0,972 0 0,972 0 5 5 CG2-H99 1.476 0.008 1,468 0 82 82 Sum 7.034 0.818 6.216 0 146 146 MARKET -READY CG-H5 14.528 4.016 10.512 0 96 96 5um 14.528 4.016 10.512 0 96 96 Sum 21.562 4.835 16.727 0 242 242 (2) VACANT BN 1.279 0.704 0.575 0 17 14 CG-H99 0.538 0.231 0.307 0 9 7 MP2 21.419 17.372 4.047 0 12 10 RM-1.5-CMU 0.715 0 0.715 0 3 2 RM-2.4-CMU 0,244 0 0.244 0 1 1 Sum 24.195 18.308 5.887 0 42 34 MARKET -READY BN-CMU 0.461 0 0.461 0 13 12 CG-H99 3.66 0 3,66 0 110 105 RM-1.5 H99 1.791 0 1.791 0 7 7 Sum 5.913 0 5.913 0 130 124 5um 30.108 18.308 11.8 0 172 157 (3) PARTUSE CG-H99 4.469 0.015 4.454 0.332 6 4 CW 15.673 2.126 13.547 10.817 325 216 MU 21.974 5.004 16.97 5.437 541 360 Sum 42.117 7.145 34.971 16.586 872 580 Sum 42.117 7.145 34.971 16.586 872 580 (4) REDEV BC-H99 2.151 0.288 1.862 0 78 52 BC 5.754 0.214 5.539 0 251 167 1212712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 6of12 BD1 2.472 0 2,472 0 83 55 BD2 9.81 0.111 9.699 0 351 233 BD3 0.873 0.075 0.798 0 34 23 BD5 3.256 0 3.256 0 95 63 BN-CMU 5.166 0 5.166 0 83 55 BN 16.843 4,251 12,593 0 203 135 BP 5,386 0,61 4.776 0 129 86 CG-H99 23.381 0.793 22.588 0 280 186 CG2-CMU 4.322 0.967 3.355 0 60 40 CG2-H99 26.737 1.6 25.137 0 702 467 FVMU 3.423 0.392 3.031 0 156 104 RM-1.5-CMU 6.559 0,217 6.342 0 33 22 RM-1.5 H99 1.21 0.047 1,162 0 5 3 RM-2.4-CMU 13.09 0.096 12,994 0 65 43 Sum 130.434 9.663 120.771 0 2608 1734 MARKET -READY BC-EW 0.879 0.24 0.639 0 40 38 CG-H99 6,603 1.071 5.531 0 28 27 CG2 1.111 0 1.111 0 44 42 Sum 8.593 1.311 7.282 0 112 106 Sum 139.027 10.974 128.053 0 2720 1841 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 232.813 41.262 191.551 16.586 4006 2820 Acres Additional Employment Capacity: Jurisdiction Land Status . Market ReadyZone..: Total "Unbuildable Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions After Reductions Unincorporated (1) PENDING UCOM 1.164 0 1.164 0 7 7 Sum 1.164 0 1.164 0 7 7 Sum 1.164 0 1,164 0 7 7 (4) REDEV UCOM 6.065 0,661 5,405 0 77 51 Sum 6.065 0.661 5.405 0 77 51 Sum 6.065 0.661 5.405 0 77 51 Unincorporated Subtotal 7,229 0.661 6,569 0 84 58 MUGATotal 240.042 41.923 198.12 16.586 4090 2878 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 7 of 12 0 0 C m v CD m N V N 0 A DRAFT City of Edmonds Table XX: DeveIopment History (1995 to 2010) Type of Zone Development welopment Within City Zones Single Family 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Acres Acres Dwelling Units 1 Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density I)eveloned Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio I Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed 6.10 100% 12 1.97 I.97 - - - RS-12000 Single Family 19.53 100% 61 3.12 3.12 RS-10000 Single Family N4 Data; 4.00 - - - - PIS-S000 Single Family 27.61 100% 127 4.60 4.60 - - - RS-6000 Single Family No Data' 5.50 - - - - RS-MP Single Family 7Vo Data: 5.50 - - - RM-3600 Multi -Family 0.37 100% 4 10.70 10.70 - - - - - RM-2400: For modeling purposes, RM 2400 is being divided into two categories using a combination of zoning and comprehensive plan designation, one category will be treated as residential and the other as mixed -use. Those projects designated as residential -- MF MD (Multi Family - Medium Density) or MF HD (Multi Family - High Density) -- are modeled as residential -only. Those projects designated for mixed use -- currently either Highway 99 or Medical activity centers [often designated as Mixed -Use Commercial at the time of permit]) -- are modeled as mixed -use. KH-2400 (with residential plan designations) Single )Family 0.99 29% 17 4.79 4.79 - - - - - S City of Edmonds 1 Development Summary 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 8 of 12 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report City of Edmonds T Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) m T CD w Buildable % Buildable Residential Development Non -Residential Development Estimated Employment o Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density Zone Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Multi -Family 2.56 72% 44 12.41 12.41 - - - Total 3.55 100% 61 17.20 17.20 (with mixed -use plan designations, L e. RM-2400 CMU and RM--2400 Hwy 99) Single Family 2.04 35% 32 5.53 5.53 Multi -Family 3.25 56% 53 9.16 9.16 Non -Residential 0.49 9% - - - Total 5.78 100% 85 14.70 14.70 11,042 0.04 29 11,042 0.04 29 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.95 RM-1500: For modeling purposes.. RM 1500 is being divided into two categories using a combination of zoning and comprehensive plan designation, one category will be treated as residential and the other as mixed -use. Those projects designated as residential -- MF MD (Multi Family - Medium Density) or MF HD (Multi Family - High. Density) -- are modeled as residential -only. Those projects designated for mixed use -- currently either Highway 99 or Medical activity centers [often designated as Mixed -Use Commercial at the time of permit]) -- are modeled as mixed -use. RM-1500 (with residential plan resignations) Multi -Family 14.19 100% 302 21,28 21.28 - - - - - RM-1500 (with mixed -use plan designations, i.e. RM-1500 CMU and RM-1500 Hwy 99) Single Family 0.96 16% 16 2.60 2.60 - - - - - Multi -Family 3.12 51% 72 11.72 11.72 - - - - Senior Apartments 1.81 30% 94 15.30 15.30 - - - - - Non -Residential 0.25 4% - - - 8,830 0.03 23 3.73 3.73 Total 6.15 100% 182 29.61 29.61 8,830 0.03 23 3.73 3.73 01111. 13 Q D►h+1 Mixed -Use N &,W Zune: No Data See RM-1500 29.61 New /one. No Data, Se. 1500 4 r IBC (and BC-EW, BC -Hwy 99, BD-2, BD-3, CG-HS [Harbour Square] and FVMU) City of Edmonds 2 12/2712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 9of12 DRAFT City of Edmonds Table X.X: Development History (1995 to 2010) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units 1 Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density Zone Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Senior Apartments 1.38 21% 83 12.39 12.39 - - - - - Mixed -Use 3.95 59% 109 16.27 16.27 80,203 0.27 213 31.94 31.84 Non -Residential 1.37 20% - - - 75,238 0.26 200 29.97 29.87 Total 6.70 100% 192 28.67 28.67 155,441 0.53 413 61,71 61.71 BD-1 Downtown Retail Core Mixed -Use New Zone No: Data 5.00 New zo O No Bata 60.00(2) 2- The distribution of employment by job sector in BD-1 is assumed to be: 35 Services, 10 FIRE, 10 Retail, and 5 Food Services. BD-2 Downtown Mixed Commercial Mixed -Use NewZone:.See HC 28.67 Neu Zone See BC 61.71 BD-3 Downtown Convenience Corn. Mixed -Use New Zone: See 13 28.67 New Zone: See;BC 61.71 BD-4 Downtown Mixed Residential Multi -Family . New.Zane: No Data '. 40.00 New bane No Data - Senior Apartments New Zone: No Data 20.00 New Zone: No Data - Total' New Zone:.No'Data 60.00 NcW Zone: Na D:nta 4.04 (3) 3- While some non-residential uses are allowed in BD-4, city staff indicate that they expect the redevelopable sites to develop as residential -only projects BD-5 Downtown Arts Corridor JCG -- New Projects Multi -Family S� City of Edmonds 12/2712012 0% - - 2.00 - 3 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 10 of 12 m 0 m T v CD m N 0 DRAFT City of Edmonds Table X_X: Development History (1995.to 2010) Type of Zone Development 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development [ Non -Residential Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Acres Acres Dwelling Units/Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density )eveloned I Developed I Units linTotalZonel Assumed isquareFeet� Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Senior Apartments - 0% - - 1.00 - - - - - Non -Residential 11.83 100% - - - 181,708 0.35 265 22.40 30.00(5) Total 11.83 100% - - 3,00(5) 181,708 0.35 265 22.40 30.00(5) • Three changes in CC development patterns are expected. First, recent zoning code changes encourage housing where it was previously not allowed. To account for iis, an assumption of an additional 3 housing units per acre of overall new development is used. Second, the data sample is heavily weighted toward one large single - cry mini -storage complex that started in 2000 (35% of the buildable land developed and 45% of the overall non-residential square footage). Nearby, due to scarcity id increasing prices of commercial land, the more recent mini -storage complexes in the vicinity have mostly been 3-4 stories in height. This report assumes that iture mini -storage development in CC will follow this pattern, with the result being the same mix of uses (as a proportion of commercial square footage developed) it an overall decline in the share of land being developed for storage. Stated differently, less land will be devoted to low -employment density storage and more land ill be used by higher employment -per acre uses. Third, the permissible building heights have been increased, thereby facilitating multi -story office development. aken together, the resulting assumption is 34% higher overall employment densities but the same relative distribution of employment between job sector. The re- eighted distribution of employment by job sector in CC is assumed to be: 27.02 Services, 1.17 Food Services, 0.53 Manufacturing, 0.43 FIRE (Mini -Storage), 0.37 IRS=. (Misc.), 0.36 WTU, and 0,12 Government. CG -- Infill Projects Non -Residential 13.53 100% CG-2 (Including both CG-2 CNYU and CG-2 Hwy 99) -- New Projects 156,963 0.27 258 19.10 19,10 Multi -Family - 0% - - 3.00 - - - - - Senior Apartments - 0% - - 1.50 - - - - Non -Residential 6.70 100% - - - 94,365 0.32 212 31.69 40.00(6) Total 6.70 100% - - 4.50(6) 94,365 0.32 212 31.69 40.00(6) 6- Two changes in CG-2 development patterns are expected due to recent zoning code changes. First, housing is permitted where it was previously not allowed. To account for this, an assumption of an additional 4.5 housing units per acre of overall new development is used. Second, permissible building heights have been increased in an area with a proven market for multi -story offices. This report assumes the same mix of employment by job sector, but with an increase of 26% to a total of 40 jobs per acre with the new distribution being: 23.40 Services, 8.08 Retail, 4.93 Food Services, 3.40 Manufacturing, and 0.20 FIRE, ICG-2 Infill Projects - - - I Non -Residential 9.66 100% 93,538 0.22 142 14.69 14.69 s! CD City of Edmonds 4 Development Summary 12/2712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 11 of 12 DRAFT City of Edmonds Table XX- Development. History (1995 to 2010) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density ,Zone Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed IsquareFeet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed MP-1 Mixed -Use New :'Zone : No Data 15.00 New Zone. No Data Mixed -Use 0.28 City of Edmonds 12/27/2012 100% 6 21.20 21.20 3,00 (7) 3.00(7) 99.50 I 211 0.02 1 1.94 1.94 5 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 12 of 12 Fverett MUGA - Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Additional Housing Unit Capacity Additional Housing Uhlt Capacity .. .. . ..Acres ..,. - AdditlonaB Population Capacity. .; .(before reductions) - -,- - :- (after reduetions) .......:lurisdlction . - . Land Status Market Ready _. _. - Zone total Unbuildable Buildable .:Surplus SF ME Sr: AI) ..:: Total :- SF- , -.� ME Sr. Apts. :. Total SF -- MF- Sr. Apts.. -Total City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING B-3 3.755 0 3.755 0 0 455 0 465 0 465 0 465 0 856 0 856 6Mu 3.444 0 3.444 0 0 141 60 201 0 141 60 201 0 259 71 330 Cl 2.37 0.74 1M 0 53 0 0 53 53 0 0 53 148 0 0 148 R-1 20.468 6.336 14.132 0 80 0 0 so 80 0 0 So 223 0 0 223 R-lA 0.762 (1169 C.592 0 16 0 0 16 16 0 0 15 45 0 0 45 R-2 8.4M 2.163 6.313 0 43 8 0 51 43 8 0 51 120 15 0 134 R-2A 0.318 0.025 0.292 0 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 5 17 0 0 17 R-3 N 0.548 041 C.138 0 1 4 0 5 1 4 0 5 3 7 0 30 R-3 5 1.33 0,041 1.289 0 22 0 0 22 22 0 0 22 61 0 0 61 RAt 1.038 0.233 0.805 0 16 0 0 16 16 C 0 16 45 0 0 45 R-4 0.222 0.029 0.193 0 11 0 0 11 11 0 0 11 31 0 0 31 R-4 (H) 0,379 0 0,378 0 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 15 0 15 R-5 1.046 0 1.046 0 0 175 0 175 0 175 0 173 0 322 0 322 R-5(0) 0.799 0 0.799 0 -3 17 149 163 -3 17 149 163 -8 31 175 198 R-5 5.814 2.091 3.724 C 15 0 C 16 16 0 0 16 45 0 0 45 W-C 254.94 106.861 158.072 0 475 1325 0 1800 475 1325 0 loco 1322 2438 0 3760 Sum 315.708 119.205 196.603 0 736 2143 209 3088 136 2143 209 3088 2049 3943 246 6238 Sum 315.708 119.105 196.603 0 736 2143 209 3088 736 2148 209 3088 2049 3943 246 6238 (2) VACANT B-1 0.129 0 0.129 C 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 B-2 7.642 3.272 4.369 C 7 5 6 18 6 4 5 15 16 7 6 29 13-26 0.32 0 0.32 C 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 B-3 1.691 0 1.691 0 0 147 13 160 0 119 10 129 0 218 12 231 BMU 0.625 0 0.825 0 0 20 a 20 0 16 0 is 0 30 0 30 C-1 6.072 2.602 3.469 0 4 2 5 11 3 2 4 9 9 3 5 17 C-2E5 4,249 0 4,249 0 0 211 0 211 0 170 0 170 0 314 0 314 E-1 3.136 0.086 3.05 0 3 2 0 5 2 2 0 4 7 3 c 10 E-1(MUO) 2,935 1.006 1.929 0 1 58 0 59 1 47 0 48 2 86 0 88 R-1 40.228 27.029 13.199 0 76 2 0 78 61 2 0 63 171 3 0 174 R-lA 0.101 0 0.101 0 1 c 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 R-2 22452 14.014 &438 0 39 13 0 52 31 10 0 42 88 19 0 107 R-2 (H) 0.109 0 0.109 0 1 C 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 R-2A 2.566 0.882 1.684 0 9 9 0 18 7 7 0 15 20 13 0 34 R-3 (H) 3,102 2.329 U73 0 0 17 0 17 0 14 0 14 0 25 0 25 - R3 5 9.267 4.812 4.455 0 3 64 5 72 2 52 4 58 7 95 5 107 R-3E 8,977 BAK 3.525 0 12 39 0 51 10 31 0 41 27 58 0 85 R-4 2.147 C 1.147 0 0 24 11 35 0 19 9 28 0 36 10 46 R-5 0.059 0 0.059 0 0 5 0 5 0 4 c 4 0 7 0 7 R-5 (C-c) 0.527 0 0,527 0 0 27 0 27 0 22 0 22 0 4C 0 40 R-5 (c) C.549 0 0.549 0 0 29 0 29 0 23 C 23 0 43 0 43 R-5 34.717 30351 4.155 0 26 0 0 26 21 0 0 21 58 0 0 58 Sum 150.808 92-036 58.772 0 183 674 41 398 149 544 33 725 411 1001 39 1452 MARKET -READY B-1 3.119 1.211 1.848 0 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 12 0 12 B-2 1,259 0,929 0133 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 6.29 0.924 0 0.924 0 0 2 3 5 0 2 3 5 0 3 3 7 B-3 0.925 0 0.925 0 0 82 8 90 0 78 8 86 0 143 9 152 BMU 0.831 0 0.831 0 0 39 0 19 0 18 0 18 0 33 0 33 C-1 3.691 2.118 1.573 C 3 1 2 6 3 1 2 6 8 2 2 12 C-2E5 0.727 0 0.727 0 0 35 C 35 0 33 0 33 0 61 0 61 E-1 (MUD) 5.069 1.432 3.636 0 0 113 0 113 0 107 0 107 C 199 0 198 R-1 0.512 0.512 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 R-2 15.997 11.422 4.475 0 16 14 0 30 15 13 0 29 42 24 0 67 R-2A 1.422 1.291 0.132 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 1212712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2of18 R-3 (H) 0.551 0 0.551 0 0 12 0 12 0 11 0 11 0 21 0 21 R-3 N 0.068 0 0.068 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 C 1 0 2 0 2 R-4 01608 0 0-60B 0 0 13 6 19 0 12 6 18 0 23 7 29 R-5 1.172 0.305 C.867 0 0 113 0 113 0 111 0 111 0 205 0 205 R-5 (0) 0.274 0 0.274 0 0 14 0 14 0 13 0 13 D 24 0 24 Sum 37.05 19.231 17.769 0 23 426 19 468 22 409 18 449 61 752 21 934 Sum 197.858 111.317 76.541 0 206 1100 60 1356 170 953 51 1174 472 1753 60 2286 O) PARTUSE R-1 105.199 11.782 93.416 57.568 242 2 0 244 161 1 0 162 448 2 0 450 R-IA 0.378 0 0.318 0.229 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 R-2 51.866 11.632 40.233 27.133 86 58 0 144 57 39 0 96 159 71 0 230 R-2A 2,108 0 2.108 1.362 7 7 0 14 5 5 0 9 13 9 0 22 R-3 5 6.618 0 6.618 4.933 0 73 0 73 0 49 0 49 C 89 0 89 R-K 14.229 S.D22 9.207 6.454 18 73 0 91 12 49 0 61 33 89 0 123 R-S 45.589 14.943 30.647 18.666 75 0 0 76 51 0 0 51 141 0 0 141 -Sum 225.986 43.38 182.606 116.345 430 213 0 643 286 142 D 428 796 261 0 1057 Sum 225.996 43.38 182.606 116,345 430 213 0 643 286 142 0 428 796 261 0 1057 (4) REDEV B-1 5.93 0 5.93 0 -2 20 0 i8 -1 13 0 12 -4 24 0 21 B-2 7.421 1.95 5.471 0 0 6 8 16 0 5 5 11 0 10 6 16 B-2B 1.912 0 1.912 0 -1 5 6 10 -1 3 4 7 -2 6 5 9 B-3 36.64 0.795 35.855 0 -27 3160 296 3429 -18 21D1 197 2280 -50 3867 231 4048 B M U 39.744 0.122 39.622 C -55 939 0 884 -37 624 0 588 -102 1149 C 1047 C-1 23.779 0.842 22.937 0 -5 14 42 51 -3 9 28 34 -9 17 33 41 C-2ES 29.532 0 29.532 0 -11 1458 0 1447 -7 970 0 962 -20 1784 0 1764 E-1 24.064 0.849 23.216 0 0 24 0 24 0 16 0 16 0 29 0 29 E-1(MUD) 94.825 5.712 89.113 0 -22 2760 D 2738 -15 1835 0 1821 -41 3377 0 3336 R-1 38231 4.142 34A89 0 101 2 0 103 67 1 0 68 187 2 0 189 R-2 49.187 6.122 43.065 0 47 115 0 162 31 75 0 109 87 141 0 228 R-3 (C-H) 0,679 0 0.679 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 D 2 0 4 0 4 R-3 (C) 0,277 0 0.277 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 R-3(H) 15.942 0.474 15,468 0 -30 318 0 288 -20 211 C 192 -56 389 D 334 R-3 N 41.935 0.227 41.708 0 -85 813 0 728 -57 541 0 484 -157 995 0 837 R-3 5 46. 105 6,182 39.923 0 -15 549 18 551 -10 364 12 366 -28 671 14 657 R-3E 9.814 1096 9.719 0 9 92 0 101 6 61 0 67 17 113 0 129 R-4 43.619 0.355 43.255 0 -77 658 364 1145 -51 571 242 761 -143 1050 285 1192 R-4 (C-O) 3.443 M26 3.419 0 -12 82 0 70 -8 SS 0 47 -22 100 0 78 R-4 (C) 0.912 0 0.912 0 -9 23 0 14 -6 15 0 9 -17 28 0 11 R-4{H} 2.969 D 2.959 0 -7 57 23 73 -5 38 15 49 -13 70 18 7S R-5 6.129 0,043 6.086 0 -85 440 0 355 -57 293 0 736 -157 338 0 381 R-5 (C-0) 0.473 0 0.473 0 -1 22 D 21 -1 15 0 14 -2 27 0 25 R-5 (0) 4.725 0 4.725 0 -18 233 0 215 -12 155 0 143 -33 285 0 252 R-5 15.841 4.848 11.993 0 41 0 0 41 27 C 0 27 76 D 0 76 W-C 5.258 4.469 0.789 0 0 23 0 23 0 15 0 15 0 28 0 28 Sum 550.399 39.253 512.136 0 -264 12028 757 12511 -176 7992 503 8320 -489 14705 592 14808 MARKET READY B-2 7.99 3.911 4.08 C -4 6 7 9 -4 6 7 9 -11 10 8 8 B-3 2.859 0 2.859 0 0 254 26 280 0 241 25 266 0 444 29 473 BMLJ 0.753 0 0.753 0 -1 11 0 15 -1 16 0 15 -3 30 0 27 C-1 9.283 3.C54 5.234 0 0 6 13 19 0 6 12 18 0 10 15 25 C-2E5 2.213 0 2.213 0 0 110 0 110 0 105 0 105 0 192 0 192 E-1(MUO) 5.354 0.388 4.967 0 0 SSE 0 156 0 148 0 148 D 273 C 273 R-1 0.4 0 0.4 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 R-2A 4.744 0 4.744 0 25 26 0 51 24 25 0 48 66 45 C 112 R-35 4, 104 0 4.104 0 D 6C 6 E6 0 57 6 63 0 ME 7 112 R-A BA08 2.323 5.695 0 19 68 0 87 18 65 0 83 50 119 0 169 R-4 1.653 1.402 0.251 0 0 5 2 7 0 5 2 7 0 9 2 11 R-4 (C-0) 0.951 0 0.951 0 -4 24 0 20 -4 23 0 19 -11 42 0 31 R-5 0.138 0 0.138 0 -1 10 0 9 -1 10 0 9 -3 17 0 15 Sum 48.455 11.076 37.379 0 35 742 54 831 33 705 51 789 93 1297 60 1450 Sum 598.844 49.329 549515 0 -229 12760 811 13342 -142 8697 555 9109 -396 16002 652 1625E 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3of18 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 1329.395 32313 1005.265 116.345 1143 16216 1080 18439 1049 11934 815 13799 2921 21959 958 25939 Additional Housing Unit Capacity Additional Hou5ing Unit Capacity Acres - - - Additional Population Capacity (before reductions) - - I (after reductions)' - lurisdlctIcnLand Status - .M.arketReady ' ..-:- Zone. Total - Unbuildable - Buildable. -�-, Surplus 5F ME Sr. ApM Total SF -..MF Sr.Apts. Total -..SF -.. MF Sr. Apts, -' Total City (as of Apr-12) * (1) PENDING R-1 0.337 0.103 0.229 C 1 0 C 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 R-1A 0.973 0 0.973 C 14 C C 14 14 C 0 14 39 0 0 - 39 Sum 131 0.108 1.ZC1 C 15 0 C 15 15 O 0 15 42 0 0 42 Sum 1.31 0.108 1.201 0 15 0 0 15 15 0 0 i5 42 0 0 42 (2) VACANT R-1 0.218 0.063 0.155 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 O 2 R-2 1.945 0,645 1,299 0 4 3 0 7 3 2 0 6 9 4 0 13 Sum 2.163 0.708 1.454 0 5 3 0 B 4 2 0 6 11 4 0 16 Sum 2.163 0,708 1,454 O 5 3 0 8 4 2 0 6 11 4 0 16 (3) PARTUSE R-1 9.4 u.984 B.416 6.225 28 1 0 29 19 1 0 19 52 1 0 53 R-2 2588 D.132 2.456 2,12 7 6 0 13 5 4 0 9 13 7 C 20 R-2A OA28 0 0.428 0.239 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 3 Sum 12.415 1.116 11.299 8.595 36 8 0 44 24 5 0 29 67 10 0 75 sum 12A15 1.116 11.299 8.585 36 a 0 44 24 5 0 29 67 10 0 75 (4) REDEV R-1 4,056 031Z 3.745 0 12 0 0 12 8 0 0 8 22 0 0 22 R-2 2.44 0 2.44 0 8 8 0 16 5 5 0 11 15 10 0 25 R-2A 1.339 0 1.339 0 6 7 0 13 4 5 0 9 11 9 0 20 Sum 7.835 0.312 7t523 0 26 15 0 41 17 10 0 27 48 18 O 66 Sum 7.B35 0.312 7.523 0 26 15 0 41 17 10 0 27 48 18 C 66 Ciiy (as of Apr-12) Subtotal' 23.723 2.245 21.478 8.585 82 26 0 108 60 18 0 78 168 33 0 200 * - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries Additional Housing Unit Capacity Additional Housing.Unit Capaclty Acres ..- -(before reductions) -. (after reductions)_ ` Additional PopulationCapacity Jurlsdictfon . Land Status .... Market Ready . - ..-. Zone.' . ..... . Total Unbuildable . Buildable Surplus . . . SF - - - MP - Sr. Apts. - Total 5P ME Sr. Arts._- -- Total - Sr MF Sr. Apts. Tota€ Uninccrporated (1) PENDING UCENTER 0,107 0 0,107 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 6 C 0 6 UHDR 3.723 1.166 2,557 0 13 44 0 57 19 44 0 57 36 81 0 117 ULDR 145,916 71.615 74,301 0 697 0 0 697 697 0 0 697 1940 C 0 1940 UMDR 12.688 3.25 9,438 0 68 0 0 68 68 0 0 6B 199 C 0 189 Sum 162.434 76.03 86A04 0 790 44 0 824 780 44 0 824 2172 81 0 2252 50m 162.434 76.03 96.404 0 78C 44 0 824 780 44 0 824 2172 81 0 2252 (2}VACANT UHDR 14.011 3.1 1C.912 D BC 55 D 135 65 44 0 109 180 82 0 262 ULDR 11.915 40.248 31.667 0 172 0 0 172 139 0 0 139 387 0 0 387 UMDR 9.204 3.89 5.314 0 48 0 0 48 39 0 0 39 108 0 0 108 UVILL 2.984 1.698 1.285 0 0 28 2 30 0 23 2 24 0 42 2 44 Suns 99.114 48.936 49.178 0 300 83 2 395 242 67 2 311 674 123 2 Bo0 MARKET -READY UCENTER 6.16 0 6.16 0 0 215 61 276 0 204 58 262 0 376 68 444 UCDM 10.643 9353 1.291 0 0 4 1 5 0 4 1 5 C 7 1 8 UHDR 2.619 0.209 2.41 0 16 12 0 Z8 15 11 0 27 42 21 D 63 ULDR 3.451 0 3.451 0 20 0 0 20 19 0 0 19 53 0 0 53 UMDR 1.163 0 1,163 0 10 0 0 10 10 0 D 10 26 0 0 26 - Sum 24.037 9.562 14.475 C 46 231 62 339 44 219 59 322 122 404 69 595 Sum 122.151 58.498 63.652 0 346 324 64 724 286 286 61 633 796 527 71 1394 (3) PARTUSE UHDR 8,737 0.746 8.491 4,596 26 17 0 43 17 11 0 29 48 21 0 69 ULDR 281.826 107.998 173.829 12S.633 651 D 0 651 433 0 - 0 433 12D5 0 0 1205 UMDR 40.474 1.498 38.975 25,234 186 1 0 187 124 1 0 124 344 1 0 346 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 4of18 0 n (D T N UD (D N 00 O O_ P W Sum (4)REDEV . Sum Unincorporated Subtotal MUGA TOTAL UVILL 0.373 0 0.373 0.068 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Sum - 331.421 109.742 221.668 155.53 883 19 0 882 574 13 0 597 1590 23 0 1621 MARKET -READY UMDR 0.937 0 0.937 0.723 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 6 16 0 0 16 5um 0.937 0 0.937 0.723 6 0 0 6 6 C 0 6 16 0 0 16 332.347 109.742 222.605 256.253 859 19 C 888 580 13 0 592 1514 23 0 1637 UC€NTER 25,587 1.992 23.595 0 -49 813 221 986 -32 541 147 656 -89 995 173 1079 UCDM 37.955 10.397 27.558 0 -1 85 17 101 -1 57 11 67 -2 104 13 115 UHDR 70.644 4,054 66.63 0 574 306 0 480 116 203 0 319 322 374 0 697 ULDR 81.909 31.237 50.672 0 211 0 0 211 140 0 0 140 391 0 D 391 UMDR 60.073 2.301 57.772 0 284 2 0 286 189 1 0 190 526 2 0 SU UVILL 9.275 0.475 8.8 0 -13 188 19 194 -9 125 13 129 -24 230 15 221 Sum 285.444 50.417 235.C27 D 607 1394 257 2258 4C4 927 171 1502 1124 1706 201 3030 MARKET-RLADY UHDR 0.958 0.161 u.796 0 5 4 a 9 5 4 0 9 13 7 0 20 ULDR 15.415 7.567 7.846 0 38 0 0 38 36 0 0 36 101 0 0 101 UMDR 0.932 0.151 0.78 0 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 6 16 0 0 15 Sum 17.3C4 7.89 9.425 0 49 4 0 53 47 4 0 5C 130 7 C 137 302.748 59.296 244.452 0 656 1398 257 2311 450 931 171 1552 1253 1713 201 2167 919.68 302.566 617.113 156,253 26S1 1775 321 4747 2096 1274 231 3601 5835 2344 272 8451 2271.798 627.941 1649.856 281.183 3876 18017 14D1 23294 3205 13226 1046 17478 8924 24336 1230 34490 12l27I2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5of18 Everett MUGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT v CD m w Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone 0 City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING A-1 w B2 B-3 BMU C-1 C-1R E-1 (MUO) M-1 M-2 M-M R-2 (1) R-3 (C) R-5 W-C Sum MARKET -READY R-5 Sum Sum (2) VACANT B-1 B-2 B-2 B B-3 BMU C-1 C-2 C-2ES E-1 E-1 (MUO) M-1 M-2 M-M R-5 (C-D) R-5 (0) Acres Additional Employment Capacity Total Unbuildable- Buildable . SurIplusl Before Reductions After:Reductions 489.7 365.117 124.584 0 10 10 8.266 0 8.266 0 31 31 5.156 0 5.156 0 665 665 16.999 0 16.999 0 478 478 2.352 0.803 1.548 0 293 293 11.612 0.055 11,557 0 33 33 1.544 0.469 1.075 0 21 21 83.112 21.248 61.864 0 960 960 971,819 188.632 783.186 0 22000 22000 124,643 28.867 95.776 0 907 907 37.903 0 37.903 0 3563 3563 0.331 0 0.331 0 14 14 1.046 0 1.046 0 1 1 155.94 29.473 126.467 0 2752 2752 1910,422 634.664 1275.758 0 31728 31728 0.413 0 0.413 0 2 2 0.413 0 0.413 0 2 2 1910.835 634.664 1276.171 0 31730 31730 0.164 0 0.164 0 4 3 7.204 2.85 4.354 0 66 53 0.32 0 0.32 0 7 6 1.691 0 1.691 0 507 409 0.825 0 0.825 0 34 27 6.072 2.602 3.469 0 67 S4 8.863 2.7 6.163 0 172 139 4.249 0 4.249 0 84 68 3,172 0.086 3.087 0 63 51 2.652 0.74 1.912 0 34 27 130.938 60.923 70.015 0 1645 1328 31.145 5.666 25.48 0 197 159 21.065 5.626 15.44 0 329 266 0.527 0 0.527 0 19 15 0.549 0 0.549 0 20 16 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 7 of 18 Sum 219.437 81.194 138,244 0 3248 2623 N MARKET -READY B-1 3.119 1.271 1,848 0 40 38 B-2 1.032 0.727 0.305 0 5 5 m B-213 0.924 0 0.924 0 20 19 N N B-3 0.925 0 0.925 0 278 264 BMU 0.831 0 0.831 0 34 32 w C-1 3.691 2.118 1.573 0 31 29 C-2 1.727 0.076 1.651 0 46 44 C-2ES 0.727 0 0.727 0 14 13 E-1 (MUO) 5.069 1.432 3.636 0 63 60 M-2 62.094 16.359 45.735 0 352 334 M-M 1.104 0.914 0.19 0 4 4 M-S 14.795 2.361 12.433 0 311 295 R-5 (0) 0.274 0 0.274 0 10 10 Sum 96.312 25.259 71.053 0 1208 1148 Sum 315.749 106.452 209.297 0 4456 3770 (3) PARTUSE B-2 12.532 0,512 12.02 0.771 19 13 BMU 5.848 0 5.848 0,189 5 3 C-1 32.125 5.802 26.323 16.71 630 419 C-111 15.748 0.008 15.741 6.733 213 142 E-1 39.515 0.574 38.941 8.667 165 110 E-1 (MUO) 9.416 3.353 6.064 3.854 74 49 M-1 161.177 22.72 138,456 66,871 2174 1446 M-2 77.748 31.836 45.912 36.568 283 188 M-M 81.676 25.223 56.453 23.843 508 338 R-4 (C-O) 0.353 0 0.353 0.13 2 1 W-C 21.598 0.041 21.558 15.859 317 211 Sum 457.736 90.069 367.667 180.194 4390 2919 MARKET -READY B-213 1.117 0 1.117 0.063 2 2 M-M 39.278 5.269 34.009 13.774 294 279 W-C 21,666 0.033 21.633 3.09 62 59 Sum 62.061 5.302 56.76 16.928 358 340 Sum 519.797 95.371 424,427 197,122 4748 3259 (4) REDEV B-1 8.3 0 8.3 0 146 97 B-2 6.867 0.39 6.477 0 87 58 13-213 3.017 0 3.017 0 59 39 B-3 36.64 0.785 35.855 0 9359 6224 BMU 35.619 0.122 35.497 D 953 634 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and ❑evelopment Services 8 of 18 C-1 28,705 0,956 27.75 0 462 307 C-111 26.262 2,863 23,399 0 365 243 C-2 17.539 1.936 15.602 0 304 202 C-2ES 18.199 0 18.199 0 251 167 E-1 30.356 1.555 28,801 0 336 223 E-1 (MUO) 52.745 2.042 50.703 0 431 287 M-1 20.557 3.842 16.715 0 98 65 M-2 358.084 172.814 185.27 0 1274 847 M-M 32.646 7.418 25.228 0 472 314 R-3 (C-H) 0.98 0 0.98 0 15 10 R-3 (C) 1,741 0 1.741 0 49 33 R-4 (C-0) 2.046 0 2.046 0 32 21 R-4 (C) 0.912 0 0.912 0 14 9 R-5 (C-O) 0,473 0 0.473 0 18 12 R-5 (0) 4.344 0 4.344 0 154 102 W-C 5.258 4.469 0.789 0 13 9 Sum 691.289 199.191 492.099 0 14892 9903 MARKET -READY B-2 7.99 3.911 4.08 0 63 60 B-3 2.859 0 2.859 0 778 739 BMU 0.891 0 0.891 0 28 27 C-1 9.288 3.054 6.234 0 100 95 C-2ES 2.213 0 2.213 0 44 42 E-1 (MUO) 5.354 0.388 4.967 0 84 80 M-1 110.008 8,943 101.065 0 2373 2254 M-2 24,953 7.739 17.214 0 133 126 R-4 (C-0) 0.951 0 0.951 0 15 14 Sum 164.507 24.034 140.474 0 3618 3437 Sum 855.797 223.225 632.572 0 18510 13340 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 3602.178 1059.712 2542.466 197.122 59444 52099 Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land 5tatus Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions . After Reductions City (as of Jun-12)* (1) PENDING M-M 0.914 0.431 0.483 0 16 16 Sum 0.914 0,431 0.483 0 16 16 Sum 0.914 0.431 0.483 0 16 16 (2) VACANT M-M 1.388 0.831 0.557 0 12 10 M-5 14.724 13.424 1.3 0 33 27 12/2712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 9of18 N 7 77 T v CD m N 00 A O w Sum 16.112 14.255 1.858 0 45 36 MARKET -READY M-M 8.182 3.989 4.193 0 90 86 Sum 5.182 3.989 4.193 0 90 86 Sum 24.294 18.243 6.051 0 135 122 (4) REDEV M-M 5.282 2.182 3.099 0 65 43 Sum 5.282 2.182 3.099 0 65 43 Sum 5.282 2.182 3.099 0 65 43 City (as of Jun-12) Subtotal * 30.49 20.857 9.634 0 216 181 * - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries ... Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready :. Tone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions After Reductions Unincorporated (2) VACANT UCOM 0.178 0 0.178 0 3 2 UVILL 2.984 1.698 1.285 D 13 10 Sum 3.162 1.698 1.464 0 16 13 MARKET -READY UCENTER 6.16 0 6.16 0 166 159 UCOM 10.643 9.353 1.291 0 21 20 Sum 16.804 9.353 7.451 0 187 178 Sum. 19.966 11.051 8.915 0 203 191 (3) PARTUSE UCENTER 10.746 D 10.746 6.216 168 112 UCOM 3.033 0.426 2.607 1.898 37 25 UVILL 0.373 0 0.373 0.068 1 1 Sum 14.153 0.426 13.726 8.182 206 137 Sum 14.153 0,426 13.726 8.182 206 137 (4) REDEV UCENTER 26.377 2.615 23.762 0 478 318 UCOM 39.865 10.397 29.468 D 393 261 UI 249.627 117.442 132.185 0 4071 2707 UVILL 6.733 0.079 6.654 D 65 43 Sum 322.602 130.533 192.069 0 5007 3330 Sum 322.602 130.533 192.069 0 5007 3330 Unincorporated Subtotal 356.72 142.011 214.71 8.182 5416 3657 MUGA Total 3989.388 1222.58 2766.81 205.304 65076 55937 1212712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 10of1a DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report City of Everett m Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) v CD Residential Development Non -Residential Development N - w Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment ° � Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling g Units I Acre Density Y Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Em to ment P Y Density t3' Plan Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within City Zones A-1, AQ, P, or OS Case! by -case (usually no development) R-S Single Family 17.72 100% 87 4.91 4.91 - - - - - R-1 Single Family 57.95 93% 330 5.29 5.29 - - - - Multi -Family 4.46 7% 49 0.79 0.79 - - - - - Total 62.41 100% 379 6.07 6.07 - - - - R-IA Single Family 12.19 74% 138 8.43 8.43 - - - - - Multi -Family 4.18 26% 44 2.69 2.69 - - - - - Total 16.37 100% 182 11.12 11.12 - - - - R-2 and R-2 (H) Single Family 21.17 62% 132 3.88 3.88 - - - - - Multi -Family 12.83 38% 114 3.35 3.35 - - - - - Total 34.00 100% 246 7.24 7.24 - R-2A Single Family 1.77 44% 23 5.69 5.69 - - - - - Multi -Family 2.27 56% 23 5.69 5.69 - - - - - Total 4.04 100% 46 11.38 11.38 - - - - - R-3L Single Family 25.07 41% 234 3.78 3.78 - - - - - Multi -Family 36.77 59% 740 11.97 11.97 - - - - Total 61.84 100% 974 15.75 15.75 - - - - - r City of Everett 1 Development Summary 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 11 of 18 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report City of Everett 77 m Table XA: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) T v CD Residential Development Non -Residential Development N M Buildable uildable Estimated Employment ° Zone or Type of Acres cres ID Dwelling g Units / Acre Density tyt3 Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Densi Plan Development Developed elo ed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed R-3 (North of 41st) Single Family 0.44 15% 7 2.36 2.36 - - - - - Multi -Family 2.52 85% 65 21.90 21.90 - - - - - Total 2.97 100% 72 24.26 24.26 - - - - - R-3 (South of 41 st) Single Family 15.16 15% 158 1.53 1.53 - - - - - Multi -Family 84.89 82% 1,573 15.26 15.26 - - - - Senior Apartments 3.00 3% 189 1.83 1.83 - - - - - Total 103.05 100% 1,920 18.63 18.63 - - - - - R-3(C) Multi -Family 0.15 19% 4 5.23 5.23 - - - - - Non -Residential 0.62 81% - - - 8,372 0.31 21 27.35 27.35 Total 0.77 100% 4 5.23 5.23 8,372 0.31 21 27.35 27.35 R-3(H) Single Family 0.14 8% 3 1.67 1.67 - - - - - Multi -Family 1.66 92% 42 23.39 23.39 - - - - - Total 1.80 1.00% 45 25.06 25.06 - - - - - R-4 Single Family 2.87 15% 28 1.47 1.47 - - - - - Multi -Family 7.41 39% 222 11.65 22.48 - - - - - Senior Apartments 8.78 46% 412 21.62 11.71 - - - - - Total 19.06 100% 662 34.74 35.65 - - - - - Note: This report assumes two differences in R-4 from what has been historically observed. First, that recent zoning code changes will increase the future density of multi -family projects in the zone by 25% (code changes now allow unlimited densities, although development is still constrained by height Iimits and parking requirements). Second, that the share of land developed will be 60% multi -family, 15% single family, and 25% senior apartments. This adjusts for the historic data being heavily weighted towards .senior apartments due to one large building and assumes a more typical mix of future tenures. � City of Everett 2 Development Summary 1212712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 12 of 18 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report City of Everett N m Table NA: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) v CD Residential Development Non -Residential Development N 00 Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment ° � Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling g Units / Acre Density YY Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Densit Plan Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed R-4(C) and R-4(C-0) Multi -Family 0.27 50% 10 18.40 18.40 - - - - - Mixed Use 0.27 50% 3 5.52 8.21 3,467 0.15 9 15.95 1595 Total 0.54 100% 13 23.92 26.61 3,467 0.15 9 15.95 15.95 R-5 Multi -Family 0.87 100% 67 76.61 76.61 - - - - R-5(C) and R-5(C-0) Single Family 0.21 8% 4 1.64 1.64 - - - - - Multi -Family 0.98 40% 41 16.83 31.44 Mixed Use 1.25 51% 85 34.90 21.42 33,645 0.32 87 35.85 35.85 Total 2.44 100% 130 53.38 54.50 33,645 0.32 87 35.85 35.85 B-1 -- New Projects Single Family 0.32 4% 4 0.50 0.50 - - - - - Multi -Family 0.55 7% 8 1.00 1.00 - - - - - Mixed Use 1.96 25% 24 3.01 3.01 22,627 0.07 51 6.42 6.42 Non -Residential 5.13 64% - - - 54,332 0,16 123 15.42 15.42 Total 7.97 100% 36 4.52 4.52 76,959 0.22 174 21.85 21.85 B-1 -- Infill Projects Non -Residential 1.03 100% - - - 17,322 0.39 28 26.78 26.78 City of Everett 12/27/2012 3 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 13of1B DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report City of Everett Table XA: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) CD v CD Residential Development Non -Residential Development N 00 Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units 1 Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Q -- New Projects (Bothell -Everett Hwy and Misc. Submarkets) Multi -Family 3.39 7% 89 1.83 1.83 - - - - Senior Apartments 4.73 10% 99 2.03 2.03 - - - - Non -Residential 40.53 83% - - - 395,969 0.1.9 741 15.23 15.23 Total 48.65 100% 188 3.86 3.86 395,969 0.19 741 15.23 15.23 Tote: The data for the Bothell -Everett (and misc.) submarket presented here is limited to just projects built under B-2 zoning in those areas and is for use in predicting future evelopment in the same areas. Other areas that previously had B-2 zoning, including the North Broadway and Evergreen Way submarkets experienced different types of evelopment and have subsequently been rezoned to Broadway Mixed Use and Evergreen-1 (with or without mixed use overlay) respectively. A complete accounting of evelopment in B-2 zoning is available from Snohomish County Planning, but it not being published in this report. -- Infll Projects (Bothell -Everett Hwy and Misc. Submarkets) Non -Residential 11.84 100% - - - 118,582 0.23 293 24.74 24.74 -- New Projects Multi -Family Senior Apartments Non -Residential Total 2.44 16% 44 2.85 2.85 1.47 I0% 54 3.49 3.49 11.54 75% - - - 131 1 0.19 334 21.61 15.45 100% 98 6.34 6.34 131,254 0.19 334 21.61 21.61 21.61 -2B -- Infill Projects Non -Residential Data sample is too'"small tp rely on.' 28.93 ote: The number of B-213 infill projects in the sample period is too small to rely on. Instead, this report uses the new non-residential projects as a proxy (because commercial rpansions only rarely add residential units). The job sector distribution per acre with this approach is: 25.77 Services, 2.88 FIRE, and 0.89 Government. (-N City of Everett 4 Development Summary 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 14 of 18 m v CD m N 00 CO 0 DRAFT City of Everett Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Buildable % Buildable Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density Plan I Development I Developed I Developed I Units �inTota]Zone� Assumed Non -Residential Estimated Employment Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed B-3 -- New Projects (includes both completed and proposed projects, excluding Comcast Arena) Non -Res. and Mixed Use 6.92 100% 856 123.68 100.00 397,148 1.32 954 137.84 300.00 Note: B-3 zoning applies only in downtown Everett, a maturing urban market. The sample of recently built and proposed projects is heavily weighted to residential development with street -level commmercial space. This report assumes that the future will include some mid- and high-rise office construction; thereby, substantially increasing the estimated employment density and reducing the share of residential development in the mix. After these adjustments, the expected residential yield per buildable acre is: 90 multi -family units and 10 senior apartments. The expected distribution of jobs by employment sector is: 180 Services, 40 FIRE, 40 Government, 20 Retail, and 20 Food Services. MU -- New Projects (includes projects built in BMU, projects from the predecessor zoning districts on North Broadway, and proposed development in BMU) Non -Res. and Mixed Use 9.69 100% 243 25.08 25.08 168,078 0,40 395 40.81 40.81 ote: BMU is a relatively new zone with little actual development in the period sampled. New project density calculations use what has been built under BMU, projects in the North roadway corridor that were built under B-2 and C-1 zoning that are similar to what is expected under BMU, and proposed development in BMU that has yet to be built. U -- infill Projects Non -Residential 2.30 100% - - - 33,337 0.33 57 24.81 24.81 C-1 -- New Projects Single Family 0.29 2% 4 0.21 - Multi -Family 1.17 6% 18 0.94 1.15 Senior Apartments 1.69 9% 43 2.24 2.24 - - - - - Non -Residential 16,01 84% - - - 256,816 0.31 373 19.48 19.48 Total 1.9.16 1.00% 65 3.39 3.39 256,816 0.31 373 19.48 19.48 Note: This summary of C-1 development represents 24% of the land area developed under C-1 zoning between 1995 and 2010. Most of what had previously been C-1 zoned has since been rezoned to B-3, BMU, E-1, and E-1 MUO. Because development in the various former C-1 submarkets varies significantly, this report summarizes only those projects built on sites that still have C-1 zoning (mainly Everett Mall Way and a few scattered commercial pockets). This report also makes a simplification by combining the negligible single family density (from a four unit zero lot line building) with the multi -family density. City of Everett 5 Development Summary 12127/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 15 of 18 DRAFT City of Everett Table XA: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed C-1 -- Infill Projects Non -Residential 10.31 100% - - 159,772 0.36 387 37.57 37.57 C-1R Non -Residential 18.21 100% - - - 272,665 0.34 573 31.48 31.48 Note: This summary of development in C-1 Regional excludes three residential projects on the basis that the remaining redevelopable C-1R sites are not well suited to residential development. Further, this summary includes a hypothetical general office building modeled on the Frontier Bank Financial Center built in nearby C-1 zoning. The purpose of this addition is to provide a more balanced range of uses in the data sample because the projects built between 1995 and 2010 were heavily weighted to retail uses. Finally, the densities modeled here will apply to surplus land on partially -used C-IR sites in the report because the data on infill development is entirely from changes at Everett Mall, a sample that is not likely representative of expansions in other C-1 R locations. -2 -- New Projects Non -Residential 10.65 100% - - - 204,802 0.44 297 27.88 27.88 ote: This summary of development in C-2 excludes a building with warehouse uses on the first floor and apartments above because such mixed use development is alikely to take place again in the zone. -2 -- Infill Projects Non -Residential 3.27 100% - - - 75,280 0.53 128 39.09 39.09 C-2 ES -- New Projects Non -Residential 0.44 100% - - 50.00 16,501 0.86 22 48.66 20,00 Note: C-2 ES is a relatively new zone residential/industrial zone with little development history applied to an existing industrial area around Everett Station. The sample here uses one new manufacturing project, Fastenal, and one expansion of an auto parts retailer, Six Robblees, as a starting point. In addition to this type of development, the zone allows for residential buildings with street level commercial/industrial space; hence, an assumption of 50 multi -family units per acre on average for redevelopment projects. The expected employment density is lower than had had been observed to account for first floor garage and residential lobby areas. The job sector distribution anticipated is as follows: 8 WTU, 5 Services, 3 Retail, 3 Manufacturing, and 1 Food Services. City of Everett 6 Development Summary 12127/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 16 of 18 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report City of Everett Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) Residential Non -Residential Buildable I%Bui'da"el Estimated IEmployment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density Plan Development I Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed I Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed C-2 ES -- Infill Projects Non -Residential 0.44 100% - - - 16,501 0.86 22 48.66 48.66 E-1 -- New Projects (Projects Modeled As) Multi -Family 2.31 4% 47 0.80 0.80 - - - - Mixed Use 1.15 2% 25 0.42 0.42 9,064 0.00 23 0.38 0.38 Non -Residential 55.65 94% - - - 598,372 0.23 1,191 20.15 20.15 Total 59.10 100% 72 1..22 1.22 607,436 0.24 1,213 20.53 20.53 Note: E-1 is a new zone adopted in 2012 that applies along Evergreen Way in areas previously zoned B-2 and C-1. The data sample used here to represent likely E-1 development relies on projects built in the Evergreen corridord using the predecessor zonings. E-1 Infill Projects (Projects Modeled As) Non -Residential 72.69 100% 1 0.01 - 815,987 0.26 1,396 19.20 19.20 Note: This report ignores the incidental rate of caretaker units in E-1. infill projects. E-1 MUO -- New Projects (Projects Modeled As) Multi -Family 9.87 65% 481 31.54 31,54 - - - - - Non -Residential 5.38 35% - - - 102,918 0.15 265 17.36 17.36 Total 15.25 1O% 481 31.54 31.54 102,818 0.15 265 I Z36 I Z36 E-1 MUO -- Infill Projects (See E-1 Infill) M-1 --New Projects Non -Residential 118.75 100% - - - 1,676,944 0,32 2,788 23.48 23.48 M-1 -- Infill Projects Non -Residential 9.65 100% - - - 156,816 0.37 314 32.51 32.51 E City of Everett 7 Development Summary 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 17 of 18 v m T v m N Q0 N O w DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report City of Everett Table AA: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated [Employment Density Plan Development Develo ed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp.Per Acre Assumed M-1 with Planned Development Overlay -- New Projects (and used for InfFll Projects as well) Non -.Residential 75.75 100% - - - 1,270,737 0.39 1,553 20.50 20.50 M-2 -- New Projects Non -Residential 51.19 100% - - - 345,926 0.16 395 7.71 7.71 M-2 -- Infill Projects (Insufficient Data; See M-2 New Projects) M-M -- New Projects Non -Residential 27.55 100% - - - 420,504 0.35 589 21.37 21.37 M-M. -- Infill Projects (Insufficient Data; See M-M New Projects) M-S Non -Residential Insufficient Data - Insufficient Data:::.:25.00 Note: The job sector distribution anticipated is as follows: IS WTU, 5 Manufacturing, and 5 Services. ........ W-C Multi -Family Insuff..................... cient Data 30.00 Insufficient Data - Non -Residential Insufficient Data - Insufficient Data 20.00 Note: The job sector distribution anticipated is as follows: 10 Services, 5 Retail, 3 Food Services, and 2 Government. City of Everett 12/27/2012 8 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 18 of 18 Lynnwood MUGA - Addit'Ional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 21/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT 77 Additional Housing Vnl4Capacity _,. Additlonal.Housing Unit CapacityCD -Acres hefere reductions-. - ..... ._ -.(aftetYeductiohs -.�'-.��-�� - AdditionalPopulation Ca acit -..-. .. Jurisdiction :..: Land Status _... Market Read.y.,. .;..-Zone, Total Unbuildable '.9uildable--.Surplus SF ..- MF Sr.A ts..':-Tota1 SF MF - Sr. Apts. '--Total .SF MF- Sr.A Apts. ..Total N uD .:,-., N City(as of Apr-02) (1)PEN DING MU 40.184 7.762 32.422 0 0 Soo 0 500 0 500 0 Soo 0 920 0 920 N Cp RMH 1.344 0,293 1.05 0 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 30 0 55 0 55 W RML 1.02 0 1.C2 0 -1 12 0 11 -1 12 0 11 -3 22 0 19 RS7 DA7 0 0.47 0 3 0 C 3 3 0 0 3 8 0 0 8 ca RSS 39A9 10.897 28.193 0 115 0 0 115 115 0 0 115 320 0 0 320 Sum 81109 18.953 63.156 - 0 117 542 C 659 117 542 0 659 325 997 0 1323 Sum 82,109 18.953 63.156 0 117 542 0 659 117 542 0 659 326 997 0 1323 (2) VACANT B1 036 0 0.36 0 0 C 4 4 0 0 3 3 0 0 4 4 B3 0.847 0 0.847 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 6 6 0 0 8 8 RML 0,416 0 0.416 0 0 5 0 5 0 4 0 4 0 7 0 7 RMM 0.485 0 0.485 0 C 8 2 8 0 5 2 6 0 9 2 11 RS7 0.448 0 0.448 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 R58 26.012 13.3 12.712 0 48 0 0 48 39 0 0 39 108 0 0 108 Sum 28.568 13.3 15,268 0 49 11 14 74 40 9 11 60 110 16 13 140 MARKET -READY RML 1.753 1.753 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 - 1 3 C 0 3 RMM 1.155 0457 0.598 0 0 8 3 11 0 8 3 10 0 14 3 17 R58 5.522 2.504 3,018 0 12 0 0 12 11 0 0 11 32 0 0 32 Sum 8.43 4,715 3,716 0 13 8 3 24 12 8 3 23 34 14 3 52 Sum 36.996 18,014 18,984 0 62 19 17 98 52 16 14 83 145 30 17 192 (3) PARTUSE RMH 1.032 0 1.032 0,156 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 3 0 6 0 6 RML 0.822 0 C.822 0.381 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 3 C 6 0 6 R57 4.089 0 4.089 3.427 15 0 0 15 10 0 C 10 28 0 0 28 R58 55.993 1.014 54,979 35,245 112 0 0 112 74 0 C 74 207 0 0 207 Sum 61.936 1,014 60.923 39.209 127 10 0 137 84 7 C 91 235 12 0 247 Sum 61.936 1.014 60.923 39.209 127 10 0 137 84 7 0 91 235 12 0 247 14)REDEV 131 25.85 1.642 24.209 0 -2 0 281 279 -1 C 197 186 -4 0 220 216 B3 10.615 1.93B 8.876 0 0 0 85 85 0 0 57 57 0 0 66 66 CC-C 87.775 3.427 94.343 0 0 1748 0 1748 0 1148 a 1749 0 3216 0 3216 CC-w 69,949 3.778 66,17 0 0 979 0 979 0 979 0 979 0 1801 0 1801 CDM T958 0.126 7.631 0 -37 216 0 179 -25 144 0 119 -89 264 0 196 H99-MU 21,71 0,625 21.084 0 -4 409 0 405 -3 272 0 259 -7 Soo 0 493 RML 4,504 0 4.504 0 0 59 0 59 0 39 0 39 0 72 0 72 RMM 11031 0.886 12.146 0 -5 140 49 184 -3 93 33 122 -9 171 38 200 R57 7,361 0 7.361 0 30 0 0 30 2C 0 0 20 55 0 0 56 RS8 54.529 5,905 48,625 0 119 0 0 119 79 0 0 79 220 0 0 220 Sum 303,482 18.329 285.153 0 101 3551 415 4067 67 3275 275 3618 1S7 6C26 325 5537 MARKET -READY CC-C . 1C.255 2.524 7.731 0 0 205 0 205 0 205 0 205 0 371 0 377 H99-M U 6.15 0.974 5.176 0 0 103 0 103 0 98 0 98 0 180 0 18C Sum 16.405 3.498 12.907 0 C 308 0 308 0 303 0 303 0 557 a 557 Sum 319.B87 21.827 298.06 0 101 3859 415 4375 67 3578 276 3921 187 5533 325 7095 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 500.93 59.807 441122 39.209 407 4430 432 5269 321 4143 250 4754 992 7623 341 8857 -, Additional Housing Unit Capacity -Additional Housing Unit Capacity- - - -- -Acres - .- -- . . (before reductions) - :.(after reductions) - - Additional Population Capacity. -.: Judsdlction.- .. Land. Status .. Market.Read. - ..-..Zone Tota€.....Vnic4dable -Buildable. Surplusl Surplus 5F i. .. MF'- Sr.Apts..' Total _.,SF MF, ,Sr.Apts. -Total 'Sr MF Sr.Apts, ., -.Total City (as of Apr-12) * (3) PARTUSE RS8 3.654 0 3,654 2.379 5 0 0 6 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 Sum 3.654 0 3.654 2.379 6 0 C 6 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 Sum 3.654 0 3.654 2,379 6 0 0 6 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 (4)R€DEV 83 2.963 1.287 1.676 0 0 0 17 17 0 0 11 11 0 0 13 13 RS8 2.192 D 2.192 D 5 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 9 D 0 9 N C) Sum 5.155 1,287 3.868 0 5 0 17 22 3 0 11 15 9 0 13 23 ( (D Sum 5.155 1.287 3.968 0 5 0 17 22 3 C 11 15 9 0 13 23 ED City (as of Apr-12) Subtotal ` 8.809 1.287 7.521 2.379 11 0 17 28 7 C 11 19 20 0 13 34 CD * - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries N tO 41 Additional Housing.0 nit Capacity Additional Housing Unit Capacity: p -` - `Acres ...:. .. -.: - hefcrereductions} .- . - -; .:- .. - .- after reductions -` - Additional Population Capacity. 4 Jurlsdiction _Land Status - Market Ready Zone. - ' Total. Unbuildabie Buildable Surplus - 5F- - MF Sr, Apts: - Total - `.- 5F ' MF - Sr Apts Totall SF - - : MF - Sr. Apts Total W Unincorporated (1)PENDING TPV 22.272 3.095 19.187 0 -6 81D 168 972 -6 810 159 972 -17 1490 198 1671 UC6NTER 37,992 14.451 23.562 0 140 682 0 822 140 682 D 822 390 1255 0 1645 UCOM 2.707 0 2.707 0 -2 44 C 42 -2 44 0 42 -5 81 0 75 UHDR 58.949 14.468 44.481 0 244 386 27C 90C 244 386 270 900 679 710 918 17C7 ULOR 4.219 0.721 3.498 0 21 0 0 21 21 0 0 21 58 0 0 58 UMDR 17,912 1.667 16.246 0 136 SO 0 146 136 10 0 146 379 18 0 397 Sum 144,051 34.371 109.68 0 533 1932 438 2903 533 1932 438 2903 1484 3555 515 5554 Sum 144.051 34.371 109.68 0 533 1932 438 2903 533 1932 438 2903 1484 3555 515 5554 (2) VACANT TPV 0.587 0 0.587 0 0 20 5 25 0 16 4 20 0 30 5 34 UCENTER 20.685 13.372 7,315 0 2 250 67 319 2 202 34 258 4 371 64 440 UCOM 3.257 0.549 2.708 0 C 7 1 8 0 6 1 6 0 10 1 11 UHDR 25.149 15.134 10.015 0 73 50 0 123 59 40 0 99 164 74 0 238 ULDR 21.755 19,492 2,263 0 16 0 0 16 13 0 0 13 36 0 0 36 UMDR 17.936 11.037 6.899 0 60 0 0 60 48 0 0 48 135 0 0 135 Sum 89.37 59,584 29,786 0 151 327 73 551 122 264 59 445 339 486 69 895 MARKET -READY UCENTER 20.918 3.978 16.94 C 0 590 156 755 0 561 158 718 0 1031 165 1217 UHDR 4.131 2.912 1.22 0 9 6 0 15 9 6 0 14 24 10 a 34 UVILL 4.53 0.07 4.459 0 0 98 13 111 0 93 12 105 0 171 15 186 Sum 29.579 6,96 22,619 0 9 694 179 882 9 659 170 93B 24 1213 200 1437 Sum 118.949 66.544 52,405 0 160 1021 252 1433 120 929 229 1283 353 1699 269 2332 (3) PARTUSE UCENTER 0.678 0.109 0.559 0.301 0 10 3 13 0 7 2 9 0 12 2 15 UH➢R 19,521 1,477 18,044 10,781 69 42 0 111 46 28 C 74 128 51 0 179 ULDR 60.141 18,001 42,14 29,115 147 0 0 147 98 0 C - 98 272 0 0 272 UMDR 66.513 22.46 44.153 28.086 229 1 0 230 152 1 0 153 424 1 0 425 Sum 146.953 42.047 104.905 69.283 445 53 3 501 296 35 2 333 824 65 2 891 MARKET -READY ULDR 0,384 0.001 0.383 0.194 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 Sum 0,394 0.001 0.383 0.194 1 0 0 1 1 C 0 1 3 0 0 3 Sum 147,336 42,C48 105.288 58.478 446 53 3 502 297 35 2 334 827 65 2 894 (4)REU EV TPV 15.057 1.392 13.675 0 -46 453 117 524 -31 301 78 348 -85 554 91 561 UCENTER 62,03 9.123 52.907 0 -31 1827 500 2296 -21 1215 333 1527 -57 2236 391 2569 UCOM 1C.091 0.958 9.134 0 -1 23 1 23 -1 15 1 15 -2 28 1 27 UHDR 133.193 17.087 116.106 0 519 552 C 1071 345 369 0 715 961 680 0 1641 ULDR 30.958 8.623 22,335 0 109 0 0 109 72 0 0 72 202 0 0 202 UMDR 34,4 8.186 26,714 0 162 1 0 163 108 1 0 108 BC0 1 0 301 UVILL 4.903 0.203 4.706 0 -1 103 13 115 -1 68 9 76 -2 126 10 134 Sum 290.648 45,571 245.076 C 711 2959 631 4301 473 1970 420 2863 1316 362-9 493 5435 MARKET -READY TPV 2.216 D.O01 2.216 0 -5 76 19 90 -5 72 18 86 -13 133 21 141 UCENTER 40.391 20.312 20.079 0 -49 698 195 945 -47 663 186 903 -130 1220 219 1309 UCOM 2.845 0.701 2.145 0 -1 7 1 7 -1 7 1 7 -3 12 1 11 Sum 45.453 21,013 24A4 0 -55 781 215 942 -52 742 205 995 -145 1365 241 1461 Sum 336.101 66.584 269,516 0 656 3740 847 5243 421 2712 625 3757 1171 4990 735 6896 Unincorporated Subtotal 745.438 209.548 536.89 68.476 1795 6746 1540 10081 1381 5603 1294 8277 3844 10309 1522 15675 MUGA TOTAL 1256.177 270.642 985.533 110.064 2213 11116 1909 15370 1709 9746 1595 13050 4756 17932 1076 24566 Lynnwood MUGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 21/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT CD Acres Additional Employment Capacity - m F Jurisdiction . . . Land Status Market Ready :Zone Total Unbulldable . BUlldable 5urpius Before Reductions After Reductions m m City (as of Apr-02) {1) PENDING CG 23.879 4,951 18.928 0 1418 1418 Cn H99-MU 10.478 0 10.478 0 209 209 0 LI 20,659 3,53 17.129 0 440 440 Mu 40,184 7,762 32,422 0 930 930 PCD 13,946 2,141 11.806 0 313 313 5um 109.148 18.384 90.763 0 3310 3310 Sum 109.148 18.3B4 90.763 0 3310 3310 (2) VACANT Bi 0.36 0 0.36 0 8 6 B2 2.462 0.683 1.779 0 177 143 B3 0.847 0 0.847 0 3 2 cc; 1.551 0.193 1.357 0 23 19 LI 0,424 0.227 0.197 0 5 4 5um 5,643 1,103 4.54 0 216 174 MARKET -READY B2 0.464 0 0.464 0 46 44 CG 4.97 0.561 4.409 0 73 69 U 2.647 0 2.647 0 70 67 Sum 8,082 0.561 7.52 0 189 1B0 Sum 13.725 1.665 12.06 0 405 354 (3) PARTUSE Bl 7.864 0.374 7.49 2.3 68 45 B3 0.47 0 0.47 O.G9 1 1 CG 8,714 0.5 8.214 3.714 81 54 H99-MU 3,92 0.068 3,852 1,598 35 23 U 5.127 0.176 4.951 2,073 55 37 Sum 26,094 1.118 24.976 9,773 240 160 Sum 26.094 1.118 24.976 9.775 240 160 (4) REDEV B1 23.952 1.291 22.661 0 237 158 82 0.64 0.173 0.457 0 34 23 B3 2.20B 0,312 1.896 0 5 3 BTP 24.058 1.7 22.357 0 1193 793 CC-C 87.775 3,427 84.348 0 4030 4030 CC-N 15.249 1.473 13.775 0 2254 2254 CC-W 69.949 3.778 66.17 0 2250 2250 CDM 7.958 0.126 7.831 0 41 27 CG 69,309 10.701 58,608 0 680 452 H99-MU 15,741 0.626 15.115 0 168 112 LI 27.431 2.426 25.005 0 452 301 PCD 42,329 8.533 33.796 0 611 406 PRC 7.667 0 7.667 0 76 51 PUD 3.006 0 3.006 0 143 95 Sum 397.272 34.567 362.7G4 0 12174 10955 MARKET -READY CC-C 10.255 2.524 7.731 0 470 470 CG 9.379 0.774 8.555 0 36 34 H99-MU 6.15 0.974 5.176 0 100 95 Sum 25.734 4.272 21.462 0 606 599 Sum 423.006 38.839 384,167 0 12780 11554 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 571.973 60.006 511,966 9.775 16735 15377 Acres Additional Employment Capacity. Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable ` Surplus 5 Before Reductions After Reductions Unincorporated (1) PENDING TPV 8.125 1.847 6.278 0 81 81 UCENTER 4.212 O.U49 4.164 0 46 46 UHDR 15.973 4.655 11.317 0 305 305 UI 0.494 0.047 0.447 0 2 2 Sum 28.805 5.599 22.206 0 434 434 Sum 28.80S 6.S99 22.206 0 434 434 (2) VACANT UCENTER 17.533 10.219 7.315 0 199 160 UCOM 3.257 0.549 2.708 0 43 35 UI 10.829 6.685 4.144 0 127 103 Sum 31.619 17.453 14.167 0 368 297 MARKET -READY UCENTER 20.918 3.978 16.94 0 457 434 UI 5.8 4.978 0.921 0 25 24 UWLL 4.53 0.C7 4.459 0 45 43 5um 31.248 9.027 22.221 0 527 501 Sum 62.867 26.479 36.388 0 895 799 (3) PARTUSE UCENTER 7.568 0.109 7.459 4.355 117 78 Sum 7.568 0.109 7.459 4.355 117 78 MARKET -READY UCENTER 16.179 1.629 14.551 11.S79 1018 1018 Sum 15.179 1.529 14.551 11.579 1018 1018 Sum 23.747 1.737 22.01 15.934 113S 1096 {4) REDEV UCENTER 58.82 8.591 50.23 0 1162 773 UCOM 7.306 0.709 7.099 0 72 48 UI 4.081 0.848 3.232 0 100 67 UVILL 1.297 0 1.292 0 13 9 Sum 71.501 9.648 61.853 0 1347 896 MARKET -READY UCENTER 40.391 20.312 20.079 0 542 515 UCOM 2.845 0.701 2.145 0 35 33 5um 43.237 21.012 22.224 0 577 548 Sum 114.737 30.66 84.077 0 1924 1444 Unincorporated Subtotal 230.156 65.476 164.681 15.934 4388 3772 MUGA Total 802.129 125.482 676.647 25.709 21123 19149 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report City of Lynnwood Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) % Residential Development Non -Residential Development Units / Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Buildable Buildable Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within City Zones RS-8 Single Family 156.27 100% 615 3.94 3.94 - - - - - RS-7 Single Family 6.85 100% 30 4.38 4.38 - - - - - RS-4 Single Family ....... ......... N6 Data .......... ....... ................. sed forlExisting Mobile Home Parks 11.00 - - - - - RML Single Family 0.52 12% 7 1.66 1.66 - - - - - Multi -Family 3.70 88% 63 14.92 14.92 - - - - Total 4.22 100% 70 1.6.57 1.6.57 - - - - RMM Single Family 2.39 7% 36 1,10 1,10 - - - - - MuIti-Family 23.18 71% 416 12.75 12.75 - - - - - Senior Apartments 7,06 22% 170 5.21. 5,21 - - - - - Total 32.63 100% 622 19.06 19.06 - - - - - RMH Multi -Family No Data 36.00 - - - - - B-1: New Projects Senior Apartments 4.68 31% 187 12,21 12.21 - - - - - Non -Residential 10.63 69% - - - 128,373 0.19 344 22.48 22.48 Total 15.31 100% 187 12.21 12.21 128,373 0.19 344 22.48 22.48 B-1: Infill Projects Non -Residential 34.14 - - - - 496,247 0,33 1,012 29.65 29.65 gJ City of Lynnwood 1 Development Summary 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 7 of 9 N m T v CD m 00 00 0 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report City of Lynnwood Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed $-2 Non -Residential No Data - No:Data 100.00 Note: There has been no recent development in B-2; however, multi -story office construction is expected when B-2 sites do develop. The assumed new jobs by employment sector are: 80 Services and 20 FIRE. B-3: New Projects Senior Apartments 0.98 51% 20 10.43 10.43 - - - - - Non -Residential 0.94 49% - - - 4,138 0.05 6 3.08 3.08 Total 1.92 100% 20 10.43 10.43 4,138 0.05 6 3.08 3.08 B-3: Infill Projects BTP: Infill Projects CG: New Projects Non -Residential 2497 100% - - - 305,480 0.28 414 1.6.59 16.59. CG: Infill Projects (and Hwy-99 Mixed Use InflII) -1 City of Lynnwood 2 Development Summary 12/2712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 8 of 9 m 0 7 m T v CD m CO CO 0 DRAFT City of Lynnwood 2012 Buildable Lands Report Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units I Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed Non -Residential 42.15 100% - - - 511,636 0.28 928 22.02 22.02 1 H99-MU: New Projects Note: Highway 99 Mixed Use allows residential development when there is a minimum of 40 units per acre; however, not all development will include residential uses. This report models a 50-50% assumption for mixed -use and commercial -only projects. The assumed new jobs by employment sector are: 10 Services, 5 Retail, 3 Food Services, and 2 FIRE. LI: (Combines New and Infill Projects) Non -Residential 12.32 100% - - - 228,949 0.43 325 26.41 26.41 Note: This report combines the data for new and infll projects in Light Industrial because a disproportionate share of the new development was for buildings that do not normally generate "covered employment" according to the job sectors used in this report. Without doing this, the report would have assumed an improbably low 12 employees in new projects and a likely too high estimate of 34 jobs in infilI projects. The approach used here will result in a more reasonable employment capacity estimates. Use Non -Residential 12.80 100% - - - 204,057 0.37 432 33.71 33.71 Non -Residential 29.60 100% - - - 480,085 0.37 889 30.03 30.03 PRC Non -Residential Insufficient data sample Insufficient data sample 30.00 ... Note: PRC includes Alderwood Mall and nearby parcels. The assumed new jobs in PRC by employment sector are: 20 Retail, 6 Services, and 4 Food Services. City of Lynnwood 12127/2012 3 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 9of9 Mill Creek M(JGA- Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Jan 16/2013 - PAC FINAL DRAFT N Additional Housing Unit Capacity - -. Additional Housing;Urit Capacity Acres (before reductions) .(after reductions) Addlticha l Popuhation Capacity . Jurisdic[iort Status - Market Ready. Zone Tota€- Unbu€Idahle 8uilda ble ` SF - MF- Sr. Apts: - - Total :: .SF . -: MF Sr. Apts. . T&AII SF - MF Sr, Apts. - Total N .Land .Surplus .- . N W City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING LDR 0.405 0.173 0.232 0 2 C 0 2 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 6 C) MDR 7.827 6.065 1.752 0 124 0 0 124 124 0 0 124 345 C 0 345 p Sum 8,232 6,238 1,994 0 126 0 0 126 126 0 0 126 351 C 0 351 A Sum 8.232 6.239 1.994 0 126 0 0 126 126 0 ❑ 126 3-91 0 0 351 W (2) VACANT LDR 33.721 27.803 5.918 0 19 0 0 19 15 0 0 15 43 0 0 43 PCB 2.875 2.875 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 PRO 7200 0.426 01028 0,397 C 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 4 Sum 97.022 30.706 6.315 0 22 0 0 22 18 0 C 16 49 0 0 49 MARKET -READY MU/HDR 3.1 0.131 2,97 0 4 13 40 57 4 12 38 54 11 23 45 78 Sum 3.1 0.131 2.97 0 4 13 40 57 4 12 38 54 11 23 45 78 Sum 40.122 30.937 9.285 0 26 13 40 79 22 12 38 72 60 23 45 127 (3) PARTUSE LDR 15316 7.366 7.949 S.846 18 ❑ 0 18 12 0 C 12 33 0 0 33 Sum 15316 7.366 7.949 -9 846 18 0 0 18 12 0 0 12 33 0 0 33 Sum 15,316 7.366 7.949 5846 18 0 0 18 12 0 0 12 33 0 0 33 (4) REDEV LDR 5,077 0 5.077 0 13 C 0 13 9 0 0 9 24 0 C 24 MU/HDR 4.943 3.309 1.634 0 1 1 22 30 1 5 15 20 2 9 17 28 Sum 20.02 3.309 5.71 0. 14 7 22 43 9 5 15 29 26 9 17 52 Sum 10,02 3.309 6,71 0 14 7 22 43 9 5 15 29 26 9 17 52 City {as of Apr-021 Subtotal 73,689 47.751 25.938 5,846 184 20 62 266 169 17 53 238 47C 31 62 563 Add€tional Housing Urrt capacity. - - Additional Hpusing Unit Capacity Acres (before reductions) - .. (after reductions) - Additional Population Capacity. Jurisdictions Land status . Market Ready - Zone-� .Total- Unbulldable Buildable - Surplus -- $F' MF- Sr.Ats-aTotal .