Industrial Lands Report Pierce County 2 - 09

Industrial Land Use, Availability and the Jobs-Based Economy
A Study of Industrial Land in Pierce County, WA
Pierce County
Economic Development Division
February, 2009
Introduction
Land-use and economic development policy in Pierce County is based on the idea of
encouraging enough job creation to keep pace with population growth – on encouraging a “jobs-
based economy.” And the focus is on development of basic industries; that is, the creation of
jobs in industries which pay above average wages and which bring new money into the area. But
maintaining that level of job creation requires there be sufficient land available to support those
jobs.
Several factors led the Economic Development Division to undertake a study of the industrial-
land supply in Pierce County. After historically slow absorption of industrial land throughout
the county, development of industrial sites picked-up markedly in the last five years. At the
same time, the staff of the Economic Development Board began finding they could not respond
to some inquiries from prospective industrial users because they could not find any suitable
properties to show. The intersection of those two trends calls into question our ability meet the
job-creation goals necessary to truly develop a “jobs-based economy.” This study examines the
amount of land available for industrial development throughout Pierce County, and some of the
implications those findings may have for job creation. It starts with a more in-depth discussion
of why jobs in basic industries are important, and what those industries are. Next, it discusses
what industrial land is, why it’s important, how much we have, and some of the factors that make
land well suited to industrial development. Finally, it goes on to combine the employment and
land information to draw some conclusions about our ability to continue creating jobs in primary
industries.
Not All Jobs Are Created Equal
An economy is like a swimming pool in some respects. A swimming pool holds a lot of water
and constantly re-circulates most of it. Sometimes water leaks out of the system and new water
needs to be added. Likewise, economies hold a lot of money and most of it is constantly being
re-circulated. Some of it leaks out to other areas, but new money is constantly being added. The
big difference between a swimming pool and an economy is that you can’t overfill an economy.
In fact, the central concern of economic development efforts is to see that more new money
comes into the economy than leaks out, thereby gradually increasing the overall wealth in a
community.
Some businesses operate like the pumps and plumbing in the swimming pool. They play a vital
role in keeping the money moving around the system, but they can’t add new money to the
system when some of it leaks out. Other businesses, sometimes called “basic industries,” act
more like a garden hose refilling the pool. They add new money to the system, replacing the
money that has leaked out and, over time, increasing the total amount of money in the system.
That’s why economic development efforts tend to focus on basic industries. All businesses are
important to an economy, but basic industry businesses are the ones that contribute most to
overall wealth creation. The loss of basic industries in a community is equivalent to slowly
draining the water from the swimming pool.
Page 1
Economic development efforts are generally focused on increasing wealth in a community, and
they pursue job-creation strategies to reach that end. For most people, wealth comes from
having sufficient income to meet today’s needs, and
Figure 1 still having enough left to invest for the future.
Personal income comes from many sources, but
Components of Personal Income income from wages and salaries contributes the
Pierce County, 2006 majority of money available to households. As
shown in Figure 1, in Pierce County in 2006, about
74 percent of total personal income came from
employment earnings, while the rest came from
investments such as rental property and stock
Earnings
dividends, and transfer payments such as retirement
74% and social programs. But job creation in and of itself
Investments is not sufficient to increase incomes in a community.
12%
The amount of income generated in a community
depends on the mix of occupations in which people
Transfer are employed, and the mix of industries which
Payments
14% employ them.
In addition, some industries produce goods and

services which are exported outside the region where
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Local Area Personal Income
they are produced, and in turn, bring money into the

region that otherwise would not be there. In contrast, other industries tend to circulate money
that is already in the region, until it eventually “leaks” out
to other areas to purchase goods and services not produced “Export” or “Basic” Industries
locally. Examples of firms that add value locally, then sell
their goods or services to other areas, thereby
bringing new money into the local economy
Firms which bring in “new” money are part of “export” include:
industries – not because they necessarily ship anything
Boeing Davita
overseas, but because they sell their wares outside of the Toray Composites Medallion Foods
economic region where they operate. The mix of export Russell Investments Interstate Distributors
industries within an economic region constitutes that
region’s economic base – they form the base or the “Service” or “Non-basic” Industries
foundation for all other economic activity. Both types of Examples of firms that provide goods and services
industries are important. Export, or “basic,” industries to the local market and circulate money through
the local economy include:
combine capital and labor to create value, and provide
growth in the regional economy by exporting that value Safeway Stores McDonalds Restaurants
Tapco Credit Union Guitar Center
outside the region and injecting new money back in. 24-Hour Fitness Walt’s Auto Repair
Service, or “non-basic” industries which circulate money
that is already in the region tend to provide goods and services to meet our daily needs and add
quality to our standard of living.1
1
Definitions of “export” and “service” industries are drawn from Economic Base Theory. For a detailed discussion
of this theory, see Malizia, Emil and Edward Feser. Understanding Local Economic Development. Center for
Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey: 1999.
Page 2
Just as some industries add more to a region’s economy by bringing new money into the region,
employees in some occupations are better compensated than employees in other occupations, and
are therefore better able to build wealth. All other things being equal, employees who earn more
have more disposable income to spend in the community, and thereby support the businesses in
non-basic industries, and they have greater capacity to make investments which grow the
economy. As a result, the goal of most economic development programs is to increase
employment in basic industries to bring more money into a region, and especially those
industries which employ more highly-paid occupations so there is more money available to
circulate through and invest in the economy. To carry our analogy further, if we want to enjoy
our swimming pool, we have to keep it full.
Basic Industries
Basic industries in Pierce County are generally related to military, port, health care and
manufacturing activities.2 The military is important because its output is nearly 100% export –
the services provided by the bases in Pierce County are paid for and consumed by the entire
country.3 New military-related money coming into the county covers wages and salaries,
military construction and contracts for goods and services. Studies conducted for Washington’s
Office of Financial Management have shown that military facilities in Pierce County provide
20% of all wage and salary disbursements and provide 14% of employment in the County.4
Records from the U.S. Department of Defense show that prime contracts for military
procurements from firms in Pierce County totaled over ¾ billion dollars in 2006.5 Military
contributions to the Pierce County economy dwarf the contribution of any other basic industry
here.
While the health care industry certainly serves the local population, it also serves the greater
southern Puget Sound region. Clients come to hospitals, out-patient facilities and specialists in
Pierce County because those services may not be available in the surrounding rural counties. In
addition, when health care services are paid for through retirement plans, Medicare or Medicaid
it generates mostly new money coming into the community. As a result, for many years Health
Services has been the second largest export-industry employer, with nearly half of all export
employers providing health care services and counseling.6
Port services are used by customers from all over the globe. While millions of tons of goods
move through the Port of Tacoma each year, only about 2% of that volume is imported or
exported by companies located in Pierce County. Hence, the value added by Port services is
almost entirely exported out of the region and traded for new money which then enters the local
economy.
2
Mann, Bruce and Ben Frerichs. An Economic Base Study for Pierce County, Washington, 1992. Pierce County
Department of Community Services, Tacoma, Washington: 1996.
3
According to IRS Tax Statistics, Pierce County accounts for less than 0.3% of all income taxes paid nationwide.
4
Sommers, Paul. Economic Impacts of the Military Bases in Washington. Washington State Office of Financial
Management, Olympia, WA: 2004.
5
Wallace, Dave and Paul Turek. The Military’s Role in the Washington State Economy. Washington State
Employment Security Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch, Olympia, WA: 2007.
6
Mann and Frerichs: 1996.
Page 3
Finally, manufacturing is a vital component of Pierce County’s economic base. From musical
instruments to huge parts for airplanes, from fine candies to industrial baking equipment, a very
wide range of products are produced here. Most of what is
produced in Pierce County is shipped to customers in other Classifying Industries and Occupations
parts of the country, or outside the U.S. to locations around
For purposes of statistical consistency, the U.S.
the world. Office of Management and Budget determines
the procedures federal statistical agencies will
use when collecting and publishing data.
Occupational information uses the Standard
Occupation and Industry Value in Pierce County Occupational Classification (SOC) methods
which groups similar occupations such as
lawyers or machinists into broad categories.
Every industry employs some people in nearly every Industry information follows the North
American Industrial Classification System
occupation. It takes skilled and unskilled workers to keep (NAICS) which groups related industries such
restaurants operating, to build aircraft, to deliver health as Utilities or Social and Health Services into
broad categories. Most studies examining
services and to make and deliver all the goods and services industries or occupations use these classification
produced in Pierce County. Within any given industry systems because the most readily available data
follows their conventions.
wages can vary widely depending on the occupation, and
within a given occupation, wages vary between industries.
On way to look at the relative value of different occupations and different industries is to
compare actual wages. If all jobs were compensated equally, one would expect the percentage of
wages to be equal to the percentage of employment. For example, if an industry occupation
represented 5 percent of total employment, one would expect it to also account for 5 percent of
total wages. So, if the wage percentage was divided by employment percentage, the result would
have a value of 1 (0.05 / 0.05 = 1). Since industry occupations are not compensated evenly,
relatively lower paying industry occupations would have a value of less than one, and higher
paying industry occupations would have values greater than 1. Table 1 makes that comparison
by dividing the percentage of wages in broad categories of industry occupations by the
percentage of employment in industry occupations and displaying those industry occupations
which are at least 15 percent higher than the expected value of 1.
Occupations related to engineering, finance, computers, science, healthcare practice, legal,

installation and maintenance, management and sales score higher across industries than other
occupations, indicating they have higher than average wages. The manufacturing and utilities
industries have the most occupations with higher than expected scores and have the highest
average scores across all occupations. In other words, manufacturing and utilities create jobs in
a wide variety of occupations, from production to engineering to sales to maintenance and repair,
and those jobs tend to pay more than similar jobs in other industries. Manufacturing is especially
notable because as an industry it represents over 8 percent of total employment in Pierce County,
compared to Utilities which represents less than 0.5 percent. Data used to derive Table 1
including the values and percentages for industry and occupation employment and average
wages are presented in Appendix A.
The hallmarks of what makes for a “good job” go beyond just wages. The benefits which are
part of the overall compensation package are also important, as is the stability of the job. Table 2
shows the benefits associated with groups of occupations, and Table 3 shows the amount of
employee turnover in various industries. Professional and management occupations tend to offer
Page 4
the best packages of benefits, followed by occupations in production, installation, maintenance
and repair. Industries with the lowest amount of turnover, suggesting greater job stability,
include utilities, government, educational services and mining.
Page 5
Table 1
Estimated Occupation and Industry Wages Relative to Employment
15% or More Above Expected Value*
Pierce County - 2007
Occupations
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations

Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations
Total occupations 15% or more above expected values

Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations
Food preparation and serving related occupations
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations
Transportation and material moving occupations
Average indsutry score across all occupations

Business and financial operations occupations
Office and administrative support occupations

Life, physical, and social science occupations
Community and social services occupations
Education, training, and library occupations
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations

Architecture and engineering occupations
Computer and mathematical occupations
Construction and extraction occupations
Personal care and service occupations

Healthcare support occupations
Protective service occupations
Sales and related occupations

Management occupations
Production occupations
Legal occupations
NAICS Code Industries
11-21 Natural Resources and Mining 0 0.90
22 Utilities 2.02 1.67 1.93 1.83 1.70 1.24 2.18 1.81 2.25 1.95 3.29 1.18 1.87 1.42 1.61 1.33 16 1.78
23 Construction 1.46 1 1.17
31-33 Manufacturing 2.17 1.42 1.93 1.39 2.22 1.50 1.84 1.27 2.06 1.59 2.63 1.96 3.64 1.19 1.19 1.96 16 1.63
42 Wholesale Trade 1.79 1.62 1.75 1.23 1.26 1.70 1.22 2.21 1.82 3.24 1.68 11 1.33
44-45 Retail Trade 0 0.97
22, 48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 1.75 1.54 1.54 1.37 1.24 1.19 1.38 2.02 1.65 1.31 1.15 1.45 12 1.35
51 Information 1.74 1.19 1.67 1.67 1.42 1.82 1.52 2.12 1.86 3.22 1.31 11 1.34
52-53 Financial Activities 1.82 1.46 2.40 1.30 2.45 1.63 2.30 1.87 2.30 3.69 1.20 1.87 12 1.40
54-56 Professional and Business Services 1.65 1.61 3.20 3 1.06
61-62 Education and Health Services 1.81 1 0.93
71-72 Leisure and Hospitality 0 0.69
81 Other Services 0 0.73
92 Government 1.63 1.33 1.69 1.21 1.22 1.29 6 1.18
Total industries 15% or more above expected values 7 4 0 7 2 7 5 4 4 0 7 0 6 6 6 6 2 1 4 3 7 1
Average occupation score across all industries 1.62 1.06 0.67 1.50 0.98 1.51 1.13 1.05 0.92 0.57 1.62 0.75 1.11 1.67 1.55 2.57 0.84 0.58 0.93 0.82 1.19 0.75
* Industries and occupations w here the percentage of w ages is equal to the percentage of employment have a value of 1; higher-w age industry occupations have a value greater than the expected value of 1. "In other w ords, manufacturing and utilities create jobs in a w ide variety of occupations, from production to engineering to sales to maintenance and repair, and those jobs tend to pay
more than similar jobs in other industries."
Source: Pierce County Economic Development Division analysis of data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages and Occupational Employment Survey; Bureau of Economic Analysis, Local Area Income Estimates
Page 6
Table 2
Non-Wage Benefits By Occupation
Nationwide - 2008
Percent w ith
Employer-paid Average monthly employee access to
percentage of health- contribution for health-care employer-
Percentage w ith health-care plan available care benefits benefits participating Percent w ith paid leave
Medical Dental Vision Prescriptions Single Family Single Family retirement Holidays Vacations Personal
All w orkers 71 47 28 68 81 71 $ 87.69 $ 330.99 61 77 78 37
Occupations
Management, business, and financial 94 69 37 90 82 72 $ 82.79 $ 316.15 82 96 96 54
Professional and related 82 58 37 79 82 72 $ 87.54 $ 339.50 73 86 84 55
Service 46 29 20 45 77 66 $ 96.00 $ 350.84 37 52 61 26
Sales and related 63 42 22 60 77 67 $ 94.37 $ 347.95 60 72 72 34
Office and administrative support 77 51 28 73 81 68 $ 87.13 $ 354.13 68 88 86 42
Construction, extraction, farming, fishing, and forestry 71 37 26 66 87 74 $ 89.62 $ 339.22 58 62 63 18
Installation, maintenance, and repair 83 52 37 79 80 71 $ 92.53 $ 322.26 67 93 91 35
Production 82 54 32 79 83 77 $ 81.03 $ 278.45 68 92 90 32
Transportation and material moving 73 44 28 70 82 72 $ 80.80 $ 300.50 63 78 76 31
Source: Bureau of Labor St atist ics, 2008 National Compensat ion Survey
Table 3
Employment Turnover By Industry
Pierce County
Third-quarter Turnover
Industry
2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2007 Average Std. Dev.
11 Agriculture,Forestry,Fishing and Hunting 17.5% 19.1% 17.7% 18.70% 17.20% 17.80% 17.90% 0.75%
21 Mining,Quarrying,and Oil and Gas Extraction 6.0% 9.7% 8.9% 6.60% 7.10% 6.80% 6.83% 0.25%
22 Utilities 2.8% 3.1% 4.0% 3.10% 4.40% 4.00% 3.83% 0.67%
23 Construction 15.9% 14.4% 15.7% 15.40% 14.80% 15.20% 15.13% 0.31%
31-33 Manufacturing 8.0% 6.8% 8.4% 8.30% 8.40% 8.40% 8.37% 0.06%
42 Wholesale Trade 11.9% 7.5% 8.8% 8.70% 8.90% 8.80% 8.80% 0.10%
44-45 Retail Trade 12.0% 10.9% 12.7% 12.00% 12.60% 12.50% 12.37% 0.32%
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 8.8% 7.5% 9.6% 9.50% 8.60% 8.30% 8.80% 0.62%
51 Information 6.6% 18.8% 6.5% 7.10% 9.00% 8.50% 8.20% 0.98%
52 Finance and Insurance 7.0% 7.3% 8.9% 10.10% 8.80% 8.90% 9.27% 0.72%
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 14.6% 13.0% 13.3% 13.50% 13.40% 13.60% 13.50% 0.10%
54 Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services 12.7% 8.1% 10.1% 10.10% 10.70% 10.70% 10.50% 0.35%
55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 6.2% 6.2% 8.1% 7.60% 8.30% 7.80% 7.90% 0.36%
56 Administrative, Support, Waste Management & Remediation 17.1% 16.6% 17.8% 18.10% 18.00% 19.20% 18.43% 0.67%
61 Educational Services 5.8% 5.8% 5.9% 6.10% 6.20% 6.30% 6.20% 0.10%
62 Health Care and Social Assistance 8.6% 8.0% 8.2% 8.60% 8.90% 9.10% 8.87% 0.25%
71 Arts,Entertainment,and Recreation 15.9% 14.4% 14.5% 13.90% 13.30% 14.80% 14.00% 0.75%
72 Accommodation and Food Services 20.7% 19.0% 20.6% 20.60% 21.90% 21.10% 21.20% 0.66%
81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 15.6% 11.8% 13.2% 12.10% 13.30% 11.80% 12.40% 0.79%
92 Public Administration 3.7% 3.7% 4.1% 4.00% 4.80% 4.00% 4.27% 0.46%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Local Employment Dynamics, Quart erly Workforce Indicat ors
Page 7
Why Industrial Land in Pierce County is Important
Some regions are more energetic than others when regulating land use. Due to our
rapidly growing population and perceptions that previous land-development patterns
were not conducive to the provision of cost-effective public services, Washington
adopted aggressive land-use policies. In the early 1990’s Washington State began
implementing land-use regulation to curb “urban-sprawl” development, and
operationalized it through the State’s Growth Management Act. Because export
industries are so important to the health of our economy, it is critical that land-use
authorities planning under Growth Management allow sufficient room for those
industries to grow as the labor force grows. Areas of the country with less dense
population and without stringent land-use regulation do not have the same constraints as
communities in Washington and as a result they have more flexibility in terms of siting
industrial uses.
From a land-use perspective, the military is for the most part self contained. However, it
is important that actions taken by local jurisdictions do not impede the military’s ability
to perform their appointed mission. Aside from being good neighbors, the County has no
role in planning for military land uses. The County and cities and towns do have a role in
preventing incompatible land uses around the bases, and in ensuring the goods and
services needed by the military and military personnel are available in the surrounding
communities.
Health care is a very diverse industry, with establishments ranging in size from one-
person offices to regional hospitals. Much of this industry has a wide array of options for
where new businesses are able to locate. In general, any commercial zone will
accommodate some level of use for health-care services.
Most port-related activities are situated in and around the Port of Tacoma industrial area,
sufficiently proximate to the rail lines and marine terminals for the efficient movement of
goods. Because of the need for port-related businesses to be proximate to the Port of
Tacoma, most port-related land-use issues are within the jurisdiction of the Cities of
Tacoma, Fife, Milton, Puyallup and Sumner.
Like the health-care industry, manufacturing occurs in a wide range of settings, from
small shops to very large production facilities. However, unlike health care which can
locate in many different land-use zones, manufacturing is essentially limited to locating
in zones specifically dedicated to industrial use. The basis for these regulations is that
placing industrial uses next to some other uses, such as residential areas, creates
“across the fence” problems – some land uses make poor neighbors. Industrial
activities can be loud and create traffic conditions which are difficult live or recreate
around. Many examples can be found where an industrial use, such as a lumber mill, had
no immediate neighbors when it was originally built, but as the county has grown
residential development has encroached on the facility and made it difficult or impossible
to continue operations. In order to retain and grow the industrial employment from
such facilities it is imperative that there are industrial zones with sufficient capacity
Page 8
for those businesses to relocate, as well as places for businesses new to the
community.
Aside from regulatory restrictions on where industrial uses can be placed, there are
physical considerations which limit the options for locating production facility. Precision
manufacturing often requires very exacting specifications in terms of the sub-strata on
which a facility can be located. Machines which are extremely heavy or which produce
extreme downward force, such as punch-presses, can not be operated on ground subject
to subsiding, and machines which operate at tolerances in the range of 1/10,000 of an
