HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-2021 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKETPlanning Commission Meeting
February 2, 2021 - 7:00 P M
A GE NDA
I .Virtual Participation Information
A .Virtual Participation I nformation
The City of A uburn P lanning Commission Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, F ebruary
2, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting
virtually please click the link or enter the meeting I D into the Zoom App or call into the
meeting at the phone number listed below.
P er Governor I nslee's Healthy Washington - Roadmap to Recovery plan, the location
for P lanning Commission Meetings will be virtual until the Governor of Washington
S tate authorizes local governments to conduct in-person meetings. Per the Governor's
E mergency Proclamation 20-28, the City of Auburn is prohibited from holding an in-
person meeting at this time.
J oin Z oom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/96105221170
Meeting I D: 961 0522 1170
One tap mobile
1-(253) 215-8782
I I .C AL L T O O RD E R
B .RO L L C AL L/E S TAB L I S HM E NT O F Q UO RUM
C.P L E D G E O F AL L E G I ANC E
I I I .AP P RO VAL O F M INUT E S
A .December 8, 2020 Draft Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting
I V.P UB L I C HE ARI NG S
V.O T HE R B US I NE S S
A .P resentation by City Consultant EcoNorthwest on Proposed Development of
an Auburn Action Housing Action Plan (HAP )
B .E lection of Officers
C.Annual Review of P lanning Commission Rules of Procedure
Page 1 of 111
V I .C O M M UNIT Y D E V E L O P M E NT RE P O RT
Update on Community Development Services activities.
V I I .AD J O URNM E NT
The City of Auburn Planning Commission is a seven member advisory body that provides
recommendations to the Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land
use plans and related codes such as zoning. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the
Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Actions taken by the Planning Commission, other than approvals or amendments to the
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, are not final decisions; they are in the form of
recommendations to the city council which must ultimately make the final decision.
Page 2 of 111
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
December 8, 2020 Draft Minutes from the Regular Planning
Commission Meeting
Date:
January 20, 2021
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
December 8, 2020 Draft Minutes from the
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:February 2, 2021 Item Number:
Page 4 of 111
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 8, 2020
Draft MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. via Zoom due to Governor
Inslee’s “Stay Home, Stay Healthy” initiative due to the Covid-19 Pandemic and City
Ordinance No. 5533 which establishes the official meeting place, as virtual.
a.) ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Commissioners present: Chair Judi Roland, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioner Mason,
Commissioner Moutzouris, Commissioner Khanal, and Commissioner Stephens.
Staff present: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager; Ingrid Gaub, Public Works
Director; Kendra Comeau, City Attorney; Doug Ruth, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer
Oliver, Administrative Assistant.
Members of the public present: Kim Allen, Vice President Wireless Policy Group, LLC
on behalf of Verizon; Meridee Pabst, Vice President Wireless Policy Group LLC on
behalf of AT&T.
b.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. November 17, 2020 – Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Khanal moved and Commissioner Stephens seconded to approve
the minutes from the November 17, 2020 meeting as written.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0
Vice Chair Lee did not vote as he was not present at the November 17, 2020
meeting.
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Continued Public Hearing for Code Amendments for Wireless Communication
Facilities, ZOA20-0005. Changing Title 17, ‘Land Divisions and Adjustments’ & Title
18, ‘Zoning’.
Chair Roland opened the Continued Public Hearing for Code Amendments for Wireless
Communication Facilities, ZOA20-0005 regarding changing Title 17, ‘Land Divisions and
Adjustments’ & Title 18, ‘Zoning’, at 7:06 p.m.
Commissioner Khanal excused himself from this portion of the meeting due to a
conflict of interest with his employer.
Page 5 of 111
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2020
Page 2
Planning Services Manager, Jeff Dixon gave a brief recap to the Planning Commission.
The City is systematically initiating changes to various city code sections to address
consistency with changes in state & federal law requirements and to reflect changes in
wireless communication technology among other minor changes. Due to the highly
technical and litigious nature of the subject, the City hired a legal consultant
specializing in the subjects of wireless communication and ROW permitting of
franchises and that is familiar with the results of court decisions. The City Legal
Dept., Public Works Dept., and Community Development Dept. staff has been working
with this consultant over the last year on drafting code changes.
As part of this, the city is proposing to amend city code section, Title 17 ‘Land
Adjustment and Divisions’ (the subdivision code) and Title 18 ‘Zoning’ which are
subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Brief history of recent actions
At the Planning Commission’s October 20, 2020 special meeting, staff introduced,
described, and presented these code changes that were shown in writing by strikeout
(deletions) and underline (additions).
Subsequently, the code changes were scheduled for a public hearing on November 4,
2020. Prior to this hearing, the City received two sets of comments and associated
cover letters from representatives of wireless carriers, Verizon, and AT&T. These
cover letters and sets of markups were e-mailed to the commission members in
advance of the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning
Commission voted to close the record and continue the public hearing to their
November 17, special meeting.
Again, due to the large number of comments, the highly technical nature of the
comments, the need to research and coordinate with other departments, the city staff
did not have time to fully consider the significance and evaluate all the comments prior
to the November 17, 2020 meeting. At the November 17, 2020 staff requested and
the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the December 8, 2020
regular meeting held virtually starting at 7:00 pm.
Staff subsequently held a teleconference with representatives of wireless carriers:
Verizon, AT&T, and T Mobile on November 19, 2020. The discussion focused on
the carrier’s key areas of concern by these industry representatives. The City
reiterated that the city-proposed changes where mainly for the purpose of
consistency with federal law and that other requested changes may be outside this
scope of the city’s current project. The representatives can always initiate separate
applications to the city for changes. Based on this discussion, staff has affected a
handful of additional changes shown in a different color in the attached Exhibit 1, and
summarized, below.
Page 6 of 111
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2020
Page 3
Changes based on staff and wireless industry teleconference
1. Page 34, ACC 18.31.100, WCF Siting Standards, Subsection B. 1.c, “Separation
between facilities” and Page 40, ACC 18.31.100, WCF Siting Standards,
Subsection G.7.a. ii, regarding criteria for an administrative waiver from
concealment techniques
In response to wireless industry comments, a change is made in both places to add
language to recognize that an exception to either new tower minimum separation
distance, or to WCF concealment techniques may be authorized by the City based
not only on technological feasibility, but also based on the availability of sites and
ability to secure leases for new wireless facility locations upon submittal of specific
evidence of attempts to secure locations that is determined to be satisfactory by the
City.
Summary Excerpt --------------------------
c. The Community Development director may exempt an applicant from these
separation requirements if (1) the applicant demonstrates to the City’s
satisfaction that despite diligent efforts, other options are neither available to
lease nor technologically feasible to address a service provider¹s demonstrated
gap in coverage or demonstrated lack of system capacity. Documentation
regarding inability to lease shall include names and addresses of owners
contacted, date of contact, method of contact and owner responses and failure to
approve the exemption would be an effective prohibition of the applicant being
able to provide wireless communications, or (2) the director determines, when
considering the surrounding topography; the nature of adjacent uses and nearby
properties; and, the height of existing structures in the vicinity, that placement of
a tower at a distance less than the minimum separation from another tower will
reduce visibility and reduce visual clutter to a greater extent.
Summary Excerpt --------------------------
ii. The applicant demonstrates to the City’s satisfaction that despite diligent
efforts, other options are neither available to lease nor technologically feasible to
address a service provider¹s demonstrated gap in coverage or demonstrated lack
of system capacity. Documentation regarding inability to lease shall include
names and addresses of owners contacted, date of contact, method of contact
and owner responses. There is no existing nearby alternate structure for co-
location or attachment that will provide the technological functionality and which
otherwise meets the design standard requested to be waived; and
Page 7 of 111
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2020
Page 4
2. Page 34-35, ACC 18.31.100, WCF Siting Standards, Subsection C.3, “Co-
location Requirements”.
Add language to clarify that city’s requirements for co-location (sharing of facility by
more than one carrier/company) are based on a total of two wireless communication
carriers and not two (2) carriers in addition to the original carrier applying for and
installing the facility.
Summary Excerpt --------------------------
3. Towers shall be designed and constructed to allow the tower to
accommodate WCFs from at least two (2) carriers on the same tower; one in
addition to the original. No property owner or carrier shall unreasonably exclude
another carrier from using the same facility or location. Design and construction
for co-location shall not be required when it would materially compromise the
camouflage design intent of the tower, or when, in the reasonable discretion of
the Community Development director, such construction is not technically
feasible based upon construction, engineering and design standards of the
industry, or based upon evidence provided, a tower designed for co-location will
not be commercially viable. An applicant, owner, or operator seeking Community
Development director approval to waive the co-location requirements described
herein shall provide evidence explaining why co-location is not possible at a
particular tower.
The Commission brought forth a grammar correction on Page 27 of 87 of the packet
under Item E. The section states, “with the intent” and also states in the same sentence
“intended to make”. Planning Services Manager Dixon stated the grammar would be
corrected.
The Planning Commission asked why it was in the public’s interest to eliminate the
concealment requirements or to create a “backdoor” not to require it? Planning Services
Manager, Jeff Dixon explained that the City would continue to have the ability to require
those concealment techniques and the code language the city is proposing is to require
these concealment techniques along designated view corridors which are the major
roadways mentioned. The change talked about in the meeting tonight is related to
instances where the city we might grant some relief from those concealment techniques.
The concept is that there might be instances where its not possible to provide those
concealment techniques and to avoid the City effectively prohibiting the facility, options
are needed to meet and maintain consistency with federal requirements. The City wants
to insure that it can observe the concealment techniques, but want to allow an
opportunity for limited exceptions where warranted, like we do for many land use
processes with a variance; where if they can demonstrate that there isa technical
Page 8 of 111
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2020
Page 5
feasibility that would prevent them from observing the concealment techniques or that
the unavailability of sites in to get an exemption. This is necessary so the City doesn’t
have an effective prohibition of the wireless communication facility that puts us contrary
to Federal Law.
Vice Chair Lee asked if, since there will be a new federal government administration
starting in 2021, is there a likelihood that the City and Planning Commission could be
meeting again on the same topic with different or new federal regulations coming
through? Planning Services Manager Dixon informed the Commission that many of the
regulations were established back in 2012 or 2014 by pervious federal administrations
and thus it seems that the changes are more longterm. He continued saying that it
doesn’t seem that a change in administration would make a large difference. However,
topics and technology continue to evolve and could drive future changes.
Asking three times and with no other public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public
hearing at 7:30 PM.
With no other questions from the Commission, the Commission deliberated.
Vice Chair Lee moved, and Commissioner Stephens seconded to recommend approval
of the Revised Code Changes to Titles 17 & 18 as shown in Exhibit 1 to the Planning
Commission.
IV. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Planning Services Manager, Jeff Dixon reported to the Commission that on
December 7, 2020 at the Regular City Council Meeting, the Council adopted the
following Ordinances in relation to the 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments that the Planning Commission recently made recommendations on:
• Ordinance No. 6803, the slate of 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
• Ordinance No. 6804 related to the School Impact fees as a result of
the adoption of the Capital Facilities Plans for the four school districts
within Auburn.
• Ordinance No. 6807 related to the rezone for Westport Capital LLC.
This had to be broken into a separate Ordinance for Council adoption,
since it is a contract rezone which requires separate recording with the
County, so the conditions of approval appear on the title of the
property.
Planning Services Manager Dixon stated that Council was complimentary of the
Planning Commission’s work on the 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
Page 9 of 111
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2020
Page 6
Also, of note, Governor Inslee extended the Open Public Meetings Act
requirements through January 19th, 2021. This will keep us in the format of virtual
meetings until then.
Staff presented a recent project that was developed for Valley Cities Counseling
and Consultation located at 26th St and I Street NE. Valley Cities is a non-profit
that provides counseling and resources for individuals, families, and youth. They
have a couple of facilities on parcels nearby and this was the latest consisting of
the Phoenix Rising Project Phase 2 that consists of 12 dwelling units of
communal living quarters at this facility. What is unique about this project is that
they partnered with a company called Blokables that makes pre-assembled
modular building units that are highly efficient and they assemble these together
to create the living quarters. Staff provided a photo of the project and of the
manufacturing of the units. Staff worked with the company on a design review to
dress up the building, so they didn’t look just like blocks but more unified
housing structure.
Planning Services Manager Dixon shared with the Commission that the City has
signed a contract to be part of mybuilderpermit.com, an on-line permitting portal.
Many eastside cities and now southend cities have joined. On this site, an
applicant can submit permit applications and pay fees. The advantage of
participating is that it allows for there to be commonalities between all of the
cities that are involved with the program. A developer does not need to learn a
separate routine of each city. It works with one password and login for the
customer and allows for each city to customize it to what their jurisdiction
requires. There are 12-14 cities that are involved with it all being in King County.
It is not functional yet as the City is still working how it interfaces with our
financial and permitting software systems and development of the application
forms. The Commission inquired if there is cost to join the organization. Staff
could not answer that question.
The proposed January 5, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting topics will consist
of a review of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and to make any changes or
adjustments the Commission requests. Another topic to come forth to the
Commission is regarding how Community Development is working with a
consultant that is assisting the department with a development of a Housing
Action Plan (HAP). As the Commission is aware, housing is a hot topic. The
Washington State legislature made available grants for jurisdictions to study
housing issues in their municipality and also to come up with a housing action
plan that includes recommendations on how the city can assist with provision of
additional housing and to look at the housing needs for different income levels in
the jurisdiction. The City was successful in securing the grant. Staff would like the
city’s consultant to come before the Commission and share a presentation on
what they are finding out on housing needs and to report on progress of
development of this Plan.
Page 10 of 111
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2020
Page 7
Commissioner Mason inquired about the former Heritage Building site and the
progress on new development. Staff confirmed that the owners have secured
their civil improvements and building permits from the City. There is a possibility
they are still waiting on securing an easement for vehicle driveway access near
the Safeway parking lot to the parking proposed within the new building. Also,
this time of year is not ideal for construction so there is a chance that there could
be a delay or they are in the process of lining up contractors to begin sitework.
Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon confirmed that at the City Council Meeting
on December 7, 2020, Commissioner Khanal and Chair Roland were
reappointed for the next 3 years for their Planning Commission seats.
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Page 11 of 111
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Presentation by City Consultant EcoNorthwest on Proposed
Development of an Auburn Action Housing Action Plan (HAP)
Date:
January 21, 2021
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
PC Intro Memo for HAP
PC Mtg Pres entation ECONW
Extg Conditions Memo - REV
Exc Summary Fact Packet - Framework
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:February 2, 2021 Item Number:
Page 12 of 111
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Roger Lee, Vice-Chair Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager
DATE: January 18, 2021
RE: February 2, 2021 Planning Commission introductory presentation on the
development of a Housing Action Plan (HAP) for the City of Auburn.
Background:
Housing is a pressing issue in our region. It is also a complex issue influenced by several
factors and participants. While the housing supply is influenced by factors beyond the city’s
control, the City’s Community Development Department is working to make sure we do what we
can to support the development of enough housing for everyone in Auburn. To do this work, the
City has received a grant from the Washington State Department of Commerce to develop a
Housing Action Plan (HAP).
The Housing Action Plan (HAP) will evaluate the current housing dynamics in Auburn and take
into consideration projected future needs. This data will help inform the City's housing strategies
to assist in ensuring the right supply of housing is available to meet the future demands of
Auburn residents at all income levels.
History of E2SHB 1923 and contract:
Recognizing the need for additional housing, the Washington State Legislature authorized up to
$5 million for the development of housing action plans by jurisdictions and intended to increase
urban residential capacity, with a maximum award amount per jurisdiction of $100,000. The City
of Auburn sought this funding for the development of a Housing Action Plan (HAP) to
accomplish short term goals identified in the Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan.
Signed into law by Governor Inslee on May 9, 2019, Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill
(E2SHB) 1923 authorized the Washington State Dept. of Commerce to issue grant funding for
the purpose of increasing residential housing capacity in urban areas. The City of Auburn
submitted a grant application on September 30, 2019, requesting the maximum award of
$100,000. On November 5, 2019, Auburn was officially awarded the grant in the amount of
$100,000.
Page 13 of 111
Page 2
On November 18, 2019, the Auburn City Council considered and adopted City Resolution No.
5471 authorizing the City to enter into a contract with the WA State Dept. of Commerce to
accept the grant and prepare a Housing Action Plan. The contract specifies that the Housing
Action Plan (HAP) must be adopted by the City Council by May 31, 2021.
Purpose:
According to the contract language, the goal of a housing action plan is to encourage
construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing
types and at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes, including strategies
aimed at the for-profit single-family home market. The housing action plan should:
(a) Quantify existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including
extremely low-income households, with documentation of housing and household
characteristics, and cos/burdened households;
(b} Develop strategies to increase the supply of housing, and variety of housing types,
needed to serve the housing needs identified in (a) of this subsection;
(c) Analyze population and employment trends, with documentation of projections;
(d) Consider strategies to minimize displacement of low-income residents resulting from
redevelopment;
(e) Review and evaluate the current housing element adopted pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.070, including an evaluation of success in attaining planned housing types
and units, achievement of goals and policies, and implementation of the schedule of
programs and actions;
(f) Provide for participation and input from community members, community groups, local
builders, local realtors, nonprofit housing advocates, and local religious groups; and
(g} Include a schedule of programs and actions to implement the recommendations of
the housing action plan.
Scope of work:
The work effort and contract are generally divided, in two main phases:
1) The first phase
The first phase consists of the development of a South King County Subregional
Housing Action Framework document in collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions of
Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila. As a part of the collaborative effort, up
to $20,000 per jurisdiction has been allocated for the purpose of collecting sub-regional
data necessary to support the development of individual Housing Action Plans. This
cooperative effort provided economies of scale and allowed the sharing of information
and facilitated the comparison between several south county cities. The cities
cooperatively selected and hired a professional consulting firm with specialized
expertise, EcoNorthwest, to gather information and assist the city in the preparation of
this document. This document was completed in August 2020.