� -SF-:-.: MF Sr. Apts. Totall SF MF. Sr. Apts,: -Total City (as of Apr-12) ` (1) PENDING EGPLJV 18.422 1.065 17.356 0 0 314 0 314 0 314 0 314 0 57S 0 578 LDR 10,651 4,165 6,486 0 42 0 0 42 42 0 0 42 117 0 0 117 Sum 29.072 5.231 23.842 0 42 314 0 356 42 314 0 356 117 578 0 695 Sum 29.072 5.231 23.842 0 42 314 0 356 42 314 0 356 117 578 0 695 (2)VACAN7 LDR 0.1S2 0.068 DA14 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 MDR 1.6S6 1.48 0,206 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 Sum 1.968 1,548 0.32 0 2 0 C 2 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 4 MARKET -READY EGPUV 3.798 0 3,798 0 0 32 0 32 0 30 0 30 0 56 0 56 LDR 10.854 8,446 2,409 0 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 21 0 0 21 Sum 14.651 8.446 6.205 0 8 32 0 40 8 30 0 38 21 56 0 77 Sum 16.52 9.994 6.526 0 10 32 C 42 9 30 0 40 26 56 0 82 (3) PARTUSE LDR 21.112 5.47 15.641 12.384 35 0 0 35 23 0 0 23 65 0 0 55 MDR 3,369 C,913 2.455 1.958 11 0 4 15 7 0 3 10 20 0 3 23 Sum 24.481 6.383 18.098 14.342 46 0 4 50 31 0 3 33 85 0 3 88 Sum 24.481 6.383 18.098 14.342 46 0 4 5❑ 31 0 3 33 85 0 3 88 (4) REDEV EGPUV 4A77 0.118 4.36 0 -2 36 0 34 -1 24 ❑ 23 -0 44 0 40 LDR 9.875 1.792 8.083 C 24 0 0 24 16 0 0 15 44 0 0 44 Sum 14,352 1.91 12.442 C 22 36 0 58 15 24 0 39 41 44 0 85 Sum 14,352 1.91 12.442 0 22 36 0 58 15 24 0 39 41 44 0 85 '� City (as of Apr-121 Subtotal ` 84.425 23.518 60.908 14.342 120 332 4 5106 97 369 3 468 269 678 3 950 0 O N N W O 0 A W ' -outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries - Additional Housing Unit Capacity'- - Add¢tiorial H.Using Unit Capacty ' '- - Acres - - - - Additiona[ Population Capacity' �' ..- .: -(before reductions I -' ... .: (after reductions) - - Jurisdiction. - .Land Status.. Market Ready. : ,: .- - Zone. - : : - . Totai unbuildable . Ruildable , . Surpdus :. SIF MF Sr. Apts, Total 5F -MF - Sr. Apts. Total - r 5F `- - MF Sr. Apts. - -..Total Unincorporated (1) PENDING UHDR 86.227 52.719 33.508 0 4D9 590 0 989 409 580 0 989 1139 1067 0 2206 ULDR 483.713 174.21 309.502 0 2305 0 0 2905 2305 0 0 2305 6417 0 0 6417 UMDR 34.157 9.009 25.14E 0 209 99 0 $08 209 99 0 308 582 182 0 764 UVILL 5.606 0.875 4.73 0 52 0 0 52 52 0 0 52 145 0 0 145 Sum 609.703 736,814 372,889 0 2975 679 0 3654 2975 679 0 3654 8282 1249 0 9532 Sum 609,703 236,814 372.889 0 2975 679 0 3654 2975 679 0 3654 8282 1249 0 9532 (2) VACANT UCENTER 6.119 2.946 3,272 0 0 113 32 145 0 91 26 117 0 168 30 198 VCOM 0,716 0 0.716 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 C 2 0 3 0 3 UHDR 2.579 0.19 2,389 0 17 12 0 29 14 10 C 23 36 18 0 56 ULDR 116,436 85.931 30.505 0 179 0 0 179 145 0 C 145 402 0 0 402 UMDR 4.026 1.64 2.386 0 21 0 0 21 17 0 C 17 47 0 0 47 WILL 1.793 1.053 0.74 0 0 16 2 18 0 13 2 15 0 24 2 26 Sum 131,667 91.66 40.008 C 217 143 34 394 175 115 27 318 488 212 32 733 MARKET -READY UCENTER 29.96 13.496 16.464 0 0 575 183 738 0 546 155 701 C 1005 182 11B7 UHDR 18.639 5.805 12.834 0 95 70 0 166 91 67 0 158 254 122 0 376 ULDR 9,955 9.032 0,923 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 UMDR 4,993 0 4.995 0 45 2 0 41 43 2 0 45 119 3 0 123 Sum 63.547 28.334 35,214 0 145 647 163 955 13S 61-9 155 907 383 1131 182 1697 Sum 195.215 119.995 75.221 D 362 790 197 1349 313 730 182 1225 871 1343 214 2429 (3) PARTUSE UHDR 3.755 0.016 3.74 1.975 12 7 0 19 8 5 0 13 22 9 0 31 ULDR 439.737 57.471 352.266 265.724 1331 0 0 1331 885 C 0 885 2464 0 0 2464 UMDR 49.704 16.011 33.693 27.016 733 8 0 241 155 5 0 160 431 10 0 441 UVILL 1.953 0.605 1.348 0.968 0 19 2 21 0 13 1 14 0 23 2 25 Sum 495.249 74.102 421.047 295.583 1576 34 2 1512 1048 23 1 1072 2919 42 2 2961 MARKET -READY ULDR 5.949 0.618 5,331 4.214 23 0 0 23 22 0 0 22 61 0 0 61 UMDR 13.647 2.565 11,092 9,677 96 3 0 89 82 3 0 85 227 5 0 235 Sum 19.595 31183 16,412 13.84 109 3 0 112 104 3 0 106 288 5 D 294 Sum 514.744 77,265 497,46 309.424 1685 37 2 1724 11-92 25 1 1178 3205 47 2 3254 (4)REDEV UCENTER 26.186 11,011 15.176 0 -14 519 141 646 -9 345 94 430 -26 635 110 719 UCOM 13.975 1.114 12.861 0 -2 38 1 43 -1 25 5 29 -4 46 5 48 UHDR 43.044 13.127 29318 0 138 143 C 281 92 95 0 187 255 175 0 43C ULDR 119.339 22.625 96.713 0 426 0 C 426 283 0 0 283 789 0 0 789 UMDR 52.423 15.285 37.138 0 291 10 C 301 194 7 0 20D 539 12 0 551 UVILL 11.41 1.297 10.113 0 -3 221 29 247 -2 147 19 164 -6 270 23 288 Sum 266.377 65.053 201.319 0 $36 931 177 1944 556 619 118 1293 154E 1139 138 2825 MARKET -READY UCENTER 5,062 1.525 3,537 0 -1 122 34 155 -1 116 32 147 -3 213 38 249 UMDR 28.11 1.839 26.27 0 237 13 0 250 225 12 0 238 627 23 0 650 Sum 33.172 3.364 29.808 0 235 13-9 34 405 224 128 32 385 624 236 38 899 Sum 299,549 59.423 231.126 C 1072 1066 211 2349 780 747 150 1678 2172 1375 176 3723 Unincorporated Subtotal 1619.21 502.515 1115.696 3C9.424 6094 2572 410 9076 522D 2182 334 7735 14532 4015 392 18939 MUGA Total 1777.324 573.784 1203.542 329.612 6398 7974 476 9848 5486 2567 390 8441 15271 4724 457 20452 m 0 m v CD m w 0 N 0 A W Mill Creek MUGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT . , Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land.Status .'..' Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildabie Buildable SuTpiusl Before Reductions After Reductions City (as of Apr-02) (1} PENDING BP 2.378 0.6S7 1.721 0 46 46 Sum 2.378 0.6S7 1.721 0 46 46 Sum 2.378 0.657 1.721 0 46 46 (2) VACANT BP 7.029 5,816 1.213 0 46 37 OP 9.118 1,267 7.65 0 303 245 Sum 16,147 7.084 9.063 0 349 282 MARKET -READY BP 11.568 7.659 3.929 0 152 144 CB 10.768 D.914 9.854 D 170 162 MU/HDR 3,1 0.131 2.97 0 1 1 Sum 25,456 8.704 16,752 0 323 307 Sum 41.603 15.788 25.816 0 672 589 (3) PARTUSE BP 2,087 0.313 1.774 0,617 24 16 Sum 2,087 0.313 1.774 C.617 24 .16 Sum 2.087 0.313 1,774 0,617 24 16 (4) REDEV BP 58.737 41.385 17.352 0 533 354 CB 1.86 0,009 1,851 0 27 18 Sum 60.597 41.394 19.203 0 560 372 MARKET -READY BP 5.207 2.113 3.095 0 120 114 CB 11.262 0 11,262 C 194 194 Surn 16.469 2.113 14.357 0 314 298 Sum 77.D66 43.507 33.56 0 874 671 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 123.134 60.264 62.67 0.617 1616 1321 Acres. Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total Unbulidable Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions After Reductions City (as ofJun-12)" (1) PENDING EGPUV 18.422 1.065 17.356 0 41 41 Sum 18.422 1.065 17.356 0 41 41 MARKET -READY EGPUV 3.503 0.621 2,882 0 60 60 Sum 3,503 0,621 2,882 0 60 60 Sum 21.925 1.697 20.238 0 101 1D1 (2) VACANT MARKET -READY EGPUV 3.798 0 3.798 0 57 54 Sum 3.798 0 3.798 0 57 54 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5 of 8 0 cV C m v CD m w 0 Cl) 0 A Sum 3.798 0 3.798 0 57 54 (4) REDEV EGPUV 5.724 0-683 5.041 0 74 49 NS 2.048 0,224 1.824 0 19 13 Sum 7.772 0.908 6.865 0 93 62 MARKET -READY EGPUV 17,35 6.113 11.236 0 169 161 5um 17.35 6.113 11.236 0 169 161 Sum 2S.122 7,021 18.101 0 262 222 City (as of Jun-12) Subtotal * 50.845 8.708 42.137 0 420 378 * - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries - Acres Additi0na#Employment Capacity Jurisdiction and Status Market Read Zone Tota# Unbuildable Buildable Surplusl Before RedUdidns After Reductions Unincorporated (1) PENDING ULDR 45.325 2.955 42.36 0 213 213 UMDR 11.142 6.296 4.646 0 68 68 UVILL 5.606 0.875 4.73 0 27 27 Sum 62.073 10.137 51.937 0 308 308 Sum 62.073 10.137 51,937 0 308 308 (2) VACANT UCENTER 6.119 2.846 3.272 0 88 71 UCOM 0.716 0 0.716 0 12 10 UVILL 1.793 1.053 0.74 0 7 5 Sum 8.627 3.899 4.728 0 107 86 MARKET -READY UCENTER 29.96 13,496 16.464 0 444 422 Sum 29.96 13.496 16.464 0 444 422 Sum 38.588 17.395 21.192 0 551 508 (3) PARTU5E UVILL 1.953 0.605 1.348 0,868 9 6 Sum 1.953 0,605 1.348 0.868 9 6 Sum 1.953 0.605 1.348 0.968 9 6 (4) REDEV UCENTER 24.725 10.452 14.273 C 305 203 UCOM 16.141 1,781 14,361 0 163 108 Ul 4.44 0.844 3.597 0 90 60 UVILL 11.41 1.297 10.113 0 96 64 Sum 56.716 14.374 42.342 0 654 435 MARKET -READY UCENTER 5.052 1.525 3.537 0 84 80 Sum 5.062 1,525 3.537 0 84 80 Sum 61.778 15.899 45.88 0 738 515 Unincorporated Subtotal 164.392 44.036 120.357 0.868 1605 1337 MUGA Total 338.371 113.008 225.364 1.485 3642 3036 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 6of8 T Q) 77 v m w 0 a 0 DRAFT Mill Creek MUGA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) Zone or I Type of Plan Development Development Within City Zones PRD-7200 Single Family Multi -Family Total 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Acres Acres Dwelling Acre in Density Square Area Total Employment Density )eveloned Develooed Units Total Zane Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed 49.95 92% 204 3.78 3.78 4.08 8% 33 0.61 0.61 - - - - - 54.03 100% 237 4.39 4.39 - - - - - LDR (Low Density Residential) Single Family 144.54 100% 510 3.53 3.53 - - - - - MDR (Medium Density Residential) Single Family 45.21 85% 31.5 5.89 6.10 (1) - - - - - Senior Apartments 6.45 12% 148 2.77 2.81 (1) - - - - - Non -Residential 1.91 3% - - - 23,767 0.01 59 1.11 0.00 (1) Total 53.47 100% 463 8.66 8.96 - - - - - 1- The Lawrence C. Schmidt Medical Center was approved as a conditional use in MDR on a site with frontage on the Bothell -Everett Highway. While other non-residential development in MDR might take place, few sites with MDR have comparable frontage. Therefore, this report makes an assumption that the remaining sites will develop as residential according to the densities that the past sample would produce by excluding the HDR (High Density Residential) Multi -Family 8.25 91% 215 23.72 26.07 (2) - - - - - Non -Residential 0.82 9% - - - 13,008 0.03 33 3.59 0,00(2) Total 9.06 100% 215 23.72 26.07 - - - - - 2- Ashley Gardens Retirement Home was approved in HDR as a conditional use. The methodology in this report does not track population capacity in such group quarters, so while new nursing homes are possible this report assumes simplified future development in HDR by looking solely at the multi -family potential. Mill Creek MUGA 01/02/2013 1 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 7of8 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Mill Creek MUGA Table YX: Development History (1995 to 2010) Buildable Buildable Residential Development Non -Residential Development Units / Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Acre in Density Square Area Total Employment Density Plan 1 Development Develo ed 1 Develo ed 1 Units Total Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed MU-HDR (Mixed Use / High Density Residential) Single Family 9.87 16% 89 1.47 1.47 - - - - - Senior Apartments 41.61 69% 829 13.72 13.72 - - - - - Mixed -Use 8.95 15% 266 4.40 4.40 5,085 0.00 13 0.21 0.21 Total 60.44 100% 1,184 19.59 19.59 5,085 0.00 13 0.21 0.21 BP and OP (Business Park and Office Park) Non -Residential 3.12 100% - - - 46,514 0.34 121 38.67 38.67 CB and NB (Community Business, assumed to apply to Neighborhood Business as well) Non -Residential 23.66 100% - - - 265,974 0.26 407 17.22 17.22 PCB (Planned Community Business) Mixed Use 0.48 2% 36 1.58 1.58 4,140 0.00 11 0.47 0.47 Non -Residential 22.37 98% - - - 341,704 0.34 846 37.01 37.01 Total 22.86 100% 36 L58 1.58 345,844 0.35 857 37.48 37.48 PUV (Planned Urban Village) (3) ........... Mixed Use No Data 8.50 No Data 15.00 3- PUV is a new zone with a conceptual master plan to redevelop several large parcels. The assumed densities produce a result similar to "Option A" for the entire site --roughly 400 multi -family units and 350,000 square feet of commercial space. The employment assumption per buildable acre is broken down b job sector as follows: 5 retail jobs, 5 general services jobs, 3 food service jobs and 2 jobs in FIRE Finance, Insurance, Real Mill Creek MUGA 2 Development Summary 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 8 of 8 Mountlake Terrace MUGA- Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR} Dec 13/2012 - PAC FfNAL DRAFT Additional Housing Unit Capacity ;, Additional Noosing Unit Capacity , . I_ Acres ,. Additional Population capacity _- (before redm lone) -(after reductions) - . ,. . Jurlsdictlon - Land Status Market Ready, - Zone _ - Total Unbuildable Buildable Surpiusl SF MF Sr. Apts. Tctai SF MF Sr, Apts. Totei Sr MF Sr. Apts.. Total City (as of Apr-02} (1) PENDING BC/D-B 1.304 0 1.304 0 -5 123 0 117 -6 123 0 117 -17 226 C 21D BC/D-C 2.151 0 2.151 0 -3 52 109 158 -3 52 109 158 -8 96 1ZB 216 BC/D-E 0.466 0 0.466 0 -Z 12 0 10 -2 12 0 10 -6 22 0 17 RML 0.526 0 0.526 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 D 11 0 11 RMM 12.348 1.264 11.084 0 52 129 0 181 52 129 0 181 145 237 0 392 RS 7200 - 4200 1.214 0 1.214 0 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 28 0 0 28 RS 7200 3.232 D.796 2.436 0 19 0 0 19 19 D 0 19 53 0 0 53 RS 8400 2.321 D.888 1.433 0 24 0 0 24 24 D 0 24 67 0 0 67 Sum 23.563 2.949 20.614 D 94 322 109 525 94 322 109 525 262 592 128 982 Sum 23.563 2.949 20.614 D 94 322 109 525 94 322 109 525 262 592 128 982 (2) VACANT BC/0-C 0.501 0 0.501 D 0 5 D 5 0 4 0 4 0 7 0 7 BC/D-O 0.179 0 0.179 0 0 2 0 2 C 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 FIT-C 4,846 1.712 3.134 0 0 94 D 94 C 76 0 76 0 140 0 140 FIT-D 9,798 4.519 5.279 0 0 263 D 263 0 212 0 212 0 391 D 391 RS 7200 4,9D6 3.732 1.175 0 8 0 D 8 6 0 0 6 18 0 0 18 RS 9400 4,692 3.534 1.158 0 7 0 - 0 7 6 0 0 6 16 0 0 16 Sum 24,924 13,493 11,426 0 15 354 0 379 12 294 0 306 34 541 0 575 MARKET READY BC/D-C C.852 C 0.862 0 0 10 0 10 0 10 C 10 0 17 0 17 Sum 0,952 0 0,862 0 0 10 0 10 D 10 0 10 0 17 0 17 Sum 25.785 13.498 12.289 0 15 374 0 399 12 303 0 316 34 558 0 592 (3) PARTUSE RS 72DO - 4800 2.728 0.06 2,667 1.467 7 0 0 7 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 RS 7200 6.739 0395 5,944 3.069 14 0 0 14 9 0 0 9 26 C 0 26 R5 8400 - 4800 1.158 0 21158 0,556 2 0 0 2 1 0 C 1 4 0 0 4 RS 8400 9.955 0.174 9.781 6.94 24 0 0 24 16 0 0 15 44 0 0 44 Sum 20.58 1.029 19.55 11.931 47 0 0 47 31 0 0 31 87 0 0 87 MARKET -READY RML 14.328 1.1 13.228 1.959 5 11 D 16 5 10 0 15 13 19 0 32 R5 8400 1.667 0.578 1.059 0.901 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 Sum 15.995 1.678 14.318 2,86 9 11 0 20 9 10 0 19 24 19 0 43 Sum 35.575 2.707 33.868 14.791 56 11 0 67 40 10 0 So 111 19 0 13C (4) REDEV 0.395 0 0.395 0 2 0 0 2 1 C 0 1 4 0 0 4 BC/D-A 4,419 0 4.419 0 0 307 0 307 0 204 0 204 C 375 0 376 BC/D-B 5.804 C.754 6.05 0 -17 234 0 217 -11 156 0 144 -31 285 0 255 BC/D-C 14.99 0 14.99 C -46 152 C 106 -31 101 0 70 -B5 186 0 101 BC/D-D 13.326 0 13.326 C -57 151 0 94 -38 100 0 63 -106 185 0 79 BC/D-E 6.208 0 6.208 0 31 65 0 34 -21 43 0 23 -57 80 0 22 F/T-A 4.379 0.05 4.329 0 0 129 C 229 D 86 0 86 0 158 0 158 F/T-B 3.497 1.067 2A29 0 0 48 0 48 C 32 0 32 0 59 0 59 F/T-C 3.149 1.011 2.138 0 0 64 a 64 0 43 0 43 0 78 0 78 F/T-E 0,467 0 0,467 0 0 8 0 8 0 5 0 5 0 10 C 10 F/T-F 0.841 0.025 0,916 0 -4 11 0 7 -3 7 0 5 -7 13 C 6 RML 1.79 C 1.79 0 -1 8 0 7 -1 5 0 5 -2 10 0 8 RMM 17,581 3.251 14.33 0 47 81 0 128 31 54 0 85 87 99 0 186 RS7200-4800 L569 0 L569 0 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 7 RS 7200 3,665 0.065 3.599 0 13 0 0 13 9 0 0 9 24 0 0 24 R58400 17,064 51848 6,216 0 17 0 0 17 11 0 0 11 31 0 0 31 Sum 95,145 22,072 83,073 0 -73 1258 0 1185 -49 837 0 788 -135 1539 0 1404 Sum 95,145 12,072 83,073 0 -73 1258 0 1185 -49 837 u 788 -135 1539 0 1404 City (8s of Apr-02) Subtotal 191.053 31.225 149.843 14.791 92 1955 109 2166 97 1472 109 1679 271 2709 129 3109 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2of10 Additlonal Housing Unit pacity I Additlonal Housing Unit Capacity - - - -' Acres ' lbefore redUttion5 } _`_ after cti reduons - Additlonal Population Capack V� - Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready - Zone Total Unbulldable Buildable Surplus .. SF.. MF Sr.Apts. .. Total -,,' SF MF Sr. Acts. Tota€l SF MF Sr. Apts.- 7otal Unincorporated (4}REDEV UHDR 0.916 0.671 0,245 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 UMDR 1.71)9 0 1.709 0 8 0 0 8 5 0 D S 35 0 0 15 Sum 2.625 0.671 1.954 0 8 1 0 9 5 1 0 6 15 1 D 16 Sum 2,675 0.671 1.954 0 8 1 0 9 5 1 0 6 15 1 0 16 Unincorporated Subtotal 2.625 0.671 1.954 0 8 1 0 9 S 1 0 6 15 1 0 16 N)UGATotal 193,693 31.896 151.797 14.791 100 1966 109 2175 102 1473 109 1685 296 2710 128 3125 D11D212013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services [ciei5R T CD v (D Mountlake Terrace MUGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - RAC FINAL DRAFT Acres: Additional Employment Capacity `D CO Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total ' Unbuildable ..Buildable _ Surplus 'Before Reductions After. Reductions w City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING BC/D-B 1.304 0 1.304 0 23 23 BC/D-C 0.263 0 0.263 0 2 2 LI/OP 0.207 0 0.207 0 4 4 PFS 4.378 0.62 3.758 0 117 117 Sum 6.153 0.62 5.533 0 146 146 Sum 6.153 0.62 5.533 0 146 146 (2) VACANT BC 0.299 0 0.299 0 7 6 BC/D-C 0.501 0 0.501 0 15 12 BC/D-D 0,179 0 0.179 0 5 4 CG 1.478 0,162 1.315 0 124 100 F/T-C 4.846 1.712 3.134 0 141 114 F/T-D 9.798 4.519 5.279 0 211 170 U/OP 0.858 0.366 0.492 0 13 10 Sum 17.96 6.76 11.2 0 516 417 MARKET -READY BC 0.648 0.361 0.287 0 7 7 BC/D-C 0.862 0 0.862 0 25 24 U/OP 5.304 3.765 1.539 0 41 39 Sum 6,813 4,125 2.688 0 73 69 sum 24.773 10.885 13.888 0 589 486 (3) PARTUSE BC 2.063 0 2.063 0.41 10 7 CG 2.465 0.819 1.646 1,102 104 69 Sum 4.529 0.819 3.709 1.512 114 76 Sum 4.529 0.819 3.709 1.512 114 76 (4) REDEV BC 3.702 0.209 3.493 0 57 38 BC/D-A 4.419 0 4,419 0 632 420 BC/D-13 6.804 0.754 6.05 0 141 94 BC/D-C 14.982 0.11 14,872 0 380 253 BC/D-D 13.314 0 13.314 0 358 238 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5 of 10 BC/D-E 6,396 0 6.396 0 67 45 CG 19.399 1.989 17.41 0 1360 904 F/T-A 4.379 0.05 4.329 0 94 63 F/T-B 3.497 1,067 2.429 0 3 2 F/T-F 0,495 0.025 0.469 0 3 2 LI/OP 9.574 5.089 4.486 0 113 75 SDD C/R 0.371 0 0.371 0 5 3 Sum 87.332 9.294 78,038 0 3213 2137 Sum 87.332 9.294 78.038 0 3213 2137 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 122.787 21.618 101.169 1.512 4062 2844 Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions . After Reductions City (as of Jun-12)* (2) VACANT CG 0.436 0 0.436 0 41 33 Sum 0.436 0 0.436 0 41 33 5um 0.436 0 0.436 0 41 33 (4) REDEV CG 0.313 0.05 0.263 0 13 9 Sum 0.313 0.05 0.263 0 13 9 Sum 0.313 0.05 0.263 0 13 9 City (as of Jun-12) Subtotal * 0.749 0.05 0.699 0 54 42 * - outside of City Apr-2002 boundaries MUGATotal 123536 21.668 101.868 1.512 4116 2886 01 /02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 6of10 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Mountlake Terrace MUGA T Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) v CD m w 0 % Residential Development Non -Residential Development ° Buildable Buildable Units 1 Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment w Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within City Zones RS 8400 Single Family 7.93 100% 36 4.54 4.54 - - - - - RS 7200 Single Family 19.33 100% 112 5.80 5.80 - - - - - RML Single Family 6.77 36% 55 294 294 - - - - - Multi -Family 11.92 64% 109 5.83 5.83 - - - - - Total 18.69 100% 164 8.78 8.78 - - - - - Single Family 4.77 53% 80 8.93 8.93 - - - - - Multi -Family 4.19 47% 65 T26 7.26 - - - - - Total 8.96 100% 145 16.19 16.19 - - - - - �1 Mountlake Terrace MUGA 1 Development Summary 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 7 of 10 T Q) T v m 0 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Mountlake Terrace MUGA Table XX.: Development History (1995 to 2010) Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units/Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed BC (Community Business) Non -Residential 8.42 100% - - - 92,736 0.25 199 23.58 23.58 GC (General Commercial) Non -Residential 3.67 100% - - - 134,1.76 0.84 347 94.56 94.56 SDD (Special Development District) Non -Residential 8.68 100% - - - 71,004 0.19 123 14.16 14.16 LI/OP (Light Industrial / Office Park) -- New Projects Non -Residential 14.12 100% - - - 227,630 0.37 374 26.49 26.49 LI/OP (Light Industrial / Office Park) -- Infill Projects Non -Residential 5.11 100% - - - 20,057 0.09 20 3.93 26.49 (1) 1- The two Infill projects in LVOP are not considered predictive of likely future infill densities because they are low intensity uses that are unlikely to be repeated as land in LIMP becomes scarcer. For this reason, the employment density found on new projects in LIMP will be used on estimates of surplus land for partially used sites. Mountlake Terrace MUGA 01/02/2013 2 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 8of10 0 0 CD CD N 0 A DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report Mountlake Terrace MUGA Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) Buildable % Buildable Residential Development Non -Residential Development Units / Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp. Per Acre Assumed FIT (Freeway I Tourist) District A Non -Residential 4.19 100% - - 30.00(2) 38,369 0.21 94 22.55 40.00(2) F/T (Freeway I Tourist) District B Non -Residential 2.06 100% - - 20.00(2) 40,562 0.45 101 49.11 20,00(2) /T (Freeway I Tourist) District C Non -Residential " > No D'evelopXnent 30.00 (2) No Develapmer►t 45.00 (2) FIT (Freeway / Tourist) District D Non -Residential No Development 50.00(2) No Development : 40.00(2) FIT (Freeway I Tourist) District E Non -Residential No Development 20.00(2) No Development 15.00 (2) FIT (Freeway / Tourist) District F Non -Residential No Development 15.00 (2) No Development 5.00(2) 2- Mountlake Terrace recently adopted changes to the formerly singular Freeway / Tourist zone. These changes include creating separate standards for different districts and encouraging housing. The densities assumed are based on the expected building types in each district under current market conditions; meaning that (a) light rail has yet to reach the Mountlake Terrace transit center and (b) a transfer of development rights program that would allow for higher residential and employment densities has yet to be adopted. If one or both of these considerations changes, then expected densities would be higher. The job sector breakdown for the districts are: District A) 20 Services, 13 Retail, 5 Food Services, 2 FIRE; B) 10 Services, 6 Retail, 3 Food Services, 1 FIRE; Q 25 Services, 10 Retail, 5 Food Services, 5 FIRE; D) 25 Services, 5 FIRE, 5 Gov/Ed, 4 Retail, 1 Food Services; E) 5 Services, 5 Retail, 5 Food Services; and F) 5 Services. Mountlake Terrace MUGA 3 Development Summary 01 /02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 9of10 DRAFT Mountlake Terrace MUGA Table XX..: Development History (1995 to 2010) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Units / Acre Non -Res. Floor Estimated Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling in Total Density Square Area Total Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units Zone Assumed Feet Ratio Emp, Per Acre Assumed TC (Town Center) District A ...... ... .... .... Mixed Use No Development , 70.00 (3) No Development 150.00 (3) TC (Town Center) District B Mixed Use 1.26 100% 123 97.25 40.00(3) 10,303 0.19 27 21.14 30.00(3) (Town Center) District C Non -Residential 1.43 51% - - - 24,068 0.20 60 21.53 21.53 Mixed -Use 1.36 49% 33 11.81 11.81 8,541 0.07 22 7.88 7.88 Total 2.79 100% 33 11.81 11.81 32,609 0.27 82 29.41 29.41 TC (Town Center) District D Non -Residential 0.19 100% - - 14.00(3) 5,048 0.61 13 66.93 29.00(3) ITC (Town Center) District E Mixed Use No ]development 12.00(3) No Development 10.00(3) 3- The number of projects development in Town Center is quite small and only District C has enough examples to consider the sample predictive of likely future densities. The densities assumed are based on the expected building types in each district. Mountlake Terrace MUGA 011D212013 4 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 10 of 10 Mukilteo MUGA- Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT . Addltlona l Housing Unit Capacity - Addit4onal Housing Unit Capacity Acres - - AddAl-I Po ulatlon Ca aci P P h' Ibe{ore redt;ationsl - after reductions ) } Jurisdiction �. ,: , Land Status ,. Market Ready 7.one, .� y Tota[. .Unbuildable Buildable 5vr €us SF -- MF Sr: Apts. ' � Total - - SF - - . - MF 5r. A =. Total SF. - MF Sr: Apts. Total City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING DB 0.43 0 0.43 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 MR 1.108 0.821 0.267 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 14 0 0 14 RD 12.5 5.471 2177 2.694 0 18 0 0 18 18 0 0 18 50 0 0 50 RD 7.2 6.769 O. 117 6.652 0 63 0 0 63 63 0 0 63 175 0 0 175 RD 7.5 17.579 13-97 1609 0 28 0 0 28 28 0 0 28 78 0 0 78 Sum 31.356 17,685 13.671 0 114 2 0 116 114 2 0 116 317 4 0 321 Sum 31.356 1ZS85 13. 671 0 114 2 0 115 114 2 c 116 317 4 0 321 (7) VACANT CA 0,985 0.096 01559 0 3 5 0 8 2 4 0 5 7 7 0 14 DB 0.092 0 0.092 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 MR 8.16 5.194 2.966 0 0 133 0 133 0 133 0 133 0 245 0 245 MAD 1.785 0 1,785 0 0 20 0 20 0 16 0 16 0 30 0 30 RD 12.5 16525 11.673 4,852 0 21 0 0 21 17 0 0 17 47 0 0 47 RD 12.55 5.498 3.853 1.645 0 12 0 0 12 10 0 0 10 27 0 0 27 RD 7.5- 22.239 13.869 8.37 0 50 0 0 50 40 0 0 40 111 0 0 112 RD 84 0.222 0.222 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 RD 9,6 1.867 0 1.867 0 7 0 0 7 6 0 0 6 18 0 0 16 Sum 57.372 34.907 22.465 0 95 159 0 253 77 153 0 230 214 282 0 495 MARKET -READY MAD 2.549 1.552 0.997 0 0 11 0 11 0 10 0 10 ❑ 19 0 19 RD 7.5 12.527 7.006 5.521 0 27 0 0 27 26 0 0 26 71 0 0 71 Sum 15,075 9,557 6.518 0 27 11 0 38 26 1D 0 36 71 19 0 R1 Sum 72.447 43.464 28.983 0 122 169 0 291 102 164 0 266 285 301 0 586 (3} PARTUSE RD 12.5 14.856 11.281 3.574 2.503 7 0 0 7 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 RD 7.5 9.465 7.142 2,121 1.457 7 0 0 7 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 RD 8.4 4362 0 4362 3.574 16 0 0 16 11 0 0 11 30 0 0 30 RD 9.6 13.195 0.094 13.1 9.008 24 0 0 24 16 0 0 16 44 0 0 44 Sum 41.878 18518 23,36 16.542 54 0 0 54 36 0 - 0 36 Ice 0 0 Inc Sum 41.879 18.519 23.36 16.542 54 0 0 54 36 0 0 36 100 0 0 ice (4) REDEV C6 8564 1.216 7.349 0 17 50 0 61 11 33 0 45 31 61 0 93 DB 0.86 0.063 0.797 a a 6 0 6 0 4 0 4 0 7 0 7 MAD 3.844 1.955 1.889 0 -6 18 0 12 4 12 0 8 -11 22 0 11 RD 12.5 11.031 2.183 8,848 0 19 0 0 19 13 0 0 13 35 0 0 35 RD 7.5 13,149 5.604 7.545 0 26 0 0 26 17 0 0 17 48 0 0 48 RD 8.4 1.273 0 1.273 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 9 RD 9.6 6,058 0.223 5.835 0 16 0 0 18 12 0 0 12 33 0 0 33 RD 9.65 0.733 0 0133 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 Sum 45.512 11.243 34.269 0 80 74 0 154 53 49 0 102 148 91 0 239 MARKET -READY CO 3.177 0371 2.806 0 9 22 0 31 9 21 0 29 24 38 0 62 MRD 2.417 1.127 L29 0 -1 15 0 14 -1 14 0 13 -3 26 0 24 Sum 5.594 2.498 4,096 0 8 37 0 45 6 35 0 43 21 65 0 66 Sum 51,106 11741 19,365 0 88 111 - 0. 199 61 84 0 145 169 155 0 324 City (as of Apr-02)Subtotal 196.787 92.408 104.379 16,542 378 282 0 650 313 250 0 563 872 460 c 1332 Additional Housing. Unit Capacity - Add€tional Housing Unit capacity . Acresr {hefore reductions} {after reductionalAdditional Pcpufatlon Capacity Jur[WCtion Land Status Market Ready _. .. Zone Total Unbuildable- Buildable Surplus - SF: INF-Sr.,Apts.. . TotalSF MF. Sr AP11,. Tutall Mr Sr. Apts. .Iota€ Unincorporated (1)PFNDING UCOM 2313 0 2313 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 UHDR 1091 0 1081 0 19 0 0 19 19 0 0 19 53 0 0 53 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2of10 ULDR-NS 0) ULDR-UE 0 ULDR f'D UMOR Sum CD Sum N w (2)VACANT UCENTER 81 UCOM 0 LJHPR A ULDR-NS ULDR-UE ULDR UMDR WILL Sum MARKET -READY ULDR-UE UMDR WILL Sum Sum (31 PARTUSE ULDR UMDR Sum Sum (4(REUEV UCENTER UCOM UHDR ULDR UMDR UVILL Sum MARKET -READY UCOM Sum 5um Unincorporated Subtotal MUGA Total 2.562 2.562 0 0 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 28 0 0 28 25.112 22.076 3,036 0 12 0 0 12 12 0 0 12 33 0 0 33 29,333 20.896 7,436 0 160 0 0 150 160 0 0 160 445 0 0 445 34.92 4.789 30.132 0 215 41 0 256 215 41 0 256 599 75 0 574 94.321 50.323 43.998 0 416 41 1 458 416 41 1 458 1158 75 1 U35 94.321 50.323 43.999 0 416 41 1 458 415 41 1 458 1158 75 1 1235 0.481 0 0.491 0 0 16 4 20 0 13 3 16 0 24 4 28 3.097 0.152 2.945 0 0 9 1 10 0 7 1 8 0 13 1 14 0.358 0 0.858 0 2 1 0 3 2 1 0 2 4 I 0 5 33.147 20.975 12.272 0 31 0 6 31 25 0 0 25 70 0 0 70 23.907 23.198 0.709 0 11 ❑ 0 11 9 0 0 9 25 0 0 25 8.921 6,574 2-348 0 16 0 ❑ 16 13 0 0 13 35 0 0 36 1.796 0.752 1.034 0 9 0 0 9 7 0 0 7 20 4 0 20 0.474 0 0.474 0 0 10 1 11 0 8 1 9 0 15 1 Is 72.172 51.651 20.521 0 69 36 6 all 56 29 5 90 155 53 6 214 10.999 9.732 1.167 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 1.035 0.377 0.657 0 6 0 a 6 6 0 0 6 16 0 0 16 4.678 0.281 4.397 0 0 96 13 109 0 91 12 104 0 168 I5 182 16.612 10.39 6.222 0 8 96 13 117 8 91 12 111 21 168 15 203 83.784 62.041 26.743 0 77 132 19 222 63 120 17 202 176 221 20 418 26.525 4.029 22.497 14.273 69 0 0 69 46 0 0 46 129 0 0 128 89.858 5.74 84.118 46.445 348 0 0 348 231 0 0 231 644 0 0 644 116.384 9.769 196.615 60.718 417 0 0 417 277 0 0 277 772 0 0 772 116.384 9.769 106.615 60.719 417 0 0 417 277 C 0 277 772 0 0 772 6.803 0.148 6.656 0 -2 231 64 293 -1 154 43 195 -4 223 50 329 49,848 4.074 45.774 0 -8 138 23 153 -5 92 15 102 -15 169 18 172 5.109 0.86 4.249 0 35 18 0 33 10 12 0 22 28 22 0 50 7.642 2.344 5.299 0 18 0 0 18 12 0 0 12 33 0 0 33 72.1 GA 8.116 64A52 0 395 4 0 399 263 3 0 265 731 5 0 736 9,219 0.324 8.994 0 -6 192 25 211 -4 128 17 140 -11 235 20 243 150,79 15.867 134.923 0 412 583 112 1107 274 388 74 736 763 713 B8 1564 1923 0 3.923 0 -1 12 3 14 -1 11 3 13 -3 21 3 22 3.923 0 3.923 0 -1 12 3 14 -1 11 3 13 -3 21 3 22 154.712 15_B67 139B46 0 411 595 115 1121 273 399 77 749 760 734 91 1585 454.261 138 316.201 60.718 1321 768 135 2224 1030 560 96 1686 2867 1031 112 4010 650,988 230,408 420-58 11.26 1699 1050 135 2884 1343 010 96 2249 3739 1491 112 5342 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 3 of 10 0 0 C m v CD m w 8 0 A w MukiIteo MUGA- Add itional Employment Capacity (2012 8LR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres Additional Employment Capacity Jurisdiction Land Status MarkeTReady ;: Zone Total Unbulldabie Buildable surplusl Before Reductions ':After Reductions City (as of Apr-02) (1) PENDING CB 0.413 0.054 0.359 0 25 25 CB(S) 1.345 0 1.345 0 29 29 DB 0.43 0 0.43 0 4 4 LI 7.956 1.11 6.845 0 147 147 Sum 10,143 1.164 8.979 0 205 203 Sum 10.143 1.164 8.979 0 205 205 (2} VACANT CB 0.985 0.096 0.889 0 19 15 CB(5) 6.293 0.196 6.098 0 207 167 DB 0.092 0 D.092 D 4 3 IP 21.323 7.015 14.308 0 414 334 U 15.133 5.413 9.72 0 209 169 PCB 1,099 0 1.D99 0 31 25 PG 13,706 0.217 13.498 0 5S 44 Sum 58.631 12.936 45.695 0 939 758 MARKET -READY IP 0.905 0 0.905 0 26 25 U 1.267 D 1.267 0 27 26 PCB 6.418 0.148 6.27 D 178 169 PCB(S) 9.789 1,491 8.297 0 236 224 PI 4.645 2.611 2.034 0 8 8 Sum 23.023 4.25 18.773 0 475 451 Sum 81.654 17.187 64.467 D 1414 1209 (3) PARTUSE CB 1.298 0 1.298 0.843 17 11 CB(5) 1.089 0 1.089 0.6 12 8 DB 0,28 0 0.28 0.026 1 1 fP 8,233 0 9.233 1,196 29 19 LI 7.288 0 7.288 4.317 95 63 PI 4,538 1.014 3.624 2.081 17 11 Sum 22.826 1.014 21.812 9.054 171 114 Sum 22.826 1.014 21.812 9.054 171 114 (4) REDEV CB 8.394 1.32 7.074 0 114 76 CB(S) 10.09 D.074 IC.D16 0 215 143 DB 2.988 1.316 1.672 0 72 48 IP 0,675 0 0.675 0 19 13 Lf 29.085 6.634 37,451 0 502 334 PI 5,328 0.D3 5.298 0 22 15 Sum 66.559 9.373 57.186 0 944 628 01 /02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 5of10 0 cV C m v CD m w 0 A MARKET -READY CB 3.177 0.371 2,805 0 61 58 U 2.533 0,154 2.379 0 51 48 Sum 5.711 C.526 5.185 0 112 106 Sum 72.27 9.899 62.37 0 1056 734 City (as of Apr-OZ) Subtotal 186.893 29.264 157.629 9.054 2846 2262 Acres .: Add'itlonal Employment Capacity . Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable Buildahle Surefusl Before Reductions Aker Reductions Unincorporated (1) PENDING UCOM 10.159 1.591 8.567 0 44 44 Ul 14.354 2.483 11.872 0 195 195 UMDR 2.033 0 2.033 0 46 46 Sum 26.546 4.074 22.472 0 285 285 Sum 26.546 4.074 22,472 0 285 285 (2) VACANT UCENTER 0.481 0 0,481 0 13 10 UCDM 3.348 0.152 3.196 0 51 41 UI 34.322 8.248 26.074 0 804 649 UVILL 0.474 0 0.474 0 5 4 Sum 38.626 8.401 30.225 0 873 705 MARKET -READY UI 3.333 1.384 1.95 0 61 58 UVILL 4.678 C.281 4.397 0 44 42 Sum 8.011 1.665 6.346 0 105 10C Sum 46,637 10.066 36.572 0 978 805 (3)PARTUSE U€ 1.221 0 1.221 C.792 14 9 Sum 1.221 0 1.221 0.792 14 9 Sum 1.221 0 1.221 0.792 14 9 (4) REDLV UCENTER 6.BC3 0.148 5.656 0 127 84 UCOM 41.03 3.242 37,789 0 534 355 UI 67.587 13.494 54.1C4 0 1431 952 UVILL 8.831 0.324 8.506 0 85 57 Sum 124,251 17.197 107.054 0 2177 1448 MARKET -READY UCDM 3.923 0 3.923 0 47 45 UI 5.426 0.347 5.079 0 156 148 Sum 9,349 0.347 9.D01 0 203 193 Sum 133.6 17.545 116.055 0 2380 1641 Unincorporated Subtotal 208.005 31.684 176.32 0.792 3657 2740 MUGATotal 394.899 60.948 333.949 9.846 6503 5002 01 /02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 6of10 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report City of Mukilteo T Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) T v c°o Residential Development Non -Residential Development 0o Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling g Units / Acre Density tYY Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Densit � Zone Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within City Zones RD 12500 (2000 to 2010 Sample) Single Family 14.97 100% 49 3.27 3.27 - - - - - RD 9600 (2000 to 2010 Sample) Single Family 20.08 100% 73 3.64 3.64 - - - - - RD 8400 (Post-GMA Sample) Single Family 3.60 100% 18 5.01 5.01 - - - - - RD 7500 (Post-GMA Sample) Single Family 10.08 100% 37 3.67 5.10 (1) - - - - - 1- This report assumes higher densities in response to market conditions and per city direction. RD 7200 (Post-GMA Sample) Single Family 33.22 100% 181 5.45 5.45 - - - - - MRD (Multi -Family sample only) Multi -Family 6.35 100% 74 11.66 11.66 - - - - - MR and MR PRD (Multi -Family sample only) (also applies to remaining triple -zoned land with PCB(S), MR, BP zoning) Multi -Family 13.10 100% 238 18.16 18.16 - - - - - —� City of Mukilteo 1 Development Summary C�i 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planring and Development Services 7 of 10 DRAFT City of Mukilteo Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Buildable I % Buildable Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density .Zone Development Developed Developed I Units in Total Zone Assumed 3: New Projects (1995 to 2010) Non -Residential Estimated Employment Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Single -Family 1.35 17% 15 1.86 4.00(2) - - - - - Mixed -Use 2.20 27% 8 0.99 8.00(2) 17,570 0.05 44 5.44 5.44 Non -Residential 4.53 56% - - - 52,755 0.15 133 16.42 16.42 Total 8.07 100% 23 2.85 12.00(2) 70,325 0.20 176 21.86 21.86 This report assumes higher residential densities in CB than have been observed in the past because the zoning code was modified in the mid-2000s to encourage housing and the nple includes projects from before the time that it was possible to build residential or mixed -use projects in the zone. Hence, future development will likely include more housing un was observed during the 1995 to 2010 period. . .... ............. ........ . ........................... ........ 3: Infill Projects ..N.o. .. Data 20.00(3) The assumed new jobs b employment sector are: 10 Services 6 Retail 2 FIRE and 2 Food � yRetail, Services. (S): New Projects (1995 to 2010) Non -Residential 10.28 100% - - 145,912 0.33 348 33.86 33.86 CB (S): Infill Projects Non -Residential 1.34 100% - - - 4,872 0.08 9 6.70 20.00(4) 4- Future business expansions and new uses on sites with existing uses will likely have higher average employment densities than the infill project that this sample relies on (a new self-service car wash and espresso stand next to an existing auto repair shop). The assumed new jobs by employment sector are: 10 Services, 6 Retail, 2 FIRE, and 2 Food Services. PCB (S) (and PCB): (Non -Residential New Project Sample Only, 1995 to 2010) (5) (6) Non -Residential 20.29 100% - - - 230,574 0.26 576 28.38 28.38 5- The residential development in PCB (S) was possible through phasing agreements that were part of the Harbour Pointe master plan. The remaining developable PCB (S) land is not well -suited for residential development. Therefore, this report uses only the non-residential sample for predicting likely future densities. 6- The employment density for now projects is also being applied to infill projects because the infill data sample size is too small to be reliable (one project: a new car wash added onto an existing gas station). S City of Mukilteo 2 Development Summary 01/0212013 Snohomish County Planring and Development Services 8 of 10 DRAFT 2012 Buildable Lands Report City of Mululteo m Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) CD m Residential Development Non -Residential Development w No Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Dwelling Units / Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Densi A Type of Acres Acres g tYt5 Zone Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed DB: New and Infill Projects (1995 to 2010, excluding Silver Cloud Inn) (7) Mixed -Use 1.79 100% 11 6.16 10.00(8) 28,283 0.36 79 44.17 44.17 7- The City revised Waterfront Mixed Use zone in 2009. WMU now includes the Silver Cloud Inn (permitted in 1999 under DB zoning) and surrounding areas that have direct waterfront access and are therefore unlike the remaining DB-zoned areas which lack such access. 8- Changes in the zoning code circa 2009 encourage more housing and that residential densities will likely be higher than observed before that time. WMU Mixed Use New Zone No Data 5.00(9) New Zone No''>Data 25.00(9) .__ . 9- The city revised Waterfront Mixed Use in 2009 and the zone now covers land formerly zoned Downtown Business. The only recent building in WMU is the Silver Cloud Inn (permitted 1999 under DB zoning); however, Silver Cloud is not predictive of likely future development in WMU because it exceeds the new height limit for buildings north of Front Street. IP (and BP): New Projects (1995 to 2010) Non -Residential 39.93 100% - - - 608,815 0.35 1,153 28.87 28.87 IP (and BP): Infill Projects (1995 to 2010) Non -Residential 6.00 100% - - - 114,770 0.44 145 24.15 24.15 LI (and H1): New Projects (1995 to 2010) Non -Residential 30.67 100% - - - 416,065 0.31 662 21.59 21.59 LI (and HI): Infill Projects (1995 to 20I0) Non -Residential 5.12 100% - - - 77,482 0.35 113 22.04 22.04 PI: New Projects (1995 to 2010) Non -Residential 13.70 100% - - - 57,404 0.10 57 4.16 4.16 City of Mukilteo 3 Development Summary 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 9 of 10 DRAFT City of Mukilteo Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Non -Residential Buildable % Buildable Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units/Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Area Estimated Employment Density Zone Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed City of Mukilteo 4 Development Summary 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 10 of 10 Woodway MUGA-Additional Population Capacity (2012 5LR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Additional Housing Unit Capacity Additional Housing Unit Capacity Acres .(before reductions). „(aRer reductions). Additional Population Capacity Jurisdiction . - -._. Land Status Market Read ..-:.:.. Zone .. Total .'.' '. Unhuildable -- Buildable::.: Surpiwl 5F --- ' MF - Sr. Apts. '. total Sr - MF-'"Sr. Apts: - ' Total : : SF .: `:'. Mr Sr. Apte. Total City (as of Apr-02) (2) VACANT FRP R-87 10.309 4.748 556 0 6 0 0 6 5 0 D 5 13 0 0 13 FRP R43 1.072 0 1.072 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 SR R-14.5 413 O.S25 3.604 0 8 0 0 8 6 0 0 6 18 0 0 18 Sum 15.51 5.274 10.237 0 15 ❑ ❑ 15 12 0 0 12 34 0 0 34 Sum 1-9.51 5.274 10.237 0 15 0 0 15 12 0 0 12 34 C 0 34 (3) PARTUSE FRP R-87 27.919 7.584 20.335 17.106 7 0 0 7 5 0 0 5 13 C c 13 FRP R43 4.85 0 4.85 3.345 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 6 SR R-14.5 12.987 2.079 10.908 7.488 12 0 0 12 8 0 0 8 22 0 0 22 Sum 45.756 9.663 36.093 28.44 22 0 0 22 15 0 0 15 41 0 0 41 Sum 45.755 9.653 36.093 28.44 22 0 0 22 15 0 0 15 41 D 0 41 (4) REDEV FRP R-87 6.946 0 6.946 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 4 SR R-14.5 3.832 2.834 0.998 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 Sum 10.778 2.934 7.945 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 6 Sum 10.778 2.934 7.945 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 5 City (as of Apr-02) Subtotal 72.045 17.77 54.274 28.44 40 0 0 40 29 C 0 29 80 0 0 80 Additional Housing Unit Capacity ; Addit€oval. Housing Unit Capacity `Acres -(before reductions) (after reductions) Additional -Pd uiatlon Capacity' -- -Jurisdiction .. - Land Status - MarketRead -- y 7one Total: -. Unbuildable:;.Bui€dable�' Sur lus p - 5F - MF Sr.A ts. - _ p .-. .Total I SF. r'MF Sr. Apts. : : .--7otal SF MF' Sr. Apts. .Total Unincorporated (1) PENDING WILL 61.047 30.529 30.518 0 0 2640 C 2640 0 2640 0 2640 0 4858 0 4858 Sum 61.047 30.529 30.518 0 c 264C 0 2640 0 2640 0 2640 0 4858 0 4858 Sum 61.047 30.529 3c.518 0 0 2640 0 2640 0 2640 0 2640 0 4858 0 4858 (2}VACANT ULDR 36563 29.291 7.281 0 42 0 0 42 34 0 0 34 94 0 0 94 Sum 36563 29.291 7.281 0 42 0 0 42 34 0 0 34 94 0 0 94 Sum 36563 29.291 7.281 0 42 0 0 42 34 0 0 34 94 0 0 94 Unincorporated Subtotal 97.609 59.81 37.799 0 42 2640 0 2682 34 2640 0 2674 94 4858 0 4952 MUGATotal 169.654 77.58 92.073 28.44 82 2640 0 2722 63 Z640 0 2703 174 4858 0 5032 01 /02/2013 Snohomish County Manning and Development Services 2of5 Woodway MUGA - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres Additional Employment capacity Jurisdiction Land Status :. Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildabie ::Buildable Surplus Before Reductions : After Reductions Unincorporated (1) PENDING UVILL 61.047 30.529 30.518 0 242 242 Sum 61.047 30.529 30.518 0 242 242 Sum 61.047 30.529 30.518 0 242 242 Unincorporated Total 61.047 30.529 30.518 0 242 242 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 4of5 DRAFT Town of Woodway m Table XX: Development History (1995 to 2010) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable % Buildable Non -Res. Floor Estimated Employment Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density Square Area Estimated Employment Density Zone Development Developed Develoned Units in Total Zone Assumed I Feet Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Town of Woodway 01/02/2013 0.50 - - - - - 1,00 - - - - 2.12 - - - - 1 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 5of5 Lake Stickney Gap - Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT ..- Unincorporated Subtotal 344,729 85.524 259.206 58.512 1563 550 16 7129 17.79 436 11 2725 9559 802 13 4374 12/27/2012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 6 Lake Stickney Gap - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Acres Additional Employment Capacity.: - Jurisdiction:: Land Status Market Ready Zone::: Total Unbuildable .'_Buildable Sur 1us p Before Reductions After Reductions Unincorporated (1) PENDING UHDR 1.134 0 1,134 0 50 50 Sum 1.134 0 1.134 0 50 50 Sum 1.134 0 1.134 0 50 50 (2) VACANT UCOM 1.938 0.734 1.204 0 19 15 Sum 1.938 0.734 1.204 0 19 15 MARKET -READY UCOM 2A53 0.223 1.93 0 31 29 Sum 2.153 0.223 1.93 0 31 29 5um 4.09 0.956 3.134 0 50 45 (4) REDEV UCOM 34.543 3.65 30.993 0 392 261 5um 34,543 3.65 30.893 0 392 261 5um 34.543 3.65 30.893 0 392 261 Unincorporated Total 39.767 4.606 35.161 0 492 355 1212712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 4 of 6 Larch way Overlap - Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Addltional Hcusing.Unit Capacity Additional HDusing- Unit CapaCky Acres - �.. Additional Population _ Capacity . (before reduL4ionsj (after reductions) - Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total : - Unbulldable --. Buildable Surplus SF - MF.-- Sr. Apts. Total SF - ME Sr. Apts._ .Total - 5F ME &r AFts Total Unincorporated ?1) PENDING UCENTER 7,608 0,C79 7.529 0 62 168 0 230 52 168 0 230 173 309 0 482 ULDR 8.096 0.602 7,493 0 54 0 0 54 54 0 0 54 150 0 a 150 UMDR 1.085 0 1,085 0 19 0 0 19 19 a a 19 53 0 0 53 Sum 16789 0.682 16.107 0 135 168 C 303 135 168 0 303 375 309 0 685 Sum 16.789 0.682 16.107 C 135 168 0 303 139 168 0 303 376 309 0 585 (2)VACANT UHDR 1.494 0.037 1.457 C 10 7 0 17 8 6 0 14 22 10 0 33 ULDR 22,665 9.008 13,657 0 80 0 0 80 65 0 0 65 180 0 0 180 UMDR 0.351 0 0.351 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 7 0 0 7 Sum 24.51 9.045 15.465 0 93 7 0 100 75 6 a 81 209 10 0 219 MARKET -READY UCENTER 1.576 0 1.516 0 0 55 15 70 0 52 14 67 0 96 17 113 Ucom 0.76 0.021 0.739 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 Sum 2.335 0.021 2.314 0 0 57 15 72 0 54 14 68 0 100 17 116 Sum 26.846 9.066 17,78 0 93 64 15 172 75 60 14 149 2➢9 110 17 336 (3)PARTUSE UCENTER 1.063 0 1.063 C.68 D 22 6 29 0 15 4 19 0 27 5 32 UHDR 2.739 0 2.739 2.015 14 10 a 24 9 7 0 16 26 12 0 38 ULDR 109.637 19.054 90.583 61.384 305 0 0 305 203 0 0 203 565 0 0 555 UMDR 4.456 0 4.456 3.C17 25 0 a 25 17 0 0 17 46 0 0 46 Sum 117,895 19.054 98,841 67.C99 344 32 6 382 229 21 4 254 637 39 5 681 MARKET -READY ULDR 0.814 0.368 0.445 0.199 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 D 0 3 Sum 0.814 0.368 0.445 0.199 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 D C 3 Sum 118.709 19.423 99.297 67.296 345 32 6 383 730 21 4 255 640 39 5 683 (4)REDEV UCENTER 11.129 0.06 11.069 0 -2 382 1D4 484 -1 254 69 322 -4 457 81 545 UHDR 11.696 0.237 11.459 a 61 56 0 117 41 37 0 78 113 69 0 181 ULDR 15.309 3.535 11.774 0 46 0 0 46 31 0 C 31 85 0 D 35 UMDR 14.74 0.993 13.747 0 109 4 0 113 72 3 0 75 202 5 D 207 Sum 52.874 4.825 48.049 0 214 442 104 760 142 294 59 505 396 541 81 1018 MARKET -READY UHDR 0.413 D.054 0.359 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 3 2 0 4 Sum 0.413 0,054 0,359 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 3 2 0 4 Sum 53.287 4.879 4aA08 0 215 443 104 762 143 295 69 507 399 543 81 1023 unincorporated Subtotal 215.631 34.05 181.582 67.296 789 707 125 1620 583 544 87 1214 1623 1001 103 2727 1212712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 6 Larch Way Overlap - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT v w Acres : Additional Employment Capacity co Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone Total Unbuildable Buildable Surplusl Before Reductions . After Reductions o A W ' Unincorporated (1) PENDING UCENTER 7.608 0.079 7,529 0 22 22 Sum 7.608 0.079 7.529 0 22 22 Sum 7.608 0.079 7,529 0 22 22 (2) VACANT MARKET -READY UCENTER 1.576 0 1.576 0 43 41 UCOM 0,76 0,021 0.739 0 12 11 Sum 2.335 0.021 2.314 0 55 52 Sum 2.335 0.021 2.314 0 55 52 (3) PARTUSE UCENTER 30.918 1.828 29.09 14.792 399 265 Sum 30.918 1.828 29.09 14.792 399 265 Sum 30.918 1.828 29.09 14.792 399 265 (4) REDEV UCENTER 10.633 0.06 10,573 0 155 103 Sum 10.633 0.06 10,573 0 155 103 Sum 10.633 0.06 10.573 0 15S 103 Unincorporated Total 51.495 1.988 49.506 14.792 631 443 12/2712012 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 4 of 6 m _13- Meadowdale/Norma Beach Gap -Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 1312012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT - - - - Acres - Additional Housing Unit Capacity -.... (before reducrions) Additional. - . Housing Unit Capacl - � (after reductlons) Additional Population Capacity - N Flurlsdiction Land Status Market Read � Zone � Total .� � �.Unbulldable Buildable Sur I0s p -. SF - ME Sr Apts. '. Total . SF - - - :MF Sr. Al Total - - - SF ME Sr. Apts. - Tota l W „ ..._„Y. f.0 Unincorporated (1)PENDING ULDR 74,141 29.237 44,954 0 251 0 0 251 251 0 D 251 699 0 0 699 O Unsewer 4.165 4.165 0 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 11 A Sum 78.306 33.352 44.954 0 255 0 0 255 255 0 0 255 710 0 0 710 Sum 78.306 33.357 44,954 0 255 0 0 255 255 0 0 255 710 0 0 710 (2}VACANT ULDR 2,774 2.093 0.68 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 7 0 0 7 UMDR 113.538 3.266 7.271 0 66 3 0 69 53 2 0 55 148 4 0 153 Unsewer 4.26 3.979 0.282 0 3 0 D 3 2 D 0 2 7 0 0 7 Sum 17.572 9.338 8.233 0 72 3 0 75 58 2 0 61 162 4 0 166 MARKET -READY ULDR 6.236 3.355 2.879 0 16 0 0 16 15 0 0 15 42 0 0 42 Sum 6.236 3.355 2.879 0 16 0 0 16 15 0 0 15 42 0 0 42 - Sum 23.807 12.695 11,112 0 88 3 0 91 73 2 0 75 204 4 0 209 (3) PARTUSE ULDR 20.728 4.051 15.878 11.782 52 0 0 62 41 0 0 41 115 0 0 115 Unsewer 6.097 2.552 3.545 2.758 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 9 Sum 26.825 7.403 19.423 14.55 67 0 0 67 45 0 0 45 124 0 0 124 MARKET -READY ULDR 10.432 5.158 5.274 3.989 22 D 0 22 21 0 0 21 58 0 0 58 Sum 10.432 5,158 5.274 3.889 22 D 0 22 21 0 0 21 58 0 0 58 Sum 37.257 12.561 24.697 19.439 89 D 0 89 65 0 0 65 102 0 0 182 (4) REDEV ULDR 5.035 0 5.035 0 21 0 0 21 14 0 0 14 39 D 0 39 UMDR 7.015 1,979 5,036 0 44 2 D 46 29 1 0 31 81 2 0 84 Sum 12.049 1.979 10,07 0 65 2 0 61 43 1 0 45 120 7 0 123 MARKET -READY ULDR 1.102 D 1.102 D 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 Sum 1,102 0 1.102 D 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 13 Sum 13.151 1.979 11.172 0 70 2 0 72 48 1 0 49 134 2 0 136 Unincorporated Subtotal 152.521 60.586 91.935 18.439 502 5 0 507 442 4 0 446 1230 7 0 1237 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 4 Paine Field Area - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT v `D Acres Additional w Em to ment Capacity _ p Y p Y w 0 Jurisdiction Land Status' . Market Ready Zone Total Unb.uildable : `Buildable Surplus Before Reductions After. Reductions Unincorporated (1) PENDING UI 45.418 1.833 43.585 0 114 114 5um 45.418 1.833 43.585 0 114 114 5um 45.418 1.833 43.585 0 114 114 (2) VACANT UI 261.465 123,578 137.888 0 4246 4034 Sum 261.465 123.578 137,888 0 4246 4034 Sum 261.465 123,578 137.888 0 4246 4034 Unincorporated Total 306.884 125.411 181.473 0 4360 4148 0110212013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 4 Silver Firs Gap - Additional Population Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT Addltlonal Housing Unit Capacity Additional. Housing Unit Capacity -. Acres '. (before reductions) - (after reductlons( - - Additional Population Capacity. .. tydsdiction Land Status Market Ready Zane. Total. . Unbuildab€e Buildable -- Surplus SF MF - Sr, Apts. - :��Total 5F MF- - Sr Ap [s '..�. Total :'�- .. SF. MF - Sr. AI Total Unincorporated (1) PENDING ULDR 10.167 4.128 6.039 0 65 0 0 66 65 0 0 66 184 0 0 184 Sum 10.157 4.128 5.039 0 66 0 0 66 65 0 0 56 184 0 0 184 Sum 10.157 4.128 6.039 0 65 0 0 66 66 0 0 66 184 0 0 184 (2) VACANT uCOM 31,972 3,714 28.258 0 0 93 22 115 0 75 18 93 0 138 21 159 UHDR 39.893 6.881 33.011 0 248 181 0 429 200 146 0 346 558 269 0 826 ULOR 77.258 30.319 45.939 0 272 0 0 272 220 0 0 220 611 0 0 611 UMDR 40.694 28.27 12.424 0 113 7 0 120 91 6 0 97 254 10 0 264 UVILL 24.487 10,619 13.86B 0 0 305 41 346 0 246 33 279 0 453 39 492 Sum 214.304 79,804 134.5 0 633 586 63 1282 511 472 51 2035 1423 871 60 2354 MARKET -READY UCOM 3.244 0.26 2.994 0 0 9 2 11 0 9 2 10 0 16 2 18 ULDR 11.912 4.795 7.117 0 41 0 0 41 39 0 0 39 108 0 0 108 Sum 15.156 5.056 10.1 0 41 9 2 52 39 9 2 49 108 16 2 126 Sum 229.459 84.86 144.E 0 674 595 65 1334 550 482 53 1085 1531 886 62 2480 UNINC (3) PARTUSE ULDR 74.743 32.021 42.722 37.931 216 0 0 216 144 0 0 144 40C 0 0 400 Sum 74.743 32.021 42.722 37,931 216 0 0 216 144 0 0 144 400 0 0 400 MARKET -READY ULDR 16.99 10.389 6.6 5.7 31 0 0 31 29 0 0 29 82 0 0 82 Sum 1b.99 10.389 6.6 5.7 31 0 0 31 29 0 0 29 82 0 0 82 Sum 91.733 42.411 49.322 43.631 247 0 0 247 173 0 0 173 482 0 0 482 (4)REDEV ULDR 26,713 8.904 17.809 0 93 0 C 93 62 0 0 62 172 0 0 172 Sum 26.719 8.904 17.809 0 93 C 0 93 62 0 0 62 172 0 0 172 MARKET -READY ULDR 59.9 28.307 31,593 0 185 0 0 185 176 9 0 175 489 0 0 489 Sum 59.9 28.307 31.593 0 185 0 0 185 175 0 0 176 489 0 0 489 Sum 86.613 37.211 49.402 0 278 0 0 279 23R 0 0 238 661 0 0 561 Unincorporated Subtotal 417.972 168.61 249,352 43,631 1265 595 65 1925 1027 482 53 1561 2859 886 62 3807 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2 of 6 T Silver Firs Gap - Additional Employment Capacity (2012 BLR) Dec 13/2012 - PAC FINAL DRAFT CD v Acres Additional Employment Capacity N Jurisdiction Land Status Market Ready Zone .. total Unbuildable Buildable Surplus Before Reductions After Reductions 0 a Unincorporated (1) PENDING P/I 62.176 18,028 44.148 0 9 9 Ul 189,408 48.136 141.272 0 100 100 Sum 2S1.584 66.164 185.42 0 109 109 Sum 251.594 66,164 185.42 0 109 109 (2) VACANT UCOM 31.972 3.714 28,258 0 456 368 UI 39.776 8.204 31.572 0 972 785 UVILL 24.487 10,619 13.868 0 139 112 Sum 96.236 22.537 73.698 0 1567 1265 MARKET -READY UCOM 3.244 0.26 2.984 0 48 46 Sum 3.244 0.26 2.984 0 48 46 Sum 99.48 22.798 76.682 0 1615 1311 Unincorporated Total 351.063 88.961 262.102 0 1724 1420 01/02/2013 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 4 of 6 DRAFT Unincorporated Southwest UGA Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Residential Development Non -Residential Development Buildable Buildable Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density Non-Res, Floor Estimated Employment Density Plan Development DeVelODed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Area Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Development Within County Designations Unsewerable Enclave No Bata' 2.00 (1) - - - - . 1- The type of projects typically built in Unswerable Enclaves, small short plat subdivisions, are not included in the data sampling used to predict future densities. However, an examination of such projects shows that 2 units per buildable acre is a reasonable assumption. Urban Low Density Residential (Projects submitted after 111105 and recorded by 12/31/10) Single Family 277.37 100% 1,629 5.87 5.87 - - - - - Urban Medium Density Residential (Single family projects submitted after 111105 and recorded by 12/31/10, and multi -family projects issued 111105 to 12/31/10) Single Family 128.40 96% 1,230 9.17 9.17 - - - - Multi -Family 5.76 4% 76 0.57 0.57 - - - - - Total 134.16 100% 1,306 9.73 9.73 - - - - Urban High Density Residential (Single family projects submitted after 111105 and recorded by 12/31/10, and multi -family projects issued 111105 to 12/31/10) Single Family 40.52 70% 439 7.54 7.54 - - - - Multi -Family 17.74 30% 322 5.53 5.53 - - - - Total 58.25 100% 761 13.06 13.06 - - - - - Urban Commercial --New Projects (1995 to 2010 sample) Single Family 1.21 1% 18 0.10 - - - - - Multi -Family 27.82 16% 560 3.18 3.31. (2) - - - - - Senior Apartments 3.42 2% 143 0.81 0.81 - - - - - Commercial 143.43 82% 5 0.03 - 1,649,307 0.22 2,826 16.07 16.07 Total 175.88 100% 726 4.13 413 1,649,307 0.22 2,826 16.07 16.07 2- This report assumes a simplification whereby the combined actual densities of single family, multi -family, commercial caretaker, and mixed -use commercial apartments are summed and modeled as strictly multi -family. DRAFT Unincorporated Southwest UGA Table XX: Development History (Projects Modeled as Predictive) 2012 Buildable Lands Report Buildable Buildable Residential Development Non -Residential Development Estimated Employment Zone or Type of Acres Acres Dwelling Units / Acre Density Non -Res. Floor Estimated Employment Density Plan Development Developed Developed Units in Total Zone Assumed Square Feet Area Ratio Total Emp. Per Acre Assumed Urban Industrial --New Projects (1995 to 2010 sample) Industrial 144.24 100% - - - 2,235,056 0,36 4,441 30.79 30.79 (Urban. Industrial--Infill Projects (1995 to 2010 sample) - - Industrial 30.69 100% 326,476 0.24 556 18.12 18.12 Urban Village (Projects built and several proposed [to increase sample size]) Mixed Use 18.44 100% 355 19.25 25.00(3) 71,300 0.09 181 9.80 10.00 (3) 3- Zoning code changes are underway that will likely increase the densities in Urban Village. This report assumes 22 multi -family units, 3 senior apartments, and 10 jobs per acre. The sector distribution of these jobs is modeled as: 6 Services, 2 Retail, I FIRE, and 1 Food Services. Urban Center and Transit Pedestrian Village (Projects built and several proposed [to increase sample size]) Mixed Use 100.94 100% 3,925 38.88 45.00(4) 566,834 0.13 1,677 16.62 27.00(4) 4- A maturing market and zoning code changes make it likely that future densities in Urban Center and TPV will be higher than in the past. This report assumes 35 multi- family units, 10 senior apartments, and 27 jobs per acre. The sector distribution of these jobs is modeled as: 13 Services, 5 retail, 4 FIRE, 4 Food Services, and 1 Government. Unincorporated Southwest UGA 12/27/2012 2 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Development Summary 6 of 6 0 C m !v ul) Cl) w w 0 A W Total UGA Population s00,000 a00,000 700,000 e00,G00 500,C00 A C 400,000 0. 300,000 200,000 i 00.000 Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT Figure Pop-M. Total UGA Population —Total 2025 Population Capacity — 50% of 2005-2025Addtnl Pop Capacity --2005 Population Estimate----2002-2025 Pop Growth Target Projection Annual Population Estimates (pre -Census 2010) --*--Annual Population Estimates (post -Census 2010) Table Pop-M. Total UGA Population Statistics (A) (B) (G) (D) (E) (F) Post - Pre -Census 2010 Population Estimates 2010 Census Census 2005-11 2005-25 2005-25 2005-11 Change Pop Est Numeric 2025 Numeric Total Addtnl as % of 2005-25 Diff. (Census Estj Change CPP Pop Change 2025 Pop Cap Addtnl Pop Cap 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Floe No. I'd. 2011 = B - A) Target = D - A Pop Cap = E - A = G 1 F *100 495,187 506,783 514,680 523,165 529,906 539,648 553,145 564,909 573,250 579,640 585,853 592,321 6,689 1.1% 595,713 56,065 759,919 220,271 791,958 252,310 22.21M 0 m v Cl) w Cl) rn 0 A W Total UGA Snohomish County Tomorrow 2012 Buildable Lands Report - December 13, 2012 PAC DRAFT —Tatal 2025 Employment Capacity — 50% of 2005-2025 Addtnl Emp Capacity «« «« <2005 Employment Estimate ---•2002-2025 Emp Growth Target Projection—n--SICAnnual Employment Estimates`NACSAnnual Employment Estimates' Table Eni Total UGA Employment Statistics Employment Estimates 2005.-14 2005 25 : 2605-25 2005 11 Change Numeric 2025 <Numeria < Tot I. Addtnl a5.°/a of 2005-25 2DD2 . 2D02 , Change CPP Emp Change '< 2025; Emp Cap: Addtnl Emp,.Cap 200D' 2001 i' SIC 'i' NAICs : 2003 20c4 2005 2006 ' 2007 ..2008 2000 2010 2011 = 13-. A Tar et D - A . Em Ca E'- A [ l F "1004 210,286 208,689 206,309 211,119 213,636 214,724 222,985 234,098 244,000 244,884 236,569 230,374 234,300 11,315 340,205 117,220 401,103 178,118 6.4% "The State of Washington Employment Security Department now uses the NAiCS system of classifying jobs to prepare its data, changing the way some jobs are categorized and resulting in slightly different UGA employment estimates than under the old SIC system. Data for 2002 is shown using both systems. In addition, beginning with the 2002 NAICS estimate, temporary workers have beer incorporated inte the estimates. Employment =_=-= ——-—- — - — - -- — - — - — -- �-- z_<—_w_-_ --- - - --- --------.... -_ �dOp11r „rde w r L rarnwo°d r ✓ Darrirrgton ryanrRc _ z � � 5tanwoadStNEU. �� J+m. IVormari Rd .., . m, Jf cr Creek r' r r,Fy 1 P- �, CIF. a� 1 sdarnw Arlington ' " l tir ` TulalipLu Y w _. m 7osf .z jaarh.. ji stN . �t Granite Indians z -� Rservatlo� earn St VE Falls m urine! E Marysville N o Y �� i �, � - .. _ ! , T,-. .r.✓'�•- - i k, ? �ulalteo - w � gxri INvd ;'�ubuqueRdi <o� t �t Everett Please refer to the t Everett — @. ti , a Snohomish County r ry Snohomish "? General Policy Plan Mukilteo 5o Future Land Use Map rp�a r �a o'o�o o Monroel�� Sultan r Il for official UGA boundaries t r 2 Mill s 34�,� o 32 and the Snohomish County I J 1 creek.' Countywide Planning Policies t T .__ Edmond§ � � `;, � _ �� * �; _— -"--�- MUGA Map for the official P,- w 1, a �d % .. Gold Bar-MUGA boundaries £yWiwood 1.