inch are sensitive to seismic disturbance. Considering the breadth of occupations and the
quality of employment offered in the manufacturing sector, it is important to ensure there
is sufficient land of appropriate quality available to support the continued expansion of
this industry sector.
Buildable Lands
The implementation of the Growth Management Act by its very nature places constraints
on the types and locations of development that can occur. Every five years the County
produces a “Buildable Lands Report” which compares population and employment
projections to current land supply and historic development patterns. This report
provides an assessment of communities’ ability to accommodate projected economic and
population growth. In the most recent report, released in 2007, the analysis found the
estimated employment capacity to be in excess of projected needs – that is, there is more
land zoned for job creation than will be needed by the year 2020. However, there are
important reasons why that report may underestimate the real land needs relative
to future economic development.
It is important to note that the Buildable Lands Report considers employment for all
sectors, not just industrial uses. It starts with a projection for total employment growth
provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council and the State of Washington, and makes
no distinction between industries or occupations. In contrast to the Buildable Lands
Report, this report considers only industrial land, and takes as its starting point the
proposition that job creation in the County’s basic industries is vital to continued
economic growth and broad-based wealth creation.
There are methodological factors which may lead the Buildable Lands Report to
underestimate the amount of land needed to accommodate future job growth. First, as
noted in the report, the analysis does not include construction employment. The rationale
for excluding those jobs from the analysis assumes that most workers in the construction
trades are located at building sites, so there is no land associated with those jobs. To a
large degree that is likely a safe assumption. However, larger construction firms do
require a central location for storing equipment and materials, and such contractor’s yards
are for the most part only allowed in industrial zones, hence they will decrease the
amount of industrial land available for other sectors such as manufacturing.
Page 9
Perhaps the most important category of employment not reflected in the Buildable Lands
Report capacity analysis involves “non-employer firms.” Thses are companies that have
no employees other than the owner(s), and constitute a significant portion of businesses
nationwide and in Pierce County. Table 4 shows the number and receipts of non-
employer firms in Pierce County in 2006 by broad industry category. Many of these
firms are small and home-based, so it would be inappropriate to include those in the
capacity analysis. The Small Business Administration (SBA) estimates that about 50
percent of all businesses with fewer than 500 employees are home-based.7 However,
there are important segments of non-employer businesses which could impact overall
land needs for employment growth, and therefore introduce error into the Buildable
Lands analysis. The same SBA study, which surveyed over 16 million small businesses
nationwide, found that about 40 percent of non-employer firms are not home based. If
that percentage holds for Pierce County, about 15,600 non-employer firms are operating
in non-residential settings. Table 5 presents examples of non-employer firms which are
unlikely to be home-based. The Buildable Lands analysis does not take these firms into
account, nor does it contemplate the land needs associated with the growth in this portion
of the economy. It is likely that if growth of non-employer firms were incorporated into
the analysis, the outcome would be a finding that there is insufficient land zoned for job
creation overall.
A review of zoning regulations within the cities and towns in Pierce County reveals that
many commercial uses are allowed in the few zones that also allow industrial uses. As
demand for commercial land outpaces the available supply, it is likely that
industrial land will increasingly be absorbed for commercial but non-industrial
purposes. As mentioned above, Service industries are vital for maintaining a healthy
economy, but Basic industries are the key to long-term broad-based wealth creation for
the entire Pierce County region – they are the garden hose that keep our swimming pool
full.
Table 4
Non-employer firms by industry
Pierce County, 2006
Average
NAICS Reciepts per
Code NAICS Description Firms Reciepts Firm
0 Total for all sectors 38,995 $ 1,783,202,000 $ 45,729
11 Forestry, fishing & hunting, and agricultural support services (NAICS 113-115) 456 $ 26,390,000 $ 57,873
21 Mining 4 $ 415,000 $ 103,750
22 Utilities 40 $ 3,130,000 $ 78,250
23 Construction 3767 $ 275,033,000 $ 73,011
31-33 Manufacturing 707 $ 29,460,000 $ 41,669
42 Wholesale trade 794 $ 56,904,000 $ 71,668
44-45 Retail trade 4674 $ 163,672,000 $ 35,018
48-49 Transportation and warehousing 1534 $ 121,029,000 $ 78,898
51 Information 493 $ 11,263,000 $ 22,846
52 Finance and insurance 1472 $ 64,485,000 $ 43,808
53 Real estate and rental and leasing 6068 $ 508,939,000 $ 83,873
54 Professional, scientific, and technical services 5072 $ 169,837,000 $ 33,485
56 Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services 2557 $ 55,321,000 $ 21,635
61 Educational services 927 $ 12,686,000 $ 13,685
62 Health care and social assistance 3053 $ 110,786,000 $ 36,288
71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1788 $ 32,039,000 $ 17,919
72 Accommodation and food services 414 $ 14,045,000 $ 33,925
81 Other services (except public administration) 5175 $ 127,768,000 $ 24,689
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, EPCD, Nonemployer Statistics
7
Small Business Administration. The Small Business Economy for Data Year 2006. United State Printing
Office: 2007.
Page 10
Table 5
Selected non-employer firms unlikely to be home-based
Pierce County, 2006
Average
NAICS Reciepts per
Code NAICS Description Firms Reciepts Firm
3231 Printing and related support activities 69 $ 2,524,000 $ 36,580
333 Machinery manufacturing 31 $ 1,783,000 $ 57,516
44112 Used car dealers 116 $ 17,514,000 $ 150,983
4451 Grocery stores 90 $ 13,165,000 $ 146,278
4452 Specialty food stores 66 $ 3,154,000 $ 47,788
45393 Manufactured (mobile) home dealers 5 $ 389,000 $ 77,800
53121 Offices of real estate agents and brokers 2,478 $ 117,778,000 $ 47,529
5321 Automotive equipment rental and leasing 30 $ 1,763,000 $ 58,767
6211 Offices of physicians 284 $ 27,965,000 $ 98,468
6212 Offices of dentists 46 $ 3,444,000 $ 74,870
62131 Offices of chiropractors 63 $ 3,462,000 $ 54,952
62132 Offices of optometrists 19 $ 712,000 $ 37,474
62133 Offices of mental health practitioners (except physicians) 195 $ 9,644,000 $ 49,456
62134 Offices of physical, occupational and speech therapists, and audiologists 88 $ 4,154,000 $ 47,205
621391 Offices of podiatrists 3 $ 173,000 $ 57,667
621399 Offices of all other miscellaneous health practitioners 426 $ 13,373,000 $ 31,392
6214 Outpatient care centers 31 $ 12,206,000 $ 393,742
6215 Medical and diagnostic laboratories 28 $ 1,627,000 $ 58,107
7221 Full-service restaurants 51 $ 2,399,000 $ 47,039
7222 Limited-service eating places 92 $ 3,525,000 $ 38,315
7224 Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) 12 $ 901,000 $ 75,083
Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment (except automotive and
8113 electronic) repair and maintenance 108 $ 5,085,000 $ 47,083
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, EPCD, Nonemployer Statistics
Defining “Industrial Land”
For the purpose of this study, zoning is considered “industrial” if it allows manufacturing
and assembly. There is little consistency between jurisdictions as far as what other uses
are allowed in an industrial zone, or how zoning maps are drawn, so not all industrial
zones are equivalent. Even within Pierce County’s development regulations there are
differences between community plan areas as far as what is allowed in industrial zones.
This inconsistency introduces error into attempts to inventory industrial land because
activities that are allowed in one industrial zone may not be allowed in another. For
example, some jurisdictions allow a wide range of commercial uses that are not typically
considered industrial in nature. Some jurisdictions have an industrial zone in their zoning
code, but have not implemented that code by designating any land to that zone. Some
jurisdictions only allow existing industrial uses, not new uses. Some jurisdictions allow
zoning to split parcels, so one parcel may have two or more zoning designations. And
some jurisdictions have developed zoning designations for areas within their Urban
Growth Area, but outside their corporate limits, which do not always agree with extant
Pierce County zoning, and would further reduce the industrial land supply if those areas
were annexed prior to development
Page 11
As a first step in analyzing how much industrial land there is in all of Pierce County,
zoning codes for each jurisdiction were reviewed and the zones presented in Table 6 were
selected as “industrial,” based on the ability to perform at least light manufacturing in the
zone.
Table 6
Zoning Districts Considered "Industrial" For Analysis
Jurisdiction Zone Description
Bonney Lake M1; C3 Manufacturing; Heavy
Commercial, Warehousing and
Light Manufacturing
Buckley LI Light Industrial
DuPont BTP; MRP; IND Business Tech Park;

Manufacturing and Research;
Industrial
Edgewood BP; I Business Park; Industrial
Fife BP; I Business Park; Industrial
Fircrest CC Community Commercial