Page 14 of 111
Page 3
Attached as Attachment C is the Fact Sheet/Executive Summary of the South King
County Subregional Housing Action Framework document that captures broad factors
impacting housing choice, cost burden, and existing conditions of housing stock in South
King County that will set the stage to evaluate and incorporate appropriate policies, tools,
and incentives for increasing residential capacity. The full document can be shared with
the Planning Commission, if desired.
2) The second phase
This second phase, currently in process builds on the contents of the South King County
Subregional Housing Action Framework document developed in the first phase but
focuses specifically on the City of Auburn. And this phase is independent and conducted
under a separate contract component. This step was also the subject of a consultant
selection and hiring process and resulted in the City choosing the same consultant,
EcoNorthwest, as had worked on first phase. Use of the same consultant aids in
efficiency and continuity.
As a first step for this phase, the City’s consultant has prepared information specific to
the City of Auburn. The consultant has prepared a draft “Auburn Housing Action Plan
Existing Conditions Memorandum which details the current conditions influencing housing
capacity in the City. Attached as Attachment B this document is the subject of the
presentation for the February 2, 2021 regular Planning Commission meeting. This
document not meant to stand alone but will be incorporated into the contents of the
overall City Housing Action Plan (HAP).
This document has the following components:
• Introduction
• Housing Needs Analysis discusses the current housing inventory in Auburn,
current demographics and employment trends for Auburn residents, housing
affordability trends and displacement risk, and estimates future housing needs for
Auburn through 2040.
• Market Conditions provides data on recent rents, home sales prices, vacancy
rates, and development trends in Auburn.
• Housing Planning and Policy Evaluation discusses the most relevant planning
documents – from state to county to local levels – that guide and influence
housing development and housing planning decisions in Auburn. Building on the
work completed in the South King County Subregional Housing Action
Framework, this section also evaluates five policies that are in place in the City of
Auburn to assess their successes at encouraging housing development.
• Methodology, Data Sources, and Assumptions lists the data, sources, and the
methods used in this analysis.
This phase of the effort also has an emphasis on a public outreach effort to solicit public
feedback while the plan is under development and when a draft of the plan is available
for public comment. To get the most relevant and valuable feedback, this outreach is
targeted to persons impacted by or with knowledge about housing issues and
circumstances in the City of Auburn. City subconsultant of Broadview Planning has
developed a public engagement plan consisting of several actions that will be described
in the Planning Commission presentation on February 2, 2021. Due to the restrictions
associated with the pandemic, the city has implemented a new on-line tool as one
method of gathering input: https://speakupauburn.org/hap
Page 15 of 111
Page 4
Range of possible future actions:
When complete, this analysis, along with public input, will be used to generate
recommendations and implementation steps in the completed Housing Action Plan,
which will help the City of Auburn guide its housing policies and regulations and
decisions over the 2020-2040 planning period. The City’s contract with the Washington
State Dept. of Commerce specifies that the HAP must be adopted by the City Council
prior to the contract deadline of May 31, 2021.
Future actions include additional briefings with the Planning Commission. The
implementation recommendations of the City’s HAP that the City could implement also
may come back to the Planning Commission in the form of:
o Changes to the Comprehensive Plan document such as:
▪ Updates to the housing element (chapter) goals and policies;
▪ Changes to Land use element (chapter) related to density and zoning
standards; and
▪ Amendments related to the City’s Capital Facilities Element (Chapter).
o Changes to City code, such as:
▪ Remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
▪ changes to the set of land uses allowed in certain zones;
▪ changes to density standards;
▪ new or revised zoning districts; and
▪ efficiencies in development permitting.
* * * * *
Attachment A – PowerPoint presentation for the February 2, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting by
Tyler Bump, of EcoNorthwest on the development of the Housing Action Plan (HAP)
Attachment B – Draft Auburn Housing Action Plan Existing Conditions Memorandum by EcoNorthwest
(background information for development of the Housing Action Plan (HAP)).
Attachment C- Executive Summary/Fact Packet of the South King County Subregional Housing
Action Framework document.
Page 16 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan
February 2, 2021
Tyler Bump
Page 17 of 111
Project Overview
Page 18 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan
Public Engagement
Community Vision
Solicit Ideas
Assess Changes
Existing Conditions
Data Analysis
Employment
Trends
Population Growth
Policy Evaluation
Recommended Actions
Public Input
Staff Input
Development
Analysis
Prioritization
Adoption
Planning
Commission
City Council
3Page 19 of 111
Building off South King County Subregional Housing Action
Plan Framework
4
1.Public engagement
2.Assess housing needs in 2040
3.Evaluate demographic & employment trends
4.Develop new strategies
1.Preserve existing housing
2.Increase housing production
3.Increase housing choice
5.Evaluate neighborhood context for housing type allowances
6.Create the Housing Action Plan (HAP)
AUBURN
SOUTH KING COUNTY SUB-REGIONAL
HOUSING ACTION PLAN FRAMEWORK
2020
Page 20 of 111
South King County Subregional Housing Action Plan
Framework
5Page 21 of 111
Existing Conditions & Housing Needs
Assessment
Page 22 of 111
Auburn Income Levels
Family Size 2018
Income Limit
Annual
Income
Max Monthly Housing
Costs (30% of Income)
Example Jobs
(full time)
30% of AMI $25,700 $643 1 worker in retail sector
50% of AMI $42,800 $1,070 1 worker in retail sector
80% of AMI $64,200 $1,605 2 workers in food service; 1 full time
worker in info. tech.
100% of AMI $85,600 $2,140 2 workers in retail sector; 1 worker in
management + 1 worker in retail sector
30% of AMI $32,100 $803 1 worker in food service
50% of AMI $53,500 $1,338 1 worker in transportation / warehousing
80% of AMI $80,250 $2,006
1 worker in finance;
1 worker in education + 1 worker in retail
sector
100% of AMI $103,400 $2,585 1 worker in finance + 1 worker in
agriculture; 2 construction workers
Source: HUD 2018, Puget Sound Regional Council Employment Data, ECONorthwest Calculations 7Page 23 of 111
South King County Subregion Income Distribution
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of 2018 Census 1-year PUMS data
17%16%
25%
11%
30%
18%16%
23%
12%
31%
18%15%16%
11%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0-30% of AMI 31-50% of AMI 51-80% of AMI 81-100% of AMI 100%+ of AMI
Auburn South King County King County
Share of Households by AMI
8Page 24 of 111
South King County Subregion Income Distribution
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of 2018 Census 1-year PUMS data
17%16%
25%
11%
30%
18%16%
23%
12%
31%
18%15%16%
11%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0-30% of AMI 31-50% of AMI 51-80% of AMI 81-100% of AMI 100%+ of AMI
Auburn South King County King County
Share of Households by AMI
9Page 25 of 111
From 2010 to 2020:
§49% increase in average 2-BR rent
§88% increase in median home sales
price
From 2012 to 2018:
§46% increase in median renter household
income
§17% increase in median owner household
income
Auburn’s Housing Affordability Trends
10Source: CoStar, PUMS (2012, 2018)Page 26 of 111
Housing Affordability –Cost Burdening
11
Cost burdening =
household spends >30% of
income on housing costs
Severe cost burdening =
household spends >50% of
income on housing
§80% of owners and 88%
of renters earning <30%
AMI are cost burdened
§Worse for lower-income
households
§Worse for renters Page 27 of 111
Calculating Risk
Analysis is modeled on PSRC’s Displacement
Risk Tool. Includes 6 variables at the Census
block group level:
1.% of population that is a race other than non-
Hispanic White
2.% of households that speak a language other
than English at home
3.% of population ≥25 who lack a bachelor’s
degree
4.% of households that are renters
5.% of households paying >30% of gross income on
housing
6.Per capita income
Displacement Vulnerability in Auburn
12Darker purple indicates greater displacement risk
* Block group contains few housing units, mostly commercial and industrial
*
Page 28 of 111
Auburn’s Housing Production Trends
Auburn averaged
390 new units
annually between
2011-2019
13Page 29 of 111
Auburn’s Demographics
Source: PUMS, 2018
28%26%28%
9%9%10%11%
23%
13%
43%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0-30%30-50%50-80%80-100%100%+
% of Renters % of Owners
14
Income Distribution by Tenure
Page 30 of 111
2040 Housing Need
Page 31 of 111
Future Housing Needs
16Page 32 of 111
Auburn’s Future Housing Needs by Income Level
1,669
1,043
2,503
1,251
3,963
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
0-30%30-50%50-80%80-100%100%+Number of UnitsPercent of AMI
2040 Forecast of Housing Need by AMI
Source: Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation.17Page 33 of 111
Public Engagement Update
Page 34 of 111
1.Reflect Auburn’s diversity; tell residents’ housing opportunities and
challenges
2.Remain focused, yet flexible, on authentic public involvement during
COVID-19 pandemic.
3.Develop and maintain a consistent communications strategy; ensure
equitable messaging and close the information loop.
4.Clearly connect how community involvement and input informs HAP
strategies.
5.Present data that summarizes community perspectives on how new
housing integrates into neighborhoods.
6.Understand barriers to homeownership and best practices for creating
opportunities for people to own their own home.
HAP Public Engagement Goals
19Page 35 of 111
§Focus on race/social justice equity
lens
§Engage with people and
organizations who typically don't
participate in planning processes.
§Include an educational component
to relay how different types of
housing can support and enhance
a diverse, and vibrant city
Public Engagement Update
20Page 36 of 111
Public Engagement Update
Outreach methods:
•10 -12 individual interviews
•3-5 small focus groups
•Social Media
•Website & distribution list:
•SpeakUpAuburn.org/HAP
•Community forums
•Public Presentations
21Page 37 of 111
HAP Public Engagement –Process & Next Steps
Public Engagement Timeline
January Finalize Plan, Questions, Stakeholder Contacts
Begin Interviews
Advertise Focus Groups
February Planning Commission Update
Continue Interviews
Conduct Focus Groups
March Summarize Findings
Draft Recommendations
April-May -June Draft HAP
Planning Commission Feedback
City Council Feedback
Public Comment & Community Forum Feedback
Final HAP
22Page 38 of 111
Questions?
Contact: Tyler Bump
Bump@econw.com
23Page 39 of 111
PortlandEugene Seattle Boise
Page 40 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions
ECONorthwest 1
DATE: January 15, 2021
TO: Jeff Dixon, City of Auburn
FROM: Tyler Bump, Madeline Baron, Oscar Saucedo-Andrade, Justin Sherrill, Ryan Knapp
SUBJECT: AUBURN HOUSING ACTION PLAN – EXISTING CONDITIONS MEMORANDUM – REVISED
1) Introduction
The City of Auburn was founded in 1891 and has grown to become the fifteenth largest city in
the State of Washington. Multiple periods of growth can be observed in the many regions of
Auburn, including early 20th century neighborhoods, mid-century growth, and the annexation
of rural county lands in the early 21st century. This has resulted in over 29 square miles of
housing growth representing many different scales of development that have occurred over
different periods of time.
HB1923 and Housing Action Plans
In 2019, the state legislature adopted House Bill 1923 (HB 1923), which awarded grants in the
amount up to $100,000 to various cities for the purpose of increasing residential capacity.
As the first step in developing a Housing Action Plan, the city of Auburn participated in the
development of a supporting document: the South King County Subregional Housing Action
Framework, along with the cities of Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila. Auburn’s
individual Housing Action Plan builds off the data analysis, housing needs, demographic and
employment trends, housing policy review, and potential housing production strategies that
were generated through this previous subregional framework report.
Auburn’s individual Housing Action Plan must comply with state law, including adoption of
the grant-funded Housing Action Plan consisting of the needs assessment, housing policy
review, and implementation recommendation components, no later than June 30, 2021. Funding
is provided by the Washington State Department of Commerce via House Bill 1923 (HB 1923).
Housing Action Plan Development Process
Housing Action Plan efforts are focused on encouraging production of both affordable and
market rate housing at a variety of price points to meet the needs of current and future
residents. Developing the Housing Action Plan is a multi-step process (see Figure 1).
Throughout the entire process, a subconsultant, Broadview Planning is engaging the public to
seek input on the community’s vision and housing needs, as well as ideas and
recommendations for how Auburn can increase capacity for more housing. In addition, the
public will be invited to review a draft Housing Action Plan and provide comment before the
City moves toward finalization and City Council adoption of the Housing Action Plan.
Page 41 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
2
Figure 1. Auburn’s Housing Action Plan Development Process
The Department of Commerce requires that Housing Action Plans be adopted by each city. In
Auburn, that means the Housing Action Plan will be presented to city staff for review, revised,
and then presented for public review. After reviewing those comments, a revised, final Housing
Action Plan will be presented to the Planning Commission, then to City Council for adoption.
How this Report is Organized
This Existing Conditions Memorandum focuses on the housing inventory, demographics, and
employment trends occurring within the City of Auburn, as well as the policy environment that
influences housing development. This memorandum provides a foundation of the existing
conditions surrounding housing and population growth, and then estimates future housing
needs in Auburn. This foundation is helpful to understand the basis for recommendations for
actions as Auburn increases residential capacity to meet future population forecasts.
This report is organized into five sections, beginning with this introduction, which is the first
part.
§ Part 2) Housing Needs Analysis discusses the current housing inventory in Auburn,
current demographics and employment trends for Auburn residents, housing
affordability trends and displacement risk, and estimates future housing needs for
Auburn through 2040.1 This is a required component of the Department of Commerce
Grant funding this Housing Action Plan.
§ Part 3) Market Conditions provides data on recent rents, home sales prices, vacancy
rates, and development trends in Auburn.
1 King County is in the process of updating its growth targets and forecasts for the 2017 - 2044 forecast period, but the
formal adoption of these targets will not occur until late 2021. Auburn’s future housing needs estimated here are
based off the acknowledged 2040 population forecast.
Public Engagement
Community Vision
Solicit Ideas
Assess Changes
Existing Conditions
Data Analysis
Employment Trends
Population Growth
Policy Evaluation
Recommended Actions
Public Input
Staff Input
Development
Analysis
Prioritization
Adoption
Planning Commission
City Council
Page 42 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
3
§ Part 4) Housing Planning and Policy Evaluation discusses the most relevant planning
documents – from state to county to local levels – that guide and influence housing
development and housing planning decisions in Auburn. Building on the work
completed in the South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework, this section
also evaluates five policies that are in place in the City of Auburn to assess their
successes at encouraging housing development. This is a required component of the
Department of Commerce Grant funding this Housing Action Plan.
§ Part 5) Methodology, Data Sources, and Assumptions lists the data, sources, and
methods used in this analysis.
When complete, this analysis, along with public input, will be used to generate
recommendations and implementation steps in the completed Housing Action Plan, which will
help the City of Auburn guide its housing policies and regulations and decisions over the 2020-
2040 planning period.
Page 43 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
4
2) Housing Needs Analysis
This section summarizes the housing inventory, household2 demographics, and socio-economic
trends that influence housing needs in Auburn. It is based on work conducted for the South King
County Subregional Housing Action Framework which was completed in June 2020. Important data
sources, methods, and assumptions are listed in Part 5 beginning on page 42.
This report uses the best available data sources to assess the housing inventory and future
needs, analyze employment trends, and analyze demographic trends in Auburn. Because
Auburn has more than 65,000 people, it is surveyed in the American Community Survey every
year and thus has data in 1-year samples. The most recent survey data is for 2018. Information
from other sources may be a few years old but represent best data sources.
Current Housing Inventory
As of 2018, there were 31,345 total housing units in Auburn (OFM, 2019). About half of
Auburn’s housing stock was built in the 1980’s or earlier (King County Assessor, 2020) and the
majority of the housing is single-family detached (61 percent). About 16 percent of Auburn’s
housing stock is located in properties with 2-4 units, and construction of these housing types
peaked in the 1970s and 1980s. About 23 percent of Auburn’s housing stock is characterized as
multifamily, the majority of which was build pre-1960, and in the 1990s and 2000s.3
Auburn saw 3,511 new
dwelling units built
between 2011 and
2019, averaging 390
new units per year.
Over this period, 7.8
new housing units were
produced for every 10
new households that
formed in Auburn.4
Figure 2. Number of Units Built Per Year, Auburn, 2011-2019
Source: OFM, 2019.
2 The U.S. Census defines a household as the following: “all the people who occupy a housing unit (such as a house
or apartment) as their usual place of residence. A household includes the related family members and all the
unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person
living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is
also counted as a household. The count of households excludes group quarters. There are two major categories of
households, "family" and "nonfamily." (see: https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_Household)
3 In this report, multifamily housing is defined as five or more units in a given property development.
4 Household formation occurs when people move into the city, or when one household becomes two (e.g., a child
moves out of a family home, roommates separate).
Page 44 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
5
The majority of
Auburn’s homeowners
(88 percent) live in
single-family detached
housing.
About half of Auburn’s
renters live in
multifamily housing
(with five or more units
per structure) and 23
percent of renters live in
single-family detached
housing.
Figure 3. Occupied Housing by Tenure, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
The majority of
Auburn’s single-family
housing stock was built
prior to the 2000’s. The
1960’s, 1990’s, and
2000’s saw peak
construction of single-
family homes.
The majority of
duplexes, triplexes and
quad-plex type housing
was built prior to the
2000’s. The 1970’s and
1980’s saw peak
construction of these
housing types relative to
other years.
Figure 4. Type of Single-Family Housing Built, Auburn, 1960-2020
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020.
The majority of
multifamily housing in
Auburn was built before
2000. Auburn saw an
increase in larger
multifamily housing
development (100+
units) in the 1980s,
1990s, 2000s, and
2010s.
