BEBuild Eastside

Kirkland permit data

What 551 new-home permits reveal.

See how long recent Kirkland permits took to be issued, where active permits are now, and how results differed across builders. The data follows each permit from application through review, revisions, issuance, and final approval.

551 qualifying new-home permitsApplications from Sep 2024 through Sep 2026Updated Sep 15, 2026
189 days

median application-to-issuance time among 326 permits with both dates.

144 to 246.8 days

the middle half of observed issuance times where quartiles are available.

72 permits

are Ready to Issue or preparing for issuance, where fees or contractor details may remain.

28.7%

are Applied, Pending, Open, or in review in this snapshot.

Showing the full 551-permit sample. 294 permits currently have a reviewed custom or spec builder label.

Permits in sample551Builder field grouping
Issued with dates326Used for timing
Median time to issue189 daysLess sensitive to outliers
Average time to issue207.2 daysIssued permits only
Currently in review158Applied, review, or revision review
Ready to issue72Owner-side steps may remain

Builder comparison

Timing across the full sample

Only permits with both application and issuance dates are included. Custom and spec groups use reviewed builder labels and recalculate weekly. Spec builders often repeat teams and processes, but the public data cannot isolate why one group was faster or slower.

Median time to issue
Selected
189 days
All builders
189 days
Average time to issue
Selected
207.2 days
All builders
207.2 days

Current pipeline

Where the 551 permits sit now

A status snapshot, not a measure of delay or fault.

Issued227
In Review141
Finaled90
Ready to Issue71
Revision in Review9
Applied8
Application Cancelled4
Preparing for Issuance1

Issued permits

How long issuance took

Calendar days from application to issuance for 326 permits with both dates.

90 days or less20
91 to 150 days82
151 to 210 days96
211 to 270 days66
More than 270 days62

Project mix

What is being built

Normalized from each public permit description.

Duplex or middle housing234 permits
New single-family house212 permits
New house with ADU105 permits

Construction

Issued permit to final approval

90 permits include both issued and finaled dates.

Median construction duration267 daysIssued through finaled
Average construction duration278 daysCalendar days

Location context

Where projects are concentrated

Neighborhood names come from the public parcel geocoder and are directional rather than formal boundaries.

Kingsgate10 permits
South Juanita4 permits
Finn Hill2 permits
South Rose Hill2 permits
Central Houghton1 permits
Highlands - Kirkland1 permits
Market1 permits
North Rose Hill1 permits

Supplemental parcel context

Most common assessor zoning labels

These labels support broad comparisons only and are not city zoning determinations. Confirm current zoning in Kirkland's official map.

RSX 7.2162 permits
RS 8.599 permits
RSA 689 permits
RS 7.282 permits
RM 3.612 permits
RSA 412 permits
RS 12.56 permits
PLA 3C5 permits
RSX 355 permits
RS 5.04 permits

Supporting permit records

Fees, inspections, and companion permits

These describe the public permit record, not total design, construction, utility, or professional costs.

Average listed permit fees$23,680551 permits with fee data
Median inspections6551 permits checked
Average related permits0Other records found on the parcel

Data quality

How much of the live sample is enriched

Coverage is published with each snapshot so missing optional data is not mistaken for zero activity.

Permit detail100%
People and builders100%
Review activity100%
Fees100%
Inspections100%
Related permits100%
Optional parcel context89.3%

Same city. Same project category.

Are similar permits taking more or less time?

Compare application-to-issuance durations for permits issued in two consecutive periods. We use the latest six complete calendar months and the six months before them.

Earlier: Sep 1, 2025 through Feb 28, 2026.
Recent: Mar 1, 2026 through Aug 31, 2026.