� Index ,C cn m y�9 X 5Q 72 j M untlake ' e� �y w 0 5 10 15 20 woodwa •u Brier Bothell �altby3 Miles y 7er`race--- �•-� SNOHOMISH COUNTYDAFA and MAP DISCLAIMER A ! Snohomish County V Urban Growth Area Reference Map Snohomish County Planning and Development City Boundary As of Services April 12002 Everett MUGA ® Overlap Area Claimed by 2 Cities sufldziWe Lands , paport (Larch Way Overlap) City Area Annexed through Lynnwood MUGA r•' Snohomish Count Boundary December 13, 2012 ® Gap Areas Not Claimed by Any City =, Y ry Mill Creek MUGA (1: Meadowdale Gap Allmaps,data, andinformaflon setfoM heraln("Aafp J. are rorlffuseragVnpurposas Only and are nei re he censldered an ofljcfal cftatlen m, ar representadon ol, the Snohomish Ceunry Code. Ammdmenis and updarea m me Data, mgether wkh odler aPplf-hl-County Code pmvlslans, may apply whkh are not daplcled herein. Snohomish county makes no ropresontaflon or warranty concerning the content, accuracy, currency, compfemnesa or quality of the Data contained here!. and -press ly W-1.1ms any wa rdnly of merchantabllrry or tllnese for any pardcularpurpose,Ali Personsa.,-.1ngorWherwi--1.9this Dataa—ro. aR responsibility for use fherearand agree to hold Snohomish county harmfesa hnm and ogalnsr any damage,,foss,claim or llablilry arlslhg oaf of any error, defect er omiaalen cnnramod wllhln said Dara. washfngma state Law, Southwest UGABoundary ^% Other UGA Boundary MUGA Boundary National Forest Boundary MUGA Boundaries 0 Bothell MUGA -1 Mountlake Terrace MUGA Mukilteo MUGA Woodway MUGA 2.Lake SticlmeyGap 3. Silver Firs Gap) ch. 42.55RCW,prohlbftsstate andlocalagencleshomp—JoFfngacoesstollstsol indlvldualslnrendedfor use rorcommercial purposes antl,thus, nocommerclaluse may bemade of any Data comprlsingnsis offndhelduafs conwinedhereln. Pareol lln es and designation b.und les areadlusled fo the Snohomish ohoh County Assassoriniogme a tedlandRds Parcel Data A..... 11—bor2012. Tulalip Indian Reservation Boundary Brier MUGA ® Paine Field Area rhls map Is a graphle represematlon appiledhnm the Snohomish County Geographic loformaffon System.lf does notrepresent survey accuracy. This map is based on the ^/ (BoundaryReservation esew Lion Tidelands) l Display ReservationTidefands) ® Edmonds MUGA hell avaifahle infurmaffon as efth. gate shown on the map. ihe review,pna,viewPrnatl000rrufurolend use deslgna(fons W11! ba made bV the County during the review procasa- willbpmadusoappllcunt FACT SHEET: 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE SNOHOMISH COUNTY November 26, 2012 Planning and Development Services What's New For The 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update And What Does It Mean For You? • Growth Projections for the 2035 horizon are only slightly higher than adopted 2025 Growth Target o At a 2035 population of 955,000, this medium forecast for Snohomish County growth, issued by OFM in May, 2012, is only 45,000 more than the County's adopted target for 2025, and represents a significant reduction in the amount of growth forecasted for the county as a whole. o Current land use plans in total have adequate provision for accommodating 2035 projected growth. However, according to PSRC's Vision 2040 Regional Strategy (RGS), the capacity for growth is not in the places where growth needs to be directed. • PSRC's Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy guides where growth will go o Previously, Snohomish County was given a countywide range of growth projections from OFM and required to make an urban and rural distinction. The urban portion was then allocated to cities and unincorporated UGAs using the SCT process. This time, we must attempt to allocate future growth consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy, which includes the concept of "Regional Geographies". o Historical growth — including the most recent growth trends seen between 2000 and 2010 — are different than the proportion of growth allocated to Regional Geographies under the RGS. For example, the RGS allocates only 23% of new population growth to unincorporated urban areas. Between 2000 and 2010, these same areas saw 48% of countywide population growth. o Conversely, cities would need to accommodate significantly increased shares of countywide population growth. Under the RGS, cities need to accommodate 68% of countywide growth, compared to 43% for the decade 2000-2010. o Cities within the same "Regional Geography" will need to work cooperatively through SCT to determine their individual allocations. Regardless of how the details are worked out, it will be important for all jurisdictions to show progress toward meeting the objectives of the RGS. Regional Jurisdictions 2010-2035 2000-2025 2000-2010 Geography (using city boundaries RGS Growth Growth Target Actual Change as of April 1, 2010) Allocation Metropolitan City Everett 26% 8% 3% Core City Bothell, Lynnwood 11% 6% 4% Large City Arlington, Edmonds, Lake Stevens, Marysville, Mill Creek, Monroe, 24% 28% 32% Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo Small City Brier, Darrington, Gold Bar, Granite Falls, Index, Snohomish, Stanwood, 7% 6% 4% Sultan, Woodway Unincorporated UGA 23% 42% 48% Urban Area Total 89% 89% 92% Unincorporated Rural 11% 11% 8% Countywide Total 100% 100% 100% o Countywide Planning Policy says the county and cities shall seek compatibility with the RGS. Compatibility with the RGS will be necessary to achieve certification of our plans from Puget Sound Regional Council, although there is potential for some variations where the record identifies local Packet Page 338 of 431 conditions that support the variation. To achieve compatibility, the County may follow these steps, in hierarchical order: 1. Direct growth into cities within Regional Geography categories as per the RGS; 2. Direct growth into cities between Regional Geography categories; 3. Direct growth into unincorporated Municipal Urban Growth Areas likely to be annexed, with an emphasis on urban center locations and along transit corridors; 4. Direct growth into other unincorporated UGAs affiliated with cities; 5. Direct growth into other unincorporated UGAs not yet affiliated with cities; 6. Consider adjustments and trading of UGA areas; 7. Consider UGA expansion. • The pattern of concentrating growth in Southwest County Urban Centers and planning for growth along Transit Emphasis Corridors may need to be reviewed. o Unlike other parts of the Puget Sound region, much of the area available for growth in Snohomish County is in unincorporated urban areas that align with major transit routes, but the RGS shifts focus away from unincorporated urban areas and places more emphasis on growth within the cities. o The unincorporated urban areas will no longer have the flexibility to accommodate such a large share of population and employment growth. Cities overall must provide for increased growth in land use plans relative to recent growth trends. It is possible that some cities would plan for a greater share of growth, while others would not. o Vision 2040's RGS growth allocations are tied to current city and UGA boundaries. Future annexations would result in upward adjustments to city growth shares and downward adjustments to unincorporated UGA growth shares under the RGS. UGA expansions would count against the rural growth allocation. • Only minor expansions to the Urban Growth Area will be allowed. o The major plan update process previously allowed the County to look afresh at defining the UGA boundary, and making changes to it. While "minor" is not defined in Vision 2040, a combination of the new RGS and the growth forecast is likely to result in a significant reduction in UGA changes compared with previous plan updates. o With more limited opportunities for UGA expansions, and with a significantly slower rate of growth, capacity is likely to be gained through higher density infill or up -zoning. These options for increasing capacity may not be widely embraced in the County and there may be pressure, as in the past, to open up additional areas for single family homes to accommodate the population increase. • The County Council has provided the following direction. o The County Council has directed that the scope of the plan update shall be smaller than the scope of previous updates. Staffing levels are significantly reduced since the last plan update and the schedule is reduced by six months. o The Council has asked that land use alternatives prepared for their consideration address only the medium "most likely" population forecast from OFM. o The plan update will not be addressing rural issues, with the possible exception of Rural/Urban Transition Areas and planning coordination with the Tulalip Tribes. o Public involvement will meet requirements for "early and continuous" but will be scaled back and new approaches will be explored. o Opportunities to evaluate evolving alternatives will be "front -loaded" with limited opportunity to develop new options later in the process without jeopardizing compliance with the mandated deadline. • The GMA-mandated deadline is June 30, 2015 Packet Page 339 of 431 Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee Date: May 25, 2011 Agenda Bill Action Item 3a Subject: Vision 2040 Preliminary Growth Distribution Working Paper Exhibits: 1) PAC Recommendation Sheet 2) Vision 2040 Preliminary Growth Distribution Working Paper Summary Statement: In response to the SCT Steering Committee recommendation of April 22, 2009 and County Council motion 09-317, the PAC has prepared this paper in order to provide a preliminary, unofficial breakdown of potential population and employment growth that extends beyond the adopted 2025 growth targets currently contained in the CPPs, based on the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). Background: Snohomish County Tomorrow recommended in 2009 that the next round of growth targeting occur as part of the county's preparations for its ten-year GMA plan update in 2015, rather than as part of the CPP update in 2010 (which would address the policy updates needed for alignment with the new Vision 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies). However, part of the SCT recommendation (also agreed to subsequently by the County Council) included direction to the PAC to provide an early, unofficial analysis of what post- 2025 growth at the city, unincorporated UGA/MUGA, and rural/resource area level could look like under the RGS. SCT felt that a preliminary RGS breakdown could be helpful to jurisdictions as they begin preparing for the next round of GMA plan updates. The SCT recommendation was clear that only existing, already available planning information was to be used for preparation of the preliminary analysis. Both the SCT recommendation and the County Council were also clear that these RGS- based growth numbers would be unofficial. As described in County Council motion 09- 317: "This post-2025 growth information would not be used to update the countywide planning policies, nor would it be used to guide UGA sizing decisions until replaced by formal 2035 growth targets in the countywide planning policies prepared for the next ten- year update." In addition, the following points about this paper have been emphasized by the PAC: • The 2035 and 2040 population and employment information in this paper is not intended to be used as the basis for new, official growth targets for the next round of local Growth Management Act (GMA) plan updates in Snohomish County. Contact Person: Stephen Toy, Snohomish County PDS, 425-388-3311 Packet Page 340 of 431 Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee Agenda Bill Action Item_ This information is intended only to provide one possible application of the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy's population and employment growth allocations to individual cities, unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, and the rural/resource area, based solely on existing planning data sources (i.e., past OFM forecasts, 2007 Buildable Lands Report results, and existing 2025 adopted growth targets in the CPPs). New, official 2035 growth targets in the CPPs, to be used for the next round of local GMA plan updates, will not be developed by SCT until 2012-2013, following the release of new Office of Financial Management (OFM) forecasts in 2012. • This paper is intended to provide an early indication of what post-2025 growth based on Vision 2040 might look like, in order to assist jurisdictions in preparing for the next round of GMA plan updates. It is not, however, definitive guidance for the plan updates, for which an adopted growth scenario has yet to be developed through the SCT process. Since the adoption of Vision 2040, several jurisdictions have shifted Regional Geography categories. Additionally, growth has not occurred as anticipated in some communities. It is therefore recognized by SCT that adopted UGA-level growth targets will likely look different and that the adopted numbers will consider each individual community's vision while maintaining general consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy and Countywide Planning Policies according to proposed CPP GF-5. Executive Committee Recommended Action: The SCT Executive Committee on May 10, 2011 approved this item for Steering Committee review and possible action on May 25, 2011. Contact Person Packet Page 341 of 431 Stephen Toy, Snohomish County PDS, 425-388-3311 Stanwood Darrington Tulalip Arlington Tribes Granite Falls Marysville Everett Lake Stevens Snohomish County Tomorrow Mukilteo Mill Creek Lynnwood Snohomish Edmonds Mountlake Monroe A GR O WTH MANA GEMENT AD VISOR Y CO UNCIL Terrace Sultan Gold Index Woodway Brier Bothell Bar PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TITLE: I Vision 2040 Preliminary Growth Distribution Working Paper DATE OF RECOMMENDATION: May 12, 2011 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The PAC recommends that the attached paper be accepted as SCT's preliminary, unofficial breakdown of possible post-2025 population and employment growth by cities, unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, and the rural/resource area in Snohomish County, based on the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. Attachments: Vision 2040 Preliminary Growth Distribution Working Paper (May 12, 2011) COUNTYWIDE PLANNING Not applicable under current CPPs. POLICY (IES): DESCRIPTIONBACKGROUND: This paper is intended to provide preliminary, unofficial information on a potential distribution of population and employment growth that extends beyond the adopted 2025 growth targets in the CPPs, based on the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. According to the SCT Steering Committee recommendation of April 22, 2009 and County Council motion 09-317 calling for development of this paper, it is important to emphasize the following points: • The 2035 and 2040 population and employment information in this paper is not intended to be used as the basis for new, official growth targets for the next round of local Growth Management Act (GMA) plan updates in Snohomish County. • This information is intended only to provide one possible application of the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy's population and employment growth allocations to individual cities, unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, and the rural/resource area, based solely on existing planning data sources (i.e., past OFM forecasts, 2007 Buildable Lands Report results, and existing 2025 adopted growth targets in the CPPs). • New, official 2035 growth targets in the CPPs, to be used for the next round of local GMA plan updates, will not be developed by SCT until 2012-2013, following the release of new Office of Financial Management (OFM) forecasts in 2012. • This paper is intended to provide an early indication of what post-2025 growth based on Vision 2040 might look like, in order to assist jurisdictions in preparing for the next Packet Page 342 of 431 round of GMA plan updates. It is not, however, definitive guidance for the plan updates, for which an adopted growth scenario has yet to be developed through the SCT process. Since the adoption of Vision 2040, several jurisdictions have shifted Regional Geography categories. Additionally, growth has not occurred as anticipated in some communities. It is therefore recognized by SCT that adopted UGA-level growth targets will likely look different and that the adopted numbers will consider each individual community's vision while maintaining general consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy and Countywide Planning Policies according to proposed CPP GF-5. Main findings of this paper: Population growth and employment growth countywide under the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) are in line with past trends and the adopted 2025 countywide targets. However, the distribution of population growth within the county, in particular, changes significantly under the RGS since it is more heavily weighted toward cities with regional growth centers (the metropolitan city and core cities) and away from the unincorporated UGA than has been the case in the past. Packet Page 343 of 431 Snohomish County Tomorrow A GROWTH MANAGEMENT AD VISOR COUNCIL Arlington Granite Falls Marysville erett Lake Stevens Mill Creek od Snohomish Mountlake Terrace Monroe Sultan Gold Intlez Brier Bothell Bar Vision 2040 Preliminary Growth Distribution Working Paper SCT Planning Advisory Committee May 12, 2011 Purpose of this paper: To provide a preliminary, unofficial breakdown of possible post-2025 population and employment growth by cities, unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs', and the rural/resource area in Snohomish County, based on the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. According to the SCT Steering Committee recommendation of April 22, 2009 and County Council motion 09-317 calling for development of this paper: • The 2035 and 2040 population and employment information in this paper is not intended to be used as the basis for new, official growth targets for the next round of local Growth Management Act (GMA) plan updates in Snohomish County. • This information is intended only to provide one possible application of the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy's population and employment growth allocations to individual cities, unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, and the rural/resource area, based solely on existing planning data sources (i.e., past OFM forecasts, 2007 Buildable Lands Report results, and existing 2025 adopted growth targets in the CPPs). • New, official 2035 growth targets in the CPPs, to be used for the next round of local GMA plan updates, will not be developed by SCT until 2012-2013, following the release of new Office of Financial Management (OFM) forecasts in 2012. • This paper is intended to provide an early indication of what post-2025 growth based on Vision 2040 might look like, in order to assist jurisdictions in preparing for the next round of GMA plan updates. It is not, however, definitive guidance for the plan updates, for which an adopted growth scenario has yet to be developed through the SCT process. Since the adoption of Vision 2040, several jurisdictions have shifted Regional Geography categories. Additionally, growth has not occurred as anticipated in some communities. It is therefore recognized by SCT that adopted UGA-level growth targets will likely look different and that the adopted numbers will consider each individual community's vision while maintaining general consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy and Countywide Planning Policies according to proposed CPP GF-5. ' UGAs = Urban Growth Areas; MUGAs = Municipal Urban Growth Areas (exist only within SW County UGA). Packet Page 344 of 431 Main findings of this paper: Population growth and employment growth countywide under the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) are in line with past trends and the adopted 2025 countywide targets. However, the distribution of population growth within the county, in particular, changes significantly under the RGS since it is more heavily weighted toward cities with regional growth centers (the metropolitan city and core cities) and away from the unincorporated UGA than has been the case in the past. Introduction In April 2008, the Vision 2040 regional plan was adopted by the General Assembly of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). The plan provides a long-range growth management, environmental, economic, and transportation strategy for the four -county central Puget Sound region, which includes Snohomish County. The plan also includes a Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) which provides a new set of regional policies and requirements related to the development of local growth targets for planning under the state Growth Management Act (GMA) in this region. The Regional Growth Strategy outlines a new strategic framework for accommodating future population and employment growth in the region which builds upon the urban growth area (UGA) emphasis provided in the GMA. In addition, the RGS contains specific numeric guidance for the distribution of future growth in the region. This is accomplished by assigning population and employment growth for the period 2000-2040 to different regional geographies within counties of the central Puget Sound region. The six regional geographies, and the Snohomish County jurisdictions to which they apply, are: 1) Metropolitan City — City of Everett 2) Core Cities — Cities of Bothell and Lynnwood 3) Larger Cities — Cities of Arlington, Edmonds, Lake Stevens2, Marysville, Mill Creek, Monroe, Mountlake Terrace, and Mukilteo 4) Small Cities.— Cities of Brier, Darrington, Gold Bar, Granite Falls, Index, Snohomish, Stanwood, Sultan, and Woodway 5) Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas — Snohomish County (unincorporated urban areas) 6) Rural Areas - Snohomish County (unincorporated rural/resource areas). The following objectives were used to develop the numeric guidance contained in the RGS: • Reduce and minimize growth in rural areas; • Focus population and employment growth within the region's designated urban growth area (UGA); • Within the UGA, concentrate jobs, housing and other activities in cities and centers; • Relative to current plans and policies, increase the share of future growth directed to metropolitan, core, and larger cities, maintain a similar share of growth to small cities, and decrease growth to unincorporated urban areas and rural areas; • Within unincorporated urban growth areas, direct more growth to areas affiliated for annexation; and 2 A large annexation by the City of Lake Stevens on December 31, 2009 resulted in reclassification of the city to Larger City from Small City status (as proposed in a letter from Norman Abbott of PSRC to Lake Stevens, dated September 13, 2010). PSRC adopted a technical amendment to Vision 2040 on March 24, 2011 to reflect this reclassification. Packet Page 345 of 431 • Improve the balance of jobs and housing across the region by focusing more residential growth into King County, and encouraging more employment growth in Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties. Regional Growth Strateu and Snohomish County3 This paper focuses mainly on potential population and employment growth that is consistent with the RGS to 2035, in preparation for the county's next 10-year plan update in 2015. The year 2035 is chosen due to the GMA requirement that the county's 10-year plan update address the growth that is projected to occur during the succeeding 20-year period (i.e., 2015 through 2035). Population The RGS 2000 — 2040 population growth assignments to regional geographies within Snohomish County are shown in Table 1 below: Table 1. RGS Total Population, 2000 - 2040, Snohomish County 2000-40 RGS RGS Pop 2000 2040 Pop Growth Growth Regional Geography Population Population Allocation Distribution Metropolitan City 99,378 189,520 90,142 20.2% Core Cities 48,107 88,176 40,069 9.0% Larger Cities 187,132 301,974 114,842 25.7% Small Cities 29,522 56,823 27,301 6.1% Unincorporated UGAs 129,866 257,512 127,646 28.6% Rural 112,019 158,019 46,000 10.3% Total 606,024 1,052,024 446,000 100.0% NOTE: Reflects jurisdictional boundaries and city classifications as of April 1, 2010 The 2035 countywide population projection (of 1,001,000) for Snohomish County used for this paper was obtained by determining the midpoint between the 2040 population projection in the RGS (of 1,052,000) and the most recent medium series ("most likely") 2030 Office of Financial Management (OFM) population projection (of 950,000). In addition, the Census 2010 population count for the county (of 713,335) was used to establish an updated base year for the RGS-based allocations by regional geography. The results are shown below in Table 2 and Figure 1: s The regional geographies shown in this section reflect jurisdictional boundaries and city classifications as of April 1, 2010, including the reclassification of Lake Stevens to a Larger City. These 2000-2040 population and employment distributions have been developed by the PAC in order to provide an up-to-date version of the RGS for Snohomish County. This is more recent information than provided in the technical amendment to the RGS, approved by the PSRC Executive Board in May 2009, which was based on city boundaries as of April 1, 2007, and which included several city reclassifications resulting from growth and/or annexations since 2000 through April 1, 2007. Building upon the 2009 technical amendment, the PAC determined that a more current version of the RGS for Snohomish County was needed to account for the annexations that have occurred since April 1, 2007, two of which were significant in size (Marysville and Lake Stevens). Specifically, the technical adjustments to the RGS involve shifting (1) the 2000 base year population and employment and (2) the proportionate share of the 2000-2040 RGS growth allocation associated with areas that have been annexed since 2000 based on the share of buildable lands additional capacity that was annexed during the same period. Packet Page 346 of 431 Table 2. RGS Total Population, 2010 - 2035, Snohomish County 2010-35 RGS RGS Pop 2010 2035 Pop Growth Growth Regional Geography Population Population Allocation Distribution Metropolitan City 103,019 166,391 63,372 22.0% Core Cities 52,251 80,267 28,016 9.7% Larger Cities 221,435 290,833 69,398 24.1% Small Cities 34,338 53,375 19,037 6.6% Unincorporated UGAs 181,278 256,935 75,657 26.3% Rural 121,014 153,232 32,218 11.2% Total 713,335 1,001,033 287,698 100.0% NOTE: Reflects jurisdictional boundaries and city classifications as of April 1, 2010 Figure 1. Share of 2010-35 County Population Growth by Regional Geography Small Cit The largest share of population growth during the 2010-2035 period based on the RGS goes to the unincorporated UGA, followed by the larger cities (which includes eight cities), then the metropolitan city category (which only includes Everett). Combined, these three regional geographies account for 72.4% of the county's population growth during this period. Based on the objectives for the RGS shown on page 2, it would be expected that the future population growth shares by regional geography would differ from past shares. Figure 2 below shows that this is the case for Snohomish County: Packet Page 347 of 431 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Figure 2. Countywide Population Growth Shares, Past and RGS Future- Snohomish County 32.0% 24.1 22.0% 9.7% 6.6 % 3.4% 3.9% 4.5% 47.9 % 26.3% Metropolitan City Core Cities Larger Cities Small Cities Unincorporated Rural UGAs ■ Share of 2000-10 County Pop Growth Share of 2010-35 County Pop Growth NOTE: Reflects jurisdictional boundaries and city classifications as of April 1, 2010 Compared with past trends, the RGS clearly shifts a significant amount of future population growth into the Metropolitan and Core city categories, and away from the unincorporated UGAs. Past vs. future shares of countywide population growth increase from 3.4% to 22.0% in the Metropolitan City, and 3.9% to 9.7% in the Core City category. This is largely accomplished by reducing the future share of growth going into unincorporated UGAs compared with past trends (where 47.9% of growth occurred during 2000-2010, while only 26.3% is assigned during 2010- 2035). These shifts in future population growth assignments under the RGS clearly pose significant new challenges for certain jurisdictions in different regional geographies. Figure 3 below shows 2010-2035 population growth amounts by regional geography compared with estimated additional population capacities using 2007 Buildable Lands Report information.4 Significantly more population growth has been assigned to Metropolitan and Core cities than their current GMA plans are estimated to be capable of accommodating during the 2025 plan horizon. Population growth assigned for 2010-2035 in the Metropolitan City category is nearly three times the amount of existing plan capacity that currently exists for accommodating population growth. Similarly, population growth in the Core Cities category is more than double the amount of estimated additional capacity that exists under current plans. 4 The 2007 BLR capacity information is based on comprehensive plan and zoning designations, development regulations, existing land uses, achieved densities and urban land market and redevelopment conditions for cities and unincorporated UGAs as of 2007, and covering a period only intended to extend to 2025 (the current GMA plan horizon). As a result, population growth amounts to the year 2035 are not directly comparable to additional population capacity estimates extending only to 2025. They do, however, provide a general understanding of the level of plan update work that may be necessary to achieve local plan consistency with the RGS. Packet Page 348 of 431 Figure 3. RGS Population Growth and 2007 BLR Additional Capacity -Snohomish County 90,000 80,388 80,000 70,000 63,372 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 28,016 23,746 20,000 12,318 10,000 69,398 64,325 1c 75,657 Metropolitan City Core Cities Larger Cities Small Cities Unincorporated UGAs ■ 2010-35 Pop Growth (RGS) 2010-25 Addtnl Pop Cap (2007 BLR) 68,975 32,218 NOTE: Reflects jurisdictional boundaries and city classifications as of April 1, 2010 Employment The RGS 2000 - 2040 employment growth assignments to regional geographies within Snohomish County are shown in Table 1 below: Table 3. RGS Total Emi)lovment 2000 - 2040. Snohomish Countv Rural 2000-40 RGS RGS Emp 2000 2040 Emp Growth Growth Regional Geography Employment Employment Allocation Distribution Metropolitan City 85,663 176,674 91,011 37.0% Core Cities 36,816 72,107 35,291 14.3% Larger Cities 62,964 126,065 63,101 25.7% Small Cities 11,008 22,925 11,917 4.8% Unincorporated UGAs 28,413 59,093 30,680 12.5% Rural 12,208 26,208 14,000 5.7% Total 237,072 483,072 246,000 100.0% NOTE: Reflects jurisdictional boundaries and city classifications as of April 1, 2010 Resource and construction jobs are included above. The Vision 2040 RGS-based 2035 countywide employment projection (of 452,322) for Snohomish County used for this paper was obtained through linear interpolation of countywide 2000 and 2040 employment shown in Table 3. A further adjustment to 2035 employment was then applied to remove resource and construction jobs from the projection, estimated to account for 8% of total jobs. This resulted in a countywide 2035 employment projection of 416,136 jobs - the 2035 employment projection used for the remainder of this paper. This downward adjustment was applied in order to maintain consistency with previous SCT employment 6 Packet Page 349 of 431 targeting and monitoring efforts in which resource and construction jobs have not been included in the CPP employment targets nor in the annual employment estimates. Employment estimates for 2007 were used to establish a base year for the RGS-based employment allocations by regional geography. This year was chosen because it was immediately prior to the recession and job losses which immediately followed. The 2007-2009 job declines which occurred in many areas of the county are apparent in the line graphs which follow later in this paper. Table 4 and Figure 4 show 2007 — 2035 employment change based on the RGS (without resource and construction jobs included) within each regional geography category. Table 4. RGS Total Employment 2007 - 2035, Snohomish County 2007-35 RGS RGS Emp 2007 2035 Emp Growth Growth Regional Geography Employment Employment Allocation Distribution Metropolitan City 89,018 152,234 63,216 40.3% Core Cities 43,783 62,419 18,636 11.9% Larger Cities 69,594 107,777 38,183 24.3% Small Cities 11,928 19,621 7,693 4.9% Unincorporated UGAs 29,778 51,933 22,155 14.1% Rural 14,979 22,152 7,173 4.6% Total 259,080 416,136 157,056 100.0% NOTE: Reflects jurisdictional boundaries and city classifications as of April 1, 2010 Figure 4. Share of 2007-35 County Employment Growth by Regional Geography Pi —I A Fo/ Unincorporab UGAs, 14.191, Small Cities, 4.9% NOTE: Employment shown in Table 4 and Figure 4 above, and in all employment tables and graphs which follow, exclude resource and construction jobs. The largest share of employment growth during the 2007-2035 period (40.3%) is assigned to the metropolitan city category (Everett), followed by the larger cities (24.3%). unincorporated UGAs (14.1%), and core cities (11.9%). Note, however, that there is a greater degree of geographic concentration for projected employment growth under the RGS compared with population: Packet Page 350 of 431 76.5% of the county's projected job growth is assigned to the metropolitan, core, and larger cities categories combined, compared with 55.8% of the county's projected population growth for these three regional geographies combined (see Figure 1). Based on the objectives for the RGS shown on page 2, it would be expected that the future employment growth shares by regional geography would differ from past shares. Figure 5 below shows that this is the case for Snohomish County only for the metropolitan city, core city, and rural regional geographies. 