The majority of medium
sized multi-family
housing (between 5 and
50 units) was built in
the 1990s or earlier.
Figure 5. Scale of Multifamily Housing Built, Auburn, 1960-2020
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020.
88%
23%
7%
8%
2%
20%
3%
49%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Owner Renter
Single-family detached Single-family attached
Duplex, Triplex, Quadplex Multifamily (5+ units)
Type of Single-Family Housing (units)
Page 45 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
6
Compared to King
County and South King
County, Auburn has a
higher share of 2-star5
apartments (typically
older properties with
few amenities).
Based on CoStar data,
half of Auburn’s
apartment housing
stock is rated 2-star,
compared to 27 percent
in King County and
South King County.
Figure 6. Share of CoStar6 Multifamily Inventory by “Star Rating” in
Auburn, South King County, and King County
Source: CoStar; Note: n signifies number of properties in each geography’s sample.
Compared to King
County and South King
County, Auburn has a
larger share of 3- and 4-
bedroom units.
About one-third of
Auburn’s housing units
have 1 or 2 bedrooms.
Figure 7. Share of Housing Units by Bedroom Size, Auburn, South King
County, and King County
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of U.S. Census Bureau PUMS 2018 1-year survey data7
5 CoStar’s proprietary ratings consider design, amenities, certification, and landscaping, and other factors. A 5-Star
multifamily building represents the luxury end of the market as it relates to finishes, amenities, design, and the
highest level of specifications for its style (garden, low-rise, mid-rise, or high-rise). 4-Star multifamily buildings are
constructed with higher end finishes and specifications, provide desirable amenities to residents, and are built to
contemporary standards. 3-Star multifamily buildings are likely smaller and older with less energy-efficient systems,
average quality finishes and or a layout conducive to compact lifestyle, and few on-site facilities. 2-Star multifamily
buildings have small, adequate windows, average aesthetics, purely functional systems, below-average finishes and
use of space, and limited on-site facilities. 1-star multifamily buildings are practically uncompetitive, may require
significant renovation, and may be functionally obsolete.
6 CoStar is a private, third-party, proprietary data provider commonly used in the real estate industry. Of its
residential data, CoStar focuses on multifamily properties with four or more units. While CoStar is one of the best
sources for multifamily data, it has gaps and limitations. Newer buildings and those that are professionally managed
are more likely to have reliable information, while smaller, older buildings may have incomplete or missing data. In
Auburn in 2020, CoStar had data on about 5,800 multifamily units (in properties with four or more units). This
compares to a 2018 PUMS estimate of roughly 12,000 multifamily units (in properties with five or more units).
7 The Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) dataset is very comprehensive and provided by the U.S. Census Bureau
for statistical analysis. PUMS data are only available for geographies called Public Use Microdata Sample Areas
(PUMAs) which contain about 100,000 people. The Auburn PUMA includes the Cities of Auburn and Lakeland.
51%
27%
27%
38%
56%
36%
11%
17%
34%
1%
3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Auburn
(n=5,794)
S. King County
(n=49,571)
King County
(n=305,516)
2-star 3-star 4-star 5-star
3%
3%
7%
12%
13%
17%
22%
28%
24%
37%
32%
27%
23%
18%
19%
4%
5%
6%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Auburn
South King County
King County
Studios 1-BR Units 2-BR Units 3-BR Units 4-BR Units 5+ BR Units
Page 46 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
7
Demographics and Household Information
Between 2010 and 2018, Auburn’s population grew by more than 10,400 new residents, from
70,180 people in 2010, to 80,615 people in 2018. Auburn’s population is younger on average
compared to other cities in South King County, and over half (57 percent) of its population
identify as White. Similar to other cities in South King County, about 33 percent of Auburn’s
households earned less than half of the Area Median Income (AMI - see page 10 for a
description of AMI) in 2018, compared to 34 percent in the South King County region. In 2018,
one and two-person households made up the majority of households in Auburn.
The majority (62 percent)
of Auburn’s households
were one- and two-person
households.
About 25 percent of
Auburn’s households were
large families, with four or
more persons per
household.
Between 2012 and 2018,
Auburn added 7,474 new
households (PUMS, 2012
and 2018).
Figure 8. Number of Households by Household Size, Auburn, 2014-
2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
Household Characteristics
As of 2018, the majority (about 56 percent) of Auburn’s households were homeowners while 44
percent were renters (ACS, 2014-2018). This is higher than some other cities in the South King
County region, but below the national homeownership rate of about 64 percent in 2018.
Auburn’s average household size is 2.72 persons per household for renters and 2.80 persons per
household for homeowners (ACS, 2014-2018).
The majority (56 percent)
of Auburn households own
and 44 percent of
households rent.
In Tukwila, only 40 percent
of housing units were
owner-occupied in 2018. In
Burien, this figure was 53
percent.
Figure 9. Household Tenure, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
8,549
9,775
3,850
7,491
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
1 2 3 4+
56%44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Owner-occupied households Renter-occupied households
Page 47 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
8
About two-thirds of
Auburn’s households are
family households.8
Approximately one-third of
Auburn’s households are
non-family households
(roommates and one-
person households).
Figure 10. Household Composition, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
Like most areas, the
majority of Auburn’s
residents are between 20
and 64 years old.
Auburn has a larger
population proportion of
young residents (those age
19 years and under) than
seniors (those 65 years and
older).
Figure 11. Age Distribution, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
Over half (57 percent) of
Auburn’s households
identify as White. This is
slightly lower than King
County’s average of 60
percent.
An additional 16 percent of
the population identifies as
Hispanic or Latino, 11
percent identifies as Asian,
7 percent identifies as two
or more races, and 5
percent identify as Black or
African American.
Figure 12. Race and Ethnicity, Auburn, 2014-2018
Source: ACS (5 year 2014-2018).
8 See footnote 2 on page 4 for a definition of family household.
33%34%33%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Non-family households
Family households without children
Family households with children
8%
8%
7%
6%
7%
15%
13%
13%
7%
6%
6%
3%
1%
0%5%10%15%20%
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 years
85 years and over
16%
57%
5%2%
11%
2%0%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Hispanic
or Latino
White
alone
Black or
African
American
alone
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
alone
Asian
alone
Native
Hawaiian
and
Other
Pacific
Islander
alone
Some
other
race
alone
Two or
more
races
Page 48 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
9
Income Characteristics
Income is one of the key determinants in housing choice and households’ ability to afford
housing. This is due to the fact that, for most households in the U.S., housing is the single
largest expense and impacts numerous other factors like access to jobs, schools, and amenities.
Between 2012 and 2018, Auburn saw a large increase in the number of households earning
between 50% and 80% of the 2018 King County Area Median Income (AMI – see page 11 for a
description), while it saw a modest decrease in the number of households earning less than 30%
of AMI, and a small decrease in the number of households earning between 80% and 100% of
AMI (see Figure 13).
About 33 percent of
Auburn’s households earn
less than 50% of AMI. This
is in line with the South
King County Region as a
whole, where 34 percent of
households earn less than
50% of AMI.
Auburn’s share of
households earning more
than 80% of AMI is also
similar to that of the South
King County Region: 41
percent and 43 percent,
respectively.
Figure 13. Income Distribution by AMI, Auburn, 2012 and 2018
Source: PUMS (2012 and 2018).
The majority of Auburn
homeowners, 56 percent,
earned 80% of AMI or
more, while the majority of
renters, 82 percent, earned
80% of AMI or less.
The share of renters
earning less than 80% of
AMI is similar to that of
South King County, 74
percent.
Figure 14. Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS, 2018.
Housing Affordability
Housing costs are typically the largest portion of a household budget. Housing is considered to
be affordable to a household of a certain income if the household pays less than 30 percent of its
gross income on monthly housing costs. While this is an imperfect measure of affordability and
Page 49 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
10
does not consider disposable income after housing costs, it is an industry-accepted threshold to
measure affordability.
Understanding AMI and MFI
Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines an area’s
Median Family Income (MFI), but Area Median Income (AMI) is often used to mean the same
thing.9 AMI is used in this report to align with King County’s data and reporting. In 2018, the
King County AMI was $103,400 for a family of four. 2018 is used to align with the 2018 Census
data used in this report (the latest available).
HUD calculates affordability and income limits for metro areas and counties across the country,
based on the area's MFI which comes from Census data.10 The City of Auburn falls within the
Seattle-Bellevue, WA Metro Area and is subject to the same income and affordability limits as
the rest of the cities in this metro area (which includes King County and Snohomish County).
Properties developed in Auburn that use HUD income limits to determine eligibility – such as
regulated affordable housing that is restricted to tenants of a certain income – will use the same
affordability limit as properties in Bellevue, Seattle, or other parts of King and Snohomish
Counties, since they all fall within the same HUD metro area.
In 2018, the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Area MFI was $103,400 for a family of four. HUD
adjusts the income limits up or down based on family size and provides income limits for 30%
of MFI, 50% of MFI, and 80% of MFI (see Figure 15).
Figure 15. HUD 2018 Income Limits for Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area
Source: HUD (see https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html and select the year and metro area from the list).
Afford-
ability
Level
Family Size (Number of People)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
30% $22,500 $25,700 $28,900 $32,100 $34,700 $37,250 $39,850 $42,400
50% $37,450 $42,800 $48,150 $53,500 $57,800 $62,100 $66,350 $70,650
80% $56,200 $64,200 $72,250 $80,250 $86,700 $93,100 $99,550 $105,950
100% $103,400
9 We used AMI and MFI interchangeably in this report. HUD offers the following note on MFI vs AMI: “HUD
estimates Median Family Income (MFI) annually for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan county. The
metropolitan area definitions are the same ones HUD uses for Fair Market Rents (except where statute requires a
different configuration). HUD calculates Income Limits as a function of the area's Median Family Income (MFI). The
basis for HUD’s median family incomes is data from the American Community Survey, table B19113 - MEDIAN
FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. The term Area Median Income is the term used more generally in the
industry. If the term Area Median Income (AMI) is used in an unqualified manor, this reference is synonymous with
HUD's MFI. However, if the term AMI is qualified in some way - generally percentages of AMI, or AMI adjusted for
family size, then this is a reference to HUD's income limits, which are calculated as percentages of median incomes
and include adjustments for families of different sizes.” Source: HUD. 2018. “FY 2018 Income Limits Frequently
Asked Questions.” https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il18/FAQs-18r.pdf
10 For the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area, HUD has deviated from its typical use of Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) area definitions. In this case, the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area
income limit program parameters include King County and Snohomish County.
Page 50 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
11
Additional income limits (such as 60% or 120%) can be calculated off the 100% income limit to
get an approximation of other affordability thresholds. However, these approximations—and
HUD’s official limits—may not be exact scalars to the 100% median income (in Figure 15 the
official 50% income limit for a family of four is slightly higher than half of the 100% income
limit).
Figure 16. HUD 2018 Income Limits for Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area, Max Housing
Costs, and Example Jobs
Source: HUD 2018, Puget Sound Regional Council Employment Data, ECONorthwest Calculations
Family Size 2018
Income Limit
Annual
Income
Max Monthly Housing Costs
(30% of Monthly Income)
Example Jobs
(full time)
2-Person
Family
30% of AMI $25,700 $643 1 worker in retail sector
50% of AMI $42,800 $1,070 1 worker in retail sector
80% of AMI $64,200 $1,605 2 workers in food service; 1 full
time worker in info. tech.
100% of AMI $85,600 $2,140
2 workers in retail sector; 1
worker in management + 1
worker in retail sector
4-Person
Family
30% of AMI $32,100 $803 1 worker in food service
50% of AMI $53,500 $1,338 1 worker in transportation /
warehousing
80% of AMI $80,250 $2,006
1 worker in finance;
1 worker in education + 1
worker in retail sector
100% of AMI $103,400 $2,585
1 worker in finance + 1 worker
in agriculture; 2 construction
workers
In the past decade, housing costs in the entire Puget Sound have risen dramatically, buoyed by
the strong economy, low housing production, and high demand for housing in the region. Price
increases in the past decade are also high because they are measured off the very low prices in
2010, which was a period of home price declines from the housing crisis and economic
recession.
Auburn is no exception to having seen steep price increases. Since 2010, home prices in Auburn
rose by 88 percent, from a median sales price of $222,750 in 2010 to $418,300 in 2020 (see Figure
17). In addition, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Auburn increased by 49
percent from 2010 to 2020, reaching $1,393 per month. Using 2018 income data from
Figure 16, this average rent for a two-bedroom apartment would be affordable to a four-person
household earning 50% of the AMI (which would be a relatively tight space), or to a two-person
household earning between 50% and 80% of AMI.
Page 51 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
12
Between 2010 and 2020,
the average monthly rent in
Auburn increased by 49
percent ($459 per month).
In this same time period,
the median sales price for
a home increased by 88
percent ($195,550).
Figure 17. Median Home Sales Price and Average 2-Bedroom Rent,
Auburn, 2010 and 2020
Source: Costar and Zillow. Not adjusted for inflation.
2010 2020
Average Rent $934 $1,393
Median Sales Price $222,750 $418,300
Figure 18 demonstrates the housing cost distribution of Auburn’s ownership housing stock as it
relates to percent of AMI (this includes all ownership housing types and sizes). Despite price
increases over time, Auburn’s housing stock remains somewhat affordable to lower income
households: 38 percent of all housing units are affordable to households earning less than 50%
of AMI ($42,800 for a family of two and $53,500 for a family of four). Another 32 percent of the
housing stock is affordable to households earning between 50% and 80% of AMI ($42,800-
$64,200 for a family of two and $53,500-$80,250 for a family of four).
Of Auburn’s ownership
units (using 2018 data), 38
percent were affordable to
households earning less
than 50% of AMI, 32
percent were affordable to
households earning 50-
80% of AMI, and 30
percent were affordable to
households earning 80% of
AMI or more.
Figure 18. Ownership Housing Units Affordable by AMI, Auburn,
2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
Figure 19 demonstrates the housing cost distribution of Auburn’s rental housing stock as it
relates to percent of AMI (this includes all rental housing types and sizes). Despite cost
increases over time, Auburn’s housing stock remains relatively affordable to lower income
households: 54 percent of rental housing units are affordable to households earning less than
50% of AMI ($42,800 for a family of two and $53,500 for a family of four). Another 35 percent of
the rental housing stock is affordable to households earning between 50% and 80% of AMI
($42,800-$64,200 for a family of two and $53,500-$80,250 for a family of four).
Page 52 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
13
Of Auburn’s rental units
(using 2018 data), 54
percent were affordable to
households earning less
than 50% of AMI, 35
percent were affordable to
households earning 50-
80% of AMI, and 11
percent were affordable to
households earning 80% of
AMI or more.
Figure 19. Rental Housing Units Affordable by AMI, Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
Regulated and Unregulated Affordable Housing
Importantly, Figure 19 also includes the regulated affordable rental housing stock in the City.
Regulated affordable housing is income or rent-restricted by certain county, state, or federal
agencies, to ensure that it is occupied by households earning a certain income. Regulations are
set according to the types of funding used to develop the housing, such as the Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit, or HUD funding. Most regulated affordable housing is restricted for
households earning under 60% of AMI, but these restrictions vary. Often, the only healthy,
quality housing that rents at prices affordable to households earning less than 30% of AMI is
this regulated housing stock.11
In 2020, Auburn had 2,784 regulated affordable housing units which are included in all analyses
of Auburn’s housing stock. For numerous reasons relating to the cost of building and operating
housing, cities across the country face a shortage of affordable housing units to meet demand.
Nationally, only 1-in-4 households who would qualify for Federal housing assistance, is able to
receive it. As a result, the majority of low-income households live in low-cost market rentals,
that are often referred to as “naturally occurring affordable housing” (NOAH) units.
Figure 20 below presents data on Auburn’s NOAH rental units. These units are defined as
NOAHs by virtue of being unregulated but affordable to lower-income households (either
households earning less than 50% of AMI or less than 80% of AMI). NOAH units are an
important part of a city’s housing stock, but can be at risk of substandard quality, neglect, or
dramatic price increases because they are not regulated. Auburn has few NOAH units that can
accommodate larger household sizes in 3- and 4-bedroom units.
11 Unregulated housing stock that may be affordable to households earning less than 30% of AMI may be
substandard quality. Households with these extremely low incomes may also find housing via HUD’s Housing
Choice Voucher program, where a subsidy pays the difference between the market rent and the price the household
can pay.
Page 53 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
14
Of Auburn’s 6,421 NOAH
units, 34 percent are
affordable to households
earning 50% of AMI or less
and 66 percent are
affordable to households
earning between 50-80%
of AMI.
Figure 20. Number of Naturally Occurring Affordable Rental Units,
by AMI Level, Auburn, 2012-2016
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of Costar data.
Units Affordable at: 50% of AMI
or less
80% of AMI
or less
Studio units 87 230
1-bedroom units 1,029 2,477
2-bedroom units 952 3,139
3-bedroom units 103 471
4-bedroom units 12 104
Total 2,183 6,421
Housing Cost Burdening
When a household cannot find adequate housing (habitable, the appropriate size, in a desired
location) at a price that is considered to be affordable, it becomes “cost burdened.” As
mentioned, the typical standard used to determine housing affordability is that a household
should pay no more than 30 percent of its gross household income for housing, including
payments and interest or rent, utilities, and insurance. HUD guidelines indicate that households
paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing experience “cost burdening” and
households paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing experience “severe cost
burdening” (because those paying more than 50% on housing are by definition paying more
than 30% on housing, rates of “cost burden” include those considered “severely cost
burdened”). Cost burdening is an issue in that households may have too little income leftover
after paying for housing costs, to afford other necessities, such as transportation, food,
medicine, or childcare. Housing cost burdening is particularly important for low-income
households, who have very little income to begin with.