Gig Harbor C1; ED; PCD-BP; MUD General Commercial;
Employment District; Planned
Community Development-
Business Park; Mixed Use
District Overlay
Lakewood IBP; I1; I2 Industrial Business Park;

Industrial 1; Industrial 2
Milton M1 Light Manufacturing
Orting LM Light Manufacturing

Pacific LI Light Industry
Pierce County EC; CE Employment Center; Community
Employment
Puyallup MP; ML Business Park; Limited

Manufacturing
South Prairie I Industrial
Steilacoom I Industrial
Sumner M1; M2; Light Manufacturing; Heavy

Manufacturing
Tacoma M1; M2; PMI Light Industrial; Heavy Industrial;

Port Maritime and Industrial
Unversity Place LI-BP Light Industrial - Business Park
Industrial Land Supply in Pierce County
Just as there are great differences between occupations and industries, there are great
differences between parcels of land zoned for industrial uses. Large tracts of land close
to major transportation corridors that are served by utilities and free of environmental
features such as wetlands are in high demand. Small, isolated parcels, far from
transportation and other infrastructure, or those with major environmental features are
slow to develop because they are unsuitable for many uses, costly to build on and
transportation to and from them increases operating costs. Large parcels offer economic
efficiencies in both construction and operation of facilities. Small parcels can be
combined, but only if there is a sufficient amount of land available in the right
configuration. Even then there is added complexity when dealing with multiple land
owners. Land for industrial development can only be acquired from “willing sellers” so
one land owner who’s property is required for an assemblage of parcels but is reluctant to
sell can make an entire project unfeasible. The presence of environmental features such
wetlands or steep slopes does not necessarily preclude industrial development, but it does
Page 12
add to the cost and the time it takes to get a building constructed, and they generally
reduce the amount of land area available to build upon. As new regulations are adopted,
such as those addressing storm-water runoff and retention, the amount of land required
for development of individual projects tends to increase in order to comply with those
regulations, which effectively reduces the amount of land available for job creation.
In all of Pierce County, including unincorporated areas, cities and towns, there is a total
of about 16,000 acres of land zoned for industrial uses (using the zoning designations
identified in Table 4). Less than 1/3 of these are in unincorporated Pierce County.
Distributions of industrial land are shown in Table 7 and mapped in Figure 2. Nearly half
of Pierce County’s industrial land is already fully developed and unlikely to have
capacity for adding substantial numbers of jobs. Of the remainder, nearly half has
substantial known environmental constraints such as wetlands, steep slopes, flood hazard,
or critical habitat areas. For all areas in the County, there are a total of about 4,700 acres
zoned for industrial development which are currently undeveloped or underdeveloped
and do not have substantial known environmental constraints. Those 4,700 acres are split
between approximately 2,300 parcels, for an average parcel size of 2.1 acres. The largest
area within a single parcel without known environmental constraints is about 190 acres,
although that parcel will soon be divided into several smaller parcels (discussed in more
detail below). Fewer than 10 parcels have over 50 unconstrained acres, and over 1,500
have less than 1 acre. In unincorporated Pierce County there are just over 2,000 acres of
developable industrial land, with an average parcel size of 2.3 acres.
Table 7
Acres of land zoned for industrial uses
Pierce County, February, 2007
Remaining Developable Industrial Land*
Area Without Identified Environmental
Constraints
Acres In
Acres Identified Average
Total Already Total Number of Environmental Total Unconstrained Largest
Jurisdiction Acres Developed Acres Parcels Constraints Acres Parcel Acres Parcel
Buckley 46 20 26 5 20 6 1.2 3
Dupont 893 228 664 55 92 573 10.4 190
Edgew ood 64 26 38 15 16 22 1.5 5
Fife 1,558 715 843 182 334 509 2.8 65
Fircrest 17 7 10 2 0 10 4.9 9
Gig Harbor 194 48 147 26 114 32 1.2 17
Lakew ood 566 316 250 148 47 203 1.4 23
Milton 115 54 61 46 39 22 0.5 3
Orting 1 1 1 1 0 0.0 -
Pacific 180 80 100 60 34 66 1.1 3
Pierce County 5,152 1,509 3,642 873 1,632 2,010 2.3 60
Puyallup 652 343 309 82 86 223 2.7 33
Steilacoom 74 74 5 50 24 4.9 20
Sumner 1,867 860 1,007 208 878 129 0.6 12
Tacoma 4,788 3,571 1,217 592 308 909 1.5 60
University Place 59 42 16 14 8 8 0.6 2
Grand Total 16,227 7,820 8,407 2,314 3,659 4,747 2.1 190
* Includes vacant and underdeveloped.
Source: Pierce County Economic Development Division analysis of Assessor parcel data
Page 13
As discussed above, a number of factors combine to make land more or less desirable for
industrial development. For major development, larger parcels are better than smaller
parcels, with parcels 5 acres and over being the best suited for development. Where
parcels are smaller, or a large area is needed, land can be assembled, but only if there is
sufficient adjacent developable land. Hence, parcels which are clustered together are
better candidates than isolated parcels, and the more parcels in the cluster the better.
Land with significant environmental constraints is harder to develop than land without,
and so tends to be less sought-after and much slower to develop, or may not be able to
support industrial development at all.
Using the criteria of parcel size, current state of development, proximity to other
developable parcels, and presence of environmental constraints, each parcel of land
zoned for industrial uses throughout the County was given an index score related to its
development potential. Other factors could also be included such as proximity to
infrastructure such as roads and sewers, but were not included in this model due to the
complexity it would introduce (see Appendix B for the methodology used in creating the
development potential index). The scores range from 0 to 100, with the parcel having the
greatest development potential using these criteria having a score of 100. As shown in
Table 6 and mapped in Figure 3, over 11,000 acres have an index score of 0. Low scores
are generally due to being already developed, being small or isolated parcels, or having
significant environmental constraints. Just over 700 acres received the highest scores,
with nearly 40 percent of that total in DuPont. About 3,900 acres fall in the middle
ranges between 0 and 40.
Table 8
Acres of land zoned for industrial uses
Pierce County, February, 2007
Development Potential Index Score
0.00 0.01 - 2.5 2.51 - 10 10.01 - 40 40.01 - 100
Buckley 46
Dupont 228 20 39 310 296
Edgewood 37 27
Fife 977 152 174 115 140
Fircrest 17
Gig Harbor 94 43 39 18
Lakewood 483 76 7
Milton 93 22
Orting 1
Pacific 175 5
Pierce County 3,029 860 662 449 151
Puyallup 416 51 32 106 47
Steilacoom 74
Sumner 1,561 203 54 49
Tacoma 4,270 281 91 46 101
University Place 57 2
Grand Total 11,558 1,744 1,098 1,093 735
Source: Pierce County Economic Development Division analysis of Assessor parcel data
Page 14
A number of cases exist which add variability to the findings presented here. Two areas
are not included in these estimates which, if included, would add some industrial land
capacity. First, the Town of Eatonville is in the process of annexing and planning for
light-industrial development on land that was recently included in the town’s Urban
Growth Area. The area was not included in this analysis because it was not zoned for
industrial use when the analysis was conducted, and because plans for the area are not
final, so the actual amount of developable industrial land is uncertain. Inclusion of the
Eatonville land would likely add between 60 and 100 acres to the amount of developable
industrial land and those parcels would likely have a high development potential index
score.
Second, land within the proposed Cascadia development was not included. Cascadia is a
large master-planned community south of Bonney Lake and north-east of Orting.
Development of the community has begun, but some of the planning is still somewhat
conceptual so it is not possible to know precisely how much land will be available for
industrial development. Similar to the industrial land in Eatonville, the Cascadia lands
were not zoned for industrial use when this analysis was conducted. Current plans
indicate there may be about 400 acres available for industrial use, and so would add a
considerable amount to the inventory of lands with high development potential index
scores.
Conversely to land in Eatonville and Cascadia which was not included and might
therefore lead to underestimation of available land, some lands were included that may
lead to an overestimation of available land. In general, these lands are not considered to
be “on the market,” meaning the land owners have not shown an interest in selling the
properties for development. The Boeing Company owns several parcels which together
account for about 270 acres. There are no known plans for future development or sale of
these parcels, yet they are zoned for industrial use and were therefore included in the
analysis. Similarly, many prime developable parcels are owned by the Burlington
Northern and Union Pacific railroads and together account for over 300 acres. It is
unclear if or when these parcels will be developed, and if so, what uses they might host.
Also complicating the analysis of the available industrial land base is the planned
expansion of SR-167. When built, the highway will consume a considerable amount of
high-quality industrial land. Expansion of the highway is critical to the future of the Port
of Tacoma and continued growth of the Pierce County economy. However, the likely
alignment of the new highway section will consume nearly 500 acres of industrially-
zoned land. Some of that land is very desirable because it is vacant or underdeveloped
with few environmental constraints. Some of it currently has industrial development on it
which will be displaced when the highway is built. While no construction date has been
set, Washington State is actively purchasing right-of-way, including some large parcels
of industrially-zoned land which now are presumably unavailable for industrial
development.
Land zoned for industrial use in the area around the Port of Tacoma, north of Interstate 5,
is considered fully developed in this analysis. While there are some parcels which
Page 15
currently have no buildings on them, many of those “vacant” parcels serve as storage for
industrial goods and supplies used by firms in the area. Also, some parcels may be good
candidates for redevelopment, but for the most part they are already home to employers.
Redevelopment of those parcels will mean the displacement of currently existing firms.
Finally, First Park at Northwest Landing in DuPont deserves mention. In general,