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Figure 5. Countywide Employment Growth Shares, Pasta nd RGS Future -Snohomish County Metropolitan City Core Cities 25.5% 24.3% Larger Cities ■ Share of 2002-07 County Emp Growth Small Cities Unincorporated Rural UGAs d Share of 2007-35 County Emp Growth NOTE: Reflects jurisdictional boundaries and city classifications as of April 1, 2010 The RGS clearly creates a significantly higher future job growth expectation for the metropolitan city (Everett) compared with the 2002-2007 employment growth trend. In contrast, unlike the greatly reduced growth assignment to unincorporated UGAs observed for population (see Figure 2), the RGS does not alter the future share of employment growth to these same areas compared with past trends. Figure 6 below shows 2007-2035 employment growth amounts by regional geography compared with estimated additional employment capacities using 2007 Buildable Lands Report information.5 With the exception of the metropolitan city (Everett) geography, additional employment capacities under current comprehensive plans are much more closely aligned with 2007-2035 employment growth amounts assigned by regional geography when compared with population allocated under the RGS (see Figure 3). And the degree to which employment growth allocated 5 The 2007 BLR capacity information is based on comprehensive plan and zoning designations, development regulations, existing land uses, achieved densities and urban land market and redevelopment conditions for cities and unincorporated UGAs as of 2007, and covering a period only intended to extend to 2025 (the current GMA plan horizon). As a result, employment growth amounts to the year 2035 are not directly comparable to additional employment capacity estimates extending only to 2025. They do, however, provide a general understanding of the level of plan update work that may be necessary to achieve local plan consistency with the RGS. Packet Page 351 of 431 to the metropolitan city exceeds additional employment capacity is much less than for population. Figure 6. RGS Employment Growth and 2007 BLR Additional Capacity- Snohomish County 70,000 63,216 60,000 50,000 45,353 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Metropolitan City 38,183 38,726 Core Cities Larger Cities 7,693 7,741 E Small Cities Unincorporated UGAs ■ 2007-35 Emp Growth (RGS) ■ 2007-25 Addtnl Emp Cap (2007 BLR) NOTE: Reflects jurisdictional boundaries and city classifications as of April 1, 2010 Schedule for Alignment of Snohomish County Growth Targets with RGS The adoption of Vision 2040 included Multicounty Planning Policy (MPP) DP-3 which requires Snohomish County to "use consistent countywide targeting processes for allocating population and employment growth consistent with the regional vision." In addition, MPP-G-2 requires an "update of countywide planning policies, where necessary, prior to December 31, 2010, to address the multicounty planning policies in Vision 2040." It is clear from MPP-DP-3 that the next round of growth targeting in Snohomish County will need to address the Regional Growth Strategy, and translate population and employment growth allocations from the regional geography level to individual city, unincorporated UGA/MUGA, and the rural/resource area growth targets. The question, however, that arose after adoption of Vision 2040 in 2008 was when the target updates needed to occur in Snohomish County. Both King and Pierce counties had at that time indicated that they intended to update their local targets simultaneously with the alignment of their countywide planning policies (CPPs) with the MPPs in 2010. The Growth Management Act and some of the countywide planning policies use both the term "targets" and "allocations" to refer to the countywide process for the numeric distribution ofgrowth among local jurisdictions for planning purposes. Following 11ISION2040, this manual uses the term "allocation" to refer to the Regional Growth Strategy and "growth target" to refer to the countywide processes. However, countywide and local planning efforts should use whatever terminology is appropriate in their own processes when employing the guidance in the manual. ■ Excerpted from the PSRC Plan Review Manual (September 2010), Appendix E-1: VISION 2040 Consistency, page E1-1. Packet Page 352 of 431 Snohomish County Tomorrow recommended in 2009 that the next round of growth targeting occur as part of the county's preparations for its ten-year GMA plan update in 2015, rather than as part of the CPP update in 2010 (which would address the policy updates needed for alignment with the MPPs). The GMA requires that counties review their comprehensive plans and UGAs at least every ten years, and revise them as necessary in order to ensure that they are capable of accommodating projected growth for the succeeding 20-year period. Snohomish County last adopted its ten-year plan update in 2005, with a plan horizon to 2025. Under GMA, therefore, the county's next ten-year plan update is due by 2015, with a plan horizon to 2035. Development of the 2035 targets by SCT for use in the county's next 10-year plan update, under SCT's recommendation, would follow the schedule shown below: 2011 Release of Census 2010 results 2012 Release of new OFM population projections; Release of an updated Buildable Lands Report (BLR) 2013 Development and adoption of initial 2035 growth targets in the CPPs 2014- 2015 Use of the initial 2035 growth targets for city and county GMA plan updates (7-year updates in 2014 and the county's 10- ear update in 2015 2016 Target reconciliation and adoption of final 2035 growth targets in the CPPs The County Council reviewed the SCT recommendation and concurred with the schedule, approving Motion No. 09-317 on July 22, 2009 which reiterated the SCT analysis and timeline described above. Development of an SCT Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy Technical Working Paper Part of the SCT recommendation (also agreed to by the County Council) included an effort by the PAC to provide an early, unofficial analysis of what post-2025 growth at the city, unincorporated UGA/MUGA, and rural/resource area level could look like under the RGS. SCT felt that a preliminary RGS breakdown could be helpful to jurisdictions as they begin preparing for the next round of GMA plan updates in 20146 and 2015. The SCT recommendation was also clear that existing information was to be used for preparation of the preliminary analysis, including the: • 2007 OFM medium series population projection for Snohomish County to the year 2030 • 2007 Buildable Lands Report capacity estimates (which is based on county and city future land uses as of 2007) • adopted CPP 2025 population and employment growth targets • Vision 2040 RGS population and employment allocations, updated by the PAC to account for annexations more recent than April 1, 2007 Both the SCT recommendation and the County Council were clear that these RGS-based growth numbers would be unofficial. As described in County Council motion 09-317: "This post-2025 growth information would not be used to update the countywide planning policies, nor would it be used to guide UGA sizing decisions until replaced by formal 2035 growth targets in the countywide planning policies prepared for the next ten-year update." 6 At the time of the SCT recommendation in 2009, the next plan update deadline had been 2011 for cities and the county under the GMA's 7-year compliance review requirement. In 2010, however, the legislature extended that deadline to 2014. 10 Packet Page 353 of 431 The Council motion also noted that the formal 2035 growth targets developed by SCT in 2013 could differ substantially from the SCT working paper information. The 2035 growth targets will depend on the magnitude of the new 2012 OFM population projections and the yet -to -be determined choice of a countywide target within the low -to -high population growth range provided by OFM. Other factors would include, but not be limited to, consideration of the 2012 Buildable Lands Report results, and any other relevant land use, transportation, and capital facilities information available at that time. Even though the post-2025 growth information in the Vision 2040 RGS Technical Working Paper prepared by SCT was intended to be unofficial, it would still accomplish three things: 1) It would help jurisdictions begin to prepare for the next set of plan updates based on growth targets reflecting the RGS, 2) It would provide early feedback to PSRC on how well the regional vision fits local situations and realities in Snohomish County, and 3) It would augment the County response to the request? from PSRC for a description of the overall strategy for aligning local growth targets with Vision 2040's policy direction for accommodating future growth, if not intended to be accomplished at the time of the 2010 CPP update. Methodology for Development of Preliminary 2035 Growth Numbers Population 1. Population estimates as of April 2000 were developed for cities, unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, and the rural/resource area using April 1, 2010 city boundaries. 2. Population counts from the 2010 Census were developed for cities, unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, and the rural/resource area using April 1, 2010 city boundaries. 3. An unofficial adjustment of the adopted CPP 2025 population growth targets for cities and unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs using April 1, 2010 city boundaries was then developed. Information from the 2007 BLR was used to estimate additional population capacity in areas annexed by cities through April 1, 2010 in order to shift into cities a proportionate share of the population growth assigned to former unincorporated areas. 4. Total 2025 population capacity for cities and unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs was then developed using 2007 BLR information, adjusted for annexations through April 1, 2010. 5. The percent distribution of additional 2010-2025 population capacity for cities and unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs (within regional geography categories) was then used to distribute the post-2025 population growth (also within regional geography categories) to cities and unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs for the year 2040.8 6. Population as of 2035 for each city, unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, and the rural/resource area, was then calculated using a straight-line interpolation of the adjusted 2025 targets and the 2040 population assignment. The sum of the 2035 population 7 See Norman Abbott's memo to the region's planning directors, dated August 18, 2008. 8 This approach is based on the assumption that jurisdictions which currently account for much of the additional population capacity under GMA will be likely to continue providing additional capacity in future plan updates. 11 Packet Page 354 of 431 assignments were forced to add to the 2035 countywide population control total of 1,001,000 described earlier in this paper. Employment 1. Employment estimates as of 1st quarter 2002, 2007 and 2009 were developed for cities, unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, and the rural/resource area using April 1, 2010 city boundaries. 2. An unofficial adjustment of the adopted CPP 2025 employment growth targets for cities and unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs using April 1, 2010 city boundaries was then developed. Information from the 2007 BLR was used to estimate additional employment capacity in areas annexed by cities through April 1, 2010 in order to shift into cities a proportionate share of the employment growth assigned to former unincorporated areas. 3. Total 2025 employment capacity for cities and unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs was then developed using 2007 BLR information, adjusted for annexations through April 1, 2010. 4. The percent distribution of additional 2007-2025 employment capacity for cities and unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs (within regional geography categories) was then used to distribute the post-2025 employment growth (also within regional geography categories) to cities and unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs for the year 2040.9 5. Employment as of 2035 for each city, unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, and the rural/resource area, was then calculated using a straight-line interpolation of the adjusted 2025 targets and the 2040 employment assignment. The sum of the 2035 employment assignments were forced to add to the 2035 countywide employment control total of 416,136 described earlier in this paper. Results of the Preliminary 2035 Growth Assignment Population As Figure 7 shows, the RGS 2000-2040 forecast lines generally line up with the 2000-2010 past trend lines and the 2010-2025 growth target lines for the countywide, combined urban regional geographies (Metropolitan, Core, Larger, and Small cities, unincorporated UGAs), and the rural/resource regional geography. In other words, there are no significant deviations anticipated for future RGS-based population growth compared with past trends and the current growth target amounts when viewed for these regional geographies. However, this observation does not hold up within the urban regional geography categories once cities are separated from the unincorporated urban area. As Figure 8 shows, total city population growth for 2000-2010 and for 2010-2025 tracks lower than the RGS-based 2000-2040 forecast line. This means that population growth within the cities after 2025 would have to increase in order to attain the allocated population for all cities by 2040 under the RGS. Conversely, Figure 8 shows that the opposite is true for unincorporated UGAs where total population growth for 2000-2010 and for 2010-2025 tracks higher than the RGS-based 2000- 2040 forecast line. In fact, the graphs show that population growth within the unincorporated UGAs would essentially have to halt after 2025 in order to attain the allocated population for all unincorporated UGAs by 2040 under the RGS. 9 This approach is based on the assumption that jurisdictions which currently account for much of the additional population capacity under GMA will be likely to continue providing additional capacity in future plan updates. 12 Packet Page 355 of 431 As can be seen in Attachment 1, where graphs similar to Figure 8 are shown for each regional geography category and for each city, the above observations are most pronounced for the Metropolitan City (Everett) category and, to a lesser degree, the Core Cities (Bothell, Lynnwood) category. Employment Figures 9 and 10 show the same organization of information described above for population, but with employment instead shown on the y-axis. Despite the 2007-2009 observed job declines in most areas due to the recession, Figure 9 shows that the 2002-2007 past employment growth trend lines and the 2009-2025 growth target lines for the countywide, combined urban regional geographies (Metropolitan, Core, Larger, and Small cities, unincorporated UGAs), and the rural/resource regional geographies generally line up with the RGS 2000-2040 forecast lines. In other words, there are no significant deviations anticipated for future RGS-based employment growth compared with past trends and the current 2025 growth target amounts when viewed for these regional geographies. Unlike with population under the RGS, the same observation can be made even when cities are separated from unincorporated UGAs. As can be seen in Figure 10, there is a general linear trend evident for past employment levels (the 2007-2009 recession notwithstanding) and 2025 targeted employment growth, which extends through to the 2035 and 2040 RGS-based employment allocations for both cities and the unincorporated UGAs. Employment growth rates in cities do not need to increase after 2025 in order to attain the allocated employment for cities by 2035 and 2040 under the RGS, as was the case for population. Similarly, employment growth within unincorporated UGAs does not have to halt after 2025 in order to attain the allocated employment amounts for unincorporated UGAs by 2035 and 2040 under the RGS, as was the case for population. These same observations generally apply to most individual cities and their unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, as shown in the series of employment line graphs in Attachment 2. Discussion Implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy clearly poses significant challenges for some Snohomish County jurisdictions, requiring adjustments to current growth trends and plan capacities. Successful implementation of the RGS overall, however, does not solely hinge on the outcome of these local efforts over time, but also on the outcome of important associated regional efforts. For cities in which post-2025 growth would need to increase substantially in order to reach the RGS forecast for 2035 and 2040, major increases in planned and zoned capacities would be required, along with significant increases in local and regional transportation and other infrastructure investments (e.g., light rail service to downtown Everett). In addition, these transportation system investments must be made well in advance of 2040 in order to provide adequate time for the regional economy to respond with developments that will support the augmented level of growth called for in Vision 2040. 13 Packet Page 356 of 431 Conversely, there are significant challenges associated with attenuating population growth in unincorporated UGAs after 2025 to the level called for in the RGS (which would essentially require no additional population growth beyond the adopted 2025 unincorporated UGA targets). Within the unincorporated SW County UGA, in particular, this raises a number of questions given that this is a large, centrally -located urbanized area, with high -density planned land uses. These uses include mixed -use urban centers located along major transportation corridors. It is worth noting that as a result of the flattening of population growth after 2025 in unincorporated UGAs, the existing capacity in these areas under the County's current comprehensive plan is already adequate for accommodating the potential 2035 population growth assigned to this regional geography under the RGS. It should be recognized that the counterposed challenges described above — of some cities having inadequate capacity to accommodate RGS forecasts while adjacent unincorporated areas have excess capacity — may be ameliorated to a greater or lesser degree in certain instances through the process of annexation. Where a city lacking adequate population and/or employment capacity annexes an unincorporated area having excess capacity, the opportunity may exist via planning and zoning actions to "blend" the prior city and unincorporated area capacities so as to successfully accommodate within the expanded city boundary the combined RGS forecasted growth for the city and annexation area, subject to applicable laws and agreements. The blending of prior city and unincorporated UGA growth was in fact inherent in PSRC's 2009 Technical Amendment to the Vision 2040 RGS which, among other things, adjusted the RGS allocations by shifting to cities the growth previously assigned to unincorporated urban areas annexed between 2000 and 2007. The above discussion points to the importance of ensuring flexibility in the implementation of the RGS at the local level. Most of these new local plan and growth accommodation challenges are currently untested and await formal planning processes following release of the next 20-year initial growth targets by SCT in 2013. This theme of flexibility is described in PSRC's guidance for aligning local growth targets with the RGS provided in May 200910, where it is emphasized that "PSRC will remain flexible by recognizing good faith efforts in its review of targets as guidance for growth and comprehensive plans for consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy and VISION 2040 for those regional geographies." This guidance document is attached to this paper as Attachment 3. This document contains a number of suggestions from PSRC that jurisdictions may wish to begin considering in preparation for the next SCT growth target allocation process which begins with the release of the new OFM population projections in 2012. 10 Entitled "Appendix H-B [to the 2009 Technical Amendment to the Vision 2040 RGSJ: PSRC Guidance for Aligning Local Growth Targets with the Regional Growth Strategy. " 14 Packet Page 357 of 431 Figure 7. Regional Growth Strategy Population NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total UGA Population (City& Unincorporated UGA Combined) 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 000 600,000 400,000 200,000 ti 00 Off" O 06 00 'r0 1�" 1 16 'Y� 'YO M1�' ti l0 ry0 AO A�' A A6 AO P ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti Total UGA Total Non-UGA Total County 2000 2010 2025 2035 Total 2040 Total Pop Pop Pop Pop (Vision Pop (Vision Census Estimate Target 2040 RGS) 2040 RGS) 494,005 592,321 764,819 847,802 894,005 112,019 121,014 144,634 153,232 158,019 606,024 1 713,335 1 909,453 1 1,001,033 1 1,052,024 Packet Page 358 of 431 15 Figure 8. Regional Growth Strategy Population NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total City Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 1,000,000 — 900,000 — 800,000 — 700,000 600,000 i 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 $1 100ti M1�ti rypPryO'i 11r 111 I'll ry'ti Id, ry0ti 111 1611IDA I'll 110 01 rypale 1l e 2035 2040 2000 2010 2025 Total Pop Total Pop Pop Pop Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target* RGS) RGS) 364,139 411,043 508,924 590,866 636,493 129,866 181,278 255,895 256,935 257,512 494,005 592,321 764,819 847,802 894,005 Total City ** Total Uninc UGA ** Total UGA * -based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** - using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 359 of 431 16 Figure 9. Regional Growth Strategy Employment NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total Non-UGA Employment (Rural/Resources Areas) 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 I'll a I'll I'll 111�1 I& I& I& I&, tiry tiry tiry I'lltiry tit 14 ti� till ti1'40 Total Cou my Employment (UGA & Non-UGA Combined) 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 / I I / 250,000 I I 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 ti� ti ti ti ti oti�ryti� tiY ti ff oti�rytiry tiry ti ff oti�~ti� ti� ti ti o 211,071 244,101 236,573 340,185 393,984 420,315 Total UGA Total Non-UGA Total County J3 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 excludes resource and construction jobs Packet Page 360 of 431 17 Packet Page 360 of 431 17 Figure 10. Regional Growth Strategy Employment NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total UGA Employment (City & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 i 250,000 i 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 ro°° �° ro ry ro ro ro ry ry ro ro ro �. ro ro ro �. ro ro ro 187072 214,323 208,645 293,224 342,051 365,949 Total CityJ4 Total Uninc UGA_/4 Total UGA J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 361 of 431 18 Packet Page 361 of 431 18 ATTACHMENT 1 VISION 2040 REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY: POPULATION IN Packet Page 362 of 431 THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO BE BLANK Packet Page 363 of 431 20 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) County Total NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total UGA Population (City & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0P ,�016 ,y10, Total Non-UGA Population (Rural/Resource Areas) 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 rye le rye 110, rye I'll ry0~ry I'll 10 ry0~0 10ry0141 I'll 10 I'll ry000 II;I I'll 1 0+ ry000 11P Total UGA Total Non-UGA Total County 2035 Total 2040 Total 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop Pop (Vision Pop (Vision Census Estimate Target 2040 RGS) 2040 RGS) 494,005 592,321 764,819 847,802 894,005 112,019 121,014 144,634 153,232 158,019 606,024 1 713,335 1 909,453 1 1,001,033 1 1,052,024 21 Packet Page 364 of 431 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) UGA Total NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total City Population (using 2010 city boundaries) Total Unincorporated UGA Population (using 2010 city Total UGA Population (City & Unincorporated UGA boundaries) Combined) 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 600,000 � 600,000 600,000 500,000 ' ♦ 500,000 500,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 ry6' 100,000 0' ry0,y0 ry0.�0 ryO,y'1, ryO.1h ryOryb 4O ryO.yO ry0,,,'1. ryO,jP ryO.yb ryA ry�'L ry�P 10+ le 111P ryO,y'L 414 'L 'L 'YCY l dEl Q' O'r0 'L O'�' ry 11r ry 0 ry Oho ry OHO ry 4, I'llI'llI'llry & ry 1� 1 ry 1• 1 ry -+ ry O'� ry � 'Y 'Y 'L ry00'L l le ,lle,�O,yO ryO,y'1ryO,yb ryO,rb 4O, 4P 4�1,+� 1 ryO,�b 4t ry0, ryO.y'1, 41, ryO.yb ryO.yO Ip 494,005 592,321 764,819 847,802 Total City ** Total Uninc UGA ** Total UGA 1 Packet Page 365 of 431 22 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Metropolitan City (Everett) NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Unincorporated Everett MUGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) le 11�1 le le I-& 4 Ip le 411 tied$ 4P 41,+11 411, 4 1p IPI 41, If# rye, 11P Everett City ** Uninc Everett MUGA ** Total Everett Area 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 99,378 103,019 124,856 166,391 189,520 29,419 41,570 48,414 48,523 48,584 128,797 1 144,589 1 173,270 1 214,915 1 238,104 * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries 23 Packet Page 366 of 431 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Core Cities (Bothell and Lynnwood) NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total Core City Population (using 2010 city boundaries) Unincorporated MUGA Population for Core Cities (using 2010 city boundaries) 160,000 160,000 140,000 140,000 L 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 ti� ry�ti ti� ti ry�0'1�~O 4�~ le 4b 4� If~o 41v 41b 4' 41� 10+ 01 ryp"it 4' v0 ti� 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 '1e 11�1 tie tie ry-& 4O Ip le 411 le$ 4ryO 41ry +ryp 411, 4$ 10O tiPry 41, If # 41, 11P 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 48,107 52,251 66,065 80,267 88,176 34,246 47,253 64,617 64,896 65,051 82,353 99,504 130,682 145,163 153,227 Total Core City Area Population (City & Unincorporated MUGA Combined) 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 'L�'Y��'L ryV ti ti��o 'Yp1� ti�y� ti��b tip1� ti�vo ry�ry� ti�ry� ti�ryb ry�~� 4P 101 ryp, 1p ry��$ tiro Core Cities ** Uninc MUGAs of Core Cities ** Total Core City Area * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 367 of 431 24 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Bothell NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total Bothell Area Population (City & Unincorporated MUGA Combined) 70,000 60,000 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 50,000 40,000 X 30,000 20,000 10,000 13,973 16,415 22,000 27,421 30,440 Bothell City ** Uninc Bothell MUGA ** Total Bothell Area * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 368 of 431 25 Packet Page 368 of 431 25 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Lynnwood NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Lynnwood Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 100,000 - 90,000 80,000 Unincorporated Lynnwood MUGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 Total 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 ,r,p d' Lynnwood Area Population (City & Unincorporate( MUGA Combined) 70,000 60,000 50,000 - ' ♦ 40,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 0�0:!< 20,000 10,000 10,000 ryQ' ry tiO'�O ti ti ti tiCY CPry O'�' ti O'�b tiO'�6 tiOho ti OHO ry O�'L ry ti ti OTa O'16 O'1� ti O'iP ti O�'�' ti O^A ti O�'b ry O'� ti 'IW 'LCP'L ,r(t' ,Ytl'a ,Y000 ,rO,yO ,r0,'�,rO,yb ,O,yb ,O,y6 ,r0.�0 ,r0.1'L ,YO.�P ,YO,yb ,YO,y4 ,rp30 ,r0,�'I. ,O.yb ,O.yb ,rO.y6 ,rOyO ,y0�'L ,�(Db ,�6' ,�(PB ,�OyO ry0,1'L ryO•y> ryO,Yb ry0,10 v0•�0 ryO,y'IryO.1h ry0,�6 ryO,yO ryO.yO ryO, 1 4?, 1p. 