Policymakers typically focus on renters when assessing cost burdening.
It can signal a lack of affordable housing in a region. It is less of a focus
for homeowners, because a lender will assess a buyer’s ability to pay for
a mortgage before the household can buy a home, and because
mortgage payments are typically fixed and do not fluctuate with the
larger economy or housing market. Thus, homeowners are not as
vulnerable to price changes in the housing market.
In 2018, 88 percent of renters earning less than 30% of AMI were cost
burdened and 71 percent of renters earning between 30% to 50% of AMI
were cost burdened (see Figure 21). Cost burdening tends to decline as
incomes go up, because a household has more income to spend on
housing. In Auburn, 33 percent of renters earning between 50% and
80% of AMI were cost burdened.
Recalling the figures on
page 11, a four-person
household earning less
than 30% of AMI in 2018
could afford a maximum
monthly rent of $803. Yet
the average two-bedroom
apartment in Auburn was
nearly $1,400 in 2020.
With rents at this level,
extremely low-income
households are hard
pressed to find housing
that is affordable, and
often end up cost-
burdened.
Page 54 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
15
Of Auburn’s renter
households (earning 30%
of AMI or less), 88 percent
were cost burdened and 72
percent were severely cost
burdened.
Because those paying more
than 50% on housing are by
definition paying more than
30% on housing, rates of
“cost burden” include those
considered “severely cost
burdened.”
Figure 21. Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Renters,
Auburn, 2018
Source: PUMS (2018).
Housing Affordability, with Transportation Cost Considerations
The standard definition of cost burden does not factor transportation costs. However, today,
housing advocates and researchers stress the importance of considering transportation costs in
affordability analyses, because many households relocate to the outer edges of metro areas in
search of affordable housing, thereby increasing their transportation costs.
Center for Neighborhood Technology publishes a Housing + Transportation Affordability Index
(H&T Index) (most recently as of 2017), providing a ready-made data source for assessing the
possible transportation cost burdening of Auburn residents. The H+T Index calculates, through
a series of statistical models, the transportation and housing costs for the “regional typical” and
“regional moderate” household; “typical” meaning a household earning the regional AMI with
the regional average number of commuting workers and persons per household, and
“moderate” meaning a household earning 80% of AMI (but having the same number of workers
and persons per household).
For the Seattle metro region, the “regional typical” household has the following attributes
according to the H+T Model:
§ Income: $70,475
§ Commuters: 1.19 workers
§ Household Size: 2.54 people
While the index considers the “regional moderate” (80% of AMI) household as:
§ Income: $56,380
§ Commuters: 1.19 workers
§ Household Size: 2.54 people
In Auburn, the model estimates that a “typical” household would spend about 45 percent of its
income on housing and transportation costs, while a “moderate” household would spend about
Page 55 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
16
52 percent of its income on these necessities. This compares to 44 percent and 52 percent for
households in Kent, and 44 and 51 percent for households in Federal Way (see Figure 22).
Figure 22. 2017 Housing + Transportation Costs as a Percent of Household Income, South King
County Jurisdictions and Comparable Areas
Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology Housing + Transportation Affordability Index
Name H+T costs as % of income -
100% of AMI
H+T costs as % of income -
80% of AMI
Auburn 45% 52%
Bellevue 55% 65%
Burien 44% 52%
Federal Way 44% 51%
Kent 44% 52%
Renton 46% 54%
Seattle 46% 54%
Tukwila 39% 46%
Displacement Risk
As described in the demographics section above, Auburn has a very diverse population – by
age, race, ethnicity, and household composition (e.g., family or non-family household). The City
has included housing preservation as a key goal driving this Housing Action Plan, particularly
as it relates to preserving housing for low-income households. Housing preservation is an anti-
displacement effort, and can help to mitigate and minimize the negative effects that often arise
from new housing development.
Different Types of Displacement
Before determining recommendations to prevent against displacement, it is helpful to define
and unpack the meaning of displacement. Generally, there are three types of displacement:
§ Economic or indirect displacement. Economic displacement can occur if new
development or redevelopment in an area rents or sells at higher price points that
encourage owners of existing units to increase rents, and these increases exceed what
existing tenants can afford. The effects of (re)development renting at market rates may
spill over to lower-cost rental units, causing rents to rise and potentially displacing
existing residents. However, if supply is tight and high demand puts upward pressure
on rents, market changes could lead to displacement without any new development
occurring in an area.
§ Economic displacement can occur due to high demand and low supply of new
housing, with or without (re)development occurring. Economic insecurity and
displacement are very important for existing communities, but is difficult to measure
quantitatively.
§ Low-income households are at high risk of economic displacement as they have
fewer choices about where they can afford to live.
Page 56 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
17
§ Physical or direct displacement. When evaluating when, where, and what type of
project to build or rehabilitate, developers consider many factors, including market
rents, construction costs, local amenities, and transit access. In some cases, public
programs could encourage displacement by incenting a developer to rehabilitate or
replace older, less expensive (unregulated affordable) housing with newer, higher-
priced units. This could lead to the direct displacement of existing residents, who may
not be able to afford the higher rents in the new development.
§ Physical displacement occurs with the redevelopment of a specific parcel. This only
occurs when new development is feasible, and can be measured quantitatively.
§ In theory, any type of household could be at risk of physical displacement due to a
new development demolishing their current housing. But in reality, low-income
households, households of color, immigrant households, and other marginalized
populations are at higher risk of physical displacement. Wealthy or “powerful”
households are at lower risk of direct displacement, as they may not live in areas
experiencing new development, and they may hold sway over decision makers or
otherwise know how to exert influence in the process.
§ Cultural displacement occurs when people “choose” to move because their neighbors
and culturally-relevant businesses and institutions have left the area. The presence (or
absence) of these cultural assets can influence racial or ethnic minority households in
their decisions about where to live, more than for broader populations. While this is
difficult to measure, and one can argue whether these are true “choices” or whether this
is “forced” displacement, it is an important effect that can have broad equity
implications beyond physical or economic displacement alone.
§ Cultural displacement can occur with (re)development and includes business
displacement. While cultural displacement is very important for existing
communities, it is very difficult to measure quantitatively.
§ Marginalized communities – be they low-income, a specific race or ethnicity, or
another group of people – are at higher risk of cultural displacement than dominant
communities. When businesses and housing that serves these communities leave or
are removed, people can feel pushed out of their neighborhoods.
Displacement Risk
Given these different types of displacement, Figure 23 on the following page shows the Census
Block Groups within the City of Auburn that are most vulnerable to displacement, based on six
different demographic and socioeconomic variables. Some of the Census Block Groups used in
this analysis extend beyond Auburn’s city limits, however this does not influence or affect the
methodology. Any recommendations about preservation and anti-displacement measures will
be focused within Auburn’s city limits.
Page 57 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
18
Figure 23. Map of Displacement Vulnerability in Auburn, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of ACS 2018 5-year data.
Note: The block group with an * in the SouthWest corner of the City is mostly
commercial and industrial areas and has few housing units. A mobile home park
located in this block group scored high on displacement vulnerability.
Variables Used to Estimate Displacement Risk
§ Percent of population that is a race other than non-Hispanic White
§ Percent of households that speak a language other than English at home
§ Percent of population over age 25 who lack a bachelor’s degree
§ Percent of households that are renters
§ Percent of households paying >30% or more of their gross income on housing
§ Per capita income
See the full methodology in Part 5 on page 45.
The data only goes so far
Actually measuring displacement is difficult, and not quantifiable from data. It requires qualitative
information from in-person engagement with people living near new development. Cultural displacement, in
particular can be very difficult to measure, as its effects are subtle and multifaceted.
*
Page 58 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
19
Block groups shown in purple and dark pink have the highest risk of displacement
vulnerability when considering these socioeconomic factors. These neighborhoods might be at
greater risk for economic displacement which can occur even without new development, if
market forces – such as an imbalance of housing supply and demand – work to increase rents.
It is important to keep in mind that this analysis does not consider development feasibility
layered in with displacement risk. All three forms of displacement – physical displacement,
economic displacement, and cultural displacement – can occur when new development occurs.
A deeper dive into economic displacement resulting from the spillover of new development
requires a robust analysis of new and existing rent trends, and this is beyond the scope of this
work. More analysis is needed to understand this risk.
When considering recommendations to boost housing production around the City, Auburn
should evaluate the displacement risk in each neighborhood, and act carefully to implement
policy changes. More discussion of policy changes, housing preservation, and other anti-
displacement efforts will be discussed in a forthcoming Recommendations memorandum
(expected in Spring 2021) and full Housing Action Plan.
Employment & Transportation
Based on data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Auburn’s total employment
grew from 40,070 jobs in 2008 to 45,989 jobs in 2018—an increase of 5,919 jobs or 15 percent. This
analysis measures residents of Auburn who are employed (in a given sector), not the total
number of jobs located in Auburn.
In 2018, the top four largest industries, in terms of total employed Auburn residents were: (1)
Manufacturing with 8,764 people, (2) Retail Trade with 5,091 people, (3) Health Care and Social
Assistance with 4,925 people, and (4) Wholesale Trade with 4,308 people. Combined, these
industries represent 50 percent of Auburn’s total resident employment workforce.
Between 2008 and 2018, several industries lost Auburn residents. The four industries that lost
the greatest share of employed Auburn residents were: (1) Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
Extraction with a 100 percent decline, (2) Utilities also with a 100 percent decline, (3) Retail with
a 13 percent decline, and (4) Public Administration with a 12 percent decline. Combined, these
industries represent a loss of 1,251 employment jobs.
Job losses in each of the industries mentioned above, and job gains in new industries, signify a
shift in Auburn’s employment profile between 2008 and 2018. For example, the five industries
which gained the greatest share of employment were: (1) Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting with a 192 percent increase, 12 (2) Finance and Insurance with a 115 percent increase, (3)
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing with a 72 percent increase, (4) Health Care and Social
12 It is important to note that the large increase in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting is an increase from 13 to
38 people between 2008 and 2018.
Page 59 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
20
Assistance with a 70 percent increase, and (5) Transportation and Warehousing with a 53
percent increase. Combined, these industries represent a gain of 3,784 employees.
Median salaries in 2018 also varied by industry. At opposite ends of the wage spectrum, the
Accommodation and Food Services industry had the lowest annual wages of $32,451, of which
this industry represented approximately five percent of Auburn’s total employment. On the
other, the Finance and Insurance industry had the highest annual wage of $79,375, representing
about 2 percent of Auburn’s total employment.
Figure 24 below shows how far an Auburn resident can travel to access employment in the
Puget Sound Region within a 45-minute drive time (blue) and a 45-minute transit trip (orange).
Figure 24. Access to Employment—Travel Shed, 2018
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of 2018 PSRC Data.
Note: Departing at 8:00 AM, midweek
Page 60 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
21
Future Housing Needs
PSRC forecasts that by 2040, Auburn will grow to a population of 95,461 people, an increase of
14,846 people (or 18 percent) from its 2018 population estimate of 80,615 people. As Auburn is
forecast to grow at a faster rate than it has in the past, the City’s population growth will
continue to drive future demand for housing through 2040.13
Based on this forecast population growth, the City is projected to
need 10,429 new dwelling units between 2020 and 2040, at an
average trajectory of 521 new units per year through 2040. Of those
needed dwellings, 2,361 units are a result of housing
underproduction (see sidebar). The remaining 8,058 units are to
accommodate population growth. In total, this represents a sizable
increase in the number of housing units that need to be produced
each year (521 units), given the annual average of only 390 units
built per year from 2011 to 2019.
Figure 25. Housing Units Needed by AMI, Auburn, 2040
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation.
AMI # of Units % of Units
0-30% 1,669 16%
30-50% 1,043 10%
50-80% 2,503 24%
80-100% 1,251 12%
100%+ 3,963 38%
Total 10,429 100%
As Figure 25 demonstrates, 38 percent of units needed between 2020 and 2040 should be
affordable to households earning more than 100% of the AMI. This is helpful since new market-
rate housing tends to be developed at prices and rents that are affordable to higher income
households. When an area does not have enough housing priced for higher income households,
these households “rent down” and occupy units that would be appropriately priced for lower-
income households, thereby increasing competition for low-cost housing units. All cities need a
range of housing choices – of different sizes, types, and prices – to accommodate the various
needs and incomes of residents.
13 See footnote 1 on page 2 for an explanation of King County 2040 Growth Targets.
Housing underproduction is
calculated based on the ratio of
housing units produced and new
households formed in Auburn
over time.
If too few housing units are
constructed relative to the
number of new households
formed, underproduction
occurs and contributes to price
increases.
Without including current
underproduction in calculations
of future need, the current
mismatch of housing units to
numbers of households will
continue into the future.
See more detailed methods in
Part 5 beginning on page 42.
Page 61 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
22
3) Market Conditions
This section presents information about market conditions and
development trends in Auburn’s housing market. Data includes
multifamily rents, vacancy rates, and recent developments
delivered to the market, as well as home price trends that should
be taken into consideration when evaluating future development
in Auburn. This section also includes comparisons of trends in
Auburn to other cities in South King County.
These data and market trends are important to consider as the
City works to encourage the development to reach the 10,429
units needed by 2040.
Rental Market Trends
As the housing inventory demonstrated, 3,511 total housing units
were developed between 2011 and 2018 (see Figure 2 on page 4). Roughly 60 percent of these
new units are ownership units, while about 40 percent are rentals.
In 2020, multifamily rents in Auburn reached a historic high of $1.68 per square foot, however,
rents are lower than the greater King County region where average rents are about $2.18 per
square foot. Vacancies also increased in 2020 due to a brand new 500-unit multifamily
apartment development that is still being absorbed into the market.14 Irrespective of this large
market delivery, historic vacancies in Auburn remain low at about 4.5 percent as demand for
multifamily apartments continues to increase.
From 2013 to 2019,
multifamily rents in
Auburn have
increased while
vacancy rates have
hovered around 4.5
percent.
The 2020 vacancy
spike came from a
large multifamily
delivery of about 500
units.
From 2010 to 2020,
multifamily rents
grew 47 percent
from $1.14 to $1.68
per square foot.
Figure 26. Multifamily Rent per Square Foot and Vacancy Rate, Auburn,
2008 through Q3 2020
Source: CoStar
14 Copper Gate apartments, located at 4750 Auburn Way N, construction with first occupancies in October 2020.
$1.68
11.0%
0.0%
1.5%
3.0%
4.5%
6.0%
7.5%
9.0%
10.5%
12.0%
$0.00
$0.25
$0.50
$0.75
$1.00
$1.25
$1.50
$1.75
$2.00
2008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Q3Vacancy RateDirect Rent per Sq. Ft.Rent per Sq. Ft.Vacancy (%)
To get a deeper look at housing
market trends in Auburn, this
section primarily relies on
proprietary data sources, such
as Zillow and CoStar, rather
than public sources like the
Office of Financial Management
or the US Census, which take
longer to be collected and
published.
The CoStar data presented here
focuses on market rate trends
and only shows multifamily
properties (with 4+ units) so
statistics here are a subset of
the full housing stock analyzed
in the Housing Inventory.
Page 62 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
23
The average rent for a two-bedroom unit in Auburn was $1,393 in 2020, and has grown 49
percent since 2010. As shown in Figure 27, Auburn’s rents have grown commensurate with its
neighboring cities, only surpassing that of Federal Way in about 2011. Unlike some cities,
Auburn’s rents did not decline in the post-recession housing crisis. By third quarter (Q3) 2020,
Auburn’s average rent was approaching that of Kent and Tukwila’s.
Figure 27. Multifamily Rent per Unit, South King County Cities & Tacoma, 2010-2020
Source: CoStar
Figure 28 below shows that net absorption15 has been mostly positive, indicating an increase
demand for multifamily housing in the City. According to CoStar data accessed in fall 2020,
Auburn has about 614 multifamily units under construction, with 63 percent of them (or 387
units) expected to be delivered by the end of 2020. The remaining 37 percent of units are
expected to be delivered by June 2021.
15 Net absorption measures the net change in supply of multifamily units in Auburn. A positive value indicates that
supply is being rented more than what has been delivered to market in a given year.
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020Multifamily Effective Rent per UnitAuburn
Burien
Federal
Way
Kent
Renton
Tacoma
Tukwila
Page 63 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
24
Over the 2008 to
2020 Q3 period, net
absorption has been
mostly positive,
indicating demand
has continually
increased.
In 2020 Q3, net
absorption is
negative, though this
is likely due to the
recent multifamily
delivery of units that
has yet to be leased
to residents.
Figure 28. Multifamily Net Absorption, Auburn, 2008 through Q3 2020
Source: CoStar
Recent Rental Property Developments
Figure 29 shows examples of recently constructed market-rate and affordable multifamily
buildings in Auburn. These properties were selected to highlight the recent market trends in
design, size, and amenities being constructed in multifamily residential properties in Auburn.
Since 2008, ten multifamily properties were built. Typically, these new multifamily properties
are between three and five stories tall and mostly offer one- and two-bedroom units. Typical
amenities for new properties include clubhouses, fitness centers, laundry facilities, and game
rooms/media centers. Additionally, three of these properties are for senior living and six are
regulated affordable housing (including two of the senior properties). Three additional
multifamily properties are under construction with expected completion in 2021.
Figure 29. Examples of New Multifamily Apartment Buildings in Auburn
Source: CoStar
Trek Apartments
Type: Mid-Rise Apartments
Year Built: 2015
Description: The Trek Apartments is a 126-
unit, 5-story apartment building. It has
studio, 1-, and 2-bedroom units ranging in
size from 536 SF for studios and 650-833
SF for 1- and 2-bedrooms units. Rents are
market rate and range from $1,322 for
studios to $1,712 for 2-bedroom
apartments.
Unit amenities include a washer/dryer,
dishwasher, balcony, HVAC, and upper
level terrace, community room, and fitness
center. It is located in downtown Auburn.