DuPont offers some of the best opportunities for industrial development in Pierce
County, and First Park represents a significant portion of that inventory. When this
analysis was performed, the entire site was one single parcel of about 250 acres and one
of the largest industrial parcels available in the County. However, the shape of the parcel
is a “doughnut” which has a premier golf course in its center, and as such is not a good fit
for a single user wishing to develop a large facility as might be assumed when just
considering parcel size alone. Developers of the site are currently pursuing division of
the parcel into multiple smaller parcels, and it still represents one of the best
opportunities for industrial development in the County. The land can still accommodate
relatively large facilities – just not as large as an uninformed glance at the data might
suggest.
Page 16
Figure 2
Page 17
Figure 3
Development
Potential
Index
Scores
Page 18
Land Needs for Industrial Development
Understanding the quantity and quality of land available is critical information. Taking
that information one step further can be instructive. Applying knowledge of the amount
of available land to what we know about how land is used and how the economy is
structured allows us to understand how land might be used most efficiently. In other
words, it helps us examine the question, “how many jobs can be supported by the land we
have left?” If all the developable land were used for one industry, and the number of jobs
created per acre was consistent with past development in Pierce, the number of jobs
created would be somewhere around the values presented in Table 7. Clearly, some
industries are more conducive to generating substantial job growth than others.
Table 7
Expected Job Creation
Expected
Jobs per Developable Jobs
Acre Acres Created
Manufacturing 18.74 4,747 88,959
Industrial Park 18.58 4,747 88,199
Wholesale Trade 15.37 4,747 72,961
Transportation 11.34 4,747 53,831
Warehousing 5.27 4,747 25,017
Big-Box Warehousing 2.96 4,747 14,051
Source: Pierce County Economic Development Division analysis of 2007 Assessor and Employment Security data
However, it is extremely unlikely that all the developable land would be put to use for
only one industry. Also, within and between industries there will likely be a range of
employment densities. Recognizing that future development will occur among a range of
activities suggests taking a more complex look at future possibilities. There are several
ways to approach those possibilities, and each one requires making assumptions about
industry mix and employment density. Industry mix refers to the amount of employment
in each industry relative to other industries. Various ways to think about the future
industry mix in Pierce County are presented in Table 8. Employment density refers to
how many people are employed in a given area (such as the number of employees per
acre). A variety of density assumptions are presented in Table 9.
Page 19
Table 8
Industry Mix Assumptions
Assumption Explanation
IM-1 Assume trend for industry share Over the 5-year period of 2002 through 2007, total covered
of total employment growth in the employment in Pierce County grew by about 35,000 jobs. Of that
last 5 years will continue growth, a certain percent was in each of the NAICS industry
classifications. Under this assumption, each industry’s share of
the growth in last 5 years will be their share of growth in the
future. It also uses the Buildable Lands employment projection to
find the total amount of land needed to support employment growth.
IM-2 Assume industry compound Over the past decade, each industry grew at a certain rate. Under
annual growth rate will continue this assumption, the growth rate of each industry over the past
several years will continue to be their growth rate in the future.
It also uses the Buildable Lands employment projection to find the
total amount of land needed to support employment growth.
IM-3 Assume industry share of total In 2007, total covered employment in Pierce County was split
employment will stay constant between each of the NAICS industry classifications, with some
over time industries having a larger share of total employment than others.
Under this assumption, each industry’s share of total 2007
employment is held constant into the future. It also uses the
Buildable Lands employment projection to find the total amount of
land needed to support employment growth.
IM-4 Assume historic trend of market Every year a certain amount of land is developed for industrial uses.
absorption will continue, Under this assumption, recent trends for industrial development
regardless of employment are held constant to determine the amount of land needed,
forecasts regardless of employment projections. It then uses employment
density assumptions to estimate the number of jobs that could be
created at the given rate of absorption.
Table 9
Employment Density Assumptions
ED-1 Assume industry-specific job Nearly 800 companies in Pierce County in the Manufacturing,
density from Pierce County Wholesale Trade and Transportation and Warehousing industries
study were reviewed for size of facility and number of employees. Under
this assumption, the average job density from that review is
applied to the projected industry employment to find the amount
of land needed for future industrial employment.
ED-2 Assume job-density values The 2007 Pierce County Buildable Lands Study, a planning
from Builable Lands document accepted by Growth Management Act authorities, used
employment density values derived through a deliberative process
using local knowledge from regional planners and a limited number
of observations. These density values are less industry specific than
the values used in assumption ED-1. Under this assumption, the
Buildable Lands job density is applied to the projected industry
employment to find the amount of land needed for future
industrial employment.
Page 20
Employment Density Assumptions
ED-3 Assume job-density values A number of other studies have attempted to find average job
from other studies densities for different industries. Under this assumption, job
density findings from other studies are applied to the projected
industry employment to find the amount of land needed for
future industrial employment.
ED-4 Assume job density from most Under this assumption, density values are used from the Pierce
recent 5 years of Pierce County study described in ED-1, but only from facilities built in
County study the past 5 years.
Each assumption has strengths and weaknesses. Our economy is very dynamic.
Assuming the coming years will look like past years, or assuming constant rates of
change does not account for that dynamism. Manufacturing has traditionally been a very
strong component of Pierce County’s economy. However, in recent years it has grown
more slowly than other industry sectors, so its share of total employment has been
shrinking. Since this has been a nationwide trend for some time, it may not be reasonable
to assume vibrant or steady growth in manufacturing here. On the other hand, a recent
Deloitte Research manufacturing study found that “Far from abandoning North America,
executives see the region as the key to managing and developing their global capabilities.
In fact, we see signs that more sophisticated supply-chain strategies are emerging that are
not being driven simply by low-cost labor but focused more on the overall contribution to
growth and profitability of the enterprise.”8 In an increasingly competitive global
environment, U.S. manufacturing is becoming more productive and manufacturing
enterprises view locating portions of their operations here as key to their global strategies.
As such, it is reasonable to assume that manufacturing employment will continue to
grow, at least to some extent.
Assumptions about job density are also difficult to validate. Several studies have
attempted to find average densities for various industries and land uses. Some of this
information has been compiled and adopted by transportation engineers using historical
surveys nationwide, going back many years, and is used to gauge traffic impacts of new
developments.9 Other studies have used various methods to collect employment density
data specific to the Pacific Northwest.10 All studies exhibit great variation both within
and between industries, making it difficult to attribute precise density values to industries.
A similar effort was undertaken for this study. Using establishment employment data
8
Giffi, Craig and Peter Koudal. Made in North America. Deloitte Research, New York: 2008.
9
Buttke, Carl H., et. Al. Trip Generation, 5th Ed. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C.:
1991.
10
Pflum, Kapena. Employment Density in the Puget Sound Region (Degree Project). University of
Washington, Seattle, WA: 2004; Snohomish County 2007 Buildable Lands Project. 2007 Buildable Lands
Report Employment Density Study. Snohomish County Planning and Development Services, Everett, WA:
2007; Yee, Dennis and Jennifer Bradford. Technical Report: 1999 Employment Density Study. Portland
Metro Growth Management Services Department, Portland, OR: 1999; Pierce County Buildable Lands
Program. Appendix E, Employment Density Survey. Pierce County Department of Planning and Land
Services, Tacoma, WA: 2006.
Page 21
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
program, and parcel and building data from Pierce County’s Assessor/Treasurer, actual
building size, lot size and employment were recorded for over 800 locations. Appendix
C presents scatter plots of employment by lot size for industrial uses in Pierce County.
As with other studies, there was extreme variation for some industries, especially
Transportation and Warehousing.
None of the studies attempt to show differences by age of development. In Pierce County
this distinction is relevant because several facilities developed within the last 5 years
have very large buildings with relatively few employees. For example, if all
Warehousing uses are combined, regardless of year built, they host an average of just
over 5 employees per acre. However, for facilities built within the last 5 years, that
number drops below 3. This trend is true across all industrial land uses, due in part to
changes in technology and increases in productivity, but is glaringly evident for
warehousing.
Regardless of which assumptions are used to forecast employment needs and job growth,
one thing is certain. If the amount of land is held constant, then the greater the
density of high-wage jobs, the greater the growth in income from wages. With a
fixed amount of land designated for industrial use, the lower the job density on that
land, the sooner we will deplete the supply and less likely we will be to meet our job-
creation goals. Tables 10 through 13 show how different assumptions about industry
mix and employment density interact to suggest land needs for industrial development in
the future.
Page 22
Table 10 - Assumes industry-specific job density from Pierce County study
ED-1 Industrial Employment Density (jobs/acre)
Manufacturing 18.74
Wholesale Trade 15.37
Transportation and Warehousing 11.12
2022 Employment Grow th 121,583
IM-1 IM-2 IM-3 IM-4

Industry
Industry Industry
Industry % of Acres needed Compund Acres needed Industry Acres needed
grow th based Grow th
NAICS *Industry 5-year to support Annual to support '07 industry % grow th based to support
on share of 5- based on
Change grow th Grow th Rate grow th on '07 ind. % grow th
year change CAGR
(CAGR)
31-33 Manufacturing 1.03% 1,248 67 0.37% 1,057 56 7.22% 8,783 469 Sq. Ft. of industrial space absorbed per year 3,000,000
42 Wholesale Trade 6.35% 7,720 502 4.63% 10,263 668 4.02% 4,896 319 Acres needed per year at 31% lot coverage 222
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 8.00% 9,735 875 4.24% 8,498 764 3.75% 4,565 411 Total acres needed by 2022 3,110
Total 15.38% 18,703 1,444 19,817 1,488 15.00% 18,244 1,198 Number of jobs supported at average density 52,128
Table 11 - Assumes job-density values from Builable Lands Report

ED-2 Industrial Employment Density (jobs/acre) 11.15
IM-1 IM-2 IM-3 IM-4

Industry
Industry Industry
year change CAGR
(CAGR)
42 Wholesale Trade 6.35% 7,720 692 4.63% 10,263 920 4.02% 4,896 439 Acres neede per year at 31% lot coverage 222
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 8.00% 9,735 873 4.24% 8,498 762 3.75% 4,565 409 Total acres needed by 2022 3,110
Table 12 - Assumes job-density values from other studies