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 34,134 35,836 44,065 52,846 57,736 17,940 24,456 34,052 34,212 34,302 52,074 60,292 78,117 87,058 92,037 Lynnwood City ** Uninc Lynnwood MUGA ** Total Lynnwood Area * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries; does NOT include Larch Way Overlap area Packet Page 369 of 431 26 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Larger Cities (Arlington, Edmonds, Lake Stevens, Marysville, Mill Creek, Monroe, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo) NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total Larger City Population (using 2010 city boundaries) Unincorporated UGA/MUGA Population for Larger Cities Total Larger City Area Population (City & Unincorporated (using 2010 city boundaries) MUGA Combined) - 400,00o I..'o-0 le e le .4e le .40 101�1 1111 10 10 10 e 10'1b I'# ,40^� •40+ 106ry .40I I'# ,40'll o 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 le 11�1 le le I0& 4,p,4e 411,40.�64041,+1141144 100 IPI 41, If#,41, 11P 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 187,132 221,435 270,824 290,833 301,974 42,997 58,876 88,829 89,235 89,461 230,129 280,311 359,653 380,067 391,435 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 4P 101 40', 1p0 Larger Cities ** Uninc UGAs/MUGAs of Larger Cities ** Total Larger City Area * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 370 of 431 27 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Arlington NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only 30,000 1 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Unincorporated Arlington UGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 6' 11�1,ytl' le le ,�O ,y01�',r0'1, 4`1 40 ,y0'1O 41'L ,e ,r ,yOTO 450 105'1 ,e ,y036 ,y050 ltl' Arlington City ** Uninc Arlington UGA ** Total Arlington UGA 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 11,989 17,926 22,792 24,664 25,707 584 563 4,208 4,247 4,268 12,573 1 18,489 1 27,000 1 28,911 1 29,975 Total Arlington UGA Population (City & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 30,000 25,000 ♦ 20,000 15,000 / , /* 10,000 5,000 * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries 28 Packet Page 371 of 431 l Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Frlmnnrlc 39,515 39,709 44,880 46,703 47,718 Edmonds City ** Uninc Edmonds MUGA ** Total Edmonds Area * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries 29 Packet Page 372 of 431 29 Packet Page 372 of 431 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Lake Stevens NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Unincorporated Lake Stevens UGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) l6' 11O1 le ,le ,le ,�O If0`, 41, 4`1 4 le0 411, ,fie ,fir leO 41 1051 le 1036 ,y05, l Lake Stevens City ** Uninc Lake Stevens UGA ** Total Lake Stevens UGA 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 21,637 28,069 37,380 41,360 43,577 3,434 4,827 8,745 8,791 8,817 25,071 1 32,896 1 46,125 1 50,151 1 52,393 Total Lake Stevens UGA Population (City & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 60,000 F- 50,000 - 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 ,�6' ,�00~ ,�(t' ,y� ,�6' ,�O~0 ,rO1v ,yOtip ,�0�6 ,�0,�6 ,y010 ,�O'1'1,�0�b ,�01b ,y0'10 ,�O'�O ,�0,5'Y ,rO•Sh ,y0'�b ,�O,�Q ,�tl' * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries 30 Packet Page 373 of 431 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Marysville NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Marysville Population (using 2010 city boundaries) Unincorporated Marysville UGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 100,000 100,000 90,000 90,000 80,000 ♦ ♦ 80,000 70,000 ♦ ♦ 70,000 60,000 ♦ 60,000 50,000 50,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 ,�W ldC,l ,fie,y6' 4� ,�Oti�,�Otib,�Otib ,�0ti0,�01O 411, ,YO�a ,YO'1b 4r 1p0 ,r09�',�O'ii3O'yd 41, 11 ti ti 1CY l dEl 1 0 O'a' ti O'1a ti 0 ti Ohl 1 -+ 1 4, I'llI'llti 1+ ti 1'�' 1 O'11` 1 -+ 1 115, ti1P 1 ry ti ti I'll 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 46,920 60,020 79,589 88,237 93,052 209 163 211 212 212 47,129 60,183 79,800 88,448 93,264 le 111 IW le '1'll,'LOBO 1011'e41 4'IOVO 'LO",+,� 10b 10-91014?, 1pb 10le Marysville City ** Uninc Marysville UGA ** Total Marysville UGA * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 374 of 431 31 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Mill Creek NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Mill Creek Population (using 2010 city boundaries) Unincorporated Mill Creek MUGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 80,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 le e le .ye le .40 101�1 1111 10 10 10 e 111b 11# ld0 I-+ 116ry 1-1 11# I'll o 1 70,000 60,000 50,000 1 40,000 30,000 20,000 1 10,000 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ,�6' ,�O��,ytl' ,�� ,�� ,�0�O ,Yp1�',r0'�� ,O'yd ,r0�0 ,YO'1O ,r0'1'L ,O'1b ,r0'1b ,YO�0 ,YO.yO ,LO.,,'L ,r0'� ,YO36 ,Y0•,,0 ,Ltl' ,�6' ,�O��,ytl' ,�� ,�� ,�0�O ,Yp1�',r0'�� ,O'yd ,r0�0 ,YO'1O ,r0'1'L ,O'1b ,r0'1b ,YO�0 ,YO.yO ,LO.,,'L ,r0'� ,YO36 ,Y0•,,0 ,Ltl' 14,752 18,244 19,421 20,189 20,617 Mill Creek City ** Uninc Mill Creek MUGA ** Total Mill Creek Area * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries; does NOT include Larch Way Overlap area Packet Page 375 of 431 32 Packet Page 375 of 431 32 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Monroe NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Monroe Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 .10' 111 le .re le .r0l0 101�1 1111 "1 •r011 •1010 .10 1 10'1b I'll ,r0^0 •r0+ 11' 1 .101 11+ I'''0 o Unincorporated Monroe UGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 l6' 1001,y0' ,le ,le ,�O Ifp`, 41, 4`1 4 le 411, le ,rr le 41 1 051 le 10511 ,Y05l 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 13,882 17,304 22,277 23,841 24,713 1,471 1,477 4,313 4,346 4,364 15,353 18,781 26,590 28,187 29,077 Monroe City ** Uninc Monroe UGA ** Total Monroe UGA * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 376 of 431 33 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Mountlake Terrace NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Unincorporated Mountlake Terrace MUGA Population l] boundaries) (using 2010 city boundaries) City of Mountlake Terrace Population (using 2010 city 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 tie 11�1 le le tie ,r0ti0 10" 41, 41, ,r0ti0 441, le Ir leO 41 1 051 le 1036 ,Y0.,,0'Le Mountlake Terrace City ** Uninc Mountlake Terrace MUGA ** Total Mountlake Terrace Area 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 20,418 19,909 22,485 23,295 23,745 18 20 76 77 77 20,436 1 19,929 1 22,561 1 23,371 1 23,823 Total Mountlake Terrace Area Population (City & Unincorporated MUGA Combined) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 l6' 161, * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 377 of 431 34 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Mukilteo NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Mukilteo Population (using 2010 city boundaries) Unincorporated Mukilteo MUGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 40,000 - 40,000 35,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ,�6' ,�O��,ytl' ,�� ,�� ,�0�O ,y01�',r0'�� ,�O'�6 ,�0�0 ,y0'1O ,r0'1'L ,�O'1b ,�O'1b ,yOTO ,y0.50 ,�O•y'L ,�0� ,y036 ,y0•,�0 ,�tl' 18,019 20,254 22,000 22,543 22,846 Total Mukilteo Area Population (City & Unincorporated MUGA Combined) 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ,d ,�0§~ ,�(t' Mukilteo City ** Uninc Mukilteo MUGA ** Total Mukilteo Area * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 378 of 431 35 Packet Page 378 of 431 35 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Small Cities (Brier, Darrington, Gold Bar, Granite Falls, Index, Snohomish, Stanwood, Sultan, Woodway) 29,522 34,338 47,179 53,375 56,825 Small Cities ** Uninc UGAs/MUGAs of Small Cities ** Total Small City Area * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 379 of 431 36 Packet Page 379 of 431 36 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Brier NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Unincorporated Brier MUGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 l6' 1001 le ,le ,le ,�O If0`, 41, 4`1 4 le0 411, ,fie ,fir leO 41 1051 le 1036 ,y05, l 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 6,383 6,087 7,790 8,183 8,402 1,752 2,097 3,295 3,312 3,322 8,135 81184 11,085 11,496 11,724 Brier City ** Uninc Brier MUGA ** Total Brier Area * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 380 of 431 37 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Darrington NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Town of Darrington Population (using 2010 town boundaries) 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 le e le .ye le .40 101�1 1111 10 10 10 e 10'1b 11# ld0 I-+ 106ry .101 11+ I'll o Unincorporated Darrington UGA Population (using 2010 town boundaries) 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 4`1 ,Y01� ,�O'1O 411, ,re 41, ,YO YO•SLp 4P ,'L ,rO�f ,,YOb 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 1,192 1,347 1,912 2,186 2,338 122 75 213 219 223 1,314 11422 2,125 2,405 2,561 Darrington Town ** Uninc Darrington UGA ** Total Darrington UGA * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 town boundaries Packet Page 381 of 431 38 Vision NOTE: each graph shows population growt City of Gold Bar Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 4,000 - 3,500 3,000 — 2,500 — 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 le e le .ye le .40 101�1 1111 10 10 10 e 111b 11# ld0 I-+ 116ry 1-1 11# I'll o 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Gold Bar i information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Unincorporated Gold Bar UGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 ,re ,Le ,Ye ,�030 ,Y41 ,re ,LO•y( ,YJ, 2,022 2,075 2,497 2,651 2,737 Gold Bar City ** Uninc Gold Bar UGA ** Total Gold Bar UGA 2,776 21 * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 382 of 431 39 Packet Page 382 of 431 39 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Granite Falls NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Granite Falls Population (using 2010 city Unincorporated Granite Falls UGA Population (using 2010 boundaries) city boundaries) 12,000 12,000 � 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 .10' ,rOOti le .re le 10 101�1 1111 10 10 1010 e 10'1b 11# ,r0^0 •r0+ 106ry .101 11# I'''0 o 1 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 l6' 11O1,y0' ,le ,le ,�O Ifp`, 41, 4`1 4 le 411, le ,rr le 41 1 0 51 le 10511 ,Y05, l 2,385 3,364 6,134 7,707 8,583 Granite Falls City ** Uninc Granite Falls UGA ** Total Granite Falls UGA * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 383 of 431 40 Packet Page 383 of 431 40 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Index NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only 250 200 150 100 50 Unincorporated Index UGA Population (using 2010 town boundaries) tie rysti tie tie rye 4� 41-e I$` ryes$10v 4,11-e 4P 4P 1p 'p,-e 10#10 tie Index Town ** Uninc Index UGA ** Total Index UGA 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 157 178 190 201 206 157 178 190 201 206 Total Index UGA Population (Town & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 250 200 150 100 50 ,SAP ,�0�v ,ye ,y0�b ,y0�� ,�p * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 town boundaries 41 Packet Page 384 of 431 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Snohomish NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Snohomish Population (using 2010 city boundaries) Unincorporated Snohomish UGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 16,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 le e le .ye le .40 101�1 1111 10 10 10 e 111b 11# ld0 I-+ 116ry 1-1 11# I'll o 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 ,�6' ,�O��,ytl' ,�� ,�� ,�0�O ,Yp1�',r0'�� ,O'yd ,r0�0 ,YO'1O ,r0'1'L ,O'1b ,r0'1b ,YO�0 ,YO.yO ,LO.,,'L ,r0'� ,YO36 ,Y0•,,0 ,Ltl' 8,938 9,098 11,460 12,415 12,946 Total Snohomish UGA Population (City & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Snohomish City ** Uninc Snohomish UGA ** Total Snohomish UGA * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 385 of 431 42 Packet Page 385 of 431 42 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Stanwood NOTE: each graph shows population growth information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Stanwood Population (using 2010 city boundaries) Unincorporated Stanwood UGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 14,000 - 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 le e le .ye le .40 101�1 1111 10 10 10 e 111b 11# ld0 I-+ 116ry 1-1 11# I'll o 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 4,165 6,231 7,473 8,723 9,418 Stanwood City ** Uninc Stanwood UGA ** Total Stanwood UGA * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 386 of 431 43 Packet Page 386 of 431 43 Vision 2( NOTE: each graph shows population growth i City of Sultan Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 140 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May Sultan iformation in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth'_ Unincorporated Sultan UGA Population (using 2010 city boundaries) 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Sultan City ** Uninc Sultan UGA ** Total Sultan UGA L2, 2011) trategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 3,344 4,651 8,553 10,140 11,024 350 315 2,566 2,591 2,604 3,694 1 41966 1 11,119 1 12,731 1 13,628 * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 387 of 431 44 Vision NOTE: each graph shows population growt Town of Woodway Population (using 2010 town boundaries) 1,600 — 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 le ,y00ti le .ye le .40 101�1 1111 10 10 10 e 11'1b 11# ld0 I-+ 116ry 1-1 11# I'll o 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Population (May 12, 2011) Woodway i information in red; the blue dashed 2000-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Unincorporated Woodway MUGA Population (using 2010 town boundaries) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 T ,�"I ,y6' ,fie ,yI ,�0 ,r0'Y"1 ,re ,�O'Y6 ,Y0 ,�O'1O ,r0'1'L ,r0'1a ,LO'16 ,YO'10 ,�030 ,YO•S'L ,rO�f ,LO•y( ,YO,�,O ,�tl" 2035 2040 Total Pop Total Pop 2000 Pop 2010 Pop 2025 Pop (V2040 (V2040 Census Census Target * RGS) RGS) 936 1,307 1,170 1,170 1,170 - - 170 172 172 936 11307 1,340 1,342 1,342 Woodway Town ** Uninc Woodway MUGA ** Total Woodway Area * based on adopted CPP population targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 ** using April 1, 2010 town boundaries Packet Page 388 of 431 45 THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO BE BLANK Packet Page 389 of 431 46 ATTACHMENT 2 VISION 2040 REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY: EMPLOYMENT 47 Packet Page 390 of 431 THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO BE BLANK Packet Page 391 of 431 48 Vision 2 NOTE: each graph shows employment grov Total UGA Employment (City & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 ♦ 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 ry°°P ry°°6 ry b ry°,y° TI-I T,,y TO v°,P TIP, Tl, ' ry°,O6 Tl, ' h°-° ry& ry°..P v°,�b ry°,�0 T 040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) County Total rth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total Non-UGA Employment (Rural/Resources Areas) 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 211,071 244,101 236,573 340,185 393,984 420,315 Total UGA Total Non-UGA Total County ,1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates ,2 excludes resource and construction jobs 49 Packet Page 392 of 431 49 Packet Page 392 of 431 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) UGA Total NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total City Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Total Unincorporated UGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 °°1 'L°°p rye ti°°e ti°11 ti°1~ ti°gyp ti°16 If ti°ti° ti°dry v°tip l°tie ti°� ti°+ 1p~ 411 1p° 10° ti°°° Total UGA Employment (City &Unincorporated UGA Combined) 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 ♦ 250,000 ♦ 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 '1°�'° 'L°''ti '1°�'p 'L°�'e 187,072 214,323 208,645 293,224 342,051 365,949 Total CityJ4 Total Uninc UGA_/4 Total UGA ,1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates ,2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs ,4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 393 of 431 50 1 50 1 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Metropolitan City (Everett) NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Everett Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 ♦ Unincorporated Everett MUGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 180,000 - 160,000 - 140,000 - 120,000 - 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 °°1 'L°°p rye ti°°e ti°11 ti°1~ ti°gyp ti°16 If ti°ti° ti°dry v°tip l°tie ti°� ti°+ tip~ 411 1p° 10° ti°°° Total Everett Area Employment (City &Unincorporated MUGA Combined) lao,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 ♦ 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 82,129 89,018 94,192 131,176 152,234 162,540 Everett CityJ4 Uninc Everett MUGA_/4 Total Everett Area J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 394 of 431 51 1 51 1 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Cnrp Cities (FZnthell and Lvnnwnndl Unincorporated MUGA Employment for Core Cities (using 2010 city boundaries) 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 4P 410 41, Total Core City Area Employment (City & Unincorporated MUGA Combined) 80,000 70,000 60,000 .' 50,000 ♦ ♦ 40,000 ♦' 30,000 20,000 10,000 ry�ro tidy° ry�d v tio''° ,yo'ti ,yo''° tio'`° ,yo'�$ ,yoti° tiotiry ,yotip tioti`° tioti$ ,yo''° 10o 41, ,y 1° ,y 1, 35,170 43,783 38,366 54,410 62,419 66,339 Core CitiesJ4 Uninc MUGAs of Core CitiesJ4 Total Core City Area J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 395 of 431 52 52 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Bothell NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Bothell Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Unincorporated Bothell MUGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 4P 410 41, Bothell CityJ4 11,672 15,241 12,995 15,840 17,468 18,265 53 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Lynnwood 23,498 28,542 25,371 38,570 44,951 48,074 Lynnwood CityJ4 Uninc Lynnwood MUGAJ4 Total Lynnwood Area J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries; MUGA does NOT include Larch Way Overlap area Packet Page 397 of 431 54 54 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) I �rRer rc+Cep /Ar ;--+-- CA---Ac I I— c+e..e-c RA-- Alle RAM r—t, nn.,. -- nA--+I,Le Te.-.-„ - nn..LCl+--1 Unincorporated UGA/MUGA Employment for Larger Cities (using 2010 city boundaries) 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 2035 2040 2002 Emp 2007 Emp 2009 Emp Total Emp Total Emp Estimate Estimate Estimate 2025 Emp (V2040 (V2040 /1 /1 /1 Target /2 RGS) /3 RGS) /3 59,490 69,594 64,742 91,019 107,777 115,979 6,395 7,761 7,218 11,467 12,446 12,925 65,885 77,355 71,960 102,486 120,223 128,905 Larger CitiesJ4 Uninc UGAs/MUGAs of Larger Cities,4 Total Larger City Area _/1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 398 of 431 55 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Arlington Unincorporated Arlington UGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ,L 1 lW 1006 ,ytl' ,y0'Y� ,�O'1�" .y0'vb ,vOYb ,LO'�0 ,40'1O ,r0�'Y ,v0�b ,LOT,° ,'O'10 ,LP 41�' 41, 8,787 10,284 8,944 15,146 19,887 22,208 Arlington CityJ4 Uninc Arlington UGA_/4 Total Arlington UGA _/1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 399 of 431 56 56 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Edmonds Unincorporated Edmonds MUGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 41 hW le 4P 410 41, 10,625 11,770 11,405 12,190 13,528 14,183 Edmonds CityJ4 Uninc Edmonds MUGA,4 Total Edmonds Area _/1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/33 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 400 of 431 57 57 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 1 Lake Stevens NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth S Unincorporated Lake Stevens UGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 _ 1§1 1e 1e 1e 1010 le 1011 1016 1010 1010 le le le le 10+ 1p1 41, 1p '§ 1e 2, 2011) :rategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total Lake Stevens UGA Employment (City & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 ' 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 C 1 O' O' CAO 010 01~ 01p 016 01a OHO O;~ Opp O�6 Oda O+ Off~ O� O�6 O O" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3,888 4,910 4,310 5,530 6,026 6,268 Lake Stevens CityJ4 Uninc Lake Stevens UGAJ4 Total Lake Stevens UGA J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 401 of 431 58 58 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) MarvcvillP 10,651 12,361 11,546 23,057 29,462 32,596 Marysville CityJ4 Uninc Marysville UGAJ4 Total Marysville UGA ,1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates ,2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/33 excludes resource and construction jobs ,4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 402 of 431 59 59 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) RAni r-eel. Unincorporated Mill Creek MUGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 41 hW 'L 'L6' 'Y�1� h0~ry '10~b 'LO�6 'L0,�0 'LO�� 'LO�ti 'LO�b 'LO��O 'YO�0 4P 410 41, Total Mill Creek Area Employment (City & Unincorporated MUGA Combined) 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 ry§ti le10 I'll,tio''° ,yo'ti ,yo''° tio'`° ,yo'�$ ,yoti° tiotiry ,yotip tioti`° tioti$ ,yo''° 10o 41, ,yo0 ,y 11 ♦ ♦ 3,430 5,088 4,850 5,315 5,911 6,20 Mill Creek CityJ4 Uninc Mill Creek MUGA_/41 Total Mill Creek Area J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries; MUGA does NOT include Larch Way Overlap area Packet Page 403 of 431 60 60 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Monroe NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Monroe Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 1 ] ♦ ♦ Total Monroe UGA Employment (City &Unincorporated UGA Combined) 16,000 14,000 12,000 ♦ 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 ry�ro tidy° ry�d v� tio''° ,yo'ti ,yo''° tio'`° ,yo'�$ ,yoti° tiotiry ,yotip tioti`° tioti$ ,yo''° ,yo''ti tio"'` ,yo''�D ,yo"'�' ♦ 7,785 9,511 8,229 12,270 13,818 14,576 Monroe CityJ4 Uninc Monroe UGA—/4 Total Monroe UGA _/1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 404 of 431 61 61 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Mountlake Terrace Unincorporated Mountlake Terrace MUGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 ,L 1 lW 16, ,yb' ,y0'Y� ,�O'1�" .y0'vb ,LOY6 ,LO'�0 ,40'1O ,r0�'Y ,v0�Q ,LOT,° ,'O'10 ,LP 41, ,LO'��° 41le 7,666 7,377 6,900 8,060 8,845 9,229 Mountlake Terrace CityJ4 Uninc Mountlake Terrace MUGAJ4 Total Mountlake Terrace Area J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 405 of 431 62 62 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Mukilteo NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Mukilteo Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 18,000 - 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Unincorporated Mukilteo MUGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 41 hW le 'L6' 4P 410 41, 6,658 8,293 8,558 9,450 10,300 10,716 Mukilteo CityJ4 Uninc Mukilteo MUGAJ4 Total Mukilteo Area J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 406 of 431 63 63 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Small Cities (Brier, Darrington, Gold Bar, Granite Falls, Index, Snohomish, Stanwood, Sultan, Woodway) Small CitiesJ4 10,283 11,928 11,345 16,618 19,621 21,091 64 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Brier NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Brier Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 O' T Te .T1191 TI-I ,Lll1 TI-I .O'16 TO TIP ,v41 .4l.'P+ ,LO'1q' ,vPIP .`O'h�" O'�p ,v0'�6 .1^1 2035 2040 2002 Emp 2007 Emp 2009 Emp Total Emp Total Emp Estimate Estimate Estimate 2025 Emp (V2040 (V2040 /1 /1 /1 Target /2 RGS) /3 RGS) /3 329 354 329 430 432 433 46 72 69 134 145 150 375 426 398 564 576 583 Brier CityJ4 Uninc Brier MUGA,4 Total Brier Area ,1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates ,2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs ,4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries 65 Packet Page 408 of 431 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Darrington Unincorporated Darrington UGA Employment (using 2010 town boundaries) 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 soo ,(Pry le le le 1010 1pl1 1 0 11 1§01 1 0 1 ,4e ,v0�,Le ,Le IOp ,LOAF ,rp^ 41, 1 40# ,0 .y0"' 2035 2040 2002 Emp 2007 Emp 2009 Emp Total Emp Total Emp Estimate Estimate Estimate 2025 Emp (V2040 (V2040 A A ATarget /2 RGS) /3 RGS) /3 364 652 514 415 1,194 1,576 - - - 120 448 609 364 652 514 535 1,643 2,185 Darrington Town,4 Uninc Darrington UGA_/4Total Darrington UGA J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 J3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 409 of 431 66 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Gold Bar NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only City of Gold Bar Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 500 450 400 - ' 350 ' 300 ' 250 ♦ 200 ♦ ' 150 100 50 .1�ry ,16" ,y .� .,Oyu ,y0�ry ,v0~o- .�O~6 .�Oy$ ,y0�� ,v0�~ .�0�'R .�0�b ,y0�a ,v0�� 4,ry 'Pp 4,6 Gold Bar CityJ4 Uninc Gold Bar UGAJ4 Total Gold Bar UGA Total Gold Bar UGA Employment (City & Unincorporated MUGA Combined) 500 450 400 350 ' 300 250 200 ♦ ' 150 100 50 4P O'1�' ,'O'1P 2035 2040 2002 Emp 2007 Emp 2009 Emp Total Emp Total Emp Estimate Estimate Estimate 2025 Emp (V2040 (V2040 /1 /1 /1 Target /2 RGS) /3 RGS) /3 179 193 228 210 340 403 2 1 2 0 0 181 194 230 210 340 403 J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 J3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries 67 Packet Page 410 of 431 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Granite Falls NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only 3,500 Unincorporated Granite Falls UGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 3,000 �,500 !,000 1,500 1,000 500 ,00'L 'Pe ,TW Te .TO'10 il-'P-I ,i016 T0 ilfl ,.01 Te ,61P .`e ,LO+ ,`* ,LO.�P ,y0 ,L0,�0 T Total Granite Falls UGA Employment (City & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 ti�pro voo voo`° voom vo,,o �o,,ti Gov° �o,,`° �otiro �oyo ti�ti~ soya �oyy �oyro �o,�o ti��~ �o�p tio�,`° tio� ti°eP 2035 2040 2002 Emp 2007 Emp 2009 Emp Total Emp Total Emp Estimate Estimate Estimate 2025 Emp (V2040 (V2040 /1 /1 /1 Target /2 RGS) /3 RGS) /3 821 943 870 2,109 2,613 2,859 - 1 1 91 98 101 821 944 871 2,200 2,710 2,960 Granite Falls CityJ4 Uninc Granite Falls UGA—/4 Total Granite Falls UGA _/1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 411 of 431 68 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Index NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Town of Index Employment (using 2010 town boundaries) 100 — 90 80 70 Imo. 60 50 40 30 20 10 O' T ,yll� .T1191 TI-1 ,Lll1 TI-1 .O'16 TO TIP ,v41 .4l.'P+ ,LO'1q' ,vPIP .`O'h�" O'�p ,v0'�6 .1^1 Unincorporated Index UGA Employment (using 2010 town boundaries) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Index TownJ4 Uninc Town UGA_/4 Total Index UGA Total Index UGA Employment (Town & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 100 90 80 70 , 60 , 50 40 30 20 10 2035 2040 2002 Emp 2007 Emp 2009 Emp Total Emp Total Emp Estimate Estimate Estimate 2025 Emp (V2040 (V2040 /1 /1 /1 Target /2 RGS) /3 RGS) /3 44 26 24 70 70 70 44 26 24 70 70 70 J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 J3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries 69 Packet Page 412 of 431 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 1 NOTE: each graph shows employment growth City of Snohomish Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 8,000 7,000 6,000 ' Snohomish information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth S Unincorporated Snohomish UGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 �ry (Y 6' W O'r0 OS'1' OlP 016 Olm O'YO O'LT O'YP O'16 O'10 O'�O OAS' O"T O^ib O' ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti 1 ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ,��ry ,y6' ,�W ,y ,�O~O ,y0� ,�O~o- ,�016 ,v0~O ,�0�O ,v0�ry ,�0�p ,v0�6 ,�01O ,y0� 1p0 ,yelp 1p0 ,y0�0 l 2, 2011) :rategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Total Snohomish UGA Employment (City & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 8,000 7,000 ' 6,000 ♦ 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 o O~a OHO Off~ Opp o Oda O� Off~ e o e eti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti 4,626 4,976 4,925 6,398 6,955 7,228 Snohomish City,4 Uninc Snohomish UGA,4 Total Snohomish UGA 4,973 51 _/1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 413 of 431 70 70 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Stanwood NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Unincorporated Stanwood UGA Employment (using 2030 city boundaries) 'e 'V TI ,ye ,TO~O ,y0� ,�O~o- ,016 T0~O ,Ifl ,.01 ,T0�O TIO .Te ,y0„�O ,T0•,,'Y ,y0•'�P ,T0 ,y0„�0 T Total Stanwood UGA Employment (City & Unincorporated UGA Combined) 7,000 6,000 ♦ 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 ,vCpry ,yd' ,yd' ,yCAO ,v0~O ,v0~~ ,v0~p ,v0~6 ,v0~a ,v0�O ,v0'1'1. ,v0�P ,v0'16 ,v0'1a ,v0^P ,v0^i�' ,v0^P ,v0^ib ,v0^P ,v0" 2,993 3,682 3,440 4,925 5,545 5,848 Stanwood CityJ4 Uninc Stanwood UGAJ4 Total Stanwood UGA 3,170 31 J1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates J2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs J4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries 71 Packet Page 414 of 431 71 Packet Page 414 of 431 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Sultan Unincorporated Sultan UGA Employment (using 2010 city boundaries) 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 ,y 500 Td(' T ,TW T TO ,y0'��' 'te ,O To ,fie ,III ,TO'1'p ,y0'16 ,�P ,gyp^ 41, .