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Q3UnitsPage 64 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
25
Merrill Gardens at Auburn
Type: Low-Rise Apartments
Year Built: 2017
Description: Merrill Gardens is a 129-unit
4-story senior living apartment building
around the corner from Trek Apartments. It
has studio, 1-, and 2-bedroom units
ranging in size from 496 SF studios and
693-976 SF for 1- and 2-bedroom units.
Rents are market rate and range from
$2,923 for studios to $4,291 for 2-
bedroom apartments.
Unit amenities include HVAC with site
amenities such as community room, patio
and meal service.
The Reserve at Auburn
Type: Mid-Rise Apartments
Year Built: 2018
Description: The Reserve at Auburn is part
of a phased affordable mixed-use
development that contains 298 affordable
units for senior living. The second phase is
the Villas at Auburn which has 295
affordable family-sized units and
approximately 11,000 square feet of
ground floor commercial space. Both
multifamily buildings are 5-stories and
each contain their own separate amenity
space.
All units are 1- or 2-bedroom, averaging
547 SF ($1,303 asking rent) and 612 SF
($1,565 asking rent), respectively. The
Reserve is located just north of downtown
Auburn off of C St.
Ownership Market Trends
As indicated in the Housing Needs Analysis in Part 2, Auburn’s housing stock primarily
consists of ownership units (it has a 56 percent homeownership rate) compared to only about 44
percent of rental units. Due to demand outpacing the supply of homes in Auburn, prices have
been rising. Since 2010, home prices in Auburn rose by 88 percent, from a median sales price of
$222,750 in 2010 to $418,300 in 2020. Over this time, Auburn has seen somewhat lower median
home sales price growth than nearby cities (see Figure 30), and the median sales price in
Auburn did not overtake that of another city in the 2010-2020 time period.
Page 65 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
26
Figure 30. Median Home Sales Price Growth, South King County Cities & Tacoma, 2015-2020
Source: Zillow 2010, 2013, and 2020 Home Sales Price Data
Area Median Sales Price
2010 (or 2013 *)
Median Sales Price
2020
Percent Change
Auburn $222,750 $418,300 88% (10 years)
Burien* $233,450 $470,300 101% (7 years)
Federal Way $211,600 $414,700 96% (10 years)
Kent $237,750 $447,500 88% (10 years)
Renton $269,950 $516,800 91% (10 years)
Tukwila* $182,500 $412,000 126% (7 years)
Key Market Data Findings
Overall, Auburn’s housing market is characterized by strong growth in both the
homeownership and multifamily rental markets. These trends are important to consider as the
City works to encourage development to reach the 10,429 units needed by 2040. Key findings
include the following:
§ Multifamily rents in Auburn increased 47 percent from $1.14 per square foot in 2010 to
$1.68 in 2020 Q3. Auburn did not see a dip in rents in 2011-2013 like many of its peer
cities. In addition, thus far through 2020, multifamily rents are continuing to grow in
Auburn, approaching levels in Kent and Tukwila which have started to level off.
§ Auburn’s rental vacancy rates are low, indicating continued demand for housing.
Multifamily vacancy rates in Auburn increased by 2.7 percentage points from 8.3
percent in 2008 to 11.0 percent in 2020 Q3, spurred by the recent Copper Gate affordable
apartment complex, which added 500 units to Auburn’s housing market in late 2020.
Although this increase in vacancy is reflected by an influx of new multifamily units that
have yet to be rented, the mostly positive net absorption in the City over 2008 to 2019
indicates demand for multifamily housing is strong.
§ About 60 percent of the new units developed in Auburn between 2010 and 2018 are for
homeownership, while only about 40 percent are intended as rentals. These ownership
trends, coupled with strong price growth, indicate strength in the market.
§ Auburn has not been producing enough housing to meet its demand from household
formation (net in-migration and people forming new households, such as moving out of
a family home). Over the 2010-2019 time period, only 7.8 housing units (of all types and
sizes) were constructed for every 10 new households that formed. This translates into
housing underproduction, and is a contributor to Auburn’s rent and price increases.
Page 66 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
27
4) Housing Planning and Policy Evaluation
As demonstrated in the Housing Needs Analysis in Part 2, Auburn, like other cities in the
region, has grown over the years and this has led to increasing housing affordability challenges.
The lack of affordable housing is a common problem for many cities across the Puget Sound
region and a complex issue without an easy solution. Each policy, strategy and tool are unique
in its support and delivery of different levels of housing affordability; consequently,
communities benefit from developing a comprehensive toolkit with a variety of different
solutions designed to meet each community’s unique housing needs. Recognizing the guidance
offered by relevant state, regional, county, and city plans within Auburn’s planning context
helps to set the stage for housing actions and policy development.
This summary of existing plans and policies is divided into two sections: the first describes the
“planning pyramid” and the associated roles of the Growth Management Act, PSRC, and King
and Pierce Countywide Policies as it relates to comprehensive planning at the local level (the
City of Auburn is located in both counties). The next section provides a summary of Auburn’s
existing policies key to promoting housing goals.
The Planning Pyramid
The “planning pyramid” in Figure 31 below illustrates how the planning scale is broader and
less detailed at the top tiers of plans while at the bottom of the pyramid, the scale tends to be
smaller and the regulatory detail more extensive and specific.
While this Housing Action Plan and its associated implementation steps will be less binding
than the other types of planning documents listed in the pyramid, as a subject-focused plan, its
detail sits between a jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan and its Development Regulations (such
as zoning codes).
Growth Management Act
At the top of the pyramid is the role of the state. The Washington State Legislature adopted the
Growth Management Act (GMA, adopted in 1990, as amended) to plan for population and
employment growth by establishing urban growth areas and critical/natural resource areas to
avoid impacting. The GMA requires cities and counties to develop Comprehensive Plans to
coordinate urban growth and this plan should include a Housing Element (RCW 36.70A.070(2)).
Essentially, a Housing Element provides goals and policies for promoting the preservation and
improvement, and to provide for the development of housing and the identification of adequate
land for all housing needs. A jurisdiction’s Housing Element must include adequate provisions
for existing and projected housing needs of all the economic segments of the community and
these needs should be identified through an inventory and analysis of existing and projected
housing needs. Based on the analysis, strategies should be developed to meet the housing needs
and their performance should be measured to allow for continual adjustment to meet evolving
housing needs. In addition, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires that zoning
regulations and districts be consistent with Comprehensive Plans.
Page 67 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
28
Figure 31. The Growth Management “Planning Pyramid”
Source: ECONorthwest
PSRC Housing Planning Documents
At the regional level, PSRC has established multi-county housing policies in VISION 2050. The
cities and unincorporated areas within King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties are part of
the Puget Sound region and thus, are subject to VISION 2050 (adopted in 2020). VISION 2050
encourages local jurisdictions to adopt best practices and innovative techniques to advance the
delivery of affordable, healthy, and safe housing for all the region’s residents and includes
guidance on growth.
The newly adopted plan expects that by 2050 an additional 1.8 million people will move to the
region and that this population will be older, more diverse, and living in smaller households
than today’s regional population. The plan emphasizes advancing housing choices,
homeownership opportunities, and affordability particularly for lower income housing and
calls for cities to support the building of more diverse housing types, especially near transit,
services, and jobs.
A new aspect of this plan is the recognition of displacement risk (cultural, economic, and
physical) and the need for jurisdictions to mitigate and minimize displacement. PSRC expects to
update the new housing, job, and population targets by 2021 and after release, cities will need to
recalibrate their capacity to accommodate this expected growth.
Countywide Planning Documents
The King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs, amended June, 2016) advises cities in King
County to consider strategies to address affordable housing needs of all economic and
demographic groups, as well as strategies that can help overcome housing affordability barriers
HAP
Page 68 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
29
(policy H-7).16 The King County CPPs in the Housing Chapter emphasize that cities should
share in the responsibility of increasing the supply of housing affordable to households earning
less than 80% AMI (policy H-1), noting that housing for households earning less than 30% AMI
can be the most challenging to develop – often requiring interjurisdictional cooperation and
support from public agencies (policy H-2). Policy H-3 outlines the housing inventory and
existing and projected housing needs analysis requirements (mandated by statewide Growth
Management Act policies) for each local jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan Housing Element.
The remaining policies describe a range of strategies for meeting diverse housing needs.
Examples of these CPP strategies are listed below:
§ Within designated Urban Growth Areas, include sufficient zoning capacity to
accommodate the development requirements for a range of housing types and densities
in a way that supports attainment of overall housing targets (policy H-4),
§ Preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the existing housing stock including affordable
housing to ensure housing conditions are safe and livable (policies H-6, H-11),
§ Adopt incentive programs to encourage the development of low-income housing,
§ Adopt strategies, regulations, and goals promoting housing diversity, affordability, and
supply (diversity in tenure, affordability, types, sizes, and accommodations for special
needs, universal design, sustainable development, policy H-5),
§ Plan for neighborhoods supporting the health and well-being of residents (policy H-12),
§ Plan for housing (particularly for middle-income households or lower) with reasonable
access to employment centers (policy H-9) and in coordination with transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian plans and investments (policy H-10), and
§ Promote fair housing to help meet the diverse needs of residents with a range of
abilities, ages, races, ethnicities, incomes, and characteristics (policy H-13).
A small southern section of the City of Auburn is located in Pierce County and as such, the area
is subject to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies. Pierce County’s CPPs (amended in
2018) offer similar guidance as King County particularly in adequately providing housing
affordable to all economic segments of the city population along with sufficiently providing
housing for special needs. In addition, Pierce County promotes innovative housing techniques
to promote higher-density affordable housing, the use of funding opportunities and incentives
to subsidize affordable housing development, and inclusionary zoning techniques.
In the CPPs, Pierce County also requires that jurisdictions set a goal to satisfy at a minimum,
25% of the growth allocation, through affordable housing (defined as earning up to 80% of the
county AMI). Pierce County’s 2006-2031 Housing Growth Target for Auburn, designated a core
city, is 3,634 net new housing units by 2030 (Table 1, Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2017-24s,
Growth Targets 2008-2030, by Vision 2040 Regional Geography).
16 Source: King County Countywide Planning Policies. (2012, Amended June, 2016).
Page 69 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
30
Local Planning Documents
At the bottom of the “planning pyramid” sits local planning documents and policies, but their
location at the bottom belies their importance. This section steps through the most relevant
housing focused planning documents and highlights the goals and policies that are most
important to the Auburn Housing Action Plan.
Over the course of the past several decades and with annexations in the late 1990s and early
2000s, Auburn has grown from a small town to a mature city of regional significance. Auburn
has varied assets to build upon including many parks and trails, a solid business core and an
ideal location along the Sound Transit commuter line.
City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (referred to as Imagine Auburn, amended in 2015, first
adopted in 1986) meets the regional responsibilities to manage urban growth for current and
future residents between 2015 to 2035.17 This plan establishes a framework from which to
identify specific programmatic actions for affordable housing. Among the eight primary plan
elements, policy guidance within the Housing Element (Volume 2) was reviewed. Auburn’s
Comprehensive Plan lays out a roadmap for navigating its 20-year horizon by articulating a
vision and corresponding core values, policies to achieve the vision and actions to promote the
core values.
Auburn’s vision was based on seven value statements associated with
character, wellness, service, economy, celebration, environment, and
sustainability. Downtown Auburn, designated as an urban center, has
become the thriving heart of the community and is poised for
continued revitalization.
The Housing Element themes provided below summarize guidance
useful for the development of housing action strategies.
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Themes
Essentially, the housing focused vision for Auburn is to gain attainable
housing in a variety of styles meeting the needs of all ages, abilities,
cultures, and incomes and establish safe and attractive neighborhoods. Managing the evolving
housing needs of Auburn’s communities is guided by a set of seven goal-oriented themes that
are summarized below.
Along with this summary, an assessment of progress in achieving Comprehensive Plan
goals/policies is provided for each theme along with an evaluation discussion to consider for
17 The Auburn Comprehensive Plan should be updated every eight years, by around 2024, as outlined in the periodic
update schedule, mandated by the Growth Management Act. King and Pierce County jurisdictions must complete a
review and evaluation of their “Buildable Lands Program” at least one year before the comprehensive plan update to
provide data that will be used for the comprehensive plan update, per RCW 36.70A.215(2)(b).
Auburn’s 2035 vision is to
be an exciting, vibrant
city attracting
businesses, residents,
and visitors and
“a city of connected and
cherished places, from a
vibrant downtown to
quiet open spaces and
everything in between,
where a community of
healthy, diverse, and
engaged people live,
work, visit, and thrive.”
Page 70 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
31
future action. The City of Auburn faces growth pressures and various challenges and
opportunities as it relates to housing development, some of which are newly emerging. This
makes it important to continually review current conditions and progress towards achieving
planning goals. As the City continues to grow and mature, creative approaches might be
needed to accommodate growth and support diverse community needs.
Figure 32. Auburn Housing Element Themes, Summary and Evaluation
Source: ECONorthwest Analysis of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
1) Healthy Homes and Neighborhoods
This theme focuses on enhancing the safety and connections in Auburn’s neighborhoods along with
improving the streetscapes. This theme also recognizes the need to provide housing for Auburn’s
workforce to help balance the jobs-housing ratio. This theme also includes a policy objective to provide
for housing choices in downtown and other designated mixed-use centers where infrastructure is more
available or can be improved with regional and local funds.
Evaluation Discussion:
The jobs-to-housing ratio is another metric for describing the availability of housing for local workers.
King County uses the jobs-to-housing assessment to improve the jobs/housing balance within the
county, and as a factor in determining the allocation of residential and employment growth for different
jurisdictions. Auburn too recognizes the need to balance jobs to housing as a way to ensure the
attainment of an appropriate supply and mix of housing and affordability levels to meet the needs of
people who work and desire to live in the City. Auburn’s jobs to housing ratio is slightly tilted towards
jobs. In 2019, Auburn’s had around 1.5 jobs for each housing unit in the City. This metric is limited in
not accounting for the number of wage-earners and is not necessarily fully reflective of true housing
demand. However, it can generally be used to guide the planning of development to achieve efficient
transit networks. An employment to housing ratio in the range of 0.75 to 1.5 is considered beneficial
for reducing vehicle miles traveled (Cox, 2020). The ratio has slightly lowered overall in the last two
decades as Auburn transitions from a suburban town to a thriving city offering broader housing options.
Housing production should continue alongside job growth.
Auburn has been effective in encouraging a variety of multifamily housing and infill development in its
downtown area which could be partially attributed to Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) incentives
targeted for this area. As noted in the MFTE program review below approximately 680 market rate units
were created or rehabilitated since 2003. The City has made progress in providing for more housing
choices in the Downtown area; however other mixed-use areas with sufficient infrastructure in place or
capable of improvement should be reviewed to determine whether housing variety has improved,
particularly in terms of providing a range of housing at different price points.
2) Variety
This theme calls for the City to broaden housing options. Objective H-10 notes the need to integrate a
variety of land uses and densities for housing providers while other objectives support homeownership
opportunities; mixed-uses integrating residential uses in the downtown area; ADUs as an affordable
housing strategy; and manufactured, transitional, and multifamily housing in limited zones.
Evaluation Discussion:
Achieving a healthy mix of housing requires boosting housing production to broaden housing choices
where supplies are limited, in a way that aligns with housing demand considerations. This goal
promotes King County’s Regional Affordable Housing Task Force Goal 6 which supports greater
housing growth and diversity to achieve a variety of housing types at a range of affordability and to
improve the jobs/housing connections throughout King County. The majority of duplexes, triplexes and
quad-plex housing in Auburn was built prior to the 2000’s (comprising 16% of the total housing stock)
Page 71 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
32
and since 2010 single-family attached housing production has declined for this type of housing. About
23% of Auburn’s housing stock is characterized as multifamily, the majority of which was build pre-
1960, and in the 1990s and 2000s. Production of larger multifamily housing with over 100 units has
picked up during the last decade since 2010. Auburn should continue supporting production of single-
family attached and multifamily housing construction to continue integrating a variety of housing
options. By 2025, the number of seniors in King County will double to comprise 23 percent of the
population. Likely trends for the Baby Boomer generation: Household sizes will decrease (greater 1-
person households) and demand could grow for missing middle-housing options allowing for
“downsizing” and lower-maintenance living.
Rising housing prices are increasingly making homeownership more out of reach. Over the last decade,
housing prices have increased by 88%; consequently, more action could be needed to increase the
availability of moderate and middle-income housing such as cottages, condominiums, and townhomes.
Recent legislation passed reform to the state’s condominium liability law in support condo production.
The implications of this new law should be monitored to see if it truly encourages more condo
construction and associated homeownership.
Auburn has adopted code updates over the last decade to support increased Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) production. The pace of ADU development has increased but is still somewhat low. The City
should continue to track ADU development as time progresses and possibly revisit and augment
actions promoting ADU affordable housing strategies.
3) Quality
This theme aims to improve the quality and maintenance of the housing stock to help preserve
affordable housing. Key objectives for this theme are to track rundown properties and improve code
enforcement, educate property managers, and promote improvements of affordable housing possibly
through possible tax exemptions. Objective H-21 includes specific steps to carry out home repairs and
rehabilitation such as through loans, participation in the Emergency Home Repair Program, and green
lending for improved energy efficiency. These home repair efforts can help preserve naturally occurring
affordable housing (NOAH) units. Objective H-22f calls for the consideration of creating an Auburn-
based Housing Authority.
Evaluation Discussion:
Affordable housing preservation strategies can range from increasing investments to preserve
affordable properties to repairing homes to help keep people in affordable housing. The City could
collect key data on rental housing to build a rental housing preservation inventory (including key
information such as the age of housing, rental rates, number of bedrooms, conditions such as the
CoStar housing condition star rating).