Manufacturing 21.51
IM-1 IM-2 IM-3 IM-4

Industry
Industry Industry
year change CAGR
(CAGR)
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 8.00% 9,735 1,038 4.24% 8,498 906 3.75% 4,565 487 Total acres needed by 2022 3,110
Page 23
Table 13 - Assumes job density from most recent 5 years of Pierce County study
Manufacturing 11.66
IM-1 IM-2 IM-3 IM-4

Industry
Industry Industry
year change CAGR
(CAGR)
31-33 Manufacturing Sq. Ft. of industrial space absorbed per year

1.03% 1,248 107 0.37% 1,057 91 7.22% 8,783 753 3,000,000
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 8.00% 9,735 1,664 4.24% 8,498 1,453 3.75% 4,565 780 Total acres needed by 2022 3,110
Number of jobs supported at average density

Total 15.38% 18,703 2,485 19,817 2,493 15.00% 18,244 1,987 28,024
Page 24
Conclusion
Just as maintaining the water in our swimming pool is important to keeping it a healthy
environment, maintaining the flow of money is important to keeping our economy
healthy. By increasing the amount of basic industry activity we can increase the total
amount of wealth in our community. But doing so requires sufficient land of sufficient
quality to support that increased activity.
There are more than just economic benefits which come from encouraging creation of
primary-industry jobs. Creating stable, well-paying jobs here reduces the need for
workers to commute to other areas. Reducing commuting benefits communities by
decreasing the amount of roads that need to be built and maintained; it decreases the
amount of greenhouse gasses produced; it decreases the costs associated with just getting
to work; and it increases the amount of time that can be spent on more enjoyable
activities, and so increases the quality of life as workers have more time to spend with
family in leisurely pursuits.
Looking at the total amount of land zoned for industrial use, and comparing it to
reasonable expectations about job growth, the raw data suggests we have just about
enough land for the next 10 to 15 years.11 But much of the land is in small parcels and
much of it is faced with significant environmental constraints, which leads to the view of
many people that “all the easy-to-develop land is gone.” And just because land is
developable, doesn’t mean it is available for sale. While our supply of developable land
is increasingly held in smaller and smaller parcels, industrial users are looking for larger
and larger parcels, making it increasingly difficult to keep and create primary-industry
jobs here. How we use the remaining land will determine the extent to which we are able
to create a “jobs-based economy.” Our ability to have existing primary businesses
expand here, and have new ones locate here, will determine the character of our economy
for years to come.
11
Unpublished analysis by commercial real estate appraisers have estimated the supply will last for only
about 5.5 years.
Page 25
APPENDICIES
Page 26
Appendix A
Industry and Occupation Employment and Wage Tables
Table 14
Estimated Employment By Industry By Occupation



O ffice and administrative support occupations




Legal occupations
Total
NAICS Code NAICS Industry Description
11-21 Natural Resources and Mining 49.4 0.7 13.8 48.9 N/A 9.6 860.7 0.2 308.9 0.9 8.0 N/A 155.6 3.5 36.9 48.5 185.9 14.1 112.4 0.9 25.8 433.2 2,318
22 Utilities 91.7 2.7 6.5 65.4 N/A 19.7 105.2 N/A 0.4 N/A 4.0 N/A 375.0 2.9 16.4 36.8 265.7 N/A 134.6 11.5 24.1 36.1 1,199
23 Construction 154.6 9.5 102.0 394.9 0.4 N/A 17,080.0 N/A 1.4 5.5 5.8 0.5 1,476.3 3.2 6.4 431.5 1,725.4 N/A 186.4 12.8 332.6 834.3 22,764
31-33 Manufacturing 1,577.6 110.8 193.8 782.4 0.5 334.6 869.8 3.4 39.5 99.8 49.9 2.5 1,811.1 11.6 273.6 801.0 3,123.1 3.2 12,646.3 46.6 938.8 3,839.2 27,559
42 Wholesale Trade 127.2 68.4 57.7 422.5 N/A 206.8 71.8 1.9 57.9 14.9 49.4 3.2 1,017.0 4.9 54.5 384.2 3,298.5 3.6 547.8 12.7 3,532.4 3,756.1 13,693
44-45 Retail Trade 9.4 150.9 284.9 293.7 1.7 74.1 195.6 15.0 23.0 1,356.5 1,224.2 127.3 2,111.6 3.1 9.4 410.2 6,133.3 219.8 745.3 180.0 18,978.0 3,619.1 36,166
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 47.3 4.9 77.5 185.0 0.4 29.9 91.7 3.0 2.8 24.0 11.9 0.4 777.6 3.7 5.3 173.7 3,586.8 375.6 116.0 43.5 204.7 8,335.1 14,101
51 Information 128.1 589.1 26.2 292.7 1.0 505.1 16.2 38.9 N/A 126.3 3.9 N/A 778.5 13.8 52.8 236.6 1,607.6 145.4 133.1 12.9 897.1 204.4 5,809
52-53 Financial Activities 15.7 39.9 386.4 2,592.7 22.3 398.5 97.8 5.1 1.4 67.6 112.7 16.1 887.0 133.6 61.6 772.4 7,966.3 61.8 26.2 113.9 2,872.4 450.4 17,102
54-56 Professional and Business Services 2,053.9 516.4 3,854.6 2,759.6 146.4 1,714.4 1,299.1 150.2 28.3 368.0 1,060.3 440.5 854.1 1,379.0 746.9 1,269.0 9,958.1 280.8 1,617.4 1,745.3 2,169.1 3,386.1 37,797
61-62 Education and Health Services 52.7 296.8 2,161.2 794.6 5,050.1 328.5 197.8 19,816.7 4.5 2,726.7 15,788.3 7,739.2 717.8 18.5 449.5 1,247.7 9,254.1 3,184.3 225.3 428.3 200.6 1,195.1 71,878
71-72 Leisure and Hospitality 4.0 256.6 1,740.0 137.6 3.3 9.8 46.4 77.3 5.5 25,990.2 32.0 31.6 436.1 1.3 9.8 407.4 1,399.2 1,715.2 146.8 344.7 1,093.5 765.9 34,655
81 Other Services 13.5 103.0 236.0 365.2 410.1 33.1 48.4 189.7 1.2 289.4 27.5 72.2 1,742.5 17.7 22.4 207.1 1,398.9 1,792.4 559.9 111.0 525.2 1,062.5 9,229
92 Government 557.5 73.9 541.7 1,758.8 2,034.4 276.9 1,548.9 545.5 31.1 295.0 1,175.0 343.0 1,000.9 509.1 501.7 597.4 4,026.5 698.0 284.9 4,488.9 147.0 1,258.9 22,695
Total 4,882 2,224 9,682 10,894 7,671 3,941 22,529 20,847 506 31,365 19,553 8,776 14,141 2,106 2,247 7,024 53,929 8,494 17,482 7,553 31,941 29,176 316,965
N/A - Insufficient data available to estimate
Page 27
Table 15
Estimated Average Annual Wages Per Job By Industry By Occupation