�O',6 ,y0"�� ,vCf' 2035 2040 2002 Emp 2007 Emp 2009 Emp Total Emp Total Emp Estimate Estimate Estimate 2025 Emp (V2040 (V2040 /1 /1 /1 Target /2 RGS) /3 RGS) /3 7 1 7 29 29 29 882 1,032 914 2,000 2,412 2,613 Sultan CityJ4 875 1,031 907 1,971 2,383 2,584 72 Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy - Employment (May 12, 2011) Woodway NOTE: each graph shows employment growth information in red; the blue dashed 2002-2040 Regional Growth Strategy diagonal line is provided for reference purposes only Town of Woodway Employment (using 2010 town boundaries) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 'L�ry 'L ti" ti ti�~O ti��ry ti�1p ti0 ti0 ti�tio ti�ti~ tidp ti�~b ti�ti� ti�ao ti��ry ti�� ti�ab ti�� tie 2035 2040 2002 Emp 2007 Emp 2009 Emp Total Emp Total Emp Estimate Estimate Estimate 2025 Emp (V2040 (V2040 /1 /1 /1 Target /2 RGS) /3 RGS) /3 52 71 108 90 90 90 15 17 16 620 620 620 67 88 124 710 710 710 Woodway Town—/4 Uninc Woodway MUGA,4 Total Woodway Area _/1 2002, 2007 & 2009 employment estimates use NAICS job sector categorization; as a result, 2002 estimates differ from adopted CPP 2002 estimates ,2 based on adopted CPP employment targets for 2025, adjusted to account for annexations since April 2002 _/3 excludes resource and construction jobs ,4 using April 1, 2010 city boundaries Packet Page 416 of 431 73 THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO BE BLANK Packet Page 417 of 431 74 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 418 of 431 75 THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO BE BLANK Packet Page 419 of 431 76 Appendix II-13: PSRC Guidance for Aligning Local Growth Targets with the Regional Growth Strategy The PSRC offers the following guidance to counties and their cities as they work to align their local growth targets with the Regional Growth Strategy: • PSRC recognizes that the path from now to 2040 is three decades long, and that the path to 2040 may not be linear. Jurisdictions in some regional geographies will likely be planning for targets that are above or below the policy direction set by the Regional Growth Strategy because they are on a front- or back -loaded growth trajectory toward 2040. • However, in some regional geographies, recent growth has been at such significant odds with the policy direction set by the Regional Growth Strategy (i.e., recent growth from 2000 to 2007 has already accounted for more than half of the 40-year growth allocation), that the 2040 goal will likely not be met. In such cases, jurisdictions are asked to try their best to set any new targets as close to VISION 2040 as reasonably possible. • In turn, the PSRC will remain flexible by recognizing good faith efforts in its review of targets as guidance for growth and comprehensive plans for consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy and VISION 2040 for those regional geographies. The PSRC will also provide guidance and technical assistance to counties and their cities as they work to prepare their targets and plan updates. • In developing their comprehensive plan updates, jurisdictions will be asked to explain what steps they are taking to "bend the trend" of recent growth to align with the concepts in VISION 2040. • PSRC's review and certification of plans will be based on the actions and measures already taken or proposed to be put in place to bend the trend, and not just on an assessment of the targets alone. Jurisdictions whose growth targets are higher or lower than what would be expected from a straight-line application of the Regional Growth Strategy, should show the actions and measures that are being undertaken, or it expects to take, to bend the trend. • Tracking the efforts by counties and their cities as they work to update their targets will help to identify the specific local challenges that may be faced in implementing the Regional Growth Strategy. Lessons learned as these processes move forward will be presented to the Regional Staff Committee and Growth Management Policy Board as progress reports for review and discussion. • Lastly, PSRC will consider whether to revisit the allocations in the Regional Growth Strategy following local plans updates and also following target updates as required in the schedule provided in the Growth Management Act. In this way, the practical experiences of local jurisdictions gained from working with the current Regional Growth Strategy through upcoming updates can be brought to bear in making informed adjustments to the Regional Growth Strategy. Growth Management Policy Board Meeting Packet Page 420 of 431 February 12, 2009 77 THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO BE BLANK Packet Page 421 of 431 78 ATTACHMENT 4 2035 PRELIMINARY POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTIONS TO CITIES, UNINCORPORATED U GAs AND M U GAs, RURAL/RESOURCE AREAS Packet Page 422 of 431 79 THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO BE BLANK Packet Page 423 of 431 so 2035 Preliminary Population Distributions to Cities, Unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, Rural/Resource Area Based on 2007 OFM Forecast, 2007 Buildable Lands Report capacity results, adopted 2025 CPP Growth Targets, and PSRC Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy Uses April 1, 2010 Jurisdictional Boundaries Regional Geography: Metropolitan City Everett Core Cities Bothell Lynnwood Larger Cities Arlington Edmonds Lake Stevens Marysville Mill Creek Monroe Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo Small Cities Brier Darrington Gold Bar Granite Falls Index Snohomish Stanwood Sultan W oodway Unincorporated Urban Unincorporated UGAs: Arlington Darrington Gold Bar Granite Falls Index Lake Stevens Marysville Monroe Snohomish Stanwood Sultan Unincorporated MUGAs: Bothell Brier Edmonds Everett Lynnwood Mill Creek Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo W oodway Other Parts of Uninc S WCo UGA: Paine Field Larch Way Overlap Lake Stickney Gap Meadowdale/Norma Beach Gap Silver Firs Gap Unincorporated Maltby UGA TDR Pop Reserve (Unassigned) Rural Total County 2000 Total 2010 Total Pop Census Pop Census %of County 2000-2010 2000-2010 Pop Pop Change Change 2025Pop Target (adjusted to 2010 city bdys) %of County 2010-2025 2010-2025 Pop Pop Change Change Additional Pop Capacity 2010-2025 (adjusted to 2010 city bdys) J1 %Distrof Additional Pop Cap within Reg Geog 2025-2035 Pop %of Growth by County Jurisdiction 2035 Total 2010-2035 2010-2035 within Reg Pop Pop Pop GeogJ2 Distributn Change Change 99,378 103,019 3,641 3.4% 124,856 21,837 11.1% 23,746 100.0% 41,535 166,391 63,372 22.0% 48,107 52,251 4,144 3.9% 66,065 13,814 7.0% 12,318 100.0% 14,203 80,267 28,016 9.7% 13,973 16,415 2,442 2.3% 22,000 5,585 2.8% 4,702 38.2% 5,421 27,421 11,006 3.8% 34,134 35,836 1,702 1.6% 44,065 8,229 4.2% 7,616 61.8% 8,781 52,846 17,010 5.9% 187,132 221,435 34,303 32.0% 270,824 49,389 25.2% 64,325 100.0% 20,008 290,833 69,398 24.1% 11,989 17,926 5,937 5.5% 22,792 4,866 2.5% 6,019 9.4% 1,872 24,664 6,738 2.3% 39,515 39,709 194 0.2% 44,880 5,171 2.6% 5,861 9.1% 1,823 46,703 6,994 2.4% 21,637 28,069 6,432 6.0% 37,380 9,311 4.7% 12,796 19.9% 3,980 41,360 13,291 4.6% 46,920 60,020 13,100 12.2% 79,589 19,569 10.0% 27,801 43.2% 8,648 88,237 28,217 9.8% 14,752 18,244 3,492 3.3% 19,421 1,177 0.6% 2,468 3.8% 768 20,189 1,945 0.7% 13,882 17,304 3,422 3.2% 22,277 4,973 2.5% 5,031 7.8% 1,565 23,841 6,537 2.3% 20,418 19,909 -509 -0.5% 22,485 2,576 1.3% 2,603 4.0% 810 23,295 3,386 1.2% 18,019 20,254 2,235 2.1% 22,000 1,746 0.9% 1,746 2.7% 543 22,543 2,289 0.8% 29,522 34,338 4,816 4.5% 47,179 12,841 6.5% 18,798 100.0% 6,196 53,375 19,037 6.6% 6,383 6,087 -296 -0.3% 7,790 1,703 0.9% 1,193 6.3% 393 8,183 2,096 0.7% 1,192 1,347 155 0.1% 1,912 565 0.3% 830 4.4% 274 2,186 839 0.3% 2,022 2,075 53 0.0% 2,497 422 0.2% 468 2.5% 154 2,651 576 0.2% 2,385 3,364 979 0.9% 6,134 2,770 1.4% 4,773 25.4% 1,573 7,707 4,343 1.5% 157 178 21 0.0% 190 12 0.0% 32 0.2% 11 201 23 0.0% 8,938 9,098 160 0.1% 11,460 2,362 1.2% 2,898 15.4% 955 12,415 3,317 1.2% 4,165 6,231 2,066 1.9% 7,473 1,242 0.6% 3,791 20.2% 1,249 8,723 2,492 0.9% 3,344 4,651 1,307 1.2% 8,553 3,902 2.0% 4,817 25.6% 1,587 10,140 5,489 1.9% 936 1,307 371 0.3% 1,170 -137 -0.1% 0 0.0% 0 1,170 -137 0.0% 129,866 181,278 51,412 47.9% 255,895 74,617 38.0% 80,388 100.0% 1,040 256,935 75,657 26.3% 584 563 -21 0.0% 4,208 3,645 1.9% 3,003 3.7% 39 4,247 3,684 1.3% 122 75 -47 0.0% 213 138 0.1% 499 0.6% 6 219 144 0.1% 754 848 94 0.1% 1,003 155 0.1% 46 0.1% 1 1,004 156 0.1% 156 147 -9 0.0% 836 689 0.4% 1,167 1.5% 15 851 704 0.2% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 3,434 4,827 1,393 1.3% 8,745 3,918 2.0% 3,558 4.4% 46 8,791 3,964 1.4% 209 163 -46 0.0% 211 48 0.0% 48 0.1% 1 212 49 0.0% 1,471 1,477 6 0.0% 4,313 2,836 1.4% 2,508 3.1% 32 4,346 2,869 1.0% 1,171 1,358 187 0.2% 3,075 1,717 0.9% 1,836 2.3% 24 3,099 1,741 0.6% 152 133 -19 0.0% 1,367 1,234 0.6% 2,264 2.8% 29 1,396 1,263 0.4% 350 315 -35 0.0% 2,566 2,251 1.1% 1,872 2.3% 24 2,591 2,276 0.8% 16,306 22,797 6,491 6.0% 30,565 7,768 4.0% 9,169 11.4% 118 30,683 7,886 2.7% 1,752 2,097 345 0.3% 3,295 1,198 0.6% 1,344 1.7% 17 3,312 1,215 0.4% 3,477 3,605 128 0.1% 4,466 861 0.4% 702 0.9% 9 4,475 870 0.3% 29,419 41,570 12,151 11.3% 48,414 6,844 3.5% 8,454 10.5% 109 48,523 6,953 2.4% 17,940 24,456 6,516 6.1% 34,052 9,596 4.9% 12,405 15.4% 160 34,212 9,756 3.4% 23,470 36,007 12,537 11.7% 51,900 15,893 8.1% 17,663 22.0% 228 52,128 16,121 5.6% 18 20 2 0.0% 76 56 0.0% 63 0.1% 1 77 57 0.0% 10,334 12,214 1,880 1.8% 14,910 2,696 1.4% 3,880 4.8% 50 14,960 2,746 1.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 170 170 0.1% 119 0.1% 2 172 172 0.1% 221 0 -221 -0.2% 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 1,893 3,314 1,421 1.3% 4,390 1,076 0.5% 1,854 2.3% 24 4,414 1,100 0.4% 3,249 7,097 3,848 3.6% 10,820 3,723 1.9% 3,714 4.6% 48 10,868 3,771 1.3% 2,788 2,695 -93 -0.1% 3,320 625 0.3% 1,238 1.5% 16 3,336 641 0.2% 10,594 15,368 4,774 4.4% 18,080 2,712 1.4% 3,114 3.9% 40 18,120 2,752 1.0% 0 132 132 0.1% 0 -132 -0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0 -132 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 4,900 4,900 2.5% NA NA 0 4,900 4,900 1.7% 112,019 121,014 8,995 8.4% 144,634 23,620 12.0% 68,975 NA 8,598 153,232 32,218 11.2% 606,024 713,335 107,311 100.0% 909,453 196,118 100.0% 268,550 NA 91,580 1,001,033 287,698 100.0% J1 - Includes reasonable measures -based population capacity increases (adopted and proposed) for the Monroe UGA; Reflects the shift of a portion of the Mill Creek unincorporated MUGA to the Bothell unincorporated MUGA (adopted by County Council, July-7-10) J2 - Based on % Distribution of Additional Population Capacity within Regional Geography 81 Packet Page 424 of 431 2035 Preliminary Employment Distributions to Cities, Unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs, Rural/Resource Area Based on 2007 Buildable Lands Report capacity results, adopted 2025 CPP Growth Targets, and PSRC Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy Uses April 1, 2010 Jurisdictional Boundaries Regional Geography: Metropolitan City Everett Core Cities Bothell Lynnwood Larger Cities Arlington Edmonds Lake Stevens Marysville Mill Creek Monroe Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo Small Cities Brier Darrington Gold Bar Granite Falls Index Snohomish Stanwood Sultan Woodway Unincorporated Urban Unincorporated UGAs: Arlington Darrington Gold Bar Granite Falls Index Lake Stevens Marysville Monroe Snohomish Stanwood Sultan Unincorporated MUGAs: Bothell Brier Edmonds Everett Lynnwood Mill Creek Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo W oodway Other Parts of Uninc S WCo UGA: Paine Field Larch Way Overlap Lake Stickney Gap Meadowdale/Norma Beach Gap Silver Firs Gap Unincorporated Maltby UGA TDR Pop Reserve (Unassigned) Rural Total County %of County 2002Total 2007Total 2002-2007 2002-2007 Employ- Employ- Employ- Employ- ment ment ment ment Estimate Estimate Change Change 2025 Employ- ment Target (adjusted to 2010 city bdys) %of County 2007-2025 2007-2025 Employ- Employ- ment ment Change Change Additional Emp Capacity 2007-2025 (adjusted to 2010 city bdys) %Distrof Additional Emp Cap within Reg Geog 2025-2035 Emp Growth by Jurisdiction 2035 Total within Reg Emp GeogJ1 Distributn %of County 2007-2035 2007-2035 Employ- Employ- ment ment Change Change 82,129 89,018 6,889 17.4% 131,176 42,158 42.5% 45,353 100.0% 21,057 152,234 63,216 40.3% 35,170 43,783 8,613 21.8% 54,410 10,627 10.7% 13,990 100.0% 8,009 62,419 18,636 11.9% 11,672 15,241 3,569 9.0% 15,840 599 0.6% 2,844 20.3% 1,628 17,468 2,227 1.4% 23,498 28,542 5,044 12.7% 38,570 10,028 10.1% 11,146 79.7% 6,381 44,951 16,409 10.4% 59,490 69,594 10,104 25.5% 91,019 21,425 21.6% 38,726 100.0% 16,758 107,777 38,183 24.3% 8,787 10,284 1,497 3.8% 15,146 4,862 4.9% 10,957 28.3% 4,741 19,887 9,603 6.1% 10,625 11,770 1,145 2.9% 12,190 420 0.4% 3,092 8.0% 1,338 13,528 1,758 1.1% 3,888 4,910 1,022 2.6% 5,530 620 0.6% 1,145 3.0% 495 6,026 1,116 0.7% 10,651 12,361 1,710 4.3% 23,057 10,696 10.8% 14,800 38.2% 6,404 29,462 17,101 10.9% 3,430 5,088 1,658 4.2% 5,315 227 0.2% 1,377 3.6% 596 5,911 823 0.5% 7,785 9,511 1,726 4.4% 12,270 2,759 2.8% 3,578 9.2% 1,548 13,818 4,307 2.7% 7,666 7,377 -289 -0.7% 8,060 683 0.7% 1,814 4.7% 785 8,845 1,468 0.9% 6,658 8,293 1,635 4.1% 9,450 1,157 1.2% 1,964 5.1% 850 10,300 2,007 1.3% 10,283 11,928 1,645 4.2% 16,618 4,690 4.7% 7,741 100.0% 3,003 19,621 7,693 4.9% 329 354 25 0.1% 430 76 0.1% 5 0.1% 2 432 78 0.0% 364 652 288 0.7% 415 -237 -0.2% 2,009 26.0% 779 1,194 542 0.3% 179 193 14 0.0% 210 17 0.0% 334 4.3% 130 340 147 0.1% 821 943 122 0.3% 2,109 1,166 1.2% 1,298 16.8% 504 2,613 1,670 1.1% 44 26 -18 0.0% 70 44 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 70 44 0.0% 4,626 4,976 350 0.9% 6,398 1,422 1.4% 1,436 18.5% 557 6,955 1,979 1.3% 2,993 3,682 689 1.7% 4,925 1,243 1.3% 1,598 20.6% 620 5,545 1,863 1.2% 875 1,031 156 0.4% 1,971 940 0.9% 1,061 13.7% 412 2,383 1,352 0.9% 52 71 19 0.0% 90 19 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 90 19 0.0% 23,999 29,778 5,779 14.6% 46,961 17,183 100.0% 22,473 100.0% 4,971 51,933 22,155 14.1% 13 30 17 0.0% 214 184 1.1% 376 1.7% 81 295 265 0.2% 0 0 0 0.0% 120 120 0.7% 1,523 6.8% 328 448 448 0.3% 2 1 -1 0.0% 0 -1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0 -1 0.0% 0 1 1 0.0% 91 90 0.5% 31 0.1% 7 98 97 0.1% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 31 122 91 0.2% 1,085 963 5.6% 174 0.8% 37 1,122 1,000 0.6% 604 714 110 0.3% 951 237 1.4% 0 0.0% 0 951 237 0.2% 138 428 290 0.7% 120 -308 -1.8% 0 0.0% 0 120 -308 -0.2% 347 462 115 0.3% 332 -130 -0.8% 269 1.2% 58 390 -72 0.0% 177 121 -56 -0.1% 625 504 2.9% 447 2.0% 96 721 600 0.4% 7 1 -6 0.0% 29 28 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 29 28 0.0% 916 1,558 642 1.6% 1,540 -18 -0.1% 0 0.0% 0 1,540 -18 0.0% 46 72 26 0.1% 134 62 0.4% 49 0.2% 11 145 73 0.0% 201 164 -37 -0.1% 414 250 1.5% 21 0.1% 5 419 255 0.2% 4,663 6,128 1,465 3.7% 6,688 560 3.3% 604 2.7% 130 6,818 690 0.4% 2,467 3,109 642 1.6% 5,380 2,271 13.2% 3,367 15.0% 726 6,106 2,997 1.9% 2,465 3,025 560 1.4% 3,604 579 3.4% 1,604 7.1% 346 3,949 924 0.6% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 2,943 3,278 335 0.8% 5,080 1,802 10.5% 2,369 10.5% 510 5,590 2,312 1.5% 15 17 2 0.0% 620 603 3.5% 0 0.0% 0 620 603 0.4% 3,784 3,666 -118 -0.3% 8,847 5,181 30.2% 5,422 24.1% 1,168 10,015 6,349 4.0% 1,573 1,815 242 0.6% 1,955 140 0.8% 364 1.6% 78 2,033 218 0.1% 637 255 -382 -1.0% 660 405 2.4% 131 0.6% 28 688 433 0.3% 102 137 35 0.1% 90 -47 -0.3% 0 0.0% 0 90 -47 0.0% 473 757 284 0.7% 3,424 2,667 15.5% 2,729 12.1% 588 4,012 3,255 2.1% 2,395 3,917 1,522 3.8% 4,960 1,043 6.1% 3,589 16.0% 773 5,733 1,816 1.2% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8,436 14,979 6,543 16.5% 18,150 3,171 18.5% Not avail Not avail 4,002 22,152 7,173 4.6% 219,507 259,080 39,573 100.0% 358,335 99,255 577.6% Not avail Not avail 57,801 416,136 157,056 100.0% J1 - Based on % Distribution of Additional Employment Capacity within Regional Geography 82 Packet Page 425 of 431 ATTACHMENT 5 U GA/M U GA REFERENCE MAP Packet Page 426 of 431 83 THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO BE BLANK Packet Page 427 of 431 84 R3E 0 1 2 3 Scale in Miles N � r 3 0 St NW Stang 32 St R5E St NE Arlington �l stIN Wr 15 Tula \►p z India-n ReJervaftion a w D NE 84`th�lSt NE C F' AA....e 5.�:11.. 0 1 st and `�7 C JY Mountlz Terrace SR C Marsl o Oth St S a co Maltby (Un► , co Roy 2 8 h St SE DthelI co m Q LA 0 re 481h Stt tevens � � a s r 0 4 Granite ► I d tovtraJ U Hwy I ° 0 � Sultan SE o �3� S� r-4� 0 Darrington Mount Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest i yam, c Please refer to the Snohomish Count General Policy Plan ° ® Future Land Use Map for official UGA boundaries, 4 and the Snoihomish County >-.-_,C,-Ountyw' Planning Policies MUGA Map for the official MUGA boundaries. R � Gold 6 Reference Map for Urban Growth Areas (UGA) Municipal Urban Growth Areas (MUGA) May, 2011 Snohomish County /SV Southwest Urban Growth Area (SWUGA) Boundary Other Urban Growth Area (UGA) Boundary Incorporated City Boundary As of April 1, 2010 Tulalip Indian Reservation Boundary (Boundary Not Intended to Display Reservation Tidelands) Paine Field Area Mukilteo MUGA Everett MUGA Lynnwood MUGA Mill Creek MUGA Mountlake Terrace MUGA Brier MUGA Bothell MUGA Edmonds MUGA _ Woodway MUGA \\\ Gap Area Not Claimed by Any City (1: Lake Stickney Gap 2: Meadowdale Gap 3:Silver Firs Gap) Overlap Area Claimed by Two Cities (Larch Way Overlap) Incorporated City Area National Forest Snohomish County disclaims any warranty of merchantability orwarranty of fitness of this map for any particular purpose, either expressed or implied. No representation or warranty made concerning the accuracy, currency, completeness or quality of data depicted on this map. Any user of this map assumes all responsibility for use thereof, and further agrees to hold Snohomish County harmless from and against any damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map. Snohomish County W:\ping\carto\CPP\sctpac\t1GA_MUGA_"ference_2. mxd Packet Page 428 of 431 DRAFT 2035 RGS Population Distribution using Final Draft 2012 BLR Population Capacity Based on Dec-13-2012 Jurisdictional Boundaries February 11, 2013 Revised PAC DRAFT (Includes final draft 2012 BLR capacity information, as of Jan-17-2013) A B c D E F G H I i K L M N O P Q R s T U Regional Geography: 2011 Total Pop Estimate J1 DRAFT 2012 BLR Total Pop Capacity (2025) DRAFT 2012 BLR Addntl Pop Capacity (2011-2025) % Distributn: Addtnl 2025 Pop Cap by Reg Geog 2035 RGS Total Pop (Medium) Surplus/ Shortfall Addtnl Pop 2035 RGS Capacity Total Pop Increment (Medium) due to 2035 Scenario Redev/PU Other Addtnl Pop Capacity Sources to be studied J2 Updated 2035 Total Pop Capacity (prelim.) DRAFT 2035 Prelim. Addntl Pop Capacity (2011-2035) % Distributn: Addtnl 2035 Pop Cap by Reg Geog ALTERNATE ALTERNATE 2035 RGS 2035 RGS Total Pop Total Pop (Medium) (Medium) Scenario % Difference: Distributn: % of Alt. 2035 RGS 2011-2035 County- minus Orig. 2011-2035 Growth by wide Pop 2035 RGS Growth Reg Geog Growth Annual Annual Average Pop Average Pop Change Change (Numeric), (Percent), 2011-2035 2011-2035 Metropolitan City 129,139 164,812 3,344 143,000 Everett 103,100 26,039 100% 164,812 (35,673) 10,517 143,000 39,900 100% 143,000 (21,812) 39,900 100% 17% 1,663 1.4% Core Cities 52,430 64,655 19,899 44,756 12,225 100% 77,914 (13,259) 77,914 815 23,510 57 54,404 758 8,519 73,989 21,559 100% 73,989 73,989 23,510 50,479 (3,925) 21,559 100% 9% 898 1.4% Bothell (part) 16,570 3,329 27% 3,554 23,510 6,940 32% 6,940 32% 289 1.5% Lynnwood 35,860 8,896 73% 4,965 50,479 14,619 68% 14,619 68% 609 1.4% Larger Cities 222,657 277,724 55,067 17,966 24,042 6,076 39,800 44,865 5,065 28,210 38,241 10,031 60,660 84,620 23,960 18,370 19,883 1,513 17,351 21,332 3,981 100% 278,969 (1,245) 278,969 2,394 24,179 239 44,980 685 38,468 0 85,162 310 19,917 513 21,422 28 23,169 597 21,672 22 724 280,842 58,185 100% 286,293 286,293 24,937 45,550 39,340 87,589 20,196 22,102 24,767 21,812 7,324 63,636 100% 27% 2,652 1.1% Arlington 11% 24,281 6,315 11% 6,971 11% 290 1.4% Edmonds 9% 45,550 5,750 10% 5,750 9% 240 0.6% Lake Stevens 18% 400 38,641 10,431 18% 11,130 17% 464 1.4% Marysville 44% 84,930 24,270 42% 26,929 42% 1,122 1.5% Mill Creek 3% 20,396 2,026 3% 1,826 3% 76 0.4% Monroe 7% 324 21,684 4,333 7% 4,751 7% 198 1.0% Mountlake Terrace 19,990 23,099 3,109 6% 23,696 3,706 6% 4,777 8% 199 0.9% Mukilteo 20,310 21,642 1,332 2% 21,664 1,354 2% 1,502 2% 63 0.3% Small Cities 34,536 49,571 15,035 6,701 6,941 740 1,345 1,729 384 2,060 2,406 346 3,370 7,624 4,254 180 218 38 9,200 12,139 2,939 6,220 9,926 3,706 100% 50,400 (829) 50,400 57 6,982 31 1,750 15 2,425 0 7,859 0 220 0 12,301 0 10,130 0 7,343 11 1,389 0 0 49,628 15,092 100% 50,400 50,400 7,011 1,764 2,424 7,842 220 12,289 10,116 7,345 1,389 15,864 100% 7% 661 1.6% Brier 5% 6,972 771 5% 810 5% 34 0.5% Darrington 3% 1,744 399 3% 419 3% 17 1.1% Gold Bar 2% 2,406 346 2% 364 2% 15 0.7% Granite Falls Index Snohomish 28% 7,624 4,254 28% 4,472 28% 186 3.6% 0% 218 38 0% 40 0% 2 0.8% 20% 12,139 2,939 19% 3,089 19% 129 1.2% Stanwood 25% 9,926 3,706 25% 3,896 25% 162 2.0% Sultan 4,655 7,203 2,548 1,305 1,385 80 17% 7,214 2,559 17% 2,690 17% 112 1.9% Woodway 1% 1,385 80 1% 84 1% 4 0.3% Unincorporated Urban 182,990 270,874 87,884 21,871 11,800 1,425 902 100% 235,737 35,137 235,737 8,011 17,153 1,065 0 397 0 895 0 675 0 - 0 7,040 492 209 0 2,652 59 2,204 0 969 0 1,048 0 187,678 29,607 1,361 2,315 0 4,024 4 47,156 3,299 34,180 2,328 47,744 71 30 0 14,641 397 2,972 0 5,007 30,906 - 9,786 3,437 17,683 365 279,250 96,260 12,716 902 100% 7% 256,485 256,485 17,518 1,065 397 895 675 - 7,040 209 3,017 2,204 969 1,048 208,060 32,922 2,461 4,211 50,387 39,130 52,971 34 15,853 4,334 5,757 30,906 - 9,786 3,437 17,683 20,748 73,494 31% 3,062 1.4% Unincorporated UGAs: 7,447 100% 310 2.3% 1% 1,425 Arlington523 541 7% 23 3.0% Darrington 75 611 536 1% 611 536 4% 322 4% 13 7.2% Gold Bar 849 927 78 147 1,027 880 - - - 5,008 8,393 3,385 209 209 - 1,455 3,450 1,995 1,359 2,768 1,409 133 1,526 1,393 314 1,536 1,222 EF147,666 214,332 66,666 23,190 33,883 10,693 1,998 2,527 529 3,620 4,294 674 0% 927 78 1% 47 1% 2 0.2% Granite Falls 1% 1,027 880 7% 528 7% 22 6.6% Index 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% NA Lake Stevens 4% 8,885 3,877 30% 2,032 27% 85 1.4% Marysville 0% 209 0 0% 0 0% 0.0% Monroe 2% 365 3,874 2,419 19% 1,562 21% 65 3.1% Snohomish 2% 2,768 1,409 11% 846 11% 35 2.0% Stanwood 2% 1,526 1,393 11% 836 11% 35 8.6% Sultan 1% 12% 1,536 1,222 74,126 12,054 10% 100% 16% 733 10% 31 5.1% Unincorporated MUGAs: 60,395 100% 2,516 1.4% EMW 35,244 Bothell 9,732 16% 406 1.5% Brier 1% 2,527 529 1% 463 1% 19 0.9% Edmonds 1% 4,298 678 1% 591 1% 25 0.6% Everett 42,084 50,535 8,451 10% 53,834 11,750 16% 8,303 14% 346 0.8% Lynnwood 24,772 40,447 15,675 18% 42,775 18,003 24% 14,358 24% 598 1.9% Mill Creek 36,377 55,316 18,939 22% 55,387 19,010 26% 16,594 27% 691 1.6% Mountlake Terrace 20 36 16 12,235 16,245 4,010 - 4,952 4,952 3,370 6,097 2,727 25,253 34,671 - - - 7,161 11,5351 4,374 2,695 3,932 1,237 15,398 19,205 3,807 0% 36 16 0% 14 0% 1 2.2% Mukilteo 5% 16,642 4,407 6% 3,619 6% 151 1.1% Woodway 6% 4,952 4,952 7% 4,334 7% 181 NA Larch Way Overlap 3% 6,097 21727 r 9,418 0 4% 100% 01% 2,387 4% 99 2.3% Other Parts of Uninc SWCo UGA: 5,653 100% 236 0.8% 0% 0 Paine Field 0 0% - NA Lake Stickney Gap 5% 11,535 4,374 46% 2,625 46% 109 1.3% Meadowdale/Norma Beach Gap 1% 3,932 1,237 13% 742 13% 31 1.0% Silver Firs Gap 4% 19,205 3,807 40% 2,285 40% 95 0.6% Total Urban 595,713 791,963 196,250 807,832 (15,869) 807,832 810,166 810,166 2,334 214,453 90% 8,936 1.3% Non-UGA 121,287 147,449 147,449 145,115 145,115 (2,334) 23,828 10% 993 0.8% Total County 717,000 955,281 955,281 955,281 955,281 238,281 100% 9,928 1.2% RGS = Regional Growth Strategy; BLR = Buildable Lands Report JI - 2011 OFM population estimates are adjusted to include population annexed from Apr-2-2011 to Dec-13-2012 for Arlington (36), Monroe (21), and Brier (101). J2 - Estimates of potential additional capacity to 2035 to be studied in preparation for 2015local plan updates. Packet Page 429 of 431 Packet Page DRAFT 2035 RGS Employment Distribution using Final Draft 2012 BLR Employment Capacity Based on Dec-13-2012 Jurisdictional Boundaries February 11, 2013 Revised PAC DRAFT (Includes final draft 2012 BLR capacity information, as of Jan-17-2013) A B c D E F G H I J K L M N 0 Regional Geography: 2011 Total Emp Estimate DRAFT 2012 BLR Total Emp Capacity (2025) DRAFT 2012 BLR Addntl Emp Capacity (2011-2025) % Distributn: Addtnl Emp Cap by Reg Geog 2035 RGS Total Emp (Medium) Surplus/ Shortfall 2035 RGS Total Emp (Medium) Scenario ALTERNATE ALTERNATE 2035 RGS Total 2035 RGS Total Emp (Medium) Emp (Medium) Scenario % Distributn: Difference: Alt. 2011-2035 % of County- 2035 RGS minus 2011-2035 Growth by Reg wide Emp Orig. 2035 RGS Growth Geog Growth 2011 Jobs/Pop Metropolitan City 141,900 (3,528) 145,428 140,000 Everett 93,739 48,161 100% 145,428 140,000 (5,428) 46,261 100% 31% 0.91 Core Cities 37,882 63,301 13,616 1W6 24,266 44,185 25,419 100% 59,335 3,966 59,335 18,258 41,077 60,805 60,805 18,576 42,229 1,470 22,923 1009% 16% 0.72 Bothell (part) 5,500 22% 4,960 22% 0.82 Lynnwood 19,919 78% 17,963 78% 0.68 Larger Cities 63,330 118,517 55,187 24,274 15,615 14,590 2,911 7,412 3,480 31,879 20,215 6,787 2,162 12,530 4,868 10,263 3,523 10,782 2,413 100% 103,151 15,366 103,151 19,926 13,779 6,443 26,250 6,185 11,175 9,282 10,110 107,109 107,109 20,829 13,948 7,412 27,419 6,310 11,456 9,486 10,250 3,958 43,779 100% 30% 0.28 Arlington 8,659 28% 12,170 28% 0.48 Edmonds 11,679 5% 2,269 5516 0.29 Lake Stevens 3,932 6% 3,480 8% 0.14 Marysville 11,664 37% 15,755 36% 0.19 Mill Creek 4,625 4% 1,685 4% 0.25 Monroe 7,662 9% 3,794 9% 0.44 Mountlake Terrace 6,740 6% 2,746 6% 0.34 Mukilteo 8,369 4% 1,881 4% 0.41 Small Cities 10,405 20,371 9,966 423 104 2,508 2,010 754 536 2,591 1,832 26 6 6,682 2,267 4,986 1,728 2,330 1,468 100% 18,651 1,720 18,651 405 2,161 661 2,275 25 6,291 4,688 2,077 68 17,290 17,290 405 800 661 2,275 25 6,291 4,688 2,077 68 (1,361) 6,885 100% 5% 0.30 Brier 319 1% 86 1% 0.05 Darrington 498 20% 302 4% 0.37 Gold Bar 218 5% 443 6% 0.11 Granite Falls 759 18% 1,516 22% 0.23 Index 20 0% 5 0% 0.11 Snohomish 4,415 23% 1,876 27% 0.48 Stanwood 3,258 17% 1,430 21% 0.52 Sultan 862 15% 1,215 18% 0.19 Woodway 56 NIL 71 15 0% 12 0% 0.04 Unincorporated Urban 28,941 57,010 28,069 100% 47,746 9,264 47,746 47,746 47,746 18,805 100% 13% 0.16 Unincorporated UGAs: 1 81 80 2 1,560 1,558 5 5 - 1 1 - - 71 576 505 55 1,046 5 1 - 409 55 86 5 1 - 409 Arlington 0% 54 0% 0.00 Darrington 6% 84 0% 0.03 Gold Bar 0% 0% 0.01 Granite Falls 0916 0% 0.01 Index 0916 - 0% NA Lake Stevens 2% 338 2% 0.01 Maltby 3,190 Marysville 652 Monroe 117 Snohomish 456 Stanwood 198 Sultan 4 Unincorporated MUGAs: Bothell 1,380 Brier 69 Edmonds 156 Everett 5,250 Lynnwood 3,506 Mill Creek 2,747 Mountlake Terrace 7,942 4,752 17% 6,374 6,374 3,184 17% NA 714 62 0% 694 694 42 0% 3.12 428 311 1% 325 325 208 1% 0.08 745 289 1% 650 650 194 1% 0.34 1,448 1,250 4% 1,035 1,035 837 4% 1.49 4 - 0% 4 4 - 0% 0.01 1,851 471 2% 1,696 1,696 316 2% 0.06 72 3 0% 71 71 2 0% 0.03 222 66 0% 200 200 44 0% 0.04 9,839 4,589 16% 8,324 8,324 3,074 16% 0.12 7,052 3,546 13% 5,882 5,882 2,376 13% 0.14 4,571 1,824 6% 3,969 3,969 1,222 6% 0.08 - - 0% - - - 0% Mukilteo 2,797 6,128 3,331 12% 5,029 5,029 2,232 12% 0.23 Woodway 14 259 245 1% 178 178 164 1% NA Other Parts of Uninc SWCo UGA: Paine Field 4,622 Larch Way Overlap 1,630 Lake Stickney Gap 694 Meadowdale/Norma Beach Gap 68 8,246 3,624 13% 7,050 8,010 3,388 18% NA 2,258 628 2% 2,051 2,051 421 2% 0.48 694 - 0516 694 694 - 0% 0.10 137 69 0% 114 114 46 0% 0.03 Silver Firs Gap 1,311 2,177 866 3% 1,891 1,891 580 3% 0.09 Total Urban 234,297 401,099 166,802 Non-UGA /1 14,693 Total County 248,990 RGS = Regional Growth Strategy; BLR = Buildable Lands Report Employment includes all full- and part-time wage and salary workers and self-employed persc J1 - go'ected employment on the Tulalip Reservation is anticipated to reach 13,890 by 2030 4 0 26,788 374,311 372,950 372,950 (1,361) 138,653 94% 0.39 21,962 23,323 11361 8,630 6% 0.12 396,273 396,273 147,283 100% 0.35 ing jobs within the resource (agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining) and construction sectors. to the Tulalip Tribes' 2009 adopted plan, representing a 7,003 increase over the 2008 jobs estimate of 6,887. P Q R s Annual Ratio of 2011- Annual Average Average Emp 2035 Job Emp Change Change 2035 Chng to Pop (Numeric), 2011- (Percent), 2011 bs/Poo Chne 2035 2035 0.98 1.16 1,928 1.7% 0.82 1.06 0.79 0.71 207 1.3 % 0.84 1.23 748 2.3 % 0.37 0.69 0.84 1.75 507 3.7% 0.31 0.39 95 0.7% 0.19 0.31 145 2.7% 0.31 0.59 656 3.6% 0.31 0.92 70 1.3% 0.52 0.80 158 1.7% 0.38 0.57 114 1.4% 0.47 1.25 78 0.8% 0.34 0.43 0.06 0.11 4 1.0% 0.45 0.72 13 2.0% 0.27 1.22 18 4.7% 0.29 0.34 63 4.7% 0.11 0.12 0 0.9% 0.51 0.61 78 1.5% 0.46 0.37 60 1.5% 0.28 0.45 51 3.7% 0.05 0.14 1 0.8% 0.19 0.26 0.05 0.10 2 18.1% 0.22 0.26 3 17.0% 0.01 - 0.0% 0.00 0.0yo NA NA - NA 0.06 0.17 14 7.6% NA NA 133 2.9% 3.32 NA 2 0.3% 0.11 0.13 9 4.4% 0.29 0.23 8 1.5% 1.07 1.00 35 7.1% 0.00 - 0.0% 0.05 0.03 13 0.9% 0.03 0.00 0 0.1% 0.05 0.07 2 1.0% 0.17 0.37 128 1.9% 0.15 0.17 99 2.2% 0.07 0.07 51 1.5% - - NA 0.32 0.62 93 IS% 0.04 0.04 7 11.2% NA NA 141 2.3% 0.36 0.18 18 1.0% 0.07 - - 0.0% 0.03 0.06 2 2.2% 0.11 0.25 24 1.5% 0.46 0.65 5,777 2.0% 0.16 0.36 360 1.9% 0.41 0.62 6,137 2.0% AM-5536 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 03/05/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Council President Petso Submitted By: Department: City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subiect Title Discussion and potential action regarding live airing of City Council Meetings. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative 10. Jana Spellman The current system in the Council Chambers has the ability to broadcast Council meetings live (real time broadcast) which means instead of Edmonds' citizens being able to view the Council meeting the day after it occurs, they will actually be able to view it at the time the meeting is occurring. At present, the Council meeting is recorded on a hard drive, transferred to a DVD, and then broadcast the day after the meeting on the government channels 21 and 39. If the Council approves live broadcasting, the Council meetings will be broadcast live the evening of the meeting and then rebroadcast as follows: Rebroadcast daily at noon and 7 p.m. on Channels 21 and 39. This agenda item has been brought forth for discussion to ascertain if the Council is willing to change to live broadcasts from prerecorded broadcasts. The system is presently being tested to eliminate any problems that are unexpected. With Council approval for live broadcasting, live broadcasting will commence when staff is confident that the system is working properly. Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 02/28/2013 Form Review Date 02/27/2013 01:31 PM 02/27/2013 02:01 PM 02/28/2013 09:18 AM Started On: 02/26/2013 09:51 AM Packet Page 431 of 431