The King County Housing Repair Program: Eligible low-income homeowners can gain a deferred loan or
matching funds loan (up to $25,000) to cover housing repairs addressing health and safety concerns;
and emergency grants covering life-threatening repairs for owner-occupied homes (up to $6,000). For
renters with a disability, they also provide free financial assistance to make housing more accessible.
Between 2018 and the second quarter of 2020, 17 applicants totaling approximately $320,135 from
the City of Auburn participated in this program. Source: King County Housing Repair Program. This
program does not necessarily provide weatherization home repairs or energy efficiency audits. A local
energy-efficient, weatherization and rehabilitation grant program could help improve the livability and
energy efficiency of existing owner-occupied homes. This program should complement the existing King
County Housing Repair program.
The Washington State Department of Commerce administers a Weatherization Program to help
increase home energy efficiency for low-income families. This program is funding by the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Weatherization Program among other sources:
Page 72 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
33
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/growing-the-economy/energy/weatherization-and-energy-
efficiency/weatherization-program-documents/
4) Attainability
This theme addresses the need for affordable housing to accommodate Auburn’s changing
demographics and to meet the fair share housing objectives, outlined by King and Pierce Counties.
Objective H-24a outlines King County’s share of housing by income levels:
• Below 30% AMI (very low income) – 12% of total,
• 30-50% AMI (low income) – 12% of total, and
• 50-80% AMI (moderate income) – 16% of total housing supply.
The city also aspires to lead and find new funding strategies to build more low-income housing. Other
objectives include using surplus land (sales) for affordable housing, promoting fair housing laws,
streamlining development regulations, and exploring the use of density bonuses.
Evaluation Discussion:
The housing growth targets should align with the adopted King County countywide targets that are
being developed for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update cycle and expected to be adopted by mid-
2021 (PSRC VISION 2050, King County, 2020). These housing production and income level targets for
2024 to 2044 could be adopted in mid 2021. In general, Auburn will likely need to increase annual
housing production to help increase housing availability.
As of 2020, Auburn has around 2,850 manufactured/mobile homes which is around 9% of the total
housing stock. This type of naturally occurring affordable housing tends to be accessible to low to
moderate-income households (earning less than 80% AMI). Consequently, housing preservation
strategies could be considered such as mobile home park preservation, repair (see above discussion
under theme 3), monitoring strategy, and assistance in establishing Mobile Home Parks into
cooperatives.
5) Special Needs
These policies call for the City’s support of programs that offer funding, housing, and supportive
services to keep persons with special needs housed. These populations include veterans, single-parent
households, seniors, disabled households, and those experiencing homelessness. Assisting low-
income persons displaced by redevelopment in accordance with relevant laws is also recognized under
this theme. Other policies support seniors aging in place (encouraging development to adhere to
universal design principles) and the availability of transitional housing and assisted living facilities.
Evaluation Discussion:
The existing conditions analysis highlighted gradation of displacement risk across the city and this
information could inform affordable housing preservation and anti-displacement measures. The City
likely will be updating its comprehensive plan by June 2024 and during this update process, the plan
policies will be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with state, regional, and countywide policies. A
new aspect of PSRC’s VISION 2050 plan is the recognition of displacement risk (cultural, economic,
and physical) and the need for jurisdictions to mitigate and minimize displacement. Consequently, the
City of Auburn should consider anti-displacement policy and code updates.
6) Supportive Services
This theme focuses on providing education, training, engagement opportunities, and human services
associated with affordable housing and homeownership.
Evaluation Discussion:
Page 73 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
34
There are a range of options in support of education and engagement associated with affordable
housing and homeownership. Here are a few education examples: Education on tenant rights, fair
housing laws, and homebuyer’s class/credit counseling training.
7) Partnership and Monitoring
This theme supports a variety of partnerships to collectively work on challenging topics such as
homelessness, affordable housing financing, and housing assistance. Policy H-50 calls for Auburn to
evaluate possible modifications to these housing policies and strategies every five years.
Evaluation Discussion:
The City of Auburn has joined a regional affordable housing consortium in partnership with various
other south King County cities (Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Normandy Park,
Renton, and Tukwila) and King County. The South King Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP)
was recently formed through an interlocal agreement to share resources to preserve and increase
access to affordable housing. Effective in 2019, the interlocal agreement outlines the role, purpose,
structure, and other details of SKHHP. Essentially, SKHHP will share technical information and
resources to promote sound housing policy, coordinate public resources to attract greater private and
public investment, and support advocacy. SKHHP has the potential to help the City of Auburn in a
variety of ways including possibly expanding housing assistance, facilitating greater partnerships, and
increasing the availability of affordable housing.
A list of Housing Element outcomes, indicators, and example tools that are useful for
monitoring progress is provided below (Auburn Comprehensive Plan, 2015). Revisiting the
progress (or lack thereof) towards achieving outcomes can help to lay the groundwork for
potential areas of improvement.
Page 74 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
35
Figure 33. Auburn Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Goal Outcomes and Indicators
Source: Auburn Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Page 75 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
36
South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework
As noted, this report builds off the existing conditions work that was developed through the
South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework. The City of Auburn participated in this
regional effort, along with the cities of Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila.
As part of the South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework, the following affordable
housing regulations and incentives were evaluated: Multifamily Tax Exemptions (MFTE),
Incentives for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), Fee Waivers, Density and Height Bonuses,
and Planned Action Environmental Impact Statements.18
Figure 34 below builds on Evermost Consulting’s evaluation of these five affordable housing
incentive programs in the South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework, and assesses
Auburn’s success and possible areas of improvement.
18 This analysis of past planning policies was conducted by Evermost Consulting as part of the ECONorthwest
consulting team on the South King County Subregional Housing Action Framework.
Page 76 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
37
Figure 34. Evaluation of Key Existing Affordable Housing Incentive Programs in Auburn
Source: ECONorthwest building on Evermost Consulting, 2020, data provided by City of Auburn
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
Multifamily Tax
Exemptions
(MFTE)
RCW chapter 84.14, allows cities with
more than 15,000 people to establish
a multifamily tax exemption program
for 8-years or 12-years if the housing
development includes 20% of its units
as affordable housing. By waiving
taxes, housing developments have
lower operating costs, which affects
the project’s overall feasibility by
making it easier to build new units.
Programs can exempt eligible new
construction or rehabilitated housing
and the housing development must be
located in an urban center and include
at least four housing units.
Auburn established its program in 2003
and has had four contracts take advantage
of the tax waiver to date. These properties
created or rehabilitated 680 units under
the 8-year exemption.
The MFTE incentive is available only for
new construction or for the rehabilitation of
multifamily housing located in the
Downtown Urban Center. Tax exemptions
are available for 8 years for new multi-
family or rehabilitated housing units
constructed downtown (market-rate) or for
12 years for qualified affordable housing
units (Auburn City Code 3.94).
The 8-year exemption does not require
affordable housing units. At the time
when this program was adopted, the
Downtown Center area targeted for the
program was lacking market rate
housing. Unsurprisingly, this program
has not yet generated affordable housing
and the program has resulted in an
average of 40 units created/
rehabilitated per year for 17 years.
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
provide an additional dwelling unit—
typically with its own sleeping, bathing,
and cooking facilities—on properties
with existing single-family homes. ADU
policies attempt to increase housing
density in ways that do not change the
character, look, and feel of existing
neighborhoods, and put more housing
in areas with access to amenities such
as jobs, schools, and retail centers. In
theory, because they are smaller than
single-family homes, ADUs can be
cheaper housing options – but this is
not always the case.
According to data provided by the city,
Auburn has issued 36 building permits for
ADUs since 2005. It is important to note
that this summary does not encompass
unpermitted ADUs (an estimate for Seattle
indicated that up to three-quarters of what
appeared to be ADUs was unpermitted).
In Auburn, ADUs are permitted outright in
all residential zones that allow single-family
homes. The homeowner must successfully
gain an ADU building permit. One attached
ADU or detached ADU is allowed on a
parcel and each ADU is limited to no more
than two bedrooms.
The style of the ADU should match the
primary residence and cannot exceed 50
percent of the primary unit or 950 square
feet, whichever is less.
Until recently, the City of Auburn was
requiring ADUs to pay school and traffic
impact fees along with utility system
development charges, which could have
contributed to lower development. Since
removing this requirement a few years
ago, the pace of ADU development has
increased but is still somewhat low.
Auburn’s Zoning Code has a fair amount
of flexibility for ADU construction and
density. The size, parking, and owner-
occupancy requirements are somewhat
restrictive but are not too burdensome.
Possible areas of improvement to
consider: pre-approved ADU/DADU plans
to streamline the process (Renton and
Seattle example), ADU guidebook
(Tacoma example), removal of owner-
Page 77 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
38
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
One additional parking space beyond what
is required for the single-family home must
be provided for the ADU. The home or ADU
must be the principal place of residence for
the homeowner. (Source: Auburn Code
Section 18.31.120, last amended in 2012
by Ord. 6419 § 4).
occupancy requirement in exchange for
affordability (below 80% AMI), and
opportunities to reduce fees and allow
shared/off-street parking.
ADU permitting requirements and ADU
development scenarios could be
analyzed for the accumulative effect of
layered requirements (including site
coverage) to identify possible areas to
add more flexibility.
In terms of providing housing options,
there is a level of uncertainty as to
whether these units are actually rented
long-term versus short-term or used for
off-market purposes such as for family
guests, if their rents are lower than other
units, and the extent that ADUs are
provided in amenity-rich locations. The
City could address short-term rental use
of ADUs by evaluating regulatory options
to limit potential conversions of ADUs
serving as long-term rentals (RCW 64.37
provides new Short-term Rentals
legislature to consider).
Fee Waivers The list of potential fees when entitling
a new building often includes, but is
not limited to, zoning application fees,
mitigation fees, building permit fees,
plan check review fees, utility
connection charges, building
inspection fees, and impact fees.
While these fees are important
funding sources for their respective
municipal departments and special
districts, they can add up and
Auburn had established several fee waiver
incentives. The City has fee waivers for the
Downtown Catalyst and Downtown Plan
Areas which were implemented in 2001
(more detail in Auburn Code Section
19.04). These fee waivers have all expired
and the last exemption for the Downtown
Catalyst area was extended through
Ordinance No. 6637 was scheduled to
The reinstatement of select fee waivers,
even over a temporary period of time,
could be considered when city revenue
sources are plentiful to target
underproduced housing and the
construction of more affordable housing.
Relaxing fees can help incentivize
affordable housing development in the
City. While careful calibration is needed
to ensure the public benefit of reduced
Page 78 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
39
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
effectively discourage new housing
development–particularly at lower
price points. Fee waivers for
affordable housing development or
other qualified development projects.
sunset on December 31, 2017. 19 These
fee waivers have been utilized in
conjunction with MFTE.
fees is offset by the lost revenue to the
City, these programs can meaningfully
reduce the cost of development and help
incentivize lower-cost housing.
Expedited
Permitting
Some cities such as Kirkland, Lacey
and Vancouver offer streamlined
review or expedited permitting
processes for qualified development
projects. The state of Washington
Local Project Review law (RCW
36.70B) supports the establishment of
a predictable and timely review
process by setting time limits on
application review and permit
decisions and a maximum time period
of 120 days unless the jurisdictions
makes written findings that additional
time is needed.
Auburn could define criteria for
qualification of expediting permitting
to include things such as rent or price
restricted affordable housing, projects
that utilize the 12-year MFTE program,
for targeted development types such
as infill development or podium
development, or for development
projects in specific areas such as the
Downtown area.
Concurrent review of preliminary plat and
civil plans is being explored by Auburn (with
the applicant assuming the risk). The
Master Builders Association (2020)
estimates that this could save up to a year
on the permit process.20
(See incentives described in the next row.)
Outside of this, Auburn does not have an
expedited permit review process for
affordable housing or qualified
development.
A common area of continuous
improvement for many cities is to adjust
the permitting processes to be more
predictable, efficient, accessible, and
transparent.
Possible areas of improvement to make
the process more predictable particularly
for affordable housing development
could be identified and examined for
trade-offs. A pilot program can be
implemented as a way to test out
different techniques and work out
process tweaks. A key area of
improvement is to examine ways to
reduce upfront fees and requirement
barriers such as the possibility of review
process efficiencies and/or integrating
payment deferment options.
Other measures to consider: Additional
online permitting and tracking
improvements to reduce trips to the
permit counter, cross-departmental
coordination enhancements,
ameliorating design review
19 “Downtown catalyst accessory area” means the area defined by the boundary of 1st Street NW to the south, “A” Street NW to the west, 2nd Street NW to the north,
and North Division Street to the east (Auburn Code Section 19.04.020 Definitions, GG: https://auburn.municipal.codes/ACC/19.04.020).
20 Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties Housing Toolkit, 2020: https://www.mbaks.com/docs/default-source/documents/advocacy/issue-
briefs/mbaks-housing-toolkit-2020.pdf
Page 79 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
40
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
Safeguards could be added to
expedited permitting measures such
as including negotiated deadlines for
the applicant and permitting staff to
each meet, respectively.
requirements, and enhanced staff
training.
The following cities enacted permitting
efficiencies: Kirkland and Tacoma.
Density and
Height Bonuses
Most cities offer some manner of
incentives or bonuses in exchange for
additional exactions on the developer;
these incentives can often result in
better design or substantially
advancing public interest while making
the project more profitable for the
developer.
Policies are often put in place when a
jurisdiction wants to encourage a type
of development that the market is not
delivering (for a variety of reasons), so
the jurisdiction makes it easier, less
costly, or more profitable to build the
desired type of project.
In the City of Auburn, development
standard bonus incentives may be
awarded to residential developers in
exchange for recognized public benefits
pursuant to Chapter 18.25 (infill
development) or 18.49 ACC (flexible
development alternatives).
Eligible infill development (section ACC
18.25.020 provides more guidance) can
gain density increases by up to 10 percent,
increased building height by up to five feet,
reduced/alternative setbacks, and a 10
percent reduction in the minimum on-site
parking when designed to be shared (Code
Section 18.25.040).
The flexible development alternative
(adopted in 2009) allocates incentives for
residential and mixed-use development
with features/ benefits such as
sustainability, urban design, neighborhood
safety features, housing, cultural/
historical, transportation/mobility, and
open space/recreational features and
benefits (Code Section 18.49).
The incentives range from expedited review
(90 days or less), density bonus (135 to
150 percent above base zoning), and
reduced parking by up to 25 percent.
These incentives are high along with the
The overall effectiveness of these
policies in spurring housing development
is yet to be seen. Additional analysis on
the types and uses of these incentives is
an area of further study.
Other opportunities for incentives should
be identified to help encourage
affordable housing development in the
City. The City should consider developing
policy incentives that are easy-to-
understand with low complexity.
Many local jurisdictions are also offering
incentives to encourage green building
such as Tacoma, Everett, and Kirkland.
Page 80 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – Existing Conditions – Revised Draft
ECONorthwest
41
Policy How it Works Auburn Findings Evaluation
policy complexity for applicant
participation.
Planned Action
Environmental
Impact
Statements
Under the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), a
planned action—such as rezoning,
development agreement, subarea
plan, etc.—can pre-analyze the
predicted impacts of a certain level of
development. Jurisdictions may
implement these policies to encourage
development by allowing projects to
avoid costly SEPA analyses, by
increasing certainty around mitigation
requirements, and by avoiding lengthy
delays due to SEPA challenges.
According to data provided by the City in
spring 2020, Auburn has planned action
coverage for 708 residential dwelling units
in planned action environmental impact
statements, thereby helping to reduce the
cost of development (SEPA analysis), and
increase both the certainty and speed of
development.
While this coverage may expedite review
and increase certainty of development,
Auburn staff –along with most of the
South King County Cities – noted that
few SEPA challenges were filed so the
benefits of this program (reducing the
cost of development by avoiding a SEPA
analysis) are limited.
It is unclear how many units have been
developed under this program, and if it
has truly helped to incentivize market
rate or affordable housing.
Page 81 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – DRAFT Existing Conditions
ECONorthwest 42
5) Methodology, Data Sources, and Assumptions
A) Housing Needs Analysis
Data Sources
To conduct this existing conditions assessment we primarily relied on 2019 data from the
Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) to evaluate housing and demographic
trends. Where OFM data was unavailable we relied on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Use
Micro Sample (PUMS) data from 2012 through 2018 and the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012-2016
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data. To supplement OFM data on
housing trends and existing housing types by size, we supplemented this analysis with King
County Assessor data. For housing market data on rents and sales prices we relied on data from
the King County Assessor and CoStar. For the housing demand analysis we relied on Puget
Sound Regional Council’s 2040 population forecast for Auburn.
We used the best available data sources to assess the housing inventory and future needs,
analyze employment trends, and analyze demographic trends in Auburn. Because Auburn has
more than 65,000 people, it is surveyed in the American Community Survey every year and
thus has data in 1-year samples. The most recent survey data is for 2018.
To get more granular data on key variables of interest, we also rely on PUMS data. As noted in
footnote 7 on page 6, PUMS data are only available at the PUMA geography, which contain
about 100,000 people. The Auburn PUMA includes the City of Auburn and Lakeland.
Housing Needs Analysis Methodology
Future Housing Needs
We estimate Auburn’s future housing needs based on the forecasted household growth through
2040 from PSRC. PSRC does not forecast housing units, but instead forecasts the estimated
number of households. To calculate Auburn’s future housing need, we use a target ratio of
developing 1.14 housing units per new household. This ratio is the national average of housing
units to households in 2019. It is important to use a ratio greater than 1:1 since healthy housing
markets allow for vacancy, demolition, second/vacation homes, and broad absorption trends.