Calendar days from application to issuance. Counts include only records with valid dates.
Project categoryEarlier periodRecent periodObserved change
New single-family house214 days median
47 permits
231 days median
47 permits
17 days longer
New house with ADU212 days median
21 permits
254 days median
28 permits
42 days longer
Duplex or middle housing145.5 days median
58 permits
170 days median
35 permits
24.5 days longer
How to interpret this comparison

Each median requires at least 10 permits. Categories are inferred from public descriptions. These are broad comparisons, not individually matched homes. Size, site conditions, review complexity and builder mix can still differ.

Only issued permits are included. Open permits and missing or invalid dates are excluded. A backlog clearing or changes in which records we collect can shift the median. These are collected records, not a complete census of city permits.

Durations include city review, design-team revisions and owner steps. A shorter duration does not prove the city became faster or predict your permit. The observed difference is descriptive, not a statistical significance test.

Overall activity

The latest 90 days compared with the prior 90

This overview mixes project categories. Use the comparable-project section for a category-specific comparison. Issuance timing is grouped by when a permit was issued. First-review timing is grouped by when that review finished.

Latest 90 days

Jun 18, 2026 through Sep 15, 2026

Applications
48
Issued
57
Median time to issue
212 days
Median first review
48 days

Previous 90 days

Mar 20, 2026 through Jun 17, 2026

Applications
78
Issued
48
Median time to issue
225 days
Median first review
48 days

Review and revision timing

City review time and between-round handoffs

City review runs from the earliest published assignment to the last dated response in each version. The handoff runs from that response to the next version's assignment.

Initial intake + assignment6 daysApplication to first published V1 assignment
Middle 50%3–8 days533 permits with both dates
Review versionComplete roundsMedian city reviewCity middle 50%Median handoff to next roundHandoff middle 50%
First review (V1)Assigned to returned50643 days36–51.8 days40 daysV1 response to V2 assignment · 427 permits23–62.5 days
Second review (V2)Assigned to returned40025 days18.8–34 days21 daysV2 response to V3 assignment · 204 permits10.8–41.8 days
Third review (V3)Assigned to returned19923 days18–31 days13 daysV3 response to V4 assignment · 58 permits6–34.8 days
Fourth review (V4)Assigned to returned5615 days8.8–28 daysNot enough dataNot enough data

Initial intake + assignment is measured from application to the first published V1 assignment. Later handoffs combine design-team revision work with Kirkland's re-intake and assignment step; the public record does not expose a dependable revision-received timestamp to separate them. Versions or handoffs with fewer than 10 records are withheld. All durations are calendar days.

Revision likelihood

How many review rounds issued permits needed

This historical cohort includes permits that eventually issued and had contiguous, complete pre-issuance review versions. That avoids treating still-open permits as if they had already cleared review.

Typical number of rounds2Median among 323 issued permits
Middle 50%2 to 3 rounds25th through 75th percentile
Reached V348.3%Needed at least three review versions
Reached V413.3%Needed at least four review versions
Review versionIssued permits reaching itContinued to another versionCumulative share cleared by then
First review (V1)32397.8%2.2%
Second review (V2)31649.4%51.7%
Third review (V3)15627.6%86.7%
Fourth review (V4)437%99.1%

A later V-number proves that another package entered review; it does not identify every reason the added round was needed. Another-round percentages are withheld when fewer than 10 issued permits reached that version. These historical results do not guarantee the outcome of a permit that is still open.

Repeat correction themes

Which review disciplines returned corrections in multiple rounds

Among the same issued permits with complete, contiguous review histories, this can point design teams toward recurring coordination issues. It is not a staff-performance ranking and does not show whether the underlying correction was minor or substantial.

Review disciplinePermits with a correctionPermits corrected in 2+ roundsRepeat shareTotal correction rounds
Planning24611848%390
Public works24810542.3%373
Building2998127.1%400
Urban forestry2036230.5%275
Fire2229.1%24

Disciplines with fewer than ten permits receiving a correction are withheld.

Comparable projects

Permit timing by project type

Separating a single house from an ADU or multi-building project makes the benchmark more relevant. Small groups should be treated as directional.