O ffice and administrative support occupations



Average annual industry wages


Legal occupations
11-21 Natural Resources and Mining $ 61,348 $ 24,527 $ 13,538 $ 46,626 N/A $ 44,768 $ 33,715 $ 32,897 $ 13,634 $ 20,852 $ 48,870 N/A $ 33,426 $ 49,751 $ 54,157 $ 76,450 $ 22,095 $ 10,574 $ 32,293 $ 11,152 $ 43,187 $ 22,834 $ 29,800
22 Utilities $ 78,293 $ 64,551 $ 40,494 $ 74,621 N/A $ 70,942 $ 65,931 N/A $ 48,081 N/A $ 84,320 N/A $ 70,311 $ 87,008 $ 75,362 $ 127,456 $ 45,767 N/A $ 72,540 $ 54,824 $ 62,283 $ 51,496 $ 65,729
23 Construction $ 58,873 $ 41,957 $ 27,488 $ 56,568 $ 36,487 N/A $ 44,126 N/A $ 38,528 $ 23,115 $ 59,168 $ 24,582 $ 43,553 $ 62,648 $ 55,866 $ 97,376 $ 31,737 N/A $ 38,784 $ 30,705 $ 56,565 $ 34,982 $ 43,813
31-33 Manufacturing $ 84,053 $ 54,910 $ 35,369 $ 74,636 $ 53,662 $ 86,117 $ 58,264 $ 71,357 $ 49,104 $ 29,742 $ 79,697 $ 44,429 $ 61,627 $ 102,078 $ 76,016 $ 141,215 $ 44,222 $ 35,247 $ 45,999 $ 45,935 $ 76,089 $ 38,115 $ 54,235
42 Wholesale Trade $ 69,483 $ 43,226 $ 28,197 $ 62,835 N/A $ 67,657 $ 47,677 $ 48,882 $ 35,581 $ 24,283 $ 65,730 $ 33,215 $ 47,331 $ 85,674 $ 70,453 $ 125,599 $ 34,228 $ 25,862 $ 36,392 $ 34,697 $ 65,029 $ 32,238 $ 47,236
44-45 Retail Trade $ 58,410 $ 26,056 $ 23,679 $ 49,705 $ 36,856 $ 47,129 $ 40,103 $ 31,450 $ 32,641 $ 23,771 $ 61,117 $ 23,381 $ 39,668 $ 36,157 $ 54,570 $ 90,354 $ 24,911 $ 19,189 $ 30,389 $ 29,884 $ 24,916 $ 23,507 $ 28,080
22, 48-49 Transportation & Warehousing $ 67,811 $ 43,423 $ 42,034 $ 59,643 $ 43,024 $ 59,758 $ 53,081 $ 47,917 $ 45,983 $ 32,328 $ 58,007 $ 31,662 $ 53,297 $ 78,206 $ 63,866 $ 96,313 $ 40,853 $ 50,906 $ 44,642 $ 40,618 $ 56,283 $ 43,344 $ 44,207
51 Information $ 67,235 $ 46,286 $ 27,029 $ 64,848 $ 37,764 $ 64,639 $ 54,987 $ 37,798 N/A $ 19,943 $ 70,545 N/A $ 58,947 $ 82,110 $ 72,026 $ 124,695 $ 36,059 $ 18,719 $ 39,973 $ 35,951 $ 50,765 $ 29,440 $ 50,695
52-53 Financial Activities $ 70,538 $ 56,422 $ 19,414 $ 92,941 $ 50,268 $ 95,056 $ 32,392 $ 63,056 $ 29,174 $ 17,149 $ 88,997 $ 29,205 $ 24,901 $ 72,425 $ 89,178 $ 142,909 $ 46,479 $ 17,031 $ 31,947 $ 32,385 $ 72,356 $ 18,575 $ 60,853
54-56 Professional and Business Services $ 59,082 $ 44,159 $ 17,300 $ 63,954 $ 40,037 $ 62,277 $ 29,527 $ 35,663 $ 29,183 $ 19,098 $ 50,822 $ 21,799 $ 37,336 $ 59,591 $ 58,310 $ 123,845 $ 29,111 $ 17,421 $ 21,403 $ 18,383 $ 42,022 $ 19,100 $ 37,740
61-62 Education and Health Services $ 45,234 $ 26,673 $ 23,550 $ 43,400 $ 34,567 $ 38,836 $ 41,062 $ 33,227 $ 33,955 $ 21,675 $ 69,943 $ 27,386 $ 34,532 $ 46,844 $ 45,873 $ 72,962 $ 28,145 $ 18,623 $ 28,402 $ 27,933 $ 32,246 $ 21,842 $ 39,132
71-72 Leisure and Hospitality $ 50,362 $ 31,341 $ 14,918 $ 34,666 $ 19,958 $ 32,588 $ 35,534 $ 27,139 $ 26,661 $ 13,222 $ 32,520 $ 26,771 $ 23,030 $ 53,153 $ 32,915 $ 40,539 $ 16,698 $ 16,931 $ 16,132 $ 17,814 $ 13,872 $ 12,808 $ 14,545
81 Other Services $ 42,744 $ 29,355 $ 17,594 $ 34,503 $ 25,114 $ 35,014 $ 31,826 $ 19,555 $ 29,499 $ 15,563 $ 40,795 $ 26,863 $ 27,577 $ 39,072 $ 37,045 $ 58,807 $ 20,016 $ 16,693 $ 19,491 $ 16,706 $ 20,069 $ 15,603 $ 22,245
92 Government $ 63,071 $ 44,256 $ 31,440 $ 54,381 $ 41,150 $ 55,600 $ 43,022 $ 37,235 $ 51,499 $ 28,215 $ 65,557 $ 31,701 $ 46,689 $ 50,671 $ 55,754 $ 77,783 $ 34,212 $ 23,357 $ 47,216 $ 50,148 $ 30,335 $ 40,972 $ 45,280
Annual Average Occupation Wages $ 68,386 $ 39,732 $ 20,106 $ 66,460 $ 35,954 $ 65,171 $ 43,357 $ 33,227 $ 23,656 $ 14,754 $ 68,096 $ 27,220 $ 43,158 $ 58,429 $ 58,595 $ 103,769 $ 33,174 $ 19,651 $ 41,414 $ 38,669 $ 37,196 $ 32,144 $ 39,272
Page 28
Table 16
Estimated Occupation and Industry Share of Total Employment







Total industry share

Legal occupations
11-21 Natural Resources and Mining 0.016% 0.000% 0.004% 0.015% 0.000% 0.003% 0.272% 0.000% 0.097% 0.000% 0.003% 0.000% 0.049% 0.001% 0.012% 0.015% 0.059% 0.004% 0.035% 0.000% 0.008% 0.137% 0.731%
22 Utilities 0.029% 0.001% 0.002% 0.021% 0.000% 0.006% 0.033% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.001% 0.000% 0.118% 0.001% 0.005% 0.012% 0.084% 0.000% 0.042% 0.004% 0.008% 0.011% 0.378%
23 Construction 0.049% 0.003% 0.032% 0.125% 0.000% 0.000% 5.389% 0.000% 0.000% 0.002% 0.002% 0.000% 0.466% 0.001% 0.002% 0.136% 0.544% 0.000% 0.059% 0.004% 0.105% 0.263% 7.182%
31-33 Manufacturing 0.498% 0.035% 0.061% 0.247% 0.000% 0.106% 0.274% 0.001% 0.012% 0.031% 0.016% 0.001% 0.571% 0.004% 0.086% 0.253% 0.985% 0.001% 3.990% 0.015% 0.296% 1.211% 8.695%
42 Wholesale Trade 0.040% 0.022% 0.018% 0.133% 0.000% 0.065% 0.023% 0.001% 0.018% 0.005% 0.016% 0.001% 0.321% 0.002% 0.017% 0.121% 1.041% 0.001% 0.173% 0.004% 1.114% 1.185% 4.320%
44-45 Retail Trade 0.003% 0.048% 0.090% 0.093% 0.001% 0.023% 0.062% 0.005% 0.007% 0.428% 0.386% 0.040% 0.666% 0.001% 0.003% 0.129% 1.935% 0.069% 0.235% 0.057% 5.987% 1.142% 11.410%
22, 48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.015% 0.002% 0.024% 0.058% 0.000% 0.009% 0.029% 0.001% 0.001% 0.008% 0.004% 0.000% 0.245% 0.001% 0.002% 0.055% 1.132% 0.118% 0.037% 0.014% 0.065% 2.630% 4.449%
51 Information 0.040% 0.186% 0.008% 0.092% 0.000% 0.159% 0.005% 0.012% 0.000% 0.040% 0.001% 0.000% 0.246% 0.004% 0.017% 0.075% 0.507% 0.046% 0.042% 0.004% 0.283% 0.064% 1.833%
52-53 Financial Activities 0.005% 0.013% 0.122% 0.818% 0.007% 0.126% 0.031% 0.002% 0.000% 0.021% 0.036% 0.005% 0.280% 0.042% 0.019% 0.244% 2.513% 0.019% 0.008% 0.036% 0.906% 0.142% 5.395%
54-56 Professional and Business Services 0.648% 0.163% 1.216% 0.871% 0.046% 0.541% 0.410% 0.047% 0.009% 0.116% 0.335% 0.139% 0.269% 0.435% 0.236% 0.400% 3.142% 0.089% 0.510% 0.551% 0.684% 1.068% 11.925%
61-62 Education and Health Services 0.017% 0.094% 0.682% 0.251% 1.593% 0.104% 0.062% 6.252% 0.001% 0.860% 4.981% 2.442% 0.226% 0.006% 0.142% 0.394% 2.920% 1.005% 0.071% 0.135% 0.063% 0.377% 22.677%
71-72 Leisure and Hospitality 0.001% 0.081% 0.549% 0.043% 0.001% 0.003% 0.015% 0.024% 0.002% 8.200% 0.010% 0.010% 0.138% 0.000% 0.003% 0.129% 0.441% 0.541% 0.046% 0.109% 0.345% 0.242% 10.933%
81 Other Services 0.004% 0.032% 0.074% 0.115% 0.129% 0.010% 0.015% 0.060% 0.000% 0.091% 0.009% 0.023% 0.550% 0.006% 0.007% 0.065% 0.441% 0.565% 0.177% 0.035% 0.166% 0.335% 2.912%
92 Government 0.176% 0.023% 0.171% 0.555% 0.642% 0.087% 0.489% 0.172% 0.010% 0.093% 0.371% 0.108% 0.316% 0.161% 0.158% 0.188% 1.270% 0.220% 0.090% 1.416% 0.046% 0.397% 7.160%
Total Occupation Share 1.540% 0.702% 3.055% 3.437% 2.420% 1.243% 7.108% 6.577% 0.160% 9.895% 6.169% 2.769% 4.461% 0.664% 0.709% 2.216% 17.014% 2.680% 5.516% 2.383% 10.077% 9.205% 100.000%
Page 29
Table 17
Estimated Occupation and Industry Share of Total Wages







Total industry share

Legal occupations
11-21 Natural Resources and Mining 0.025% 0.000% 0.002% 0.019% 0.000% 0.004% 0.236% 0.000% 0.034% 0.000% 0.003% 0.000% 0.042% 0.001% 0.016% 0.030% 0.033% 0.001% 0.030% 0.000% 0.009% 0.081% 0.567%
22 Utilities 0.058% 0.001% 0.002% 0.040% 0.000% 0.011% 0.056% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.003% 0.000% 0.215% 0.002% 0.010% 0.038% 0.099% 0.000% 0.079% 0.005% 0.012% 0.015% 0.649%
23 Construction 0.074% 0.003% 0.023% 0.182% 0.000% 0.000% 6.137% 0.000% 0.000% 0.001% 0.003% 0.000% 0.524% 0.002% 0.003% 0.342% 0.446% 0.000% 0.059% 0.003% 0.153% 0.238% 8.193%
31-33 Manufacturing 1.080% 0.050% 0.056% 0.476% 0.000% 0.235% 0.413% 0.002% 0.016% 0.024% 0.032% 0.001% 0.909% 0.010% 0.169% 0.921% 1.125% 0.001% 4.737% 0.017% 0.582% 1.192% 12.046%
42 Wholesale Trade 0.072% 0.024% 0.013% 0.216% 0.000% 0.114% 0.028% 0.001% 0.017% 0.003% 0.026% 0.001% 0.392% 0.003% 0.031% 0.393% 0.919% 0.001% 0.162% 0.004% 1.871% 0.986% 5.277%
44-45 Retail Trade 0.004% 0.032% 0.055% 0.119% 0.001% 0.028% 0.064% 0.004% 0.006% 0.263% 0.609% 0.024% 0.682% 0.001% 0.004% 0.302% 1.244% 0.034% 0.184% 0.044% 3.851% 0.693% 8.248%
22, 48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.026% 0.002% 0.027% 0.090% 0.000% 0.015% 0.040% 0.001% 0.001% 0.006% 0.006% 0.000% 0.337% 0.002% 0.003% 0.136% 1.193% 0.156% 0.042% 0.014% 0.094% 2.942% 5.133%
51 Information 0.070% 0.222% 0.006% 0.155% 0.000% 0.266% 0.007% 0.012% 0.000% 0.021% 0.002% 0.000% 0.374% 0.009% 0.031% 0.240% 0.472% 0.022% 0.043% 0.004% 0.371% 0.049% 2.376%
52-53 Financial Activities 0.009% 0.018% 0.061% 1.962% 0.009% 0.308% 0.026% 0.003% 0.000% 0.009% 0.082% 0.004% 0.180% 0.079% 0.045% 0.899% 3.015% 0.009% 0.007% 0.030% 1.692% 0.068% 8.515%
54-56 Professional and Business Services 0.988% 0.186% 0.543% 1.437% 0.048% 0.869% 0.312% 0.044% 0.007% 0.057% 0.439% 0.078% 0.260% 0.669% 0.355% 1.280% 2.361% 0.040% 0.282% 0.261% 0.742% 0.527% 11.784%
61-62 Education and Health Services 0.019% 0.064% 0.414% 0.281% 1.422% 0.104% 0.066% 5.362% 0.001% 0.481% 8.993% 1.726% 0.202% 0.007% 0.168% 0.741% 2.121% 0.483% 0.052% 0.097% 0.053% 0.213% 23.071%
71-72 Leisure and Hospitality 0.002% 0.065% 0.211% 0.039% 0.001% 0.003% 0.013% 0.017% 0.001% 2.798% 0.008% 0.007% 0.082% 0.001% 0.003% 0.135% 0.190% 0.236% 0.019% 0.050% 0.124% 0.080% 4.085%
81 Other Services 0.005% 0.025% 0.034% 0.103% 0.084% 0.009% 0.013% 0.030% 0.000% 0.037% 0.009% 0.016% 0.391% 0.006% 0.007% 0.099% 0.228% 0.244% 0.089% 0.015% 0.086% 0.135% 1.663%
92 Government 0.286% 0.027% 0.139% 0.779% 0.682% 0.125% 0.543% 0.165% 0.013% 0.068% 0.627% 0.089% 0.381% 0.210% 0.228% 0.378% 1.122% 0.133% 0.110% 1.833% 0.036% 0.420% 8.393%
Total Occupation Share 2.719% 0.719% 1.585% 5.896% 2.246% 2.092% 7.954% 5.641% 0.097% 3.768% 10.843% 1.945% 4.970% 1.002% 1.072% 5.935% 14.569% 1.359% 5.896% 2.378% 9.675% 7.637% 100.000%
Page 30
Appendix B
Development Potential Index Methodology
Many factors contribute to the potential for development of a piece of property. Land can
be affected in varying degrees by environmental constraints, and parcels with fewer
constraints have greater potential for development. Larger parcels, in general, offer more
options for development, and proximity to other developable parcels can increase those
options. An index score was created for each developable parcel of industrially-zoned
land in Pierce County. The index incorporates the proportion of developable land
without known environmental constraints, the size of the parcel and its proximity to other
developable parcels.
The first step in calculating the index was to find which parcels had industrial zoning, and
of those, which were fully developed. Zoning maps and development regulations for all
jurisdictions within Pierce County were reviewed to find areas with allow manufacturing
or assembly. Candidate parcels were then selected using Geographic Information System
(GIS) software. Then, using Assessor/Treasurer parcel data, properties were classified as
either vacant or developed. Next, developed properties were further analyzed to find
those with the greatest potential for redevelopment. Properties were considered
underdeveloped if the current use is residential and the parcel is greater than 2.5 acres, or
for any use if the improvement value was less than $50,000, or if the improvement value
was less than 20% of the total taxable value of the parcel. Then each parcel was verified
using aerial photography to confirm that it was either vacant or underdeveloped. As a
result, each parcel was classified as developed, underdeveloped or vacant. Fully
developed parcels are assumed to have no further development potential, and so will
ultimately have an index score of 0; underdeveloped and vacant parcels are given equal
weight for the development factor. In reality, vacant land should often have a higher
index score, but the circumstances surrounding each property are so individualized that
the distinction was not incorporated into this analysis.
Next, using GIS data, the proportion of known environmental constraints was calculated
for each parcel. Constraints considered included: wetlands and associated 300-foot
buffer; steep slopes; 1-percent flood-hazard area (100-year flood hazard), and; critical
wildlife habitat. While many environmental constraints can be mitigated or engineered
around, doing so adds cost and time to a project and therefore reduces the development
potential of the land.
Parcels were then standardized into 5-acre units. Five acres was chosen somewhat
arbitrarily; use of a different size standard would not change the outcome in terms of
ranking, only the absolute score value – the highest score would still be the highest score
and the lowest would still be the lowest. A five-acre parcel, with 50 percent lot coverage,
would allow construction of an approximately 100,000-square-foot building, which is a
mid-sized building for industrial purposes.
Page 31
The geospatial analysis tools available in ArcView GIS software were then used to find a
cluster score for each parcel. This analysis considers the number of developable parcels
adjacent to the subject parcel, as well as the number of developable parcels within a given
distance. The more concentrated the grouping of developable parcels, the higher the
cluster score.
Once all index components are found, the percentage of unconstrained area is multiplied
by the number of 5-acre units and the cluster score, to get a development potential score
value. Each score was then divided by the development potential score of the highest-
scoring parcel to index all scores to 100. Thus, the equation is:
(1 - percent of parcel with environmental constraints) x (parcel acres / 5) x (cluster score)

Highest score
Adding additional components might make the index score more precise. It might be
desirable to add terms for the overall size of each contiguous cluster, for contiguous
blocks under common ownership and for proximity to infrastructure such as roads,
sewers, water, telecommunications and industrial-grade power. Software, data and time
limitations precluded the use of additional development potential factors.
Page 32
Appendix C
Observed employment density by industry scatterplots
Employment per Acre

Industrial Parks Employment per Acre
Manufacturing
1400
1400
1200
1200
1000
1000
Employment
Employment
800
800
N = 25
Avg. = 18.58 N = 240
600
600 Avg. = 18.74
R2 = 0.7712
R2 = 0.5605
400
400
200
200
0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Acres Acres
Employment per Acre Employment per Acre

Transportation Warehousing
1400 1400
1200 1200
1000 1000
Employment
Employment
800 N = 49 800
Avg. = 11.34 N = 14
600 R2 = 0.1526 600 Avg. = 5.27
R2 = 0.0027
400 400
200 200
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Acres Acres
Page 33
Employment per Acre
Wholesale Trade
1400
1200
1000
Employment
800
600
400 N = 80
Avg. = 15.37
200 R2 = 0.3011
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Acres
Page 34

Industrial Lands Report Pierce County 2 - 09

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Industrial Lands Report Pierce County 2 - 09

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Industrial Land Use, Availability and the Jobs-Based Economy

A Study of Industrial Land in Pierce County, WA

Not All Jobs Are Created Equal

In addition, some industries produce goods and

they are produced, and in turn, bring money into the

Occupations related to engineering, finance, computers, science, healthcare practice, legal,

Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations

Total occupations 15% or more above expected values

Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations

Transportation and material moving occupations

Average indsutry score across all occupations

Office and administrative support occupations

Education, training, and library occupations

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations

Computer and mathematical occupations

Construction and extraction occupations

Personal care and service occupations

Protective service occupations

Sales and related occupations

Defining “Industrial Land”

Buckley LI Light Industrial

DuPont BTP; MRP; IND Business Tech Park;

Fircrest CC Community Commercial

Lakewood IBP; I1; I2 Industrial Business Park;

Milton M1 Light Manufacturing

Orting LM Light Manufacturing

Puyallup MP; ML Business Park; Limited

Sumner M1; M2; Light Manufacturing; Heavy

Tacoma M1; M2; PMI Light Industrial; Heavy Industrial;

Unversity Place LI-BP Light Industrial - Business Park

Industrial Land Supply in Pierce County

Finally, First Park at Northwest Landing in DuPont deserves mention. In general,

2022 Employment Grow th 121,583

IM-1 IM-2 IM-3 IM-4

Table 11 - Assumes job-density values from Builable Lands Report

IM-1 IM-2 IM-3 IM-4

Table 12 - Assumes job-density values from other studies

2022 Employment Grow th 121,583

IM-1 IM-2 IM-3 IM-4

2022 Employment Grow th 121,583

IM-1 IM-2 IM-3 IM-4

31-33 Manufacturing Sq. Ft. of industrial space absorbed per year

Number of jobs supported at average density

Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations

Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations

Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations

Transportation and material moving occupations

O ffice and administrative support occupations

Education, training, and library occupations

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations

Computer and mathematical occupations

Construction and extraction occupations

Personal care and service occupations

Protective service occupations

Sales and related occupations

Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations

Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations

Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations

Transportation and material moving occupations

O ffice and administrative support occupations

Education, training, and library occupations

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations

Computer and mathematical occupations