Use of the national ratio is a reasonable target, particularly for larger areas and regions. Using
this ratio suggests that at a minimum, jurisdiction should be hitting the national average and is
preferred as the existing regional ratio may capture existing issues in the housing market (such
as existing housing shortages).
Total Units Needed by Income
The next step is to allocate the needed units by income level. We first look at the most recent
distribution of households by income level (using PUMS to determine area median income or
“AMI”) in Auburn and the South King County subregion. This distribution is displayed for the
South King County subregion and King County as a whole in Figure 35, below. We then
account for current and future household sizes at the city level to better understand nuances of
Page 82 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – DRAFT Existing Conditions
ECONorthwest 43
how housing need by income can shift over time as household sizes change and subsequent
changes to housing affordability.
Because forecasting incomes at the household level over time can be challenging at best, and
misleading at worst, this data evaluates housing need using current income distributions
forecast forward. The forecast housing need by income category at both the city level and at the
subregion is likely to vary depending on policy choices made over the next 20 years. That is to
say that if cities choose to take less action on increasing housing production, and affordability
worsens due to demand outpacing supply, the forecast need for lower income households is
likely to be less because those low income households that are most at risk from housing price
changes are more likely to be displaced from the subregion. The ultimate income distribution in
2040 will be the result of regional housing trends and policy decisions made at the local level.
Figure 35. Household Income Distribution in Auburn, South King County Subregion, and King County
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of 2018 Census 1-year PUMS data
AMI Level Auburn South King County King County
0-30% of AMI 17% 18% 18%
31-50% of AMI 16% 16% 15%
51-80% of AMI 25% 23% 16%
81% of AMI 11% 12% 11%
100%+ of AMI 30% 31% 40%
17%16%
25%
11%
30%
18%
16%
23%
12%
31%
18%
15%16%
11%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0-30% of AMI 31-50% of AMI 51-80% of AMI 81-100% of
AMI
100%+ of AMI
Auburn South King County King County
Page 83 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – DRAFT Existing Conditions
ECONorthwest 44
We then apply Auburn’s distribution of households by income (right column) to the total units
needed to get the share of new units needed by income level.
Figure 36. Total Units Needed by 2040 by Area Median Income Distribution in Auburn and South
King County
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of 2018 Census 1-year PUMS data
AMI Level Auburn Total Units
Needed by 2040
South King County Total Units Needed
by 2040
0-30% of AMI 16% 1,669 18% 11,207
31-50% of AMI 10% 1,043 16% 10,288
51-80% of AMI 24% 2,503 23% 14,552
81-100% of AMI 12% 1,251 12% 7,603
100%+ AMI 38% 3,963 31% 19,440
TOTAL 100% 10,429 100% 63,090
As shown in Figure 36, the City has the highest need over the period for units that are
affordable to households earning more than 100% of AMI, and the next greatest need for units
affordable at the 51%-80% of AMI level.
B) Employment Analysis
An employment analysis and an analysis of trends in job growth by industry are requirements
for local housing action plans. We developed city-level employment estimates by 2-digit North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes using a combination of the U.S. Census
Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination
Employment Statistics (LODES) data, and PSRC’s Covered Employment Estimates. The
employment estimates show the total number of Auburn residents working in different 2-digit
NAICS industries, the change in employment in that industry since 2008, and the 2018 median
wages for Auburn residents in that sector.
Access to Employment
We measured access to employment for both transit and auto use, using a preset limit of 45
minutes to generate isochrones (travel sheds). We used ESRI Services to create drive-time
isochrones, simulating traffic conditions typical of 8:00AM, Wednesday. We created transit
isochrones using OpenTripPlanner and the consolidated Puget Sound General Transit Feed
Specification (GTFS) database that is created and maintained by Sound Transit. This GFTS
database allows users to model possible transfers between the region’s multiple transit agencies.
For each 2-digit NAICS industry, the data summarize the share of jobs across the four-county
region that are accessible within a 45-minute transit or auto commute from Auburn.
Transit Isochrones
We created isochrones originating from every transit stop within the jurisdiction. Each transit
stop was also weighted by the population within a half-mile distance (straight-line). These
isochrones were then joined to LODES job points at the Census Block Level, and the total
number of jobs by NAICS industry was calculated for each isochrone. The total number of jobs
Page 84 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – DRAFT Existing Conditions
ECONorthwest 45
reachable by transit (and walking) within 45 minutes was calculated as the weighted mean
number of jobs within the isochrones, using the transit-stop population as weights.
Auto Isochrones
For drive-time isochrones, we used a similar method as the transit isochrones. Instead of transit
stops, however, we used block group centroids as the isochrone origin points, and the
associated block group population estimates provided the weights with which we calculated
the average number of jobs reachable by the “average resident.”
Number of Jobs
We derived the number of jobs by industry from PSRC’s Covered Employment Estimates for
2018 and 2008. PSRC provides job totals by city and NAICS 2-digit industry categories, but will
censor an estimate if that number represents fewer than three reporting firms, or when a single
employer accounts for more than 80 percent of jobs in an industry within a jurisdiction. In these
instances, we have provided an internally calculated estimate of employment in that industry
based on the uncensored totals for each industry. Average wages by industry were calculated
using the 2018 5-yr ACS estimates at the city level.
Caveats
The auto isochrones may be overly optimistic in terms of traffic. Since we are limited in terms of
other tools that even claim to model travel sheds with traffic congestion, there are few
alternative options.
Wage estimates by industry from ACS are not available for every industry, usually due to low
numbers of survey samples. Many of these estimates, especially for industries with low
numbers of workers, show relatively high margins of error and should be treated as rough
approximations.
C) Displacement Risk Analysis
The displacement risk analysis on page 16 was modeled after PSRC’s Displacement Risk
Mapping Tool. PSRC’s tool compiles 15 different demographic and socioeconomic datasets
(using ACS 5-year tract-level data), standardizes and weights them equally, compiling them
into a composite, three-tiered index score (“high”, “medium”, and “low”) for every tract in the
four-county Puget Sound region. However, this tool is only available at the Census Tract level,
which is not granular enough for this analysis. This analysis builds off the PSRC tool, using the
following variables which were available at the Census Block Group level, to estimate
displacement risk in Auburn.
1. Percent of population that is a race other than non-Hispanic White
2. Percent of households that speak a language other than English at home
3. Percent of population ≥25 who lack a bachelor’s degree
4. Percent of households that are renters
5. Percent of households paying >30% or more of their gross income on housing
Page 85 of 111
Auburn Housing Action Plan – DRAFT Existing Conditions
ECONorthwest 46
6. Per capita income
In Figure 23 on page 18, the color palette of the map visualizes the six levels of displacement
vulnerability based on how many variables were present in each block group.
Page 86 of 111
AUBURN
SOUTH KING COUNTY SUB-REGIONAL
HOUSING ACTION PLAN FRAMEWORK
2020
Page 87 of 111
2 City of Auburn | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
This document provides trends in demographic,
employment, housing, and housing affordability
along with housing projections for the City of
Auburn. Auburn is a participant of the South
King County Sub-regional cities who are
coordinating a comprehensive Housing Action
Plan Framework for South King County which
includes the cities of:
• Auburn
• Burien
• Federal Way
• Kent
• Renton
• Tukwila
Given that the participating communities are
impacted by many common market trends and
demands, cooperation is necessary to address
these issues. Providing for the sub-regional
coordination of Housing Action Plans through a
common Framework will allow all the partners
to address housing issues holistically and
ensure housing-related burdens are not simply
shifted around between cities.
The sub-region differs from East King County
and Seattle, where housing markets and income
levels significantly skew the Area Median
Income as it relates to how affordability is
defined, and therefore how successful south
King County cities are in providing affordable
housing for their communities. A sub-regional
framework that captures broad factors
impacting housing choice, cost burden, and
existing conditions of housing stock in South
King County will set the stage to evaluate and
incorporate appropriate policies, tools and
incentives for increasing residential capacity.
This document and analyses were produced by:
Page 88 of 111
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Auburn 3
Executive Summary
› Auburn needs 10,429 new housing units by
2040 when its population is expected to reach
more than 95,000 people (see page 7).
› Auburn needs to produce about 521 units
per year to reach this goal (pg. 7). This is a
significant increase from the 390 units produced
annually over the 2011-2019 timeframe (pg. 4).
› In the 2010-2019 timeframe, Auburn only
produced 7.8 housing units for every 10 new
households that formed in the city. The majority
of these new units were built at the end of this
development cycle - in 2017, 2018 and 2019
(pg. 4).
› Average 2-bedroom rents increased about
50% since 2010, and home prices increased 88%
between 2010 and 2020 (pg. 6).
› In 2018, 88% of renters and 80% of
homeowners earning less than 30% of AMI were
cost burdened, along with 71% of renters and
60% of homeowners earning between 30% and
50% of AMI (pg. 6).
› Auburn appears to have received an influx
of high-income renters living alone while
the numbers of large households and lower-
income households have declined (pg. 5). This
corresponds to Auburn’s large increase in new
multifamily units in recent years (pg. 4), which
have trended smaller throughout the region.
› As a result of these new households, the
median renter household income grew by 46%
between 2012 and 2018 while the median
homeowner income only grew 17% (pg. 5), far
below the rise in median home sales prices.
› Still, Auburn’s renter households have much
lower incomes than its homeowners. In 2018,
82% of renter households earned less than 80%
of AMI compared to 44% of homeowners (pg. 5).
› Auburn saw a decline in the number of
households earning less than 50% of AMI
between 2012 and 2018, while the number of
households earning between 50% and 80% of
AMI grew (pg. 5).
› The majority of new households are small:
Auburn saw a 21% increase in households, but
only a 13% increase in population from 2012 to
2018. This included about 5,140 new 1-person
households (pg. 5).
› As a result of Auburn’s changing
demographics, the bulk of the housing units
needed by 2040 are needed at the 50%-80% AMI
and over 100% AMI affordability ranges (pg. 7).
Results and data are for City of Auburn inclusive
of areas in King County and Pierce County.
The 2018 HUD Area Median Income (AMI)
for King County is $103,400 for a 4-person
household. Data discussing “% AMI” are
proportioned off of this median and are also for
4-person households.
Page 89 of 111
4 City of Auburn | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Housing Trends
Number of Units Built Per Year, 2011-2019
Source: OFM, 2019
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020
Housing Units Built by
Decade, 1960-2020
Decade % of Units
Before 1960’s 11%
1960’s 15%
1970’s 9%
1980’s 14%
1990’s 20%
2000’s 18%
2010’s 12%
31,345
Number of total housing
units in 2018
Source: OFM, 2019
3,511
Number of housing units
built since 2011
Source: OFM, 2019
390
New housing units built on
average every year since 2011
Source: OFM, 2019
7.8
New housing units per every
10 new households› Between 2010-2019
Source: OFM, 2019, ECONorthwest
calculations
Scale of Housing Built by Decade, 1960-2020
Source: King County Assessor’s Office, 2020
Page 90 of 111
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Auburn 5
Change in Household Type, 2012 & 2018
Income Distribution by AMI, 2012 & 2018
Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, 2018
2010 2018
Population 70,180 80,615
2012 2018
Households 36,191 43,665
2012 2018
Median
Income $34,347 $50,250
2012 2018
Median
Income $77,079 $90,186
Demographics
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: OFM, 2019
Source: PUMS (2012, 2018)
Source: PUMS, 2018
15%
Change in population › Between 2010 and 2018
21%
Change in number of households› Between 2012 and 2018
46%
Change in median renter
household income› Between 2012 and 2018
17%
Change in median owner
household income› Between 2012 and 2018
Page 91 of 111
6 City of Auburn | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Cost Burdened› A household who pays more
than 30% of their income
on housing (inclusive of
households with severe cost
burdening).
Severely Cost Burdened› A household who pays more
than 50% of their income on
housing.
Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened by
Tenure, 2018
Housing Units Affordable by AMI and Tenure, 2018
2010 2020
Average
Rent $934 $1,393
2010 2020
Median
Sales Price $222,750 $418,300
Source: PUMS, 2018
Source: PUMS, 2018
Source: Costar
Source: Zillow
49%
Change in average rent for
2-bedroom apartment› Between 2010 and 2020
88%
Change in median home
sales price› Between 2010 and 2020
Housing Affordability
2,784
Number of income restricted
units› Total units as of 2020
Source: ECONorthwest analysis of public
affordable housing data
Page 92 of 111
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Auburn 7
Housing Need Forecast
95,461
Projected population by
2040
703
Average annual population
growth projected through 2040
10,429
Projected number of units
needed by 2040
521
Average number of new
units needed per year
through 2040
34%
Increase in annual housing
production to reach 2040
housing need target
Housing Units Needed Through 2040
Housing Units Needed as a Share of Existing Stock
Housing Units Needed by AMI, 2040
HUD Affordability Level by Housing Type, 2018
Underproduction Future Need Housing Need
2,361 8,068 10,429
Existing Units Housing Need % of Existing Units
31,345 10,429 33%
AMI # of Units % of Units
0-30%1,669 16%
30-50%1,043 10%
50-80%2,503 24%
80-100% 1,251 12%
100%+3,963 38%
AMI Studio 1-bed 2-bed
30%$542 $582 $698
50%$904 $970 $1,164
80%$1,448 $1,552 $1,862
100%$1,810 $1,938 $2,326
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017; ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: HUD, 2018
Source: PSRC, 2017
Source: PSRC, 2017, ECONorthwest
calculations
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017;
ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: OFM, 2019; PSRC, 2017;
ECONorthwest Calculation
Source: ECONorthwest calculation
Underproduction › Housing units needed to satisfy existing households today.
Future Need › PSRC 2040 population forecast translated into housing units.
Page 93 of 111
8 City of Auburn | South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework
Employment Profile
Source: PSRC, ECONorthwest
Auburn Employment Numbers Regional Access to
Employment
Industry (2-digit NAICS Code)Employees
(2018)
# Change
(2008-2018)
% Change
(2008-2018)
Median Salary
(2018)
% Jobs by
Auto
% Jobs by
Transit
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting 38 25 192%$37,612 24%1%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
Extraction 0 -14 100%NA 52%4%
Utilities 0 -21 -100%$110,841 22%1%
Construction 4,091 848 26%$51,862 43%2%
Manufacturing 8,764 136 2%$60,862 44%2%
Wholesale Trade 4,308 943 28%$44,896 50%3%
Retail Trade 5,091 -761 -13%$41,658 36%3%
Transportation and Warehousing 2,983 1,034 53%$54,195 63%1%
Information 548 13 2%$62,540 7%0%
Finance and Insurance 824 440 115%$79,375 24%2%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing 604 252 72%$49,524 33%1%
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services 761 -4 -1%$66,150 14%1%
Management of Companies and
Enterprises 136 6 5%$60,938 27%1%
Administrative and Support
and Waste Management and
Remediation services
1,672 566 51%$36,250 37%3%
Educational Services 3,446 465 16%$56,393 35%3%
Health Care and Social Assistance 4,925 2,033 70%$49,320 36%2%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation 665 2 0%$44,708 35%2%
Accommodation and Food
Services 2,329 322 16%$32,451 36%2%
Other Service 1,490 89 6%$36,831 33%2%
Public Administration 3,314 -455 -12%$74,804 36%3%
Page 94 of 111
South King County Sub-Regional Housing Action Plan Framework | City of Auburn 9
* Transit and drive time of 45 minutes, departing at 8:00 AM, midweek
Source: PSRC, ECONorthwest Access to Employment*
Employment Profile
These city-level employment estimates by
2-digit NAICS codes were derived using a
combination of the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
(LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment
Statistics (LODES) data, and Puget Sound
Regional Council’s Covered Employment
Estimates. These employment estimates show
the total number of residents working in each
2-digit NAICS sector in that city, the change
in employment in that sector in that city since
2008, and the 2018 median wages for the
residents in that city in that sector.
Transit and auto access to regional employment
was derived using 45-minute travel sheds for
each mode. We calculated the number of jobs
available within these travel sheds in each
2-digit NAICS category for the four-county
region (King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap).
Page 95 of 111
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Election of Officers
Date:
January 21, 2021
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
No Attachments Av ailable
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:February 2, 2021 Item Number:
Page 96 of 111
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Annual Review of Planning Commission Rules of Procedure
Date:
January 21, 2021
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Planning Commision Election & Rules of
Procedure Memo
Draft Rules of Procedure 2021
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:February 2, 2021 Item Number:
Page 97 of 111
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Vice-Chair / Roger Lee
Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager
DATE: January 14, 2021
RE: February 2, 2021 Planning Commission Agenda Topics:
• Election of Officers
• Annual Review of PC Rules of Procedure
Distribution of Rules and Procedures
The Planning Commission’s (PC) Rules of Procedure were last amended on March 3,
2020. Annually, the Planning Commission reviews the Planning Commission Rules of
Procedure as a content reminder and to consider any modifications.
Election of Officers for 2021 – Section III
Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s adopted Rules of Procedure (provided as
Attachment A), Subsection III.2 states that the Planning Commission shall elect officers
at the first regular meeting of each calendar year, or as soon thereafter, as possible.
Since the Planning Commission did not meet in January 2021, staff requests that before
the close of the February 2nd meeting, officers should be elected for year 2021. The
results of the election will take effect at the following meeting so that new appointees
are prepared to serve in their new capacity. The term of office of each officer shall run
until the subsequent election.
Modifications to PC Rules of Procedures
Staff Recommendation:
Planning and Legal Dept. staff reviewed the latest adopted Rules of Procedure
document and noted a minor addition that is recommended and that is attached and
shown in strike-through (deletions) and underline (additions). This change on the last
page includes amending the language in Section XIII to provide the Planning
Commission the ability to suspend their Rules of Procedure in response to unusual
Page 98 of 111
circumstances or to suspend the rules of procedure in response to unusual topics
calling for a different process.
An example of unusual circumstances includes the COVID-19 Pandemic and that in
accordance with Governor Inslee's Emergency Proclamation 20-28 and Healthy
Washington - Roadmap to Recovery plan, the City of Auburn is prohibited from holding
in-person meetings at the present time. The location for public meetings will be virtual
until the Governor of Washington State authorizes local governments to conduct in -
person meetings and therefor the language in Section X, (Public Hearings), about
person providing testimony to “step up to the podium . . .” to make their remarks and
“filling out the speaker sign in sheet . . .” doesn’t apply in this virtual format of public
meetings.
The proposed change/addition is:
XIII. AMENDMENT AND SUSPENDING THE RULES:
The Rules of Procedure may be amended at any regular meeting of the
Commission by a majority vote of the entire membership. The proposed
amendment should be presented in writing at a preceding regular meeting.
By a minimum five-member affirmative vote, the Commission may
suspend the rules as authorized in Robert’s Rules of Order, except when
such suspension would conflict with state law or city ordinance.
If the Planning Commission has additional changes, these can be discussed, captured
by staff, and then these changes can be presented in writing and provided at the next
regular meeting as provided in Section XIII, Amendment.
Attachment A – Planning Commission Rules of Procedure as amended March 3, 2020 & with staff
recommended changes shown in strike-through (deletions) & underline (additions).
Page 99 of 111
CITY OF AUBURN
PLANNING COMMISSION
RULES OF PROCEDURE
ADOPTED NOVEMBER, 1983
REVISED NOVEMBER, 1988
UPDATED APRIL, 2000
REVISED FEBRUARY, 2007
REVISED APRIL 2, 2013
REVISED MARCH 8, 2016
REVISED May 2, 2017
REVISED February 6, 2018
REVISED , 2018
REVISED June 5, 2018
REVISED March 5, 2019
REVISED March 3, 2020
REVISED XX, 2021
Page 100 of 111
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION - RULES OF PROCEDURE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION SUBJECT PAGE
I. NAME .............................................................. 4
II. MEETINGS................................................... 4-5
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ............................. 5
IV. CHAIR ............................................................. 5
V. SECRETARY .................................................. 6
VI. QUORUM ........................................................ 6
VII. ABSENCE OF MEMBERS .............................. 6
VIII. ACTIONS DEFINED ........................................ 7
IX. AGENDA ...................................................... 7-8
X. PUBLIC HEARING ..................................... 8-10
XI. CONDUCT .................................................... 11
XII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST ....................... 11-13
XIII. AMENDMENT ............................................... 13
Page 101 of 111
Page 3
CITY OF AUBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
RULES OF PROCEDURE
We, the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Auburn, do hereby
adopt, publish, and declare the following Rules of Procedure:
I. NAME:
The official name of the City of Auburn advisory planning agency shall be "The
City of Auburn Planning Commission." The membership and terms of office of
the members of the Planning Commission shall be as provided in Chapter
2.45 of the Auburn City Code (ACC).
II. MEETINGS:
1. All meetings will be held at the Auburn City Hall, Auburn, Washington ,
unless otherwise directed by the Secretary or Chair of the Planning
Commission.
2. Regular meetings shall be held on the Tuesday following the first
Monday of each month, and shall be open to the public. The meeting
shall convene at 7:00 P.M. unless otherwise directed by the Secretary
or the Chair.
3. If the first Monday of the month is a legal holiday, the regular meeting
shall be held on the following Wednesday. If a regular meeting day
(Tuesday) falls on a legal holiday or on the November General Election,
the Commission will convene on the following Wednesday.
4. Special meetings of the Planning Commission may be called by the
Chair. Special meetings of the Planning Commission may also be
called by any three members of the Commission. A minimum notice of
24 hours shall be provided for special meetings in accordance with
State law.
5. If no matters over which the Planning Commission has jurisdiction are
pending upon its calendar, a meeting may be canceled at the notice of
the Secretary or Chair provided at least 24 hours in advance.
6. Except as modified by these Rules of Procedure, Robert's Rules of
Order, Newly Revised, most current version, shall govern the conduct
of the meetings.
Page 102 of 111
Page 4
7. Meetings of the Planning Commission shall be conducted in conformity
with the requirements of the Washington State Open Public Meetings
Act, Chapter 42.30 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Executive sessions can only be held in accordance with the provisions
of Section 42.30.110 RCW.
8. The Planning Commission may conduct business in closed session as
allowed in conformity with Section 42.30.140 RCW.
9. An agenda shall be prepared in advance of every regular and special
meeting of the Planning Commission. Meeting agendas and materials
on items on an agenda for a regular meeting shall be provided to
members of the Planning Commission not less than five (5) days in
advance of the regular meeting. Meeting agendas and materials on
items on an agenda for a special meeting shall be provided to members
of the Planning Commission as promptly in advance of the meeting as
can reasonably be accomplished.
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
1. The officers of the Commission shall consist of a Chair and Vice Chair
elected from the appointed members of the Commission and such other
officers as the Commission may, by the majority vote, approve and
appoint.
2. The election of officers shall take place once each year at the
Commission’s first regular meeting of each calendar year, or as soon
thereafter as possible. The term of office of each officer shall run until
the subsequent election.
3. If the Chair or Vice-Chair vacates their position mid-term, the Planning
Commission will re-elect officers at their next scheduled meeting and as
their first order of business. If it is the Chair position that has been
vacated, the Vice-Chair will administer the election proceedings.
IV. CHAIR:
1. The Chair shall preside over the meetings of the Commission and may
exercise all the powers usually incident of the office. The Chair shall be
considered as a member of the Commission and have the full right to
have his/her own vote recorded in all deliberations of the Commission.
Unless stated otherwise, the Chair's vote shall be considered to be
affirmative for the motion.
Page 103 of 111
Page 5
2. The Chair shall have power to create temporary committees of one or
more members. Standing committees of the Commission shall be
created at the direction of the Commission and appointed by the Chair.
Standing or temporary committees may be charged with such duties,
examinations, investigations and inquiries relative to one or more
subjects of interest to the Commission. No standing or temporary
committee shall have the power to commit the Commission to the
endorsement of any plan or program without the approval at the regular
or special meeting of the Commission.
3. The Vice Chair shall in the absence of the Chair, perform all the duties
incumbent upon the Chair.
4. In the event of the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair, the senior
member of the Commission present shall act as Chair for that meeting
or may delegate the responsibility to another member.
V. SECRETARY:
The Community Development Director (“Director”), or his/her appointee, shall
act as the Secretary for the Planning Commission and shall keep a record of
all meetings of the Commission and its committees. These records shall be
retained at the Community Development Department.
All public hearings shall be electronically recorded verbatim and may be
transcribed upon request of the Director, City Attorney, the majority of the
Commission, or City Council. Transcriptions may be requested by other
parties, in which case, the costs of transcription shall be borne by the
requesting party.
VI. QUORUM:
A simple majority of the appointed members shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business. A simple majority vote of the quorum present shall be
sufficient to take action on the matters before the Commission; provided that if
at any time during the meeting, a quorum is no longer present, the meeting
may only continue for the time and duration necessary to fix a time for
adjournment, adjourn, recess or take measures to obtain a quorum .
VII. ABSENCE OF MEMBERS:
Participation in Planning Commission responsibilities is essential; not only so
that a quorum can be established, but to also ensure that discussions and
decision making are as representative of the community as possible.
Recurring absence also diminishes a member’s ability to vote on matters
discussed during prior meetings. It is therefore important for all appointed
members to participate to the maximum extent possible . If a member is
Page 104 of 111
Page 6
unable to participate on a regular basis, it may be appropriate for a member to
be replaced. This section of the rules is intended to provide standards that
ensure that the regular absence of one member does not become disruptive
to, or impede the work of, the full Commission.
In the event of a member being absent for two (2) consecutive regular
meetings, or being absent from 25% of the regular meetings during any
calendar year, without being excused by the Chair, the Chair may request that
the Mayor ask for his or her resignation. To be excused, members must inform
the planning commission’s secretary in advance if they cannot attend a
scheduled meeting.
VIII. ACTIONS DEFINED:
The rules of the Commission impose different requirements according to the
type of action before the Commission.
1. Legislative actions are those which affect broad classes of people of the
whole City. These actions include adopting, amending, or revising
comprehensive, community, or neighborhood plans, or other land use
planning documents or the adoption of area wide zoning ordinances or
the adoption of a zoning ordinance amendment that is area wide in
significance.
2. Quasi-judicial actions of the Planning Commission are those actions
which determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties
in a hearing or other contested case proceeding. Quasi-judicial actions
include actions that would otherwise be administrative or legislative if
applied more widely or city-wide, rather than affecting one or a small
number of persons or properties. Quasi-judicial actions do not include
the legislative actions adopting, amending, or revising comprehensive,
community, or neighborhood plans or other land use planning
documents or the adoption of area-wide zoning ordinances or the
adoption of a zoning amendment that is of general or area-wide
significance.
3. Organizational actions are those actions related to the organization and
operation of the Commission. Such actions include adoption of rules,
directions to staff, approval of reports, election of officers, etc.
IX. AGENDA:
An agenda shall be prepared for each meeting consisting of the following
order of business:
1. CALL TO ORDER
a) Roll Call/Establishment of Quorum
Page 105 of 111
Page 7
b) Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Public Hearings
4. Other Business Items as Appropriate
5. Community Development Report
6. Adjournment
Additional items may be added to the agenda by the Planning Commission.
The Chair shall have the discretion to amend the order of business.
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
The procedure for conducting all public hearings will be as follows:
1. Chair opens the public hearing and establishes whether the proponent,
if applicable, is in attendance.
2. Staff Report.
3. Testimony of Proponent, if applicable. Persons addressing the
Commission, who are not specifically scheduled on the agenda, will be
requested to step up to the podium, give their name and address for the
record, and limit their remarks to three (3) minutes, in addition to filling
out the speaker sign in sheet available at the Secretary’s desk. All
remarks will be addressed to the Commission as a whole. The
Secretary shall serve as timekeeper. The Presiding Officer may make
exceptions to the time restrictions of persons addressing the
Commission when warranted, at the discretion of the Presiding Officer.
4. Chair calls for other testimony, either for or against. Testimony must be
called for three times. The Chair shall have the discretion to set time
limits on individual public testimony.
5. All testimony and comments by persons addressing the Commission
shall be relevant and pertinent to issues before the Commission’s public
hearing. The Chair shall have the discretion to rule on the relevance of
individual public testimony.
6. Questions of staff or persons presenting testimony. Questions by
Planning Commissioners that are intended for persons who have
provided testimony shall be directed through the Chair. Questions to
persons who have provided testimony shall be relevant to the testimony
that was provided.
7. Chair closes public hearing.
Page 106 of 111
Page 8
8. A public hearing may be reopened by motion duly seconded and
approved by a majority vote to accept additional testimony.
9. Deliberation.
10. Voting:
A. The Chair shall call for a vote.
B. Any member, including the Chair, not voting or not voting in an
audible voice shall be recorded as voting in the negative.
C. The Chair or a Commission member may request that the
Secretary take a roll call vote or a vote by show of hands. Also,
to ensure an accurate record of voting, the Secretary may take
either on his/her own initiative.
D. A member may abstain from discussion and voting on a question
because of a stated conflict of interest or appearance of fairness.
If any member of the Planning Commission wishes to abstain, or
has disclosed a conflict of interest and must abstain from a vote ,
that member shall so advise the Commission, shall remove and
absent himself/herself from the deliberations, and considerations
of the matter, and shall have no further participation in the
matter. The member should make this determination prior to any
discussion or participation on the subject matter or as soon
thereafter as the member perceives a need to abstain. A
member may confer with the City Attorney to determine if the
member is required to abstain.
If the intended abstention can be anticipated in advance, any
conference with the City Attorney should occur prior to the
meeting at which the subject matter would be coming before the
Planning Commission. If that cannot be done, the member
should advise the Chair that he/she has an "abstention question"
that he/she wants to review with the City Attorney, in which case,
the Chair shall call a brief recess for that purpose before
proceeding further.
E. If a tie vote exists, after recording the Chair's vote, the motion
fails. However, a motion for denial that fails on a tie vote shall
not be considered an approval.
F. No member may participate in any decision if the member had
not reviewed the staff reports and testimony presented at the
Page 107 of 111
Page 9
hearing on the matter. Such member may, however, listen to the
recording of the hearing in order to satisfy this requirement.
11. Continuing an Item:
If the Commission wishes to continue a public hearing item, the Chair
should open the public hearing, solicit testimony, and request a motion
from the Commission to continue the public hearing item to a time,
place, and date certain. If any matter is tabled or postponed without
establishing a date, time, and place certain, the matter shall be
scheduled for a hearing pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) Section
18.68.040 before the matter may be considered again.
12. Findings of Fact:
The Commission should adopt findings of fact and conclusions for
actions taken involving public hearing items. The findings and
conclusions may be approved by any one of the following methods:
A. The Commission may adopt in whole, in part, or with
amendments, the written findings prepared by staff. Motions to
approve the staff recommendations shall be deemed to
incorporate such findings and conclusions unless otherwise
indicated. Such findings and conclusions do not have to be read
in order to be deemed a part of the record.
B. The motion to take action may adopt oral finding of fact
statements made by Commission members or staff during the
hearing or deliberation.
C. The motion to take an action may direct that additional written
findings and conclusions be developed based on the hearing and
deliberation of the Commission.
D. Findings and conclusions may be approved or amended at any
time by the Planning Commission, but all such actions shall be
based on the record of the matter at hand.
13. Order of Hearings:
Normally the order of hearings shall be as published in the agenda.
However, the Chair in order to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to
people wishing to testify, or the late arrival of a proponent, may change
the order as may be necessary to facilitate the meeting. If the
proponent does not appear at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission may continue the public hearing until the next meeting in
Page 108 of 111
Page 10
order to ensure adequate consideration of the proposal. However, in
such case the Chair shall take whatever testimony that may be given
before accepting a motion to continue pursuant to Section (8).
XI. CONDUCT:
1. These rules are intended to promote an orderly system of holding public
meetings and public hearings.
2. Any person who causes a disruption by making personal, impertinent or
slanderous remarks or noises, by using speech intended to incite fear
of violence, by failing to comply with the allotted time established for the
individual speaker’s public comment, by yelling or screaming in a
manner that prevents the Commission from conducting the meeting, or
by other disruptive conduct while addressing the Commission at a
public hearing may be barred from further participation by the Presiding
Officer, unless permission to continue is granted by a majority vote of
the Commission.
3. No comments shall be made from any other location other than the
podium, lectern or table set up for people to address the Commission at
a public hearing, unless approved in advance by the Chair, and anyone
making irrelevant, distracting, or offensive comments or noises that are
disruptive may be subject to removal from the meeting.
4. Demonstrations, disruptive applause, other disruptive behavior, or
audience interruption during anyone’s presentation are prohibited. It is
distracting to the Commission, the audience, and persons testifying.
XII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
1. Any member of the Commission who in his or her opinion has an
interest in any matter before the Commission that would tend to
prejudice his or her actions shall publicly indicate, step down and leave
the meeting room until the matter is disposed. A member need only be
excused from legislative or organizational action if the potential conflict
of interest is direct and substantial.
A. No member of the Planning Commission may use his or her
position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself,
herself, or others.
B. No member of the Planning Commission may, directly or
indirectly, give or receive or agree to receive any compensation,
gift, reward, or gratuity from a source except the employing
municipality, for a matter connected with or related to the
Page 109 of 111
Page 11
officer's services as such an officer unless otherwise provided for
by law.
C. No member of the Planning Commission may accept
employment or engage in business or professional activity that
the officer might reasonably expect would require or induce him
or her by reason of his or her official position to disclose
confidential information acquired by reason of his or her official
position.
D. No member of the Planning Commission may disclose
confidential information gained by reason of the officer's position,
nor may the officer otherwise use such information for his or her
personal gain or benefit.
E. No member of the Planning Commission may take any action
that is prohibited by Chapter 42.23 RCW or any other statutes
identifying conflicts of interest.
2. Appearance of Fairness:
Commission members shall strive to follow, in good faith, the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine as established under Washington
State Law as it applies to quasi-judicial decisions (RCW 42.36) even for
legislative actions before the Commission. The doctrine includes but is
not limited to the following:
A. Members shall avoid communicating in respect to any proposal
with any interested parties, other than staff, outside of public
hearings. Written communication from an interested party to a
member may be permitted provided that such communication is
made part of the record.
B. Members shall avoid drawing conclusions regarding decisions
until after the public hearing is closed.
C. Members shall avoid participating in decisions which affect their
or any family member's property, personal or business interest,
or organization.
D. Members shall avoid participating in decisions in which a
preconceived bias or conclusion has been formed in the mind of
the member prior to the hearing.
E. If any concern relating to Items A through D- should arise, the
affected member shall declare at the start of the public hearing
on the matter, the extent of such concern and whether the
Page 110 of 111
Page 12
member's decision has been influenced. If the member has
been influenced, or if the extent of the concern is significant, the
member shall be excused by the Chair from the meeting room
and his vote recorded as an abstention.
If, under these rules, a quorum would be excused from the meeting, the
Chair in order to establish a quorum, shall under the rule of necessity,
permit sufficient members (beginning with those who are least affe cted
by these rules) to participate in the decision.
These rules are intended to be consistent with RCW 42.36. In the case
of any conflict, RCW 42.36 or applicable case law shall govern.
XIII. AMENDMENT AND SUSPENDING THE RULES:
The Rules of Procedure may be amended at any regular meeting of the
Commission by a majority vote of the entire membership. The proposed
amendment should be presented in writing at a preceding regular meeting.
By a minimum five member affirmative vote, the Commission may suspend the
rules as authorized in Robert’s Rules of Order, except when such suspension
would conflict with state law or city ordinance.
Page 111 of 111