Project typePermitsIssued sampleMedian to issueAverage first reviewAverage revision rounds
Duplex or middle housing234129152 days48.4 days1.3
New single-family house212135213 days55.3 days1.8
New house with ADU10562212 days53.7 days1.8

Plan corrections

Timing by observed revision rounds

Median application-to-issuance time for completed permits. This shows an association and does not claim each revision caused all of the difference.

No revisions126 days
7 permits in this comparison
1 revision round163.5 days
160 permits in this comparison
2 revision rounds215 days
113 permits in this comparison
3+ revision rounds246 days
43 permits in this comparison

First-review bottleneck

Which department finished last

The department with the final dated response in a completed first review. A higher count does not mean that team performed poorly.

Urban forestry500 permits
500 permits in this comparison
Public works5 permits
5 permits in this comparison
Planning1 permits
1 permit in this comparison

Who has the next action

City, design team, issuance, or unclear

Based on the latest public review state for active permits. Issuance requirements are kept separate from plan corrections, and incomplete activity records are labeled unclear rather than guessed.

Design team101 permits
Issuance requirements72 permits
City52 permits

Parcel permit history

Timing by other permit records on the parcel

Median time to issue grouped by how many other permit records MyBuildingPermit returned for the parcel. These can include unrelated historical work, so this is context rather than a true companion-permit count.

No other parcel records189 days
326 permits in this comparison

Additional complexity signals

Timing by size, parcel, zone, and neighborhood

Project size and story count are extracted from public descriptions, while lot size, zone, and neighborhood come from matched parcel records. These are descriptive groupings, not proof that one characteristic caused a delay.

SignalGroupPermitsIssued sampleMedian to issueMedian revision rounds
Lot sizeUnder 7,000 sq ft3719Directional sample293 days2
Lot size7,000 to 9,999 sq ft198127214 days2
Lot size10,000 to 19,999 sq ft189109176 days1
Lot size20,000+ sq ft6812Directional sample164 days1
Assessor zoning labelRSX 7.216295182 days1
Assessor zoning labelRS 8.59947234 days2
Assessor zoning labelRSA 68949164 days1
Assessor zoning labelRS 7.28250221 days2

Groups with fewer than ten issued records are withheld; groups with 10 to 19 are directional. Project-size and story comparisons appear only when the current parser can classify at least 60% of issued permits. Missing description or parcel fields are not inferred.

Repeat-builder experience

Timing by permit volume in this sample

Median time to issue based on how often the same normalized builder name appears. This measures observed volume, not whether the same staff or plans were used.

Builder appears once219 days
31 permits in this comparison
Builder appears on 2 to 4 permits187 days
63 permits in this comparison
Builder appears on 5+ permits180.5 days
212 permits in this comparison

Slower-permit patterns

Share that took longer than the upper quartile

Overlapping project characteristics among issued permits. These are descriptive flags, not a prediction that a future permit will be slow.

2+ revision rounds40.5%
158 permits in this comparison
New house with ADU37.1%
62 permits in this comparison
New single-family house30.4%
135 permits in this comparison
Custom home builder23.3%
43 permits in this comparison
Spec home builder22.3%
166 permits in this comparison
Duplex or middle housing14%
129 permits in this comparison

After issuance

Construction and inspection benchmarks

These measures describe the public inspection record after issuance. They do not include unrecorded jobsite work, contractor scheduling, or private quality-control checks.

Issue to first substantive inspection17 days294 permits with both dates
Typical inspection cadence8.8 daysMedian average gap between distinct inspection dates
Repeated correction checkpoint23.1%Same public checkpoint recorded with 2+ correction outcomes
Issue to final267 days90 finaled permits

Field-inspection timing excludes canceled, scheduled, preconstruction, job-conference, and job-start rows. A correction includes public outcomes containing “correction,” “failed,” or “denied”; “Not Ready for Inspection” is not counted as a city correction. A repeat requires two correction outcomes at the same normalized public checkpoint. The cadence metric calculates each project's average gap between distinct inspection dates, then reports the median project. Metrics with fewer than ten permits are withheld. These projects come from the same 24-month application cohort as the rest of this page.

Listed permit fees

Use the range, not just the average

Publicly listed permit fees only. These figures do not include architecture, engineering, construction, utility, or other project costs.

Lower quarter$025th percentile
Median$23,538Middle of 551 permits
Upper quarter$38,58675th percentile
Average$23,680More sensitive to unusually large fees

How to use these numbers

Benchmarks, not a promised schedule.

The source contains 551 recent Kirkland BSF “Single Family” permits labeled “Class: New,” applied from Sep 2024 through Sep 2026. This is a new-home cohort, not a count of every Kirkland building permit. Issuance timing uses the 326 rows with both application and issuance dates.

The dataset checks for newly filed projects daily and refreshes existing project details on a rolling monthly schedule. Successful discovery, detail and status-refresh batches recalculate this analysis automatically. Sunday recalculation remains a safety net. A recent analysis date does not mean every underlying record was fetched that day.

Initial intake + assignment runs from the application date to the first published V1 assignment. V1 through V4 city turnaround then uses the earliest published assignment and final dated response within each completed pre-issuance version. The between-round handoff runs from that response to the next version's assignment. It combines design-team work with Kirkland's re-intake and assignment step because a dependable revision-received timestamp is not public. Durations are calendar days; Kirkland publishes separate business-day goals on the official permit review-times page.

Round-outcome percentages use only permits that eventually issued, have complete activity data, and contain contiguous completed versions from V1 through their last pre-issuance round. This mature cohort avoids counting an open correction package as if it had already cleared review.

The median is the best single baseline because a few very fast and very slow permits can pull the average. Project categories, status changes, department review activity, inspections, other parcel permit records, and parcel context are refreshed from the underlying public records as they become available.

Construction measures use substantive dated inspections after issuance and exclude canceled, scheduled, preconstruction, job-conference, and job-start rows. Issuance-to-final timing includes only permits already finaled, so recent or unusually long active builds are not represented in that completed-project duration.

Custom and spec builder comparisons include only builders with a reviewed label and recalculate with each weekly snapshot. Builder names are missing on 121 permits and may reflect contractors, development partners, or normalized public labels. Builder comparisons are descriptive only: project complexity, intake timing, grouped developments, and small samples can drive the differences.

Build Eastside provides this benchmark analysis for free under its Terms of Use.

Practical interpretation

What homeowners should watch.

In Review is not one queue. Kirkland can assign Building, Fire, Planning, Public Works, and Urban Forestry reviews, and the permit moves at the pace of the unresolved review.

Corrections shift the next action. In the public activity record, “Corrections Needed” means the applicant or design team must respond; “Under Review” means the city has the current action.

Ready to Issue is not the same as issued. Outstanding fees and licensed contractor information can remain. Build Eastside checks both before recommending the next step.

Post-issuance revisions are their own workflow. Kirkland may restart version labels at V1 after issuance, so they should not be confused with the original first review.

Practical worksheet

Put this guide to work

Worksheet updated . This is a planning example. Regulatory sources and data have their own dates.

Use the numbers without turning them into a promise

A completed-permit median of five months does not mean a currently reviewed permit has five months remaining. It describes the midpoint of a particular completed group. A first-review target measures a different interval and may exclude correction time.

Comparable scope
Choose the same city and permit family. Check new house versus addition, review complexity, sample size and the observation period.
Matching milestones
Identify the start and end dates, business or calendar days, excluded periods and whether the data includes applicant response time.
Current next step
Estimate remaining work from the latest meaningful event and open reviews. Keep consultant response commitments separate from city targets.
Uncertainty
Use a range and note missing information. Active permits are unfinished observations, not failed or completed cases, and small samples can be unstable.

Treat a comparison as a planning aid and a reason to ask better questions. Do not rank a city, architect or builder by elapsed time alone without accounting for project scope, corrections, owner decisions